Ted Ankrum Endorses Dan Grant in TX-10

Well Done, Dan! (4.00 / 2)

That's great news!

Disclosure: Former Political Director for Lee Leffingwell for Mayor of Austin ('09)

---

by: sccs @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 15:11:28 PM UTC

It's the Economy (2.00 / 2)

Ted Ankrum did a great job in 2006 and he really showed that CD-10 could be a competitive district.  For that we owe Ted Ankrum an enormous debt.

I'm also very encouraged to see the economy is starting to make it into some of the CD-10 messages.  This will definitely be a year for dramatic change.

But this is 2008, not 2006 or 2004.  We're living in the past if we are endorsing/supporting a 2008 Democratic candidate based on the war in Iraq, a 2006 issue.  The war in Iraq is losing traction as an issue, the economy has now caught up to it in national polls.  The war in Iraq is a reactive issue and we are not going to win an election reacting to issues the Republicans defined.

Want pressing issues, read the paper, economists are predicting a recession soon.  Some say we are already in one.  In Texas we're not getting hit as hard as some other parts of the country but people are losing their houses because of the sub-prime mess.  Property values in much of the country are still shrinking because of the housing bubble.  Emergency room wait times are up.  Gas is $3 a gallon, triple what it was eight years ago.  Oil is $100 a barrel five times what it was eight years ago.  We have some very serious domestic issues.  Why are we endorsing candidates because of the war in Iraq?

---

by: countrycoder @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 16:12:16 PM UTC

Stop (5.00 / 1)

I don't understand why every time someone talks about the TX-10 you think it is a chance to go negative in your support for LJD.  This turns voters and supporters off.

I am uncommitted in this race but the more I see constant attacks on a man who has the courage to run, the more I want to defend him and his candidacy.

You do no service to the candidate you support when you attack, attack, attack.  Seriously, when post are positive, why do you drag them down with negativity and hateful speech?  That is a Republican tactic and in a state like ours, there is no reason to tear down qualified candidates. No reason.

Running a race is hard and building democratic institutions in war torn nations is nothing to squawk about.  Just like becoming an attorney is hard work and defending people in court is a valuable public service.

I hope you will honor this community and the people who contribute to it by resisting the urge to attack the men and women running for office because you simply disagree with them.

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 16:19:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hey pot, here's kettle (1.00 / 1)

Read your post and think about the utter hypocrisy when you personally have taken this very same approach(or supported fully) this approach in other races.

If it is wrong for Doherty supporters to do it to Grant, than why is it not wrong for you to do it?

This looks less like a moral argument and more like a "this is MY website and I'll put up what ever I want, but chastise you if you use my tactics in races in which I disagree".

It IS a repub tactic and I'm glad you finally acknowledge it. Under your "guidance" BOR has become the go-to place to attack Dems and find out negatives on Dems. That is truly unfortunate.

There are a lot of positive, great things we could be talking about. There are huge issues facing Texas that we could be educating other Dems about. There are voluminous amounts of knowledge and history and experience in this community that could go towards getting more people involved, more awareness of where to go to help, more excitement that we're fighting the Good Fight against the repubs and why we are right and they are so wrong.

I hope you will honor this community and the people who contribute to it by resisting the urge to attack the men and women running for office because you simply disagree with them.

Here, here.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 16:53:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Out in the Open (5.00 / 1)

I attack the Craddick D's because they vote against their district and hurt Texas.  How is Dan Grant's service harmful to Texas?  How does Larry Joe's Courtroom experience harm Texans? How is either getting an endorsement or attacking Mike McCaul bad for Texas.

When people like Mattress Mac go and fundraise for Mitt Romney we talk about it because it is bad for Texas.  When Dawnna Dukes fails to go to a Medicaid Reform Oversight Committee, we talk about it.  When a candidate gets an endorsement, we don't just start attacking because it is a non-sequitor.

Since you are referring to Dawnna Dukes, I will show the stark difference. Dukes is a far from pure candidate and an even worse elected official.  Her horrid votes and failed leadership are reasons to support a better choice for HD-46.  If Dawnna does anything good for the people of Texas or HD-46, please feel free to write a journal.  

She was the first out of the door during the Travis County Democratic Party kick off and never attends a single club or organization meeting.  She stands up people in her office instead of talking policy and she sides with the most conservative Speaker in modern Texas history.

Dan Grant and Larry Joe Doherty are improvements over Mike McCaul.  They are both brave men for having the courage to run.  Dawnna Dukes must go OR she must pledge to support a change for Speaker (that means no Craddick and no other Craddick D).  Until then, don't insult the honor of the thousands of men and women who have stood up to serve by comparing them to any Craddick D.

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:16:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

there you go again, again (1.00 / 1)

Moral relativism. It is okay for you to do it...just no one else. The crime isn't a crime because you had a "good" reason for doing it.

You have repeatedly attacked Dems with great Dem records. You have "promoted" a series of personal attacks. You have posted things that you knew were untrue as though they were fact.

I'm not sure where you were in 95, 97,99,01,03,05,07 when big fights about education, health care, vouchers and labor issues were going on. Dukes was in the middle, fighting the good fight and winning. Maybe those aren't important issues to you.

She was the first out of the door during the Travis County Democratic Party kick off and never attends a single club or organization meeting.

We're going to give this a name, "The Matt Glazer Special". It is when someone knows one thing to be true and says something they know to be false instead because it makes the point they want to make.

I left when she left. Over 75% of the room had emptied. I stop and talked to you on the way out. You know that statement is total horse hockey.

Even if your statement had been "she was in the first half of people to leave" would have been a lie when you typed it...and you know it.

If you get all offended when someone goes after a candidate you like, just say "i disagree with you, don't say that, this is MY blog".

But if you offer some high-minded, good intentioned reason for it--be prepared to walk the walk. Lead by example, Matt.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:45:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Last Response On this Thread (5.00 / 1)

You and I have not only gotten this thread off topic, your lies and total fabrications do not need another response after this.

For the public record, I have called you on the phone, e-mailed you, and left voice messages and never gotten a response. If your goal as her consultant is to attack me at a personal level when I have offered over and over and over again to put information up for your Craddick D clients, then you are doing a great one.

Call it what you want, but the guy I am supporting isn't paying me for my tireless support, and I have never said, "this is my blog" because that is simply untrue.  It is everyones site and everyone is allowed to write comments, diaries, and be a part of this community.  Look no further than your comments, they all seem to still be up even though you have lied countless times about mine and others roles in your clients races.

You are doing exactly what I said people should stop doing on this site.  Instead of pointing to issues or refuting statements, you attack me personally.

How is that going? Before your malicous back and forth after my Vegas vacation, I started volunteering my time and blockwalking for Mr. Thompson.  You recruited me to work for your clients opponent and now that I am sitting sick on my couch reading your personal attacks (again), I am looking forward to being healthy enough to knock on some doors again this weekend.

Stop presuming to know anything about me and what my background is.  A Democrat put Craddick in power in the 07 session.  Craddick bad for Texas.  Enough said.  Thanks again for ignoring all of my points and instead going after me again...  

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 18:00:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

bad poker face (1.00 / 1)

It sure is easy to see when I get your goat by catching you red-handed.

Through the smoke and mirrors, your message is:
Everyone else attacks, but Matt.
Everyone else lies, but Matt.
Everyone else is malicious, but Matt.
Everyone else has impure intent, but Matt.
Everyone else makes mistakes, but Matt.

Does this really seem realistic or credible to you? It doesn't seem so to anyone else.

You did call me ONCE and left ONCE voicemail that I didn't return. Days after you posted lies, denied you were lying, were proving to be lying: you call and ask for an agenda that you could have googled???

You can't win this argument because you can't win an argument with yourself. I'm simply holding up your own words before you. You can't explain your moral relativism and hypocrisy, so YOU attack. YOU deflect. YOU don't answer questions.

Was she the first one to leave, Matt? Was she even in the first 50% to leave, Matt? I dare you to answer truthfully.

You know she wasn't. You lied again to further your personal cause. You got caught again.

Don't cry and get all offended...just retire the "Matt Glazer Special" as a debate tactic. Be an honest actor who lives by the words he prescribes for others to live by.

Better yet, Mr. Editor. Read the comments left by this community over the last week. Not just on this issue, but on several issues. You tell me what you see.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 18:18:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How did we get so off topic? (5.00 / 2)

Just curious, and while I am hesitant to perpetuate the thread, I almost feel obligated to defend Matt, since he claimed he was done with the thread and you apparently felt obligated to attack again with your "last word."

If I interpreted the thread thus far, Matt simply wanted to ask why country coder felt the need to attack Ted Ankrum's endorsement of Dan Grant. This is not the first time Dan has been endorsed on BOR, only to have someone attempt to undermine his endorsement, in what can only be interpreted as not only an attack on Dan, but an attack on the endorser as well.

I left the above mentioned event early (my wife was home sick), so I can't authoritatively comment on this subject.

The core of this thread revolves around Dawnna's entire career. In the Air Force, advancement in rank was determined through testing and an evaluation of the whole person. I think this whole person would work well in this case. Yes...Dawnna represented the Democratic majority of her district in the first two thirds of her legislative career. However, if analyzing her as a candidate using the whole person concept, you have to consider her support of toll roads, absence from key votes, and continued support of Tom Craddick, some important questions are raised.

We are Democrats, and Dawnna's continued support of Tom Craddick is critically different from her constituent's values in what is absolutely a Democratic district. There is no debating this. Now you can try and argue that her intention was to gain influence for the benefit of her district, but as Matt reported in December, she doesn't even show up for committee meetings she sold out to participate in.

If you want to argue my analysis, please do so, but I politely ask that you refrain from personally attacking me. It's not that I can't take it, but this is not the forum for personal attacks. You are claiming that Matt is "holier than thou." I completely disagree, and at least in this case, I am confident that on BOR this is ample evidence that Matt is not the only Democrat dissatisfied with Dawnna Dukes.

The whole point of this story was to announce Ted Ankrum's endorsement of Dan Grant. I applaud Dan for his continued success, and as you know, agree with Ted. LJD and Dan are both great guys, but in this case and in today's world, Dan's skill set is a much better fit. OK, I'm done - my congratulations go out to Dan, and I won't comment again on this thread.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy.

- Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: Doug Mayeux @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 19:04:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks, doug (0.00 / 0)

i'll consider your thoughts.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 19:32:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's much more to Dan Grant than Iraq (5.00 / 3)

Ted Ankrum's endorsement stressed Dan's experience abroad, as did mine.  As you note, it would have been stupid for us to back a stuffed shirt with some Iraq credentials. But that's not the case here.  There's a heck of a lot more to Dan than that!

Dan understands economic issues as well as anybody.  (The London School of Economics will do that to you)  He understands energy issues, environmental issues, health care and education as well as anybody.  Most importantly, he thinks deeply about things.  When he doesn't know something, he studies it, consults with others, and becomes informed.  Those are the essential attributes of a good representative.  He isn't just right on today's issues.  I trust him to be right on tomorrow's.  

Iraq is Dan's trump card, and that's worth stressing, but the rest of his hand is pretty damn strong, too.

---

by: LSadun @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 16:54:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yes (3.00 / 1)

I actually think the Iraq thing isn't real helpful, compared with the London SoE.

Seems like there are a lot more gains to be made by being "fresh", with "new ideas", being one of a "new generation of Texas leaders", etc.

Haven't seen Grant around as much as Doherty, but every young person we can get involved and active and interested in running for office to make things better...we should be supportive of.

Matt is right when he cautions about blindly attacking Dems all the time because you happen to not like them or support them.

If folks are willing to wager their personal time, personal money, personal profile and personal reputation to represent our party against the axis of evil--we should respect them and support them as much as possible. Especially if they are young folks who have another 4-5 decades of service to offer our movement.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:04:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is Dan Grant: (5.00 / 2)

who has presented a plan to strengthen economic security.  

Disclosure: Former Political Director for Lee Leffingwell for Mayor of Austin ('09)

---

by: sccs @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:03:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can Iraq be made Economic? (0.00 / 0)

"Dan is the only Democrat in the race who can beat Mike McCaul," Ankrum said. "He is uniquely qualified to redirect the tax dollars being squandered in Baghdad to our own communities in Brenham, Bastrop, and beyond. "

In that small part, I see Iraq being made as a bit of an economic issue.  The redirection of tax dollars?  That certainly translates to the economy.

Speaking of tax dollars, I wonder if the economy in general or health care will become a bigger issue in the 2008 election?  Unless Iraq gets noticeably worse, it will be surpassed by something else as the main issue for 2008.  Maybe it will be the economy.  Maybe it will be health care.

I'm not staying very organized here, but I really hope it isn't the economy.  Hell, I'm not even sure if I trust all of the Democrats with the economy.  If economy becomes the issue, the potential continuation of a Democratic wave won't happen.

Democrats shouldn't focus on the economy in general, because American might not yet be uncomfortable with Republicans and the economy  (With George Bush and the economy, yes; but that's not always equal).  We should specialize it to health care, good foreign relations and trade, etc.  

Once again; can Iraq be made into an economic issue issue?  Or perhaps, it can be morphed to international relations; and I bet someone with savvy can easily make that economic.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:56:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can't we all get along (5.00 / 4)

My post was not meant as an attack of any individual but an attack on a strategy.  I admire both of our candidates and our two former candidates.  It takes more strength and courage than I have to be a public servant and to put yourself up to public scrutiny.

---

by: countrycoder @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:25:17 PM UTC

Congratulations , Dan! n/t (5.00 / 1)

"A time comes when silence is betrayal." Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: liberaldemdave @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 19:31:37 PM UTC

Congrats Dan! (5.00 / 2)

Having the endorsement of both Ted Ankrum and Lorenzo Sadun speaks for itself.

---

by: Kernan Hornburg @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 20:54:39 PM UTC

Along with all the other endorsements that hit BOR today n/t (0.00 / 0)

"A time comes when silence is betrayal." Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: liberaldemdave @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 21:29:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]