Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

Post 2016 Texas Primary Election quick thoughts

by

The 2016 Texas primary election came early this year. And for once we had an impact on the presidential race.

About that presidential race, Ted Cruz held serve in his home state. Don’t believe the reports that it was a bad night for him because he didn’t get 50{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} +1 and take all of the delegates. He did very well and out-performed the polls and picked up Oklahoma. The Trump wave continues but perhaps Cruz’s win slows it a bit. Rubio was a disappointing third in Texas, failing to reach the magic 20{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} mark statewide but had a better than expected night overall. There is still time to stop Trump.

The most satisfying race of the night for me was for Texas House District 121. In that race, Speaker Joe Straus destroyed his two opponents who had raised a combined $710,000 to defeat him. Here is his victory statement:

“I want to thank the people of District 121 for their tremendous support and confidence. I’m proud of the campaign we ran and the positive message we delivered. A couple of people who live far away from here once again tried to take this seat from our community, and they have once again failed. Voters showed that angry rhetoric and dishonest ads are no match for a well-organized campaign that looks to a brighter future. It is an honor to represent the people of District 121 and I will continue to work tirelessly and gladly on their behalf.”

What it boils down to is this: represent the people of your district well and you don’t have to worry about outside agitators and outright liars. Congratulations Speaker Straus.

And did you see what Briscoe Cain did? He came very close to winning outright in HD128 against longtime incumbent Wayne Smith. Instead he will be in a runoff with Smith in May. And he did it despite being outspent 5-1. As a reminder of who Briscoe is:

Like I said above, if you represent your district, you have no need to worry about opposition. Clearly, Wayne Smith has not represented his district, opting instead to do the work of Austin lobbyists. That can be clearly seen on his campaign finance reports. The reason Briscoe Cain almost won this race is because he worked hard,  shook thousands of hands, went through several pairs of shoes, looked people in the eye and they believed him when he told them he would represent them and their values.

In Harris County, there were some disappointing results for several judicial candidates that I respect. Unfortunately the votes went the other way. It happens. But there were also races where the votes went to the candidates I respect. The contested judicial races always produce unexpected results.

In the Harris County Attorney’s race, Jim Leitner bested my choice Chris Carmona. But like I said earlier, this was a hard choice and the voters simply chose experience over potential. Leitner will be a positive change for that office and I can’t wait to vote for him in November against uber partisan hack incumbent Vince Ryan.

In the Harris County Sheriff’s race, I was confident that Ron Hickman would win but he exceeded my expectations. Maybe the lesson here is that negative campaigning doesn’t work against an extremely qualified candidate. And btw, can we put to rest the notion that we need a “constitutional” sheriff to protect us from the dastardly federales?

In the Harris County Tax Assessor Collector’s race, Mike Sullivan proved that if you are good at what you do and focus on the needs of your constituents, you don’t need to worry about self-appointed watchdogs. And now he has a sheepskin on the wall to prove that he really can walk and chew gum at the same time.

And then the one that everyone seems surprised by but shouldn’t be. In the Harris County Republican Party Chair race, incumbent Paul Simpson came in second. That’s right. Second. The establishment’s choice came in second.

And he came in second after spending $183,645.24 in this election cycle to keep an unpaid position. His two opponents combined spent $25,000. Think about that.

Now the question is whether Simpson will think about what happened or will he, as is already being said by his supporters, blame his loss on the “pay to play” endorsement slates? If he blames his loss on the “pay to play” endorsement slates, I think he’ll lose the runoff. If he steps back and thinks more clearly about the situation, perhaps he’ll come up with a plan to reach out to the 60+{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the people that voted against him and adjust his attitude towards them. We’ll have to wait and see. I assure you we’ll be writing about it here.

And the last thing about yesterday’s election is to send a huge thank you to Richard, Nancy, Ron, and Kathy. These were the folks that helped me run the election in precinct 377. We had the largest turnout ever for a primary election in our precinct, almost doubling the previous high. And although the lines were long at times, no one complained and we had no problems. Thank you!

 

Why I'm voting for Marco Rubio

by

This has been a very, very long presidential campaign. At least it seems so to me. I cannot remember a time when it took me so long to pick a candidate to vote for and to advocate for. With early voting in Texas only a week away, there isn’t a lot of time to advocate for my choice, Marco Rubio.

Why did it take me so long to pick a candidate? The truth is that it was a combination of the number of candidates on the ballot and the quality of the candidates. If I recall correctly, we started with 17 candidates and most of them were highly regarded. There is only one candidate that I thought was wholly unqualified to be on the ballot and that guy happens to be the front runner today. Go figure.

I truly wanted to vote for one of the governors. All of them have stellar records in their states. And after the experience of the country electing someone with zero experience as President in 2008, I wanted someone with solid executive experience. Unfortunately none of them proved to be viable candidates and two have already dropped out.

Winnowing the field

In evaluating the rest of the field, sometimes you have to use subtraction to winnow your choices based upon what you think is important before choosing between the acceptable candidates. In this case, the reality is that at this point there are only three choices available to me: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio.

It was easy for me to drop Trump from my list. The plain truth is that Trump is not a Republican. The plain truth is that Trump is not a conservative. The plain truth is that Trump is the lowest form of populist, one that tries for the lowest common denominator in every case. He is the type of populist that Matt Lewis describes in his book, Too Dumb to Fail.

If, instead, populism represents the demagogic politics of nativism, xenophobia, resentment, know-nothingism, victimhood, bitterness, envy (specifically on the Left, in the form of redistributionism), and/ or protectionism— used as a rhetorical cudgel to manipulate the masses— then count me (and most of the public) out.

Lewis, Matt K. (2016-01-26). Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots) (p. xx). Hachette Books. Kindle Edition.

I mean, seriously, shouldn’t you have voted in at least one Republican primary in your life if you are 69 years old and running to be the Republican nominee?

So that left me with Cruz and Rubio. I couldn’t winnow Cruz from my list because I agree with him on most issues. After much reading, research, and comparing them at the CNN Townhall last week, I chose Marco Rubio over Cruz for the following reasons.

National Security

This is the single most important issue for me. The issue for me is not only that the US is strong militarily but that we do not use our might except in the most extraordinary of circumstances. I remember when President George W. Bush embroiled us in the war in Iraq. I was very much against that war. Obviously, once we were involved, I had to support the men and women that were put in harms way. During the so-called surge, young men and women were being killed every day. I joined a group called the Patriot Guard and rode in over 50 funerals in a very short amount of time. It truly affected the way I view foreign policy.

Rubio’s experience in foreign policy vastly outweighs Cruz’s. And I think that when Rubio discusses the need to increase our military’s strength, he is doing so from a position like former President Ronald Reagan. Be so strong, so mighty, that no one is willing to face your wrath. Dealing with terrorist groups is something that Reagan didn’t have to face but the principle remains the same. I think that Rubio’s experience in the Senate with national security will help him in using diplomacy to contain and defeat ISIS. Cruz’s comments about carpet bombing ISIS and seeing if sand glows are irresponsible and show his limited understanding of how to deal with ISIS, as well as his mastery of bombastic rhetoric for a soundbite.

Electability

The difference between the two men in terms of electability in November couldn’t have been clearer than by watching them one after another in the CNN Townhalls in South Carolina last week (Rubio – Cruz). Rubio soars above the fray and has the ability to inspire people about the future of America. Make America Great again isn’t just a campaign slogan for Rubio, it is simply a step along the way to making America the best it can be. No other Republican candidate can inspire people from all walks of life the way Rubio can. He has a compelling story and he tells it in a compelling way. We need to grow the party. Do you realize we have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections? I think Rubio is our best shot to win in November.

Immigration

The knock against Rubio is that he participated in the “Gang of Eight”. Indeed, I criticized him harshly for that at the time. But I like the fact that he was at least willing to try to solve a problem instead of simply ducking it with nonsensical rhetoric. In one of the rare times I agree with Erick Erickson of RedState fame, I agree with this:

In Washington, Rubio has shown two essential characteristics of a savvy politician. First, he was willing to work with Democrats on broad bipartisan policy, namely immigration. Second, when the deal went south, Rubio was willing to walk away from it and admit he learned a lesson from it. There are few politicians willing to admit mistakes and move on.

Those saying that Rubio supports amnesty are simply regurgitating rhetorical nonsense. Even in the Gang of Eight bill, there was no amnesty. We have an illegal immigration problem in this country. We need solutions, not soundbites. I think that Rubio is the best equipped to deal with the problem and finally offer up an acceptable solution. A wall is not a solution. Deporting people en masse is not a solution. If I were smart enough to tell you the solution, I’d be running for president. I’m not. But I do know that you cannot solve a problem without trying. A “my way or the highway” approach to legislation isn’t going to work in any case but especially in solving our illegal immigration problem.

The Economy

I don’t see much difference between Rubio and Cruz when it comes to the economy. Both are free market advocates. Both want to restructure the tax system. I think that Rubio’s tax plans are more substantive than Cruz’s tax plans. Obviously Cruz’s talking point of abolishing the IRS wins the soundbite wars but it isn’t going to happen in my lifetime and he knows it. He hasn’t managed to pass a single piece of substantive legislation in three years in the Senate and suddenly he’s going to wave a magic wand and abolish the IRS? Meanwhile Rubio is the only Senator to pass a meaningful amendment to undercut Obamacare. It is easy to rail on about an issue, it is quite another to be able to work the process to achieve desired results.

So there you go. Those are the reasons that I ultimately decided to vote for Marco Rubio and advocate for his candidacy. You might disagree with me and that’s okay, our whole system is built upon honest disagreements. See you at the polls.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, Sen. Tim Scott, Gov. Nikki Haley, Sen. Marco Rubio - The New Republican Party
Rep. Trey Gowdy, Sen. Tim Scott, Gov. Nikki Haley, Sen. Marco Rubio – The faces of the new, vibrant, diverse Republican Party

 

 

Rejoice, we have finally done it. No matter who wins the 2016 republican presidential nomination the republican establishment loses

by

guest-columnby Don Sumners, CPA
Candidate for re-election as Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector

 

As the Republican primaries move toward a conclusion, it looks more and more like an anti-establishment candidate will be the Republican Party’s nominee. To date, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have dominated the primaries. Jeb Bush, the establishment favorite, who was going to win the nomination without the votes of grassroots conservatives, failed miserably in his presidential bid and has withdrawn from the campaign. After the March 1, SEC primary, almost certainly one more candidate, Dr. Ben Carson, will withdraw. He should have withdrawn along with Jeb Bush.

Although Rubio supposedly has become the default favorite of the establishment, if he moves away from his current positions to cater to the establishment he will ruin his chance of being the party nominee. He already has problems explaining his being one of the ‘gang of eight.’ who favored legislation granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Primary voters are just not in the mood to support a candidate who exhibits establishment leanings. And now that Rubio has become the establishment favorite, Donald Trump can be expected to unload on him for his pro amnesty leadership. And, Trump should be far more effective at criticizing Rubio for his pro amnesty position than Cruz has been.

Regardless of who is the eventual nominee, everything points to a dramatic loss for the embedded republican establishment. Not since the nomination and election of Ronald Reagan has the republican establishment been prevented from nominating their candidate. Stopping them has been a long time coming. But, by willfully ignoring the wishes of the voters that elected them and failing to fight the democrat agenda, instead caving-in to them, the establishment republicans deserve the humiliating defeat coming to them.

So far, this year promises to be a truly great year in national politics for grassroots republicans. But, Washington’s elected officials are not the only elected officials defying the will of the people. Now let’s dedicate ourselves to having the same success at the state and local level.

I suggest pressing for property tax reform is a great place to start. Acting as your taxpayer watchdog, I am ready to continue my fight against high property taxes in the county and at the state legislature. All I ask of you is that you re-elect me, Don Sumners, CPA, as your Tax Assessor-Collector.

My opponent, Mike Sullivan, openly states it is not his job to be an advocate for tax reform; he repeatedly says his job is only to be an administrator. With property taxes rising at 10{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986}+ per year, can you really afford to throw away your vote on Sullivan who refuses to be your advocate? A vote for Sullivan is a wasted vote.

Don Sumners
1726 Creek Dr. Houston, TX 77055
713-973-7808
[email protected]

Grading the New Hampshire Republican debate

by

I really enjoyed last night’s New Hampshire Republican debate. I said before the debate that I thought it would change the race – I don’t think that happened. But it was a very good debate for several candidates and a bad one for others.

When I started the grading system 10 years or so ago at the old Lone Star Times, it was unique because it wasn’t based upon who “won” or “lost”, it was based upon how each candidate fared in regards to what they needed to do to advance their campaign. Other people now use the grading system but I don’t know of anyone that uses my original idea. So when you see me grading the candidates, it has nothing to do with how they did in relation to each other, just how I think they did in relation to their own campaign efforts. Without further ado, here are my grades from last night’s debate.

Chris Christie – A+: I think that Christie really helped his campaign last night. He needed to separate his campaign from Rubio and the other governors. In this, I think he succeeded quite well, especially in his attacks on Rubio. Christie came across as strong, knowledgeable, forceful, and able. I was watching the debate with an undecided female and she was drawn to his comments on pro-life, saying that it is about time someone was as concerned about children other than those in utero.

Donald Trump – A: Trump looked remarkably different than in the previous debates. He was calm, collected, and seemed to be aware that he needed to show America a different side of himself. If you were leaning Trump before this debate, he probably solidified your support. He was able to temper his populist positions with pragmatic solutions. Although other people have said that Jeb Bush got the better of him on eminent domain, I don’t think so. His Keystone pipeline answer was spot on.

Jeb Bush – A+: Let’s face it, Jeb! has a long way to go. But in terms of whether or not he helped or hurt his campaign last night, the answer is clear that he helped it. I doubt it matters much at this point but this was his best debate performance.

Ted  Cruz – B: Remember, I’m not talking about the “performance” during the debate but how he helped his campaign move forward. He knows he can’t win New Hampshire so the best he could do was escape without a major mistake. And for the most part he was able to do that. It was telling that his answer to the winner of the Super Bowl was about the South Carolina primary. Carson wounded him a bit early but because Cruz stayed in the shadows for most of the night, he did the best he could in moving his campaign forward.

John Kasich – C: Although the pundits in the wrap up of the debate were quite impressed with Kasich’s performance, I don’t think New Hampshire voters were that impressed. Sure, he is the “happy guy” but honestly it seemed forced. I like Gov. Kasich and think he would make a great president but his performance last night wasn’t great. It might have helped him hold serve but it doesn’t make his campaign move forward.

Ben Carson – D: Only hardcore Carson supporters could think he helped his campaign last night. He came across as whining and small with his repeated assertions that the moderators were ignoring him. He really needs to drop out.

Marco Rubio – F: Again, remember these grades are in relation to moving your campaign forward. Rubio did nothing to help his campaign. His best moment came late in the debate when asked about pro-life, but Christie had already answered that question much better earlier. Rubio is an excellent orator but he needs to be “real” because as Christie showed last night, he tends to go with bullet points.

So that’s my grades for how the candidates did. I think the Republicans overall deserve an F for excluding Carly Fiorina from the debate.

I’ve seen some criticism of the moderators from supporters of a few candidates, specifically Martha Raddatz. I didn’t think they were unfair at all and thought Raddatz did a fair job. It was nice to see Mary Katharine Ham in the spotlight. She asked tough conservative questions, as expected. Overall, I think it was a good debate, even if not race changing.

 

Ted Cruz shows true colors in Iowa

by

Thank goodness the Iowa caucus is over. The idea that a state with fewer people than Harris County has such an outsized influence on electing a president should be offensive to anyone in the political process. In fact, there are 17 Metropolitan areas in the U.S. with a larger population than Iowa. And that says nothing at all about the lack of diversity of the state in comparison to the rest of the U.S.

I mean seriously, the “record” turnout in last night’s Iowa caucus was less than the turnout for last year’s mayoral election in the City of Houston. By a wide margin. Heck, even the runoff election for the city blew away the “record” turnout in Iowa – 212,696 vs 186,874.

Thank goodness we’re moving on.

But the obnoxious #cruzcrew is touting his victory in the caucus as if Ted Cruz had already won the nomination. They conveniently ignore the fact that in terms of delegates needed to win the nomination, he is ahead by exactly one vote. That’s right, one vote. He now has eight delegates while Donald Trump and Marco Rubio have seven each.

As obnoxious as the #cruzcrew is, they get it straight from their leader. I was amused reading Erica Grieder’s column in Texas Monthly (The Field Guide to Ted Cruz) in which she tells the rest of us that she has figured Cruz out and gives us her magical map so that we can do the same. At one point, she even seems to take credit for giving Cruz the idea to run for president. The only point that she makes that is worthwhile is that Cruz is in this to win it. What she misses is that Cruz has always been in this to be president and he will do anything to achieve that goal. That is the only thing you need to know about Cruz in order to understand his behavior in the U.S. Senate.

Rand Paul and Marco Rubio touched on this point during the last debate:

Rubio took exception to that characterization. He referred to earlier comments from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), who questioned Cruz’s “authenticity” while lamenting that other candidates were not as conservative as him.

“This is the lie that Ted’s campaign is built on, and Rand touched upon it. That he’s the most conservative guy and everyone else is a RINO,” Rubio said, using an acronym for “Republican in name only.”

“The truth is, Ted, throughout this campaign you’ve been willing to say and do anything to get votes,” he continued. That statement drew a smattering of boos in the crowd.

“Ted, you worked for George W. Bush’s campaign,” Rubio went on. “You helped design George W. Bush’s immigration plan. Now you want to trump Trump on immigration.”

Truth means nothing to Cruz – winning is everything. That’s why he put out the misleading mailer that was widely condemned:

Iowa’s secretary of state on Saturday blasted Ted Cruz’s campaign over a controversial mailer that aims to drive voters to the polls for Monday’s caucuses by claiming they have committed “violations.”

“Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law,” Paul Pate, a Republican, said in a statement Saturday.

Cruz’s response?

“I will apologize to no one for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote,” he said.

Creepy privacy violations be damned, Cruz wants to win. And oh, by the way, those mailers were completely false:

Donna Holstein, who was listed on one of them, was upset to learn that she had been given a failing grade and that her neighbors might be told whether she participates in the caucus. She told me that she has voted consistently but that she can’t this time because of a disability.

“I’m crippled, so I can’t go to the caucus,” Holstein said. She was not happy about being shamed in front of her neighbors. “That’s what you call a bully,” she said about Cruz’s tactics. “I wish he would quit.”

Same thing happened during the caucus when his campaign directed their volunteers to tell voters at the caucus locations that Dr. Ben Carson had dropped out so they might as well vote for Cruz.

Sen. Ted Cruz apologized for potentially confusing Iowa Republican leaders by suggesting during Monday’s caucuses that rival Ben Carson was dropping out.

Cruz issued the mea culpa after Carson accused him of foul play.

“This was a mistake from our end, and for that I apologize to Dr. Carson,” Cruz said in a statement Tuesday.

Cruz won the Iowa caucuses; Carson came in distant fourth.

Can you say ‘ooopsie!’ Of course, what if those Carson voters had held their own and voted for their original choice? Would we be talking about Trump winning the Iowa caucus?

Cruz reminds me of Al Davis when he owned the Oakland Raiders – just win baby, just win. Cheating, lying, deceiving…who cares?

TrusTed? Seriously? As Cyndi Lauper says, Ted, I see your true colors.

 

How to kill immigration reform – add teh gayz!

by

Well, I guess comprehensive immigration reform isn’t as critical as Sen. Marco Rubio has been telling us it is. If it were, I wouldn’t think that a few thousand folks would stand in the way of legalizing 20 million illegal immigrants. Right? Not according to Mr. Rubio.

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, a co-author and key proponent of the Senate immigration bill, said he will revoke his support if an amendment is added that allows gay Americans to petition for same-sex spouses living abroad to secure a green card.

“If this bill has in it something that gives gay couples immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. I’m done,” Rubio said Thursday during an interview on the Andrea Tantaros Show. “I’m off it, and I’ve said that repeatedly. I don’t think that’s going to happen and it shouldn’t happen. This is already a difficult enough issue as it is.”

So let me get this straight. Rubio has been running around for months telling us that it is critical to pass his gang of eight bill because to do nothing would ruin the future for all Americans. Never mind that they broke our laws to get here, are causing us to spend billions on public education and healthcare, and haven’t paid taxes. Nope, we MUST legalize them now or the country goes down the drain. And we must legalize them before we secure the border so that they can pay the bill to secure the border. Alrighty then.

But, if you include a few thousand people that happen to be fond of people that are of the same sex they are, suddenly he’s “done”. Are you telling me that he thinks a few thousand same-sex couples are a bigger problem for the United States than the 20 million people here illegally? Is he insane?

So there you have it. You have your marching orders. Get out there and yell “teh gayz are coming” over and over and over again.

rubio-revere

You know, when I first heard Rubio speak in person I thought he was awesome. But nowadays, I’m beginning to think that he might be the worst kind of politician. One that says only what he thinks needs to be said to get a vote. No core convictions, just a core belief that he should be in office. Good luck on that 2016 presidential run Marco.