Tom Schieffer Announces Leadership Co-Chairs

Back off the Bush issue (1.00 / 1)

I don't understand why people are so upset by Schieffer's support for Bush.  They are long time friends and business partners.  Sometimes friendship is more important that politics.  I tell you this - if I ran for office and my close friends did not support me just because I was in another party, then they wouldn't be considered close friends.  

There are things more important and valuable in life than party affiliation.  

---

by: Grubejs @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 13:07:35 PM CDT

That's pathetic. (0.00 / 0)

We'll all keep our own counsel on such matters, thanks. It says a great deal about a person's priorities, yes, but it doesn't necessarily say something positive about them.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 14:45:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What is pathetic? (1.00 / 1)

Is being loyal pathetic?  If so then I know that I am a very pathetic person.

I see his stance of loyalty to his friend as a positive character trait.  Lord knows we need that more than political convenience.  

If being a friend of Bush is so hideous, why don't we start dragging Good Ole Bob Bullock's name through the mud as well.  He did his share of supporting Bush at one point.  

Attacking friendships is not what the discussion should be about.  Focus on the ideas and policy and who would make the best Governor based on that.    
 

---

by: Grubejs @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:02:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and you're right (3.00 / 5)

"attacking friendships" isn't what this is about, so you may as well drop the straw man already.

What matters is that we have a candidate who thinks everyone should just ignore the elephant in the room, which never works. Ever. Like it or not, Bush is about as unpopular as it gets - especially among those who vote in Democratic primaries. That's Tom's albatross to shed, not ours. In any case, Schieffer's 'loyalty' to Bush calls into question his judgment and dedication to the notion of public service. At any given moment of truth, will Tom's 'loyalty' to his friends trump what's best for the people he's sworn to serve? Going back to the Connally/Preston Smith model doesn't move the ball forward. There's nothing in Schieffer's record to indicate his willingness to put those friendships aside when they conflict with the public good.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 23:10:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's nothing that argues otherwise either (4.00 / 2)

Scheiffer's record is pretty blank. All we got is Todd Hill's interview so far and he seems willing to repudiate Bush policies while defending him as a human/friend.

And from yo are arguing, no, it does seem like you are against Schieffer only because he was a friend and thus close to Bush. YOu want to debate policy, fine, what Bush policy did he carry out so problematically in Japan and Australia?

---

by: trowaman @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 10:58:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Was there a Bush policy (0.00 / 0)

for Australia and Japan?

...what Bush policy did he carry out so problematically in Japan and Australia?

Personally, for a future governor of Texas, I think experience with a theocratic country would have been much more beneficial for Schieffer.  

---

by: Elsbeth @ Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 00:27:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wrote a post a few months ago (3.00 / 1)

about Schieffer's fairly controversial record as Ambassador to Australia.

http://www.burntorangereport.c...

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 00:38:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, David. (0.00 / 0)

I hadn't seen that. Reading those articles (circa 2004) places Schieffer squarely in the middle of promoting the Bush Doctrine(s) while serving as Ambassador to Australia.

No wonder John Howard and George Bush were so close right up to the bitter end. Maybe he owes it all to Tom Schieffer.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 18:09:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tom and his bud Shrub Jr (0.00 / 0)

Tom Schieffer being buds with Shrub Jr. will hurt him with D's. Or anybody that hasn't been in a coma for the last decade.  

---

by: Bluefish @ Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 17:54:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hijole! (3.00 / 2)

there is a clear precedent in this community that friendship with "Gov" Bush is different than continuing to support "Pres" Bush. laney and bullock were big supporters (laney introduced him to the nation as the president-elect). but i ain't hearing laney defend iraq, plame, debt, etc.

yes it is a big deal. yes i have argued for bipartisanship (quite fervently). yes it is not the only issue. yes it matters greatly. yes i am biased.

we tried the rich, bush-best-friend thing in 02. not so much. $66 mil to get beat 2-1?????? and schieffer ain't spiking $66 mil into this.

---

by: colin @ Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 15:34:08 PM CDT

False comparison (1.00 / 1)

Ok, just because they're both rich doesn't mean that Schieffer equals Sanchez.  Until Schieffer opens up a bank and gets rich smuggling drug money into and out of the country they won't even be remotely similiar.  Not only that, but there's the obvious difference of last names, which did effect the votes in East Texas significantly.

---

by: David O. @ Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 10:55:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

flawed reply (3.00 / 1)

you are skipping over the part you can't defend and picking only the part you think you can defend.

read it again:

we tried the rich, bush-best-friend thing in 02.

you also miss a critical point:

don't blame it on the hispanic surname.  voters here were electing Dan Morales before you had a driver's license.

you haven't looked at the numbers or weren't here in 02. the sanchez campaign was poorly conceived and poorly run. we didn't lose the race due to racism in East Texas (you should think more carefully before making such a blanket accusation about an entire region...especially when it isn't based in any empirical evidence).

republicans registered more voters than we did. the emerging suburban areas were targteted by the gop and turned out in huge numbers. hispanic turnout stayed flat at around 12%, African-American turnout stayed flat, delay et al made an unprecendented push at the state house level (that worked, btw). so don't put this on racism in East Texas.

i'm literally at the decision-making point on which way to go this cycle with the top of the ticket. just not quite sure yet.

but i'm glad that more folks are coming into our tent and making it even bigger.

---

by: colin @ Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 11:50:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tom for Texas (1.50 / 2)

This is Charles Soechting.  First, I hope that everyone is as pleased as I have been at the inspiring job our President has been doing in the few, short months since he took office.  What a change.  Regarding the post(s) about Tom Schieffer, I have to tell you that I was, like some others, a bit leary about Amb. Schieffer because of his past relationship to President Bush.  ON the other side of that discussion is the fact that Tom served with distinction as an ambassador.  Like some of you I was curious about his philosophy.  I have talked to Tom at length and was impressed.  As a past Chair of the party I can tell you I appreciated and agreed with his views on the subjects we talked about.  Further, he has surrounded himself with people that I know, like and have great respect for.  Not least among those is Clay Robison, formerly of the Houston Chronicle,  Clay is that honest and professional reporter that covered politics honestly in Texas for decades and the fact that he works with Tom is all the proof I need of Tom's convictions and dedication to democratic principles.  Clay, Pete, Sefronia et al, that is the sign of someone who is in it for the people of Texas as opposed to someone in it for his friends and retirement (our current situation).  In short, I ask everyone to give Tom the opportunity to share his vision of what Texas can be.  This is a fellow that deserves to be seriously considered.  On a shorter note, a special thanks to the folks in the legislature who fought so hard to keep government honest this session.  CES  (as usualm I typed it but did not edit so forgive the typos)  

---

by: charless @ Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 21:47:22 PM CDT

even if we take out the Bush reationship (3.00 / 1)

why should we support him?  What has he done that shows that he would be a good leader for Texas?  I have heard that him time spent in the Legislature was unimpressive at best.  Are people falling in line because no one better is running?    

---

by: tamsterbath @ Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 00:49:04 AM CDT

Tom, the watered down D (1.00 / 1)

Tom Schieffer is a Republican plant in the Democratic primary. Watched his video, not impressed. An old white dude who's buds with W. Ain't gonna fly.

---

by: Bluefish @ Sun Jun 07, 2009 at 13:22:01 PM CDT

The Base (3.00 / 1)

As some of the comments on this site and others indicate, there is the possibility that Schieffer will not be able to energize the Democratic Party base. We shouldn't assume that the party will be able to deliver liberal and Tejano votes for him.  

---

by: texun @ Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 10:59:24 AM CDT