Dawnna Dukes Takes Tens of Thousand of Dollars from "Swift Boat" Republicans

Dukes not available for comment (3.00 / 2)

I liked how Dawwna Dukes was "too busy" to personally appear and respond to the news story, using the same excuses she has used when missing important committe meetings and votes that affect her constituents.  More of the same.

---

by: mikul101 @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 20:17:22 PM UTC

Yes (0.00 / 0)

Democrats should not take money from Bob Perry.  I was rather pilloried for making that suggestion as it relates to Rick Noriega.  

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 20:58:51 PM UTC

Noriega has donated that money away (0.00 / 0)

It's visible on his TEC report.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 21:02:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do you have a link to that? (5.00 / 1)

I'm not questioning you on this, I just want to see the mechanism by which this was done.  Regardless the man, and many of his supporters, were earlier incredulous when the question was raised. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy if he did this but before he did came a great deal of bravado in defense of the action.  

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 21:16:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

You can see his State House reports here. They were given on Christmas Eve as holiday contributions to two great organizations.

$3000 to Deployed Soldiers Family Foundation
$5000 to Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund


Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 21:49:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The TEC Report (0.00 / 0)

doesn't say that the money from Perry was specifically being given to these charities.  Why hasn't Noriega come out and said that he gave Bob Perry's money away to charity?  Why bury it in a campaign finance report?  While these look like worthy charities, Noriega never should have taken this money in the first place, or should have at least given it straight back to the source, instead of using it for political gain (yes, even charitable donations, in his own name I'm sure, will help him politically).  

---

by: Jeff Versteeg @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 22:32:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

lol (5.00 / 1)

Nothing would satisfy you, would it?

---

by: sos @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 22:51:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually (3.00 / 1)

Giving the money back to Bob Perry would have satisfied me, as I stated above.  And while we're on the subject, way to have the courage to post under your own name.

---

by: Jeff Versteeg @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 23:01:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

really dude? (0.00 / 0)

you attack him for not publicizing it and "burying it", then attack him for benefiting from it and getting "political gain".  

Could you not decide what line of attack you wanted to use?  

---

by: Joe @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 23:00:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes dude (0.00 / 0)

They're both legitimate and consistent complaints.  Remember, this is all KT's theory, Noriega has not come out and said that he donated this money away.  But IF he in fact did that, why not publicize the fact that he was doing it?  Because he didn't want to admit that he was wrong to take the money, and didn't want it to be in the papers again.  But he still gets political gain from everyone who knows that he donated to these charities, without the baggage that comes from telling them that it's actually Bob Perry's money (if that is in fact why he made these large donations out of his campaign funds).  

The bottom line here is that you don't have to publicize your actions to derive political gain from them, and in some cases, like this one, you will gain more politically by NOT publicizing your actions.  Any more dumb questions?

---

by: Jeff Versteeg @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 23:13:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good point (3.00 / 2)

    All we have to link these contributions to Perry's money is KT's apparently offhand comment.  But is KT speaking as

   1)  a BOR member commenting on an attack piece on Dawnna Dukes?

   2)  a BOR editor, giving the blog's opinion on where the money came from?

   3)  a paid member of the Noriega campaign staff, acting as spokesman for same?

   Would it be too much to ask KT, when he makes each of his comments, to identify which hat he is wearing at that moment?  Or should we assume that the Burnt Orange Report and the Noriega campaign are, as they say, fungible?

---

by: Buck Smith @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:03:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

#3 (0.00 / 0)

I'm not commenting on Dawnna's race as I am not taking sides in it nor the issues this posting discussed. I'm also not speaking as the editor since I'm not the editor, Matt is. In any case, posts written by writers are written as their thoughts. No one speaks for anyone else unless otherwise noted which it usually is.

My posting was to inform you that yes, the contributions had indeed been given away to a couple of great organizations (Deployed Soldiers Family Foundation and the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund) in lieu of simply giving them back to the contributor.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:08:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

With all due respect (2.00 / 4)

Shut up.

Here we are, fighting over who donates what to whom within the Democratic Party when the real center of evil doing is none other than Republicans like John, Mr. 34% W.'s derriere kissing and rubber stamping Cornyn and the other such incompetent and greed mongering Republicans in Washington and Austin.   Why are we not screaming instead about who gives to Cornyn, for example, and whom he pimps for?  It is quite obvious to me that Cornyn is merely a hired hand for his donors.  So is Saint Mrs. Hutchison, by the way.

Wake up and smell the rotted coffee.

I think it is crucially important for BOR to reveal funding sources for candidates because it sheds light on which entity the candidates might work for once elected.  Will he/she pimp for the donor or truly work for we the people?   Given the poor excuses for incompetent and corrupted Republican lawmakers that Texas has sent to both D.C. and Austin in recent history, I think this is a legitimate question that deserves deep reflection and discussion on the part of voters and the media (not holding my breath in the media category, however.)

Rick Noriega, by the way, not only gave Perry's money away but more importantly, when push came to shove, Noriega voted for the interests of the people over Perry's interests.    Noriega is no one's go-to-pimp,  unlike Cornyn, Hutchison, Delay, Perry, Craddick et al and their collective coterie of suck ups and surrogates.

Jeff supports McMurrey for U.S. Senate and will routinely trash Mr. Noriega on all and every level.   No truth about Noriega's military and public service experience or explanations about his list of supporters and donors will satisfy Jeff.   Jeff only makes the likes of Cornyn stronger by his continual assault on Mr. Noriega's ethical backbone of character and sterling service.  

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:19:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But that's what Jeff and Buck... (3.00 / 1)

Don't to discuss. They are solidly in McMurrey's court and they aren't looking to have questions answered, they're looking to make points of their preferred candidate.

There is nothing that can be said to mollify them or allay their concerns.

---

by: McBlogger @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 18:14:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jeff (3.00 / 1)

If Noriega made a statement, you'd trash him for not making it sooner.

If he had made the statement sooner, you would have trashed him for ever taking the money in the first place.

If he hadn't taken the money in the first place, you'd be finding something else to trash him on.

Why why why why why WHY is it so hard to focus on the positive aspects of your candidate you support?

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 21:41:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's not get off track here (0.00 / 0)

I guess we've gotten so far down in this thread that some of us have forgotten where we began.  To recap:

KT claimed that Rick Noriega had donated away the money that was given to him by Bob Perry.  His campaign finance documents do contain two sizeable donations that approximately match the amount given to him by Perry.  However, there had been no official statement from the Noriega campaign about the disposition of this money.  I was surprised to see KT, who is a paid member of Noriega's staff, posting this information in a public forum, when the campaign had made no official comment about it.

Naturally, I wondered if KT's statement were true, and if so, then why would the money be given away without any comment by the campaign?  These are questions that would confront even a casual observer, and asking them shouldn't have been controversial.  

Instead of receiving an answer from KT, or educated guesses from the rest of you, I got a lot of responses attacking me.  But this is a waste of everyone's time.  So I'll ask my questions again, and maybe some of you can attempt to answer them this time:

1) Did Rick Noriega in fact make those two donations because he wanted to give away the money that Bob Perry gave him?  Or would he have made the donations anyway?

If Noriega did in fact make those two donations because he didn't want Bob Perry's money around anymore, that raises other questions:

2) Does Noriega now think he was wrong to take money from Bob Perry?  

3) Does Noriega think it was okay to take the money, but now wants to distance himself from Bob Perry politically?

4) In whose name was the money given to these charities, Rick Noriega's, or Bob Perry's?

5) If the money was given in Noriega's name, do the charities know that the money was really Bob Perry's?  This could be a big deal for charities affiliated with the military - it's entirely possible that they wouldn't want to take money from someone who spent millions of dollars trying to tarnish the service record of a decorated combat veteran.

6) Why did the Noriega campaign not issue a press release regarding the donation of Bob Perry's money, when it would clearly be of interest to the voting public?  Why is the Noriega campaign instead using unofficial channels (e.g. this blog) to get the word out about these donations, instead of going through the press (or its own website)?

Can anyone answer these questions for me?  If you feel the need to attack me personally while answering these questions, that's your prerogative, as long as you advance the discussion in the process.

---

by: Jeff Versteeg @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 23:49:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Off track (5.00 / 2)

We can have a discussion about whatever we want. Just because you don't like the discussion doesn't mean it's off-track.

If you want to submit your questions to the campaign, feel free. We're not ricknoriega.com, as much as you think we are.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 00:12:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think the prior response proves the point (0.00 / 0)

Doesn't matter what is actually said, there are only 20 other questions that are caused as a result of any answer.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:10:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not to get off topic, but... (0.00 / 0)

McBlogger covered another important aspect of this story on his blog:

The really amusing part of Elise's article is that Dawnna is apparently uncommitted in the Speaker's race. She won't come out and commit to not voting for CradDICK, but her consultant says...

"Dawnna is uncommitted in the speaker's race. She has not signed a pledge card for any candidate. Any assumptions or assertions by Brian to the contrary are complete lies."

Uhm... yeah. Sure. Whatev. I guess the Speaker vote had a bit more traction than anticipated.

For the rest of you, I have two questions:

1)   Do you recollect Dawnna stating she was uncommited at any point?

2)   Do you think that the Craddick issue has more traction than some innitially predicted?

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

- Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: Doug Mayeux @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 23:01:01 PM UTC

Yes and Yes (0.00 / 0)

1) She stated that she was uncommitted on who to vote for at the AFL-CIO event on Wednesday, in response to a question about whether she would continue to support Craddick.

2) Her support of Craddick is becoming the biggest issue in this debate, along with her vote against CHIP, which is a related issue.

---

by: Jeff Versteeg @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 23:05:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Allow me to clarify... (5.00 / 1)

I had to leave the AFL-CIO early to attend the UDem meeting, and missed her speech. There is still a point to be made, however, and it wasn't until this week that she stated she is undecided. I could be wrong about this, but, why did she wait until now, when she has a legitimate challenger, to publicly declare that she is undecided? Every story I had read before Elise's last night, supported the fact that Dawnna was still backing Craddick.

On the second point, I agree.

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

- Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: Doug Mayeux @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 23:22:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

months ago (1.00 / 2)

She told anyone who asked (including media) right after the session concluded that she was uncommitted and had not signed a pledge card for any candidate.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 23:56:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Austin American Statesman (3.80 / 5)

After voting for Craddick in 2003, 2005 and again in 2007, Dawnna Dukes continued to support Tom Craddick last May, even after the Republican Speaker claimed "absolute power" to avoid the vote on a motion to vacate the chair.  

On May 23, 2007, the Austin American Statesman ran an article that said "A pro-Craddick Democrat, Rep. Dawnna Dukes of Austin, said she's sticking with him."

She never denied the statement.  Nor has she ever withdrawn her support for Tom Craddick.  Instead, she takes tens of thousands of dollars from his largest donors.  It appears if Craddick's people want to see her re-elected it is because they can count on her vote.

Like I have said before, Craddick D's must and should renounce their support for Craddick and pledge to not only vote for a different speaker, but also add the stipulation they will not be voting for another Craddick D for that spot.

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

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 00:27:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Witch Hunt (2.33 / 3)

Has anyone checked to see how many House Ds (not considered "Craddick Ds") have taken money from Hillco or TLR?  I believe TLR is another Bob Perry "front."  One Anglo D took close to $20,000 from TLR during this filing period.

Will we see a similar expose from BurntOrange on the numerous other Ds who took this dirty money?  Or, are we only offended/concerned when minority D's take their money? Just asking...

---

by: Yosef @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:42:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rhetorical (2.00 / 4)

I don't actually expect a response because it has long been BOR's policy to condemn minority D's while somehow looking the other way when white Dems, or the "good" minorities, continue to take Swift Boat Bob's money.  Dunnam and Eiland and Farrabee and Homer take Perry's money.  Hopson took $20,000 of Perry's money.  Pickett and Ritter and Senfronia and Veasey and Garnet and should I go on?  

By the way, we know that Hillco is one of Perry's lobbyists, but who represents John Nau?  Last I checked it was Locke Liddell Sapp.  Do you want to go back and see who Locke has contributed to this cycle?  Are they too a conduit for Nau's money?  If so, then the line between good guys and bad guys gets grayer.

---

by: Yosef @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:39:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bullshit... (2.75 / 4)

it has nothing to do with the color of anyone's skin. Other people have taken Republican money and still voted with the caucus, especially on the Speaker's race. Dawnna didn't.

Dawnna's been voting with the special interests for a long time. Just look at toll roads. HillCo doesn't only funnel money from Bob Perry.

I think you're pretty goddamn offensive with this oft-repeated 'you're a racist' attack against those who oppose Dawnna. I realize it's the only rhetorical device you can employ, but it really makes you look like an idiot.

One that last time... IT'S BECAUSE SHE'S A SHITTY FUCKING REP.

---

by: McBlogger @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 18:24:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Votes (1.00 / 1)

Not sure what "voted with the caucus" means?  Does that apply to selling out ACORN to vote with the energy industry or to sell out poor, minority students to vote against top ten?  Which caucus are you referring to?

---

by: Yosef @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 23:04:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, there's... (3.00 / 2)

fully funding CHIP for one. Not to mention not voting with the caucus on the Geren Amendment. Why she would be opposed to a secret ballot in the Speakers race is a good question.

Then, of course, there are her self serving votes her for her studio project. As for the top ten, I think tuition deregulation hurt more. Whether she ended up voting for it on the floor is irrelevant. She voted for the leadership team that forced it into existence.

What DOES eastern Travis county get out of Dawnna selling out? I mean, it's sure as hell clear SHE gets something out of it. So what do the constituents get?

---

by: McBlogger @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:38:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps (3.00 / 2)

Ms. Dukes, like Joe Lieberman, would be far more honest by switching party allegiances.  She sure doesn't behave as a true Democrat would in my view.

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 22:34:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Traitors come in all colors (3.50 / 4)

Dawnna Dukes has collected her 30 pieces of silver.  She has supported absolute rule in Texas.  Play the race card if you like, it doesn't change the fact tha Dawnna Dukes has betrayed Texas.  To say that Dawnna Dukes is not the only corrupt politician in Texas is certainly not a good reason to vote for her...quite the opposite.

---

by: rustysands @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 08:19:02 AM UTC

Consistency (2.00 / 2)

No, I'm saying for your argument to be credible to me it must be consistent for all democrats.  

Remember, the original post is, "Dawnna Dukes Takes Tens of Thousand of Dollars from "Swift Boat" Republicans."  

I think that's fair, but it is also fair to ask why there isn't another post that states "Jim Dunnam or Craig Eiland or David Farabee or Chuck Hopson(who took $20,000 from TLR)or Ritter or Pickett or any of the other Democrats who have taken the exact same contributions that you criticize Dawnna for taking, Takes Tens of Thousands of Dollars from 'Swift Boat' Republicans."

---

by: Yosef @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 22:39:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, mostly because... (5.00 / 1)

they've not been nearly as dependable as far as voting for things the contributors want.  

---

by: McBlogger @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:47:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, So Naive (0.00 / 0)

Have you once checked their records?  Those listed above are far more conservative than progressive, and would be Republicans in most other states.  But, your standard for them is different than your standard for minority dems.  You move heaven and earth to purge us in Dem primaries but look the other way when they vote for and with Craddick.  

Case in point, Dawnna's colleague on the Approps HHS s/c has always been complacent to Craddick's (and Gattis') wishes on health funding.  He never challenges their recommendations. Dawnna doesn't complain...she simply picks up the cause and is left to fight for additional health funding alone.

Hopson goes along to get along and YOU look the other way (or just simply don't understand what you are looking at...probably both).    

---

by: Yosef @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 21:18:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually (5.00 / 1)

Most of the Craddick D's aren't being challenged this cycle. Only 4 of the original 15 are being challenged, and they are getting challenges internally from their own district.

Your rhetoric doesn't match the reality.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 22:06:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Real Purgings (0.00 / 0)

Since 2003 -- I count 9 minority democrats that either lost to primary challengers largely backed and supported by the party establishment or were simply forced out.  This cycle, as you noted, there are 4 more. That's a lot of activity in minority districts...and this doesn't count the ones that staved off primary challengers.  

It clearly appears acceptable for you to "go after" minority democrats in primary contests.  I find that suspicious; especially considering that minority democrats' votes aren't necessarily any less progressive than the votes that have been cast in the same period by Robby Cook, Ritter, Homer, Hopson et al.  

---

by: Yosef @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:10:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Curious (4.00 / 2)

How many lost to another minority candidate and how many were recruited by the community?

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

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:26:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

right, but they'll cry about it (3.00 / 1)

there is the notion among white liberals that: "minority equals liberal"...which is the farthest from the truth.

i've worked with more black and hispanic candidates than all of the bor editors/writers combined and i can tell you that minority districts are (on balance) more conservative.

black and hispanic voters tend to be far more conservative on social issues and far more suspicious of political machinations than the average voter.

no one will back a challenge to a white dem in a marginal district because "that is the only kind of democrat that can hold that seat".

it isn't a question of purity or policy...it is a question of control and influence.

to say that the race of the officeholder or race of the voters in the district is not a major factor, is to lie--outright lie. it is an uncomfortable fact....but a fact nonetheless.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 05:16:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, to be honest... (0.00 / 0)

Hopson's the best that's going to come out of that district. That's not true for Dawnna.

That being said, even HOPSON voted for the Geren Amendment which would have allowed people to oust CradDICK and, in the case of CHIP, possibly restore full funding. It might have also pulled a lot of troublesome (especially for D's from red districts) legislation out of contention and allowed Hopson and others to help Dawnna. She wasn't interested in that. She needed CradDICK to push through the studio project.

As for your continued talk about double standards and attacks on minority Dems, we've been just as harsh toward Bailey and Rose. Which makes you a liar.  

Go sell the BS somewhere else. We're not buying your crap or your excuses.  

---

by: McBlogger @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 06:02:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's MY Point - You Are Not Consistent (0.00 / 0)

Rose and Homer or Cook (or any of the others) have very similar records, so why don't you attack those other guys with the same intensity that you attack Rose?  BOR has never given me an objective measure to qualify Dems as good or bad (and I've been asking for a while now).

So , don't give me a one vote benchmark...let's look at the major legislation that has passed the House since 2003 (when the Repubs took the majority)...tort reform, HHS overhaul (hb 2292), approps bills, electric dereg, etc. and let's judge these members based on an index of votes and not just the one or two that you want to look at.  As I remember, Dawnna gave perhaps the most passionate floor speech against Craddick's tort bill that session...that matters...the margin for its passing was provided by Cook, Homer, Hopson et al (and, yes, Rose too)

By the way, don't give me the fully restore CHIP BS, I worked in the House when Laney could have covered more children/services than was in the original 1999 bill but he decided to instead give Bush a tax cut bill that Bush later ran on as a Presidential candidate (and we all know how that worked for us).

Bottom-line: I'm saying it, but there's a generation of 30-something African American professionals who are watching and quietly asking the same questions.  If the party is serious about securing the young Black vote for years to come, you might want to humble yourself and address these peculiar irregularities.
 

---

by: Yosef @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 15:45:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Vote Your District (4.00 / 2)

By and large, the only "objective measure to qualify Dems" is whether or not they are voting their district. We don't expect every member to vote the same way on every legislation -- that's not how politics works. As someone who worked in the House, I'm sure you understand that.

There are a few times when BOR has, in the past, taken to task lawmakers that did vote their district -- such as when Rep. Rose and Rep. Raymond voted in support of the gay marriage amendment. I wasn't writing for the site then, but I'm pretty sure I'm remembering that right.

BTW, Hopson, Ritter, Cook, Homer, -- they all had primary opponents in 2004.

You're also mischaracterizing the '99 Bush tax cut bill. He proposed 2/3 tax cuts, 1/3 for education. Democrats forced him to flip that to 2/3 education, 1/3 tax cut. We compromised and worked together, back in a time when Democrats and Republicans could work together on issues.

That time ended in 2001, when Perry vetoed 82 pieces of legislation, followed by the Republican sweep in '02 and the reign of Craddick.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 16:17:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One more thing (0.00 / 0)

And this is just a technical observation. BOR's main writers have a heavy density in Central Texas specifically Austin. We tent to cover specific race around this area more than others. Hence, why we can more easily focus on Rep. Dukes or Rep. Rose. To be honest, it is probably that effect which is the greatest here.

We are an Austin based blog that covers Texas politics. Just like I would trust Off the Kuff and Greg's Opinion to write more about Houston area races (and they do) I acknowledge that we do the same here. Phillip does a great job though of expanding that worldview.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 16:30:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree to Disagree (0.00 / 0)

Let's agree that I won't decide whether Ritter is a good dem if you don't decide for me that Dawnna or Sylvester or Harold are bad.

By the way, Bush proposed and passed both a tax cut and R&D incentives for corporate interests that a dem legislature gave him. Combined those implications impacted education and CHIP.  

---

by: Yosef @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 16:50:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Come on (5.00 / 1)

I'm not going to go back and forth on what happened 9 years ago -- I have a pretty good idea, but if you worked there you will know better, so tada, you win that argument.

But -- I haven't once "decided" that anyone is a bad Dem. Find me a comment I've made where I support Brian Thompson. You can't. Maybe there's a reason for that.

And maybe you and Colin would do well to back off the "white liberals like to purge minority Democrats" line of attack. I'm an Hispanic Catholic who spent two years working for one of the leading Hispanic consultants in the country, two years working for one of the most rural conservative Democrats in the Legislature, and 18 months working for the former Chair of the Texas Legislative Black Caucus. I might -- just might -- have a slight understanding of minority issues. Never as much as you and Colin -- woe, no, I am young and therefore inferior -- but some understanding, nonetheless.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 17:27:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some of you guys (3.67 / 3)

need to get out of the Bubble a little more often.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:57:47 AM UTC

All that exists is the bubble (4.33 / 3)

There is no realer of a world!

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:50:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]