Burnt Orange Report

I had the opportunity to talk to Bob during the legislative session, and he told me all about the Dirty 30. I talked to hundreds of people during the session, but my conversation with Bob was the most inspiring. If he choses to run, and I really hope he does, he will have a great message to convey.

Keeping my fingers crossed...

"The great thing about Republicans is that they can't seem to wield power without abusing it, they can't exercise control without corrupting it, and, this time at least, they can't even do it competently."

So, it's only okay, if it YOUR guy that does it? After Bill Clinton's performance in office, I can't believe any Dim-ocrat would actually have the nerve to say what you've said.

I don't think anyone is excusing Bill Clinton's behavior -- but -- any reasonable person would not, cannot, should not compare relations with an intern to leaking a CIA agent name to the press, war on false pretenses, our largest deficit ever, soaring gas prices, trying to pass school finance more than 3 times to no avail, etc. They simply are different leagues -- and most American's do realize this.

That's why 70-80% were against impeachment and only 35% of American's approve of Bush.

If you truly patriotic, and didn't spoon feed of of the right-wing bull, you would see the difference.

Run Bob Run!

Off Topic. The thread isn't for Clinton discussion.

Chris, hamiltonfan, thanks for staying on topic. Anyone else have some comments on what this thread is actually about?

Sorry for getting off topic -- I just hate how the right-wing defends the poor policies of any Republican administration by blaming Bill Clinton. The man has been out of office for 5 years -- get over it.

Keep hope alive, K-T. Any candidate you support that hasn't made a decision to run has 10 weeks until early voting begins.

I bet the more people hear, the more people like. Baby Snooks likes.

Back to Bob Gammage, guys. Come on.

Don't feed the trolls, people.

I do wish Clinton had just said, "Yes, I had a little kinky sex in the office. And yes, I have a thing for slightly strange bimbo types. Hillary knows. But she's allergic to cigars. But what business is it of yours?" But alas, he didn't.

Yes, he lied to Congress. Yes, he committed perjury. But he did so over someone having caught him "up to something in the bedroom." And what man doesn't lie when he's caught? And he was caught not by a wife but by a country.

I think, and in some cases, know, that some of the holier-than-thou types screaming morality and perjury at the same time really needed a mirror. Republicans not only covered up the naked statues in Washington. They also covered up all the mirrors. Those are still covered up. Particularly the ones in Tom De Lay's office.

The same people peeping into his bedroom so to speak are peeping into mine. And yours. I don't like it. They are the ones Gammage is talking about. Including Governor Goodhair.

"The great thing about Republicans is that they can't seem to wield power without abusing it, they can't exercise control without corrupting it, and, this time at least, they can't even do it competently."

Only reason why they impeached Bill Clinton was because of the political advantage it gave them. Their "moral values" are really just further means to that advantage. No offense to anyone but the vast majority of the electorate in this country are not what I would call the brightest light bulbs politically. And BOTH parties like it that way. The Republicans are not only corrupt, they are godless in my opinion. They talk about Judeo-Christian values but their policies and their budgets are not reflective of those values.

Only way for the Democrats to regain at least balance in this country is for the party itself, as Gammage points out, to manage to bring itself back together. We need new party leadership. We need more Democrats voting. But we also need "seasoned" politicians like Gammage to come back and win some seats. And lead the way for others to. I believe 2006 could put us back on track to regaining a majority in Congress and in state legistlatures. To get rid of the Republican majority in Texas, we need someone with the authority as well as the appeal. Someone voters can't question. Someone who people will go, oh, I remember him. He was a pretty good representative/senator/state Supreme Court justice. Then they might remember the Dirty 30. And instead of listening to the "oddsmakers" they might give it another chance and hope history repeats itself. Gammage, if nothing else, is a winner. Which he has proven time and time again.

And I think even some Republicans will remember the Dirty 30 and take a look at Craddick and then at Perry and Gammage may end up with some of that wonderful crossover vote. And win.

Quite a few Republicans are as fed up with Perry as we are. And they are not impressed with Strayhorn. But probably would be impressed with Gammage enough to look over their shoulder to make sure no one was watching and vote for him.

Jesus F'ing Christ, BS.

Jesus F'ing Christ what?

Baby Snooks -- I'm starting to get scared! This is the second or third time I've wanted to give you an "Amen!" -- haha! For all the flack you get on BOR -- you make some damn good sense everyone once and awhile! ;-)

It's a result of age. Along with the lines and the gray hair comes a little wisdom. And a little common sense.

OK, I am not prone to go through and moderate comments but this was getting idiotic and nowhere near topic.

Any more Bill Clinton stuff will be deleted. One more mention of Dim-ocrat and I'm putting a temporary ban out for people. This isn't DailyKos where we have raving liberals running around calling people Rethuglicans or nonsense. We've had intelligent discussion on BOR with Republican commentors, but it seems of late they have no interest in doing anything other than antagonize.

Looks like we've come to a consensus here today: Bob Gammage for Governor.

"Looks like we've come to a consensus here today: Bob Gammage for Governor."

I'll second that.

Karl-T

"The great thing about Republicans is that they can't seem to wield power without abusing it, they can't exercise control without corrupting it, and, this time at least, they can't even do it competently."

This is what passes for "intelligent discussion" on BOR? If you "Democrats" are going to make antagonistic statements expect the same in return. You're so partisan you probably see that as a statement of fact, right?

It's not only intelligent discussion, it happens to be truth as reflected by the ongoing questions raised about any number of actions and policies of our current administration both in Washington and in Austin. Most Republicans of course wouldn't recognize truth if it hit them in the face. They're too busy waving their little flags as the band plays "Heil to the Chief."

Don't trolls live under bridges? Why don't you crawl back under yours?

I know that when I first had the honor of meeting him, I tried out Judge Gammage and then Senator Gammage and he insisted on Bob. He's a fine man.

That being said, I find it easier to call him Judge.

So if Republicans are so incompetent, then why haven't Democrats held any statewide offices since 1998? Or is Gammage now going to say that a majority of Texas voters who elect Republicans to statewide office are stupid?
And second, I can't help but laugh at the idea of BOR bloggers wanting to put a ban on anyone who criticizes their posts. Are liberal bloggers now becoming censors, while out the other sides of their mouths, they accuse conservatives of censorship? Actually, conservatives' responses on here are extremely mild compared to some of the stuff that the libs post at Democratic Underground.

I'd be curious then why so many of the national republican bloggers don't even allow comments to begin with...

And last time I checked, this wasn't DU.

Baby Snooks:

"It's not only intelligent discussion, it happens to be truth as reflected by the ongoing questions raised about any number of actions and policies of our current administration both in Washington and in Austin."

If a "Democrat" had been in charge after 9-11-- we'd still be having mass group therapy scessions, and candlelight vigils to help us deal with our "anger," and "hurt feelings," as the Iraqi, Iranian, and Syrian militaries march down Pennsylvania Avenue (in D.C.).

"Most Republicans of course wouldn't recognize truth if it hit them in the face. They're too busy waving their little flags as the band plays "Heil to the Chief."

The "Democrats," on the other hand, continually display their vastly superior intellects by burning the flag, and dissing America at every opportunity. Liberals are so drug-addled that they're incapable of recognizing the truth in any given circumstances.

"Don't trolls live under bridges? Why don't you crawl back under yours?"

At least I didn't crawl out from under a rock! You make a mockery of the term "intelligent discussion."

"I'd be curious then why so many of the national republican bloggers don't even allow comments to begin with..."

Just think of all of the scintillating conversations they're missing out on with "open-minded, enlightened, and oh-so-tolerant, liberal thinkers." Go figure it!

For Trey, Hollis, and anyone else who cares:

Not all Republicans are incompetent. Neither are all Democrats. So let's dismiss with that notion right away, because it's just plain silly.

The Republican majority swelled since the mid-to-late nineties has come, in large part, due to the culture of celebrity that most people in America are infatuated with. With Bush at the top of the ticket, many other statewide Republican races were greatly helped. That's pretty obvious, and I don't think many Republicans would disagree with that.

Republicans built a majority in this state on the "compassionate conservative" slogan, and they elected more people to office. They did better than Democrats -- no question, no objection here -- at building an image of the trustworthy party of the people. The thing is, as most of the current events have shown, that's not necessarily the case, at least not with the Republican leadership. In the past, Democrats haven't done a good job of convincing people of that. But that's all changing.

TODAY, we're working to show people that if you want to elect candidates that are going to put the interests of children who don't have health care ahead of the interests of people that compromise the quality of health care for profit, then you should vote for Democrats. If you want to lower taxes for a majority of Texas families, instead of raising taxes on the 90% of Texas families that aren't making $100,000 a year, you should vote for Democrats. If you want to vote for candidates that will put the interests of consumers ahead of insurance companies that continue to raise premiums while raking in record profits, then you should vote for Democrats.

Among a slew of other things, that's what we're saying. And we've made that pretty clear, too. We're not going to be the majority any time soon -- not likely, anyway -- but moving day is coming sooner than you think. So gear up and get ready, and stop getting your feelings hurt so damn much.

You sound pathetic.

"TODAY, we're working to show people that if you want to elect candidates that are going to put the interests of children who don't have health care ahead of the interests of people that compromise the quality of health care for profit, then you should vote for Democrats. If you want to lower taxes for a majority of Texas families, instead of raising taxes on the 90% of Texas families that aren't making $100,000 a year, you should vote for Democrats. If you want to vote for candidates that will put the interests of consumers ahead of insurance companies that continue to raise premiums while raking in record profits, then you should vote for Democrats."

Such wisdom! Vote for the "Democrats." "Democrats" care about the "little children," and everything that "Democrats" do is done with the "little children" in mind!"Democrats" won't raise your taxes, or cut your Social Security benefits (like they did in 1993). "Democrats" positively won't increase the tax rate on the middle class, or especially single people (like they did in 1993). "Democrats" won't hurt the consumer by pandering to their trial lawyer constituency, and spear-heading frivilous lawsuits against manufacturers (Tobacco Companies, MySoft, Gun Manufacturers, Fast Food Restaurants, etc.). "Democrats" won't raise insurance premiums sky-high by pandering to their homosexual constituency and instituting "gay marriage." Oh, no! None of that will happen. If you can't trust a "Democrat" politician, then who can you trust?

"Among a slew of other things, that's what we're saying. And we've made that pretty clear, too. We're not going to be the majority any time soon -- not likely, anyway -- but moving day is coming sooner than you think. So gear up and get ready, and stop getting your feelings hurt so damn much."

I've been geared up since Slick Willie took office. When the time comes I will do the right thing. Both Parties are corrupt. That's why I've moved to the Constitution Party.

"You sound pathetic."

Your arguments are too easy to take apart. It appears that you've gone beyond "pathetic."

I hope everyone realizes that every time they respond to Holis, they give him yet another thing to quote and write some screed about.

Karl-T:

Thank you for your contribution, Karl.

"Both Parties are corrupt."

The Democrats always seem able to address and correct that in their party. The Republicans don't. As seen repeatedly through most of the post-Eisenhower period. First Nixon, now Bush.

I like that word screed. Hollis is a screedy man.

I think BOR is great. But some of the posters lack a little historical perspective.

When I started working at the Capitol in the mid-1980s, the Texas House was probably the single most conservative legislative body in the country. That is probably still true today. The party labels changed, but the philosophy remains about the same.

But some things have changed. For example, out of 181 state legislators, not one is a Democratic Anglo female. Think about that. Think hard. Democrats remained competitive -- even dominant -- during the the late 1980s and early 1990s when the mayors of Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Corpus Christi and El Paso were Democratic women. The Legislature was chockfull of Democratic women.

Anglo women make up almost 35 percent of Texans and roughly 40 percent of likely voters. Yet Democrats cannot count a single one as a member of the Legislature.

Instead of concentrating on high-profile, top-of-the-ticket campaigns, perhaps Democrats should work toward electing down-ballot candidates who may inspire new -- or current Republican -- voters to their column.

"But some of the posters lack a little historical perspective."

That's why we like to learn some perspective from folks who've been here longer than us. Thanks for the post.

Hey, Phil, ol' notgonnatell does have some perspective to offer, even if he didn't quite have my history right on the campaign finance law testimony. We were fortunate to have Libby Linebarger and Patricia Gray and Debra Danburg and Ernie Glossbrenner and Sue Schecter in the House, to name a few. And after the 2006 elections, I think we may have some women of the Anglo D persuasion back in the House again, working with the outstanding male and female Democrats of all races to move Texas forward again, not that any of this has anything to do with Bob Gammage.

Bob Gammage may be a great guy but the Repubs will hand the ambulance chasing trial lawyer label around him and it will be fatal - as usual.

This state just does not elect plaintiff attorneys to statewide office.

Democrats would be much better off with Chris Bell. His hands are at least clean and he shows a lotof spirit.

But to have Radnofsky and Gammage at the top of the ticket with the plaintiff lawyer image?

It's a Republican dream come true.

Barbara Radnosfky is NOT a Plaintiff's lawyer. Just because someone practices law does not mean they are Plaintiff's lawyers.

My understanding is that Gammage does did do some Plaintiff's work at one point (and may still do) but that his practice is much more diversified than that.

BTW, the last state-wide "referendum" on Plaintiff's lawyers was Prop 12 which won with only 50.1 percent - hardly an anti-Plaintiff's lawyer mandate.

Dear Ed:

Your activity on that bill was not limited to "testimony." You and then-TDP Chairman Bob Slagle worked that hard. So, too, did then-RPT ED John Weaver and his boss, George Strake. (I didn't know that Strake, in his former life as Secretary of State, wrote the weak opinion. But I have no doubt you are correct.)

I helped draft the legislation, got the Governor's office to sign on, helped get Senator Chet Edwards and the House Elections Chairman (can't remember if it was Ernestine Glossbrenner of Alice or Richard Smith of Bryan) to sign on, and helped the danged thing pass into law. I remember that Gary Mauro, who served as ED before you, also was pushing hard.

You may think it was a sort of clean-up piece of legislation, but at the time it was a very high priority for you, Slagle, Strake and Weaver. And I did a lot of the work.

The truth is, neither major party can raise much money. And I don't mind corporate or union money being used to finance day-to-day operatations. In my experience, partisan broad-based campaigns (Jack Martin's brilliant work in 1982, Karl Rove's in 1994) have been most effective when run outside the Party proper.

That being said, I also think the major parties should have office space, phones, staff, etc. paid by soft dollars. There probably will never be another ED of either party as good as you or Weaver, but they should be allowed to have a copier and phone.

I'll call you tomorrow and buy you lunch if you want to discuss this further. It's not a big deal, but our memories seem to differ. I was being your advocate, so don't diss me.

"Democrats would be much better off with Chris Bell. His hands are at least clean and he shows a lotof spirit."

Except for his having been admonished by the same committee that admonished Tom De Lay with regard to the complaint he filed against Tom De Lay. Filing an ethics complaint and then having your own lack of ethics in the matter stated as such and put into public record is hardly what many would call indicative of someone whose hands are clean. Since that seems to be his main campaign platform, it's a very weak one.

"But to have Radnofsky and Gammage at the top of the ticket with the plaintiff lawyer image?"

Better be able to back that up. And if you can't, I would imagine the Republicans won't be able to either. At this point, negative campaigning brings up visions of the Bushes. And most people are angry enough that in this case it might send Democrats to the polls in droves.

As for Radnofsky, her law firm was accused of having committed legal malpractice in the Batson Report. May not be fodder for the Republicans since Kay Bailey Hutchison's husband is also with Vinson & Elkins, but it's still there in the public's mind. Much more so for Radnofsky than Hutchison. Hutchison is not a partner with the firm. And the implication that there is some quid pro quo in the bedroom really doesn't fly. Despite some attempting to give it some wings. Which of course only serves to focus on Vinson & Elkins. And on Barbara Radnofsky.

Like I said, I like her. But I wish she were with another firm. Hard to say you stand for ethics when your firm was accused of legal malpractice in the Batson Report. It's like a Chinese menu. Pick one from Column A or one from Column B. With both, you get Vinson & Elkins. Might be nice to have a Column C to pick from. One that doesn't include Vinson & Elkins. Maybe just plain eggroll instead.

When you get right down to it, most people distrust attorneys at this point. But in Bob Gammage's case, attorney is a minor point on his resume. And it's hard for anyone, Democrat or Republican, to really question his public service or the committment to ethics to be found in that service. What does Perry have when you compare him to Bob Gammage? Very little.

That right there is one very big advantage he has that no one else has. Has he ever lost a race?

Notgonnatell,

No diss intended and thanks for the props. As you know, we worked hard at most things, but I just don't recall that effort as one to allow parties to engage in "generous" political use of corporate cash as RPT has done in recent years, although we did think it a fair way to cover legtimate overhead. I saw Weaver was in Chicago testifying yesterday in former Gov. Ryan's trial. I enjoyed combat with John and Royal and those guys. Give me a call.

Ed

Maybe if Gammage runs we can stop hearing about Chris Bell.

"The Democrats always seem able to address and correct that in their party. The Republicans don't. As seen repeatedly through most of the post-Eisenhower period. First Nixon, now Bush.
I like that word screed. Hollis is a screedy man."

Of course you do! You like it, because you wallow in it.

Once again, I could demonstrate that the "Democrats" are guilty of the very thing you're charging against the Republicans, but Karl-T would just take down any new stories that I post to back it up. He's already done it on three other posts on this thread.

It's ashame that you open-minded, enlightened, and oh-so-tolerant, liberal "Democrats" don't believe in Free Speech. Your cowardice is sickening.

your off-topicness is more so.