In case you missed it, the Houston Chronicle published an editorial slamming Harris County Republican Party Chair Jared Woodfill and his “ilk” for opposing the sexual predator protection ordinance that Annise Parker is pushing through Houston City Council. Since I’m an “ilk”, I think everyone should read Woodfill’s very articulate response. It is hard to believe that the Chron ed board dismisses legitimate opposition to the ordinance as “hatred” towards the transgendered community.
Chronicle Editorial Board Demonizes Those Opposed to the Mayor’s Sexual Predator Protection Act
Jared Woodfill
In a recent OpEd titled, “Pass the NDO,” the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board criticizes me and others for opposing an Ordinance pushed by Mayor Parker that would allow, among other things, men who identify as women to use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. Specifically, the Board states, “Perhaps Woodfill and his ilk would like Parker to institute citywide restroom monitors to assuage their fears.” This is preceded by a subtitle that states, “There is little value in spreading hatred about the transgender community.”
Whenever and wherever sexual politics is involved, labels are employed to shoot down valid questions about the impact of legitimizing certain activities in the public sphere. The latest in this long string of debates involves Mayor Parker’s proposed city ordinance that would allow, among other things, men who claim to identify as women to use women’s restrooms, locker rooms and other gender-specific facilities.
I, like tens of thousands of other Houstonians, oppose the Ordinance. This coalition is very diverse, including Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Tea Party activists, pastors, priests, fathers, mothers, daughters and just about any group you can think of that takes issue with, among other things, gender confused men using women’s bathrooms. Unfortunately, the Chronicle Editorial board has decided to describe me and anyone else who opposes allowing men into women’s restrooms as “hateful.” The discussion is then shifted away from the merits of the proposition and turned into a mudslinging contest where the best ad hominem attack wins. Name calling is no replacement for facts.
And the fact is, passing an ordinance that allows men claiming to be gender-confused to enter women’s restrooms is dangerous. What about the rights of the affected women to not be exposed to men while in restrooms, locker rooms, or other gender specific facilities? Indecent exposure and assault in restrooms are already very real and quantifiable problems, but in the case of the proposed ordinance, it is the chicken or the egg: wrong is wrong and right is right, and women should not have to contend with male genitalia in their restrooms or private space.
The current discourse is not about “hate” or “intolerance,” but about common sense, a quality not in large supply these days. Do we really want our daughters and wives to be forced to contend with men in their personal space? Semantics and hypotheticals about what these men may “feel” about themselves are irrelevant. What about the very real problem of the risk inherent in declaring open season on women’s restrooms for any and all men who can put on a dress?
After Mayor Parker’s latest change to the proposed ordinance, men can now enter women’s facilities even without female attire. Various editorials by transgender activists are now painting those opposed to the Ordinance as “non-discrimination opponents,” essentially accusing those who oppose men using women’s restrooms of “discrimination.” We are not opposed to stopping discrimination or promoting equality. But that is not what the so-called, “Equal Rights Ordinance” accomplishes. Far from it: this ordinance imposes another form of very real discrimination on businesses and people of faith, and puts innocent civilians in the path of sexual predators.
From one “ilk” to another, well said Jared. Anyone that doesn’t think perverts will take advantage of this ordinance to enter women’s locker rooms is naive and should remember that perverts are very sick people. And as my wife asked me last night, what happened to my rights as a woman? She’s right. For centuries men’s rights came before women’s and only in the last century or so have we made progress in that area. Not protecting women is going backward. Shameful.
Hmm. Perhaps I was too quick to accept Mayor Annise Parker’s “compromise” on the sexual predator protection act as a good thing. At least that is what Jared Woodfill and the rest of the gang opposing the ordinance think. From Jared’s email after the “compromise”:
Jared Woodfill
After hearing from tens of thousands of Houstonians opposed to Mayor Parker’s Sexual Predator Protection Act, the Mayor recently claimed she was removing the “Bathroom Language” (Section 17-51(b)) which allowed gender confused individuals to utilize the bathroom associated with their gender identity/preference or expression regardless of their biological sex. The Mayor claims she is compromising on her original position. Unfortunately, Mayor Parker’s personal, social agenda dominates her decision making and one must study the language of the Ordinance to appreciate the deceptiveness of the alleged compromise. The Mayor’s “compromise” actually makes the Ordinance more egregious and dangerous to our families.
Even if Section 17-51(b) (“Bathroom Language”) is removed from the ordinance, places of public accommodation will still be required to allow biological males to use the women’s restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities. Even worse, businesses will be forced to allow more biological males into the women’s facilities than if Section 17-51(b) is not removed.
Section 17-51(a) makes it “unlawful for any place of public accommodation or any employee or agent thereof to discriminate against any person on the basis of any protected characteristic.” The Ordinance defines discrimination: “to distinguish, differentiate, separate or segregate…any person on the basis of a protected characteristic.” (section 17-2) “Gender identity” is a protected characteristic under the ordinance. Therefore, if the Bathroom Language is removed, places of public accommodation that do not allow all who claim to be women, regardless of biological sex, to use the women’s facilities could face criminal charges of discrimination pursuant to Section 17-51(a).
To make things worse, the Mayor eliminates the “good faith” defense provided to businesses under Section 17-51(b). This means that places of public accommodation will be forced to allow biological males who present as male (regardless of whether they are dressed as females) to use women’s facilities, since the ordinance prohibits discrimination because of gender identity. Removing Section 17-51(b) and its “good faith” defense will allow more biological males into the women’s facilities, not less.
This is just one of many reasons I have previously articulated that justify defeating our term limited Mayor’s last ditch effort to push her personal, social agenda on the City of Houston. Please call, email, and fax all City Council Members and the Mayor immediately. Thank you for standing tall!
Dave Welch’s group, the Houston Area Pastor Council, put out a legal opinion backing up Jared’s interpretation:
May 13, 2014
David Welch
U. S. Pastor Council
P.O. Box 692207
Houston, TX 77269
Re: Removing Section 17-51(b) (the “Bathroom Language”) from Mayor Parker’s Ordinance will allow MORE biological males into the women’s facilities, not less.
Dear Mr. Welch:
Even if Section 17-51(b) (the “Bathroom Language”) is removed from Mayor Parker’s Ordinance, places of public accommodation will still be forced to allow biological males to use the women’s restrooms, locker rooms, and similar facilities. In fact, they will be forced to allow even more biological males in the women’s facilities than if Section 17-51(b) is not removed.
Section 17-51(a) makes it “unlawful for any place of public accommodation or any employee or agent thereof to discriminate against any person on the basis of any protected characteristic.” To “discriminate” means “to distinguish, differentiate, separate, or segregate … any person on the basis of a protected characteristic.” (Ordinance § 17-2.) “Gender identity” is a protected characteristic. So even without the Bathroom Language, places of public accommodation that do not allow all who claim to be women, regardless of biological sex, to use the women’s facilities could face charges of discrimination pursuant to Section 17-51(a).
Section 17-51(b) provides a good faith defense to businesses that deny biological males access to the women’s facilities when they do not express themselves as female. Removing Section 17-51(b) also removes that defense. As a result, places of public accommodation will be forced to allow biological males who present as male (i.e., are not dressed as female) to use the women’s facilities, since the Ordinance prohibits discrimination because of gender identity (not gender expression). Removing Section 17-51(b) and its good faith defense will thus allow more biological males into the women’s facilities, not less.
Very sincerely yours,
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM
Joe La Rue
Legal Counsel
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
Jonathan Saenz of Texas Values sent out his own interpretation:
Jonathan Saenz
Houston, TX, May 14, 2014 – Today, Mayor Annise Parker and the Houston City Council will vote on theproposed wide-reaching LGBT ordinance that she has fast tracked through the council process. The proposed ordinance is a threat to public safety, Christians, and the private sector of Houston. The ordinance would give government new power to force private individuals and businesses to affirm homosexual conduct and actual or perceived “gender identity” or face serious criminal penalties, will allow men access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms and some provisions may also be enforced against churches. The Houston City Council will meet at 9 a.m. today.
Mayor Parker announced yesterday that certain language that specifically applies to bathroom access by transsexuals would be proposed to be removed today. The language is still currently in the ordinance. And in fact, other portions of the ordinance still give transsexuals rights to the bathroom they choose, but now there is now “good faith exception” if a business owner makes a mistake about the sex of the person entering the bathroom or shower room. See more detailed analysis below. Legal experts agree, this change in the ordinance will allow MORE men to enter women’s bathrooms!
Numerous faith and local community leaders spoken out against the proposed LGBT ordinance and over 64,000 email message have been sent to council members against the ordinance.
Texas Values Action president, Jonathan Saenz, released the following statement:
“The Mayor’s last minute trick is no surprise. This is all part of the deception and effort to punish people of faith and give transsexuals and others a weapon to advance their sexual lifestyle with no limitations. This ordinance is still a major a threat to public safety, is an expansive overreach of big government and violates the rights of private citizens and we expect the City Council to vote for common sense and vote this ordinance down.”
Taken together, these releases are certainly enough to make you stop and think. Especially when you take a look at Mayor Parker’s Twitter feed and see what she tweeted regarding the language removed:
To my trans sisters/brothers: you’re still fully protected in Equal Rights Ordinance. We’re simply removing language that singled you out.-A
Well then. It looks like Jared, et al, are correct in their assessment. BTW, for a treat, click on that link to her tweet and read the discussion. Goodness.
Here is the real question: In a city that has potholes big enough to swallow small cars and “brownouts” with no coverage from the Houston Fire Department, why in the world are the mayor and city council pushing this completely unnecessary measure?
You want to know why I supported Jared Woodfill for another term as the Harris County Republican Party Chair? Because he isn’t afraid to stand up for what is right and what the majority of Harris County Republicans support. Being a spokesperson for the party is critical – I fear that in the future, obnoxious provisions such as letting men cruise women’s restrooms will pass because no one will be there to stand against them. Jared fought and fought hard against the ordinance and specifically that obnoxious provision. Today, Houston Mayor Annise Parker dropped the provision.
Conservative groups have taken issue with a paragraph that states: “It shall be unlawful for any place of public accommodation or any employee or agent thereof to intentionally deny any person entry to any restroom, shower room, or similar facility if that facility is consistent with and appropriate to that person’s expression of gender identity.”
Make no mistake, this would not have happened without Jared’s involvement. It saddens me that some Republicans in Harris County criticized him for his opposition to the measure. As a father of two daughters and now one granddaughter, I appreciated his efforts. I reached out to him and he was still not happy because he wants the entire ordinance to be defeated.
I was encouraged by the thousands of individuals who stood against the Mayor’s liberal, personal agenda for the City of Houston. We will soon find out whether she is listening. Regardless of the result, this is just one battle in a larger cultural we must win!
While I agree with his ultimate goal and wish that the Mayor of Houston would concentrate on fixing potholes, I still think that his efforts were very much worthwhile. And I’m very disappointed that Paul Simpson, Chair-elect of the Harris County Republican Party, remained silent on the issue.
Look, I’m very much on record as supporting a national NDO law and in support of two individuals, regardless of sex, being able to marry and live their lives without discrimination. But the idea that the intimacy of little children going to a restroom can be violated by perverts under the guise of “law” is revolting. And my revulsion has nothing to do with transgendered people – if you have already had the surgery, obviously you have ‘put your money where your mouth is’ so to speak, so that is a non-issue. Men entering women’s restrooms and then claiming that they are protected because Annise Parker says so is ridiculous.
Heck of a title, eh? Coming from me, I mean. After all of the criticism I’ve leveled at Harris County Republican Party Chair Jared Woodfill through the years, why on earth would I support his re-election? Frankly, after a week of pulling myself in all directions contemplating my vote, writing this post is really very easy because it comes down to one thing: I think that Jared Woodfill the best candidate on the ballot this year. And even though my public support for him will come with much hatred and vitriol from his opponent’s supporters, the shibboleth in the BJP logo means what it says.
As I’ve written many times, there are two parts to the job of HCRP chairperson. One is communication, the other is organization. Because of the structure of the organization, I think that the communication part of the job is the most critical and thus give more weight to it when comparing the candidates. And as I’ve also written many times, I think that Jared excels at representing the party and its ideals to the public. Those ideals are not popular with the mainstream press but Jared is able to defend the party’s positions without coming across as mean spirited or petty. I shudder to think what would happen if we had a messenger that did not have the ability to do that. And in this specific race, against this specific opponent, the difference between the two men in their ability to articulate the party’s positions couldn’t be clearer.
As to the organization side, I think that Jared has allowed one geographic area of the party to dominate the discussion. But Jared didn’t do that alone and it is far more complex than simply pointing to those in leadership and complaining about the lack of representation from other areas. The precinct chairs in other areas must acknowledge and accept that they could have just as much power if they worked as hard. In fact, we are seeing the precinct chairs from other areas now working just as hard and that is one of the sources of tension in the party. Transitions of power are never easy and as other areas of Harris County gain more forceful precinct chairs and begin to grow in influence in the HCRP, the Northwest side is going to see their influence wane. That is actually a very good development for the party and whomever the chair is will not be able to change that dynamic. We will become more diverse because Harris County is too diverse to let one demographic or geographic area dominate it.
As for “pay-to-play”, no one has written more about it and been more vocal about it than me. And although the slates started shortly before Jared took over, it is true that the system flourished while he has been chair. But the development of this system has been organic and is driven not by Jared but by the success that three slates have had. Their success comes from their own hard work and intelligence in targeting specific voters and from overall voter apathy.
I am very happy that more voters are taking notice of this for-profit system and that we are closer to reaching a critical mass as far as reducing the power and influence that three slates have had on the party. You know exactly what I mean if you have been opening your mailbox or reading the Endorsement Matrix. Diluting their market share while at the same time continuing to hammer home the fact that candidates pay for these “ads” will, I think, result in a more level playing field over time and reduce the influence of the “Big 3”.
The whole fight about “pay-to-play” and Jared’s challenger making it an issue and pretending that he has been on the front lines of the fight has really turned me away from his campaign. In his own words, on January 8th of this year, less than eight weeks before voting, Paul Simpson told one of the “Big 3”, Terry Lowry, that “pay-to-play” wasn’t his fight. Here is his exact quote:
As you well know there are people out there that take issue with your system – that’s their fight.
And in the same interview, Paul Simpson said:
I’ll buy an ad from you and I don’t know what you’re gonna do in my race, that’s the way it is.
Click here to read more about that. Not only did he say those things, he entered into an agreement with Lowry to purchase a $10,000 ad, paying $5,000 up front and promising another $5,000 later. Then he reneged on the second half of the payment after Lowry endorsed Jared. In less than two years, Simpson has paid Terry Lowry $16,575, not counting the $5,000 he reneged on:
Paul Simpson’s payments to Terry Lowry.
It is blatant hypocrisy to claim that you are the one to end the pay-to-play system when you say publicly that it is not your fight and you have been and continue to be a player in it, as recently as two months ago. It is the equivalent of a gambler putting down his money to win a big prize, losing the bet, and then campaigning against gambling.
Another area that Jared has pointed out about Paul is that he refused to pitch in and help after the first fight for chair we had in 2010. Paul and his supporters deflect this by saying that he worked on his own, with campaigns and in developing precinct chair tools outside the party. Well, that is all well and good but it simply illustrates Paul’s way of thinking – if I can’t get my way, I’ll go somewhere else. You see it in the Lowry quotes above and I personally experienced it in 2010 when Paul took his ball and went home, refusing to help the Ed Hubbard campaign in the runoff with Jared. If Paul really thought that Jared was bad for the party, why would he do that? Perhaps so that he could run again in 2012 and 2014? Folks, this is a volunteer, unpaid position that needs someone that is a team player, someone willing to work for the good of all, even if it means your ambition must be throttled.
Like I said at the start of this post, I get that I’ll be roasted by Paul’s supporters. And if Paul wins, I’ll be shut out and his administration will not be friendly towards me or BJP. That’s not really a loss because I’m already shut out and voting for Jared Woodfill isn’t going to change that. But it would by hypocritical on my own part if I went into a voting booth and voted for Jared Woodfill without telling you about it and why.
So, I’ll be voting for Jared and I think that if you isolate yourself from the rhetoric and make a calm, rational decision, you too will come to the conclusion that Jared Woodfill is the best candidate to move the party forward in this election. And I’ll still be here criticizing him when I think he needs to be criticized, and helping him understand that the party must become more diverse if we are to maintain our influence and make a difference for our grandchildren.
I started to call this one the massacre at the Texas Asian Republican Caucus forum but it isn’t SEO friendly.
By all accounts, the Paul Simpson campaign for Harris County Republican Party Chair has the money and momentum to win the race. The amount of money he’s raised, over $160,000, is astonishing for a position that doesn’t pay a dime. Dick Weekly has helped him get the endorsement of Michael Berry. Life is good for the campaign.
Paul Simpson speaks as Jared Woodfill looks on.
With all of those positives, why has my day sucked? Because I knew I was going to have to tell you about the forum that I attended last night. My problem isn’t simply that Jared Woodfill crushed Paul in the “debate” – no, that would have been easy to brush off because from what I hear, that is routine when the two meet. And even though the communications part of the job is at least as big as the rest of the job, I had decided that Paul would be “good enough” to get the job done because he would be so much better at the rest of it.
Here is a little context for the rest of this. The forum was held directly after a forum that featured two candidates for HD149 trying to defeat Democrat Hubert Vo – Nghi Ho and Al Hoang. The room was full of people that were probably getting their first glimpse at the leadership of the party. You want outreach? You didn’t need to reach far because those who the party needs to “reach out to” were sitting next to us. So what does Paul do?
He started off with a personal attack on Jared and kept it up until the end. It is one thing to make a sharp contrast between yourself and your opponent on issues that affect the party. It is quite another to come across as a mean, desperate man by repeatedly making personal attacks. Even when Jared tried to give him an opportunity to lighten up by asking a silly question, Paul couldn’t or wouldn’t do it. Other than Paul’s true blue supporters, no one in the room was comfortable. Especially those people that need to be “outreached” to – they looked like they were in a torture chamber. What kind of outreach are we in for?
Perhaps the strangest thing about the very strange night was watching Paul make my little buddy Terry Lowry look like the saint he ain’t. You want “pay-to-play” removed from the party? You’d better not stand in front of a group of people and tell them that you tried to pay money to affect the content that Terry Lowry produces. That is exactly what Paul did last night.
Watch this video with both candidates answering questions about “pay-to-play”:
Watch it again because we’re going to talk about it. I’ll wait.
Okay, now that you have a good memory of what the candidates said, let’s look at a couple of points.
Paul may not think that Jared is a good attorney but Jared ate his lunch on that question. Hypocrisy, thy name is Paul Simpson says Jared. Now you might say, no, you’re blowing this out of proportion. No, I am not. Think about what Paul said.
“The pay to play slates are a cancer on the Harris County Republican Party.”
As you well know there are people out there that take issue with your system – that’s their fight.
Well, which is it Paul? I’ve been fighting these slates for seven years – I guess it is my fight and not yours. Jared was absolutely right to call out Paul’s hypocrisy – you can’t pay them and then knock them when they don’t endorse you.
Jared then points out that Paul wrote a check for $10,000 this cycle. Paul jumps up and says he only wrote a check for $5,000. Paul is correct but this note is included in his campaign finance report:
Initial (50{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}) payment for full page ad in March 2014 Link Letter
Clearly the commitment was for $10,000, which is why Jared used $10,000.
More from Paul in the video:
I sat down with him, said I’m interested in an ad, will you endorse my opponent? That’s all I asked. He assured me he would not. I wrote a $5,000 check to him. The party, the party, gave Mr. Lowry $5,000. Then Mr. Lowry endorsed Mr. Woodfill. He either lied to me or broke his word.
Okay, so Lowry broke his word. Or lied. But let’s listen to what Paul said in that January 8th showon Terry Lowry’s radio program:
I’ll buy an ad from you and I don’t know what you’re gonna do in my race, that’s the way it is.
Lowry then gives out Paul’s website and stresses that he has not endorsed in the race but never one time says anything to the effect that he isn’t going to skip the race. So which is it? Did Paul demand that Lowry not endorse anyone before he would buy an ad or did he buy an ad not knowing or caring who Lowry was going to endorse? I asked Paul to help me reconcile the discrepancy and he says there is no discrepancy and sent me this:
I asked Terry Lowry in December if he had decided what he was going to do in the County Chair race. I told him we would not buy an ad in his LinkLetter if it also carried his endorsement of an opponent, because such an ad would be a waste of money.
He then said that he was not going to endorse any of my opponents. I told him that, on that basis, I would buy an ad, and paid half the total ad price.
I did not ask or know what he was going to do in the race – i.e., if he would endorse me or stay out of the race entirely.
The next month, he informed me that he was endorsing Jared Woodfill.
So, he either lied to me upfront that he had decided not to endorse any opponents, or he later broke his word.
My campaign has not funded the second half of the anticipated ad payment.
I’m not an attorney and perhaps an attorney would say, okay, that is a good explanation. But this line really sticks out:
I did not ask or know what he was going to do in the race – i.e., if he would endorse me or stay out of the race entirely.
No, what Paul did was to tell Lowry, look, little fella, I’ll pay you but you can’t endorse Woodfill, okay? Deal?
That doesn’t cut it with me. What is the difference between someone sticking out their hand and saying “give me some money and I’ll endorse you” and someone walking up to you with $10,000 in their hand and saying “I’ll give you some money if you either endorse me or go away without mentioning my race at all”?
Tell me, what is the difference? Paul clearly admitted to paying for an ad conditioned on confirming what the content of the endorsements would be. This is very different from someone like Gary Polland that gives candidates the option of canceling their ads and getting a refund if he doesn’t endorse them. Lowry made clear in that interview that the ad is completely separate from the endorsement.
Back to the suitability of Paul as spokesperson of the party, which is at least half the job. Take a look at another portion of last night’s forum – listen to the tone, watch the body language, and ask yourself about “outreach”.
Refusing to have a little light hearted fun in front of people getting their first experience with party leadership? Questioning Jared’s commitment to the pro-life movement? Are you kidding me?
Look, I know I’m going to get a lot of grief for writing this. I get it, a lot of people are fired up about finally making some changes to the party. And after fighting this fight far longer than most of those that are going to criticize me, it would be easy for me to overlook stuff like this and just be glad that change is coming. But as a conservative person by nature, I’m wary of change for change’s sake. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t. Jared is not perfect but he doesn’t say one thing to one group and another to a different group. And I’ve never heard a peep that Jared would wave money in front of someone in order to affect the outcome of their content.
The party desperately needs to change the way it treats people that don’t pass purity tests put in place by the leadership so that more people are willing to participate. There is no question about. The question is what kind of change will Paul really bring? Are we switching one insider group for another? If so, who is in the new insider group? Why does Paul refuse to name the leadership team that he will put in place?
Now I don’t know who I’m going to vote for and that is as much a shock to me as it is to you. But my concern is not for Jared or Paul – it is for the future of the party that I think has the best ideas and principles to keep Harris County, Texas, and the nation prosperous.
I’ve been kind of quiet on the race for Party Chair of the Harris County Republican Party. Mostly because there hasn’t been much to write about unless I just wanted to throw stones at the candidates.
Abuse of power or power of incumbency?
Current HCRP Chair Jared Woodfill set off a mini firestorm this week with an email blast to the party’s email list titled “Zealots Wanted”. The email was a response to a rather bizarre Houston Chronicle editorial titled “Far-right strategy”. In the editorial, the Chronicle takes multiple potshots at Texas Republicans, calling those of us active in the party zealots and Jared does a good job of firing back at them. I appreciated his efforts to fight back and think that is a perfectly legitimate and necessary role for the party chairman to play.
But, his opponents and other party activists emailed me saying that it was an abuse of the HCRP email list and that it should have been sent from Jared’s campaign account.
I think that what opponents do not realize is that the HCRP email list and Jared’s campaign email list are one and the same, so it wouldn’t have made a difference in the recipients anyway. I wrote about this way back in 2009. And about his possible use of the HCRP list for personal gain back in 2012. So the charges aren’t new and Jared has dismissed them. It is up to Paul Simpson to make it an issue in the campaign if he so chooses.
Another example of possible abuse of power is this sign in front of HCRP headquarters on Richmond Ave.:
Re-elect Jared Woodfill sign in front of Harris County Republican Party headquarters.
I received several emails about the sign, so I went by to see for myself. Yep, it is a big sign right there on Richmond Ave. in front of the party headquarters. Good sign placement for a campaign in a very high traffic area. I asked Jared’s challenger Paul Simpson if he had asked to put up a sign up in front of the headquarters and he responded “not yet”. I asked Jared if he was receiving special treatment and he told me that any candidate can ask property owners if they can put a sign up.
So what do you think? Abuse of power or power of incumbency? I think that in the case of the zealot email, it was the right thing for Jared to do and is an example of the power of incumbency. As for the sign, give credit to his campaign workers for doing their job – if Simpson had asked to do the same and been denied, there might be something to talk about.
What is Simpson for?
A week or so ago, I saw Jared at an event and he was exasperated by the Simpson campaign. He asked me, “What is Paul for? All he does is attack me. He never says what he would do better or different.”
I have to agree with Jared. Look, I’ve attacked Jared longer than most, and have even touched on his former firm’s financial problems, but I’m not the one trying to take his position away. There are legitimate issues that Paul isn’t talking about or at least he isn’t putting them forward that I’ve seen.
The biggest issue in my mind is the shrinking influence of the party in Texas under Jared’s leadership. I wrote about this back in the summer of ’13 and think that it is an issue that is easily demonstrated and should help Paul but only if he has a plan to stop the losses. I think he does from previous conversations but I sure haven’t seen it in this election cycle.
Paul does talk a lot about the shortage of precinct chairs and on his “Solutions” page says this:
Focus staff and volunteer task forces on recruiting new precinct chairs to fill vacancies across county
What does that mean? How will it work? Where are the specifics? We know that Jared doesn’t want to expand precinct chairs unless they are the “right kind” as defined by Terry Lowry because Jared specifically said so. Why not make this a bigger issue and explain how you would fix the problem? Here are the raw numbers of precinct chairs since 2008 – you can clearly see how Jared’s policies have failed to grow the party.
Paul needs to talk specifics about this issue, the use of the Vacancy Committee to keep the party “pure” as defined by Lowry and others, and raise the profile so that people will sit up and take notice.
Present serious and credible plans, specific projects, budgets, and ability, to earn financial support
So present them already! What are you waiting for? How, exactly, are you going to “Engage with the business community, large and small, to expand and enhance financial base”?
People want to know and need to know these things before they are going to make a change at the top of the party.
I could go on and on because I’ve covered the party so closely over the past 7 years.
Don’t drop social conservatives
I know that many of Paul’s advisors are urging him to drop social conservatives from the mix. Yes, they say social issues but the reality is that they think social conservatives are the problem and that their own moderate views on social issues are “correct” and will play better with so-called “independents”.
That would be a huge mistake if Paul were to win and implement because we would never win another election. And I know that Paul understands that.
But he isn’t saying it, as best as I can tell. People like me need to understand exactly how he is going to get the current crop of party leaders that focus solely on social issues to understand the need to expand the party without throwing them and their conservative views on social issues under the bus. It is a very hard thing to do but he has to be able to do it if he is going to win.
Jared excels at being a spokesperson for the party and that is arguably the biggest part of the job of county chair. Unless Paul can demonstrate some ability to take over that role and be effective, voters are going to be hesitant to vote for him.
The bottom line is that Paul Simpson needs to make a case for why he is a better choice than Jared Woodfill and up to this point in the race, I don’t think he has.
