Recently, I reported on Kay Bailey Hutchison’s broken promises.  How she stated:

“I’ve always said that I would serve no more than two full terms. This may be my last term or I could run for one more. But no more after that. I firmly believe in term limitations and I plan to adhere to that.”

–1994, Austin American Statesman

Now she is running for a third term, this election.

Unfortunately, Senator Hutchison was not the only elected official to break a major promise from the 104th congress and beyond.  The Republican party has also broken a major promise.  A contract.  The Contract With America.

Read the entire entry …

Kay Bailey Hutchison, one of Texas Senators, is doing the time-worn tradition of breaking campaign promises a few years down the line.

KBH was twice elected to the Texas House of Representatives.  In 1994, Hutchison won her first six-year term to the United States Senate, against Richard Fisher.  During that campaign, Hutchison vowed she would only serve two terms (reference).

Her bid for Senate in 2006 marks her third campaign.  If KBH wins this campaign, she will enter into her third term in the Senate.  This in direct violation of that campaign promise she made, so many years ago.  Hutchison has been under fire for things outside of breaking promises, before.

In 1993, Hutchison was fighting charges that she had abused her office as a state treasurer. She is quite well known for the following quote:

Would these documents reside anywhere else on any kind of backup? Well, I never authorized the personal or political work to be out there, and I don’t want to be criticized for it being out there. And so I want you to go to those backup tapes and remove it all from the backup tapes.

Despite that quote, and other evidence, Hutchison was acquitted in February of 1994 when the chief prosecutor, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, attempted to drop the charges and  starting over later.  He was outwitted by presiding judge John Onion who swore in a jury on the case and immediately ordered them to acquit Hutchison.  Hutchison, along with her press secretary Dave Beckwith (former Dan Quayle spokesperson), and Republican Consultant Karl Rove (her former campaign manager,
and – later/now – top handler to George W. Bush), proclaimed the forced verdict as undeniable proof of Hutchison’s innocence.

Throughout her campaigns, Hutchison has received around $1.2 million in political contributions from the oil industry (since becoming a senator).  During a Congressional debate about oil royalties, an attempt to enter that fact into the Congressional Record was ruled out of order by the Chair (a Republican), who claimed campaign finance was “not germane” in the debate.

As can be plainly seen, Kay Bailey Hutchison has been at the thick of a lot of things in her political career.  It is not really surprising that she is breaking a former campaign promise… Not because she has led a tumultuous career, but because that simply seems to be what is done, these days.  Thus proving the sad state of American politics.

Technorati Tags: Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas, Senate

You know… I had planned on taking one more day off, before coming back to this blog, and then Charles Kuffner (from offthekuff.com) had to throw in the fodder, like it’s going out of style.

Kuffner has solicited many of the candidates in this month’s run off election.  …I suppose I should qualify that, so it doesn’t sound as it he is prostituting himself, shouldn’t I?  What I mean is that he has sent a request to the candidates, asking them to reply with a 500 word, five paragraph themed essay explaining why we should vote for them… and yes, spelling counts.

In reality, Kuffner simply asked for a write-up of their choice.  He received responses from four of the candidates: Radnofsky (US Senate), Alvarado (Lt. Governor), Grant (Lt. Governor), and Ankrum (10th Congressional District).  All candidates are in the Democratic party primaries.

After reading the spiel, I was rather impressed.  It appears that the majority of candidates stayed well away from the “traditional” “you should hire me because my opponent sucks Chef’s chocolate, salty balls” type of campaign.  Just for kicks – and because no one is immune from the snark – let’s take a good look at each candidate’s commentary.

Read the entire entry …

I need to begin this entry with a retraction.  A few times over the course of this blog, I have stated that I did not register under any particular party, and was therefore ineligible to vote in any primary.  I found out, today, that that is not true.

I went to my local precinct to see if there were any non-primary issues up for vote (in my locality, we often vote on random things on weird days).  There were none, but the precinct workers did not want to let me go without checking to see if I could vote in a primary.  It turns out that I am a registered Democrat.  Normally, when filling out my voter registration card,  I do not select any party.  The last time I filled out a voter reg. card, I was half asleep.  Evidentially, I selected Democrat.  For today, that suited me, fine.

For the important races, I’ll tell you my selections.  For the gubernatorial candidate, as promised, I voted for Rashad Jafer.  For Lieutenant Governor, I did not cast a vote.  I have not followed the Democratic LG candidates, and in all honesty, I would like to see a party split in office, when it comes to those two positions.

In all other races, I either did not vote (as I have not followed the local races well enough, in my area (hey, I only opened the poliblog in February… Give me time to catch up)), or voted for those running unopposed (may as well).  For the Democratic referrendums on the ballot, I voted “FOR” in both cases.

After voting, I stepped outside and noticed the sample ballots, listing the issues and races for both parties.  I took a long look at the Republican ticket.  In all honesty, I would not have voted in any of the individual races, but nearly all of the Republican referendums on the ballot would have gotten a “FOR” vote, from me.  If I remember correctly, all but one were economy-related, and as many well know, I am fiscally/economically conservative (for the most part).

Well, that’s it, folks.  Hope you all voted in your respective primaries.  I may drop by my precinct convention (7:15pm at your local polling place), and see if there is anything shaking.  If so, expect an entry.  If not, well…

Technorati Tags: Rashad Jafer, voting, democrat, democratic party, primary election

Powered by Qumana

Senator Madla, it appears, has had charges filed against him.  I won’t go into the full details (you can read about it at the links, below), but in short, he’s been charged with a major ethics violation.  The violation?  He’s a democrat who failed to disclose some $735,000 taken from a republican lobby group.  He’s also been accused of using the money to run a smear campaign (with allegedly false attacks) against his opponent, Carlos Uresti.  This is following a report that Madla was claiming a particular group pledged its support to him, when – in fact – they had publicly pledged support to Uresti.

For more information, please see the following locations:

• Pink Dome: Cowardly Madla Morphing to Criminal Madla?
• Burnt Orange Report: What’s the Problem with Madla?

Technorati Tags: Frank Madla, Carlos Uresti, Pink Dome, Burnt Orange Report, Texas Senate, Ethics Violation

Powered by Qumana

My associate, over at the Common Sense Blog, turned me on to the fact that the contenders in the GOP primary for TX-17 have devolved into a mud-slinging, name-calling campaign. Candidates Tucker Anderson and Van Taylor have taken the low road towards one another (Waco Tribune).

After reading only two sentences in the above-linked story, I was already hearing strains of "Dueling Banjos":

The dueling Republican candidates still shake hands and trade smiles before speeches as they vie for the chance to challenge U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, but it’s another story in the mailboxes and media.

Read the entire entry …

It’s official.  Glen Maxey has announced his run for Texas State Democratic Chair.

You may remember, earlier last month, that I announced my support for Glen Maxey as State Democratic Chair.  Officially announced, yesterday, Maxey wrote a long letter to his fellow democrats:

Dear Fellow Democrats,

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about you and about what collectively makes each of us say, “I’m a Democrat.” For my entire life I’ve lived each day “being a Democrat.”

A 20-year-old University of Texas Democrat recently said, “Glen, you’ve done a lot of amazing stuff. How did you do it all?” As I thought about that question, posed mostly as a compliment, I realized that almost everything I’ve ever done that was truly important happened when I stepped beyond my comfort zone. It happened when I took a risk. It occurred when I least could imagine that I would succeed in doing it.

My work has been an amazing journey over these years: teaching migrant workers’ children; founding an AIDS organization before HIV had a name; running for the Legislature when told a person like me couldn’t win (and would never be effective once there); successfully standing up to then-Gov. George W. Bush as a state representative while creating the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

I recently celebrated my 54th birthday. It’s a fitting time for me to look back, but instead many of you have urged me to look forward. So, after hearing from hundreds of you, once again I’m stepping beyond my comfort zone. I’m taking another personal risk. And I want you to stand with me in doing so.

Today I am proud to announce that I will be a candidate for Chair of the Texas Democratic Party at the State Convention this June in Fort Worth.

This is most definately a good thing for Texan democrats.  The party has needed a leader like Maxey for quite some time.  Please join me in supporting Glen Maxey for Texas Democratic Chair.

Maxey’s letter went on to give several reasons why he is running, and why he would be the positive choice.  On the permalink page (click, below), you’ll be able to read the remainder of the letter.  Alternatively, you can visit Maxey’s website, www.MaxeyForChair.com, and read it there, along with a English and Spanish versions via podcast.

Read the entire entry …

Sam Johnson has been in office for seven terms as a U.S. Congressman, representing the Dallas, TX area. However, it appears that he may not have been the upstanding politico he has supposedly been touted as. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed a complaint with the House Ethics Comittee, alleging that Johnson misused the IRS for partisan political purposes (p..p..p..).

I’ll give you a moment to wipe the saliva off of your monitor after reading that last sentence…

This nice little complaint is coming on the heels of the revelation that Johnson was the source of the initial request that the IRS investigate Texans for Political Justice. Unfortunately, outside groups cannot file ethics complaints against sitting congressmen (nor can they be sued, or otherwise given the funk. It’s always nice to realize your local congressman may be above the law if the rest of the legislature chooses to overlook something (assuming something exists)).

CREW states that it files its complaint because:

under the long-standing ethics “truce” in the House, Members have been directed by their leaders not to file ethics complaints against other Members.

…Wait a minute, wouldn’t that be a bit of an ethical violation, anyway? Think about it. If you know some it doing something unethical, and you refuse to report it, doesn’t that make you just as unethical as the first? God I love politics and their synapse-misfiring philosphies.

Mi Amigo over at the Capitol Annex goes on to report the facts better (or at least less snarky) than I ever could:

CREW’s complaint alleges that Rep. Johnson’s actions violated 31 U.S.C. Section 1301(a), which provides that official funds are to be used only for purposes for which they are appropriated; the Code of Ethics in Government Service, which requires all government employees to uphold the laws of the United States and which prohibits government employees from providing special favors to anyone; and House Rule 23, which requires Members to conduct themselves in a manner that reflects creditably on the House.

Wait a minute… “…which requires Members to conduct themselves in a manner that reflects creditably on the House.”

Do I really need to voice the joke, or are we all giggling right along?

Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of CREW, states:

Rep. Johnson abused the public trust by using the power of his office to harass an organization which had taken a position with which he disagreed. Such actions are specifically prohibited by federal law and ethics rules and the House ethics committee should immediately commence an investigation into Rep. Johnson’s disgraceful conduct.

…I’ve never been too certain about CREW. I was even less certain after I saw their ethics complaint against Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA). It appears that Senator Santorum got a loan from a bank that states, “banking services are available only to investment advisory clients whose portfolios we manage, oversee or administer.” The problem with this? The Senator was not a client of the bank, at the time of his loan. According to Senate Gift Rule, Loans are Gifts – HOWEVER, Senators can accept loans on “terms availible to the general public.” Since Santorum was not a member of the lending bank, and therefore was technically inelligible for a loan from that bank – by the banks own policies – CREW is alleging that he comitted an ethics violation. Personally, I think they’re reaching, there.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see what comes of this bee in the House’s bonnet.

You know, I’ve been sitting here thinking about it for the past hour (ever since I first saw the Capitol Annex post on its essay request), and I’ve decided… I’m having my own essay “contest”. It’s not just for CD-28, though. Here you go:

• This contest is open to any candidate (incumbent, or otherwise) for any office in the State of Texas (including county and city seats).
• Candidates must submit a 100 word (minimum) essay to fyre@fyreplace.com, explaining why they are the best choice for voters in their particular race.
• Essays must be written by the candidates and not by a staffer. The candidate must place the following statement as the last line of the essay: “I am [candidate name], and I wrote the above piece.” Any essay not containing that line will not be published.
• The deadline for essays is March 31st, 2006. This gives a full month.

Here are the benefits for doing this:

• Exposure: Each individual essay will be posted to this blog, unmodified, in a seperate entry.
• Double-Exposure: Due to this blogs affiliation with the Texas Progressive Alliance, said essays may be re-posted to other Texas political blogs.
• Triple-Exposure: All essays will be tagged with technorati tags appropriate to the candidate, race, and topics, thus allowing technorati searchers the opportunity to find said essay.
• You’ll Feel Good About Yourself: You’ll be helping a small, struggling, just-started political blog make a name for itsself in the Texas political spectrum.

There you go, folks. Sure, it’s a fairly shameless attempt to draw more attention and traffic to this blog, but it also gives all candidates a chance to speak out. Additionally, I am not requiring e-mail silence on this one. Feel free to e-mail your favorite candidate and let them know. I do, however, request that if you e-mail one candidate, you also e-mail their opposition – just to keep it fair.

Technorati Tags: essay contest, state of texas, political essay

Powered by Qumana

My fellow TEXAdS associate over at the Capitol Annex has asked for the candidates of CD-28 to write a 100 word essay:

To all candidates in CD-28 (yes, even you Henry Cuellar), and in the interest of fairness being a nice guy, if you email me a 100-word-or-less snippit about why voters should vote for you, I’ll give all three of ya’ll “airtime” (in different posts) on the Annex.

Of course there’s always a catch to these things:

The catch: the piece cannot be written by a staffer (i.e., I want each candidate to write at the bottom of the email (in these exact words, no less), “Hey, I’m Henry Cuellar/Victor Morales/Ciro Rodriguez, and I actually wrote this.” Otherwise, it’s on the Honor System.)

Oh, and there’s a further catch.  The deadline is this Friday (March 3rd), and we (outside viewers) are prohibited from asked really nicely not to e-mailing the campaigns about said essay request.  It’s a matter of seeing just how many staffers are lurking out there, and reading the blog.

So spread the word in blogland if you wish… Just be silent on the western e-mail front.

Technorati Tags: Capitol Annex, Victor Morales, Henry Cuellar, Crio Rodriguez, Joe Morales, essay contest

Powered by Qumana