Burnt Orange Report

This surprises anyone? The only question is how much Garnet Coleman is charging for the "Vote for Chris Bell" postcards. Maybe Sylvester Turner and AL Green can endorse Bob Gammage and send out "Remember Chris Bell and Vote for Bob Gammage" postcards for him.

And "high-octane" is a good description of a man who assaulted his kids' principal and blamed it on his not taking his meds. Maybe he forgot to take his meds again when he decided to endorse Chris Bell.

Did Rep. Coleman ever return the Tony Sanchez GOTV rental vans and palm pilots? And will this bring Chip Staniswalis over to the Gammage campaign?

The Sanchez campaign gave away the palm pilots to the people who worked on the campaign. I still have mine.

Who the hell are you to presume to speak for Sylvester Turner and Al Green? What the hell do you have stuck up your backside that prevents you from moving on when CLEARLY everyone directly involved has?
And just where the hell do you get off ridiculing someone because of his medical condition? Do you also go around pointing and laughing and people who are physically disabled? I bet you are proud of yourself.
Garnet Coleman deserves your respect. He would show you the same courtesy.

So what if Sanchez wasted his money on stupid things?!? It was HIS money! Good God!!
What are ANY of you doing to further an honest debate on the issues of this race? You all talk a whole lot of smack, take cheap shots and post cute remarks on the Democratic candidates. Keep it up and Rick Perry isn't going ANYWHERE.

Garnet Coleman is the final piece of the endorsement puzzle that will allow Bell to cruise to victory. Who needs teachers' unions and trial lawyer dollars. With the Coleman political machine behind us, Bell 4 Governor can't be stopped!

"Garnet Coleman deserves your respect. He would show you the same courtesy."

I needed that.

Some move on because they find it politically expedient to move on. Others, particularly voters, have the right not to. Including me.

I have a problem with the man's actions, not his condition. He has a problem with his temper that has nothing to do with his condition. I have no use for anyone under any circumstances assaulting someone for no reason other than they lost their temper. End of subject as far as I'm concerned.

Again, Chris Bell says the sun rises in the west and Marie says yes, it does.

What the hell does any of what you have to say contribute to the debate about the future of Texas? You are mired in the past, determined to hold on for emotional reasons and are co-dependent on your misery and ill-feelings for those that you perceive have wronged you in some manner. You completely internalize things that are of little consequence to anyone or anything but you, however, and often successfully incorporate that emotional dysfunction in engaging people like me in fruitless and pointless commenting on BOR.
Get a life.

I was defending Garnet Coleman, not slamming Tony Sanchez, although he did spend a lot of his money very foolishly. I have the utmost respect and admiration for Garnet Coleman, and I hope he's the next Democratic Speaker of the House.

"You completely internalize things that are of little consequence to anyone or anything but you, however, and often successfully incorporate that emotional dysfunction in engaging people like me in fruitless and pointless commenting on BOR."

Sort of sums up the amorality of our society today. Some of the sleaze we have representing us are elected because no one paid attention to their victims along the way.

And I tend to externalize things. Not internalize them. In case you hadn't noticed.

"What are ANY of you doing to further an honest debate on the issues of this race? You all talk a whole lot of smack, take cheap shots and post cute remarks on the Democratic candidates."

Chris Bell himself does little to further "honest debate" when as soon as Bob Gammage announces his candidacy, he slams him with this "Cut and Run Bob" remark. And since then, he has yet to "debate" anything with regard to Bob Gammage. Now he's focusing on Carole Strayhorn. He's not being challenged by Carole Strayhorn in the primary. And it's doubtful he will be in the general election. The guy, in a word, is a loser.

Baby Snooks and Marie--

You both are upset because neither will talk about the issues, or have any debate of substance. Well, directly below this post is another post dealing with an issue, and there was another one about vouchers and another about the TRCC or something a few days before. Yet, neither of you commented on any of those. So, both of you keep going back and forth complaining about -- what, exactly? Each other? How is that an issue of substance? Where is the value in that?

Put up or shut up. You want to talk about issues -- great. So do a lot of other readers on this blog. Maybe if you two stopped complaining so much, we could actually do that.

Okay, let's talk about issues.

For instance about let's talk about Chris Bell's vote for drilling in ANWAR (courtesy of his vote for the Bush energy package) .... or his vote for the bankrupty bill? Take a look at 'opensecrets.com to see who gave him big bucks during his 04 campaign. (I'm not saying the votes were payback, just that it explains why he would vote against middle income Texans).

Want to talk about those issues? How about Bell's insistance on voting against the minimum wage increase while he was on the City Council in Houston. Is that an issue?

Bell's pontificatng about the TAKS test in the AAS story was so lame that a real teacher criticized him: Something ""He's playing to peoples' emotions about the tests."

The problem is not the test itself - but the fact that we don't fund a system that is sufficient to educate our kids. As Gammage points out - the test should be part of a portfolio of assessment tools. But, do we really want to teach the kids - then not see what they have learned? Sheesh!

Think maybe we ought to talk about a few real issues? Maybe the best thing is for you to go look at Bell's voting record before you issue another invitation to do that.

You may find a few surprises along the way.

Ah yes, can you imagine what comment ratings will do to the type of debate we see on here?

Chris Bell's voting record along with his campaign finance records speak for themselves. Some just simply don't listen to what they're saying.

As for vouchers, Garnet Coleman has endorsed him and yet has avoided the subject of vouchers. Possibly because his kids still attend private schools? If you're going to take a position on public education, how about involving yourself in public education by sending your kids to public schools? Obviously that is why Garnet Coleman avoided the subject of vouchers.

No doubt Garnet Coleman's voting record and his campaign finance records also speak for themselves. Maybe we should look at those as well as Chris Bell's.

When you look at his voting record in Congress you have to wonder whether Chris Bell is a Republican or a Democrat. Personally I think he's just another "Opportunist" and nothing more.

I suspect the "new mainstream" is discovering the "old mainstream" which is why Bob Gammage most likely will win the primary in landslide.

Should be interesting to see who he blames this time.

Coleman is telling people to vote for Bell or he'll beat the shit out of their kid's school principal, just like he did his own. Sounds like Speaker material to me.

Maybe that's the answer to improving our education system - replace positive reinforcement with negative reinforcement.

Instead of offering bonuses to principals and teachers, parents can just beat the shit out of principals and teachers.

Okay, Guess I'm leaning to Gammage, but on the thinnest of information. So far I can tell you this much about the issues dividing these two candidates:

Bell voted for ANWAR and the bankruptcy nightmare, voted against increase in minimum wage and took money from big gunsiness. Doesnt make me happy, but none except the campaign contributions tends to shed much direct light on how he would act as governor.

Gammage was part of a bipartisan coalition in the Texas Leg., so he also seems willing to compromise the party line. Gammage voted against Medicaid funding even when fetus is a product of rape or life of the mother is jeopardy. Very troubling, and potentially relevant to how he would react to new abortion restrictions, but he has repudiated the votes. Both think TAKS is overemphasized, but Bell's supporters seem to speak in stronger terms.

Can anyone point me to any other policy differences that could helped me make an informed decision? For candidates that seem so close together, their supporters sure are playing rough. Man, I wish Alvarado's check hadnt bounced...

That should read "big business" not "big gunsiness"

"Very troubling, and potentially relevant to how he would react to new abortion restrictions..."

The governor of Texas has nothing to do with federal law regarding abortion. Either the law or the implementation and enforcement of the law. If the governor of Texas had the discretion you and the Dirty Dozen imply the governor does, Rick Perry would have shut down Planned Parenthood and executed every private doctor who performed abortions. States have the rights to restrict abortion with regard to minors. But little else. To do so is to invite federal intervention in the courts and the courts continue to uphold Roe v Wadw and probably will continue to do so. Despite the personal beliefs of a majority of the Supreme Court justices. Bob Gammage is not going to singlehandedly be able to ban abortion in this country as governor of Texas. And more importantly, he wouldn't do so. Despite the diatribe of the Dirty Dozen.

"Gammage was part of a bipartisan coalition in the Texas Leg., so he also seems willing to compromise the party line."

As for Gammage not voting the "party line," in fact he voted the party line when he voted against the federal funding for abortion. If he'd voted for it, he would have compromised the party line. So I suppose you would have preferred he had compromised it then, but not now.

Compromising it at this point might not be such a bad idea considering some of the fools who have drawn the line. Molly Beth Malcolm and Charles Soechting in particular. Not to mention the Dirty Dozen who obviously just had a bone to pick and picked the wrong candidate to endorse in the process of picking it.

He was part of a bipartisan coalition that cleaned up state government. You left that out. On purpose no doubt.

"He was part of a bipartisan coalition that cleaned up state government."

I should add that it cleaned up the mess in state government caused by unethical Democrats.

Very easy for Democrats to point the finger at the Republicans. Very difficult apparently to look in a mirror. But Bob Gammage and the Dirty Thirty looked in the mirror and said they wouldn't have it in either party and cleaned it up. And we need to clean it up again.

And who better to clean it up than someone who cleaned it up once before?

Snooks -- Did I mention I was leaning toward your candidate? Hmm.. let's see, yes, I did.

True the governor can't overturn Roe. But he can veto new abortion restrictions, some of which might pass muster under Roe if they were not approved. I recognize that Gammage repudiated the anti-abortion votes of decades ago and am satisfied that he would not vote the same way. But to claim that these votes have zero relevance to the question of who would be more likely to compromise on abortion doesnt seem quite accurate. He is going to be confronted with a conservative legislature, and I would like to vote for a candidate that will make defending choice a priority. These old votes are marginally relevant to that consideration.

And OK, as for the dirty thirty Gammage has had streaks of bipartisanship and streaks of partisanship. So has Bell. I dont always agree with my party, or its leader, but generally I do, and would like to have a governor that will represent the views of that party. Gammage's participation in the Dirty 30 seems relevant to this question, but Bell's votes for ANWAR and bankruptcy seem more relevant because they are more recent. The issues on which Bell crossed over seem also to shed more light on how he would confront republican opposition -- a vote against a strongly held democratic position like ANWAR is more relevant than participation in ethics reform. I lean toward Gammage for this reason, but the records of both men are clearly relevant to this question. I also freely admit that I dont know much about this time in Texas politics, and would like to know more about what the dirty thirty did.

If that seems overly like an overly rigid use of party loyalty as a means to decide my vote, it is. I would rather vote with more information about concrete differences that separate the two men on specific issues that are likely to come before the governor. But I dont have that information, so I am a "low information voter."

I am persuadable voter, and there are probably many more like me. Persuade me, dont attack me.

So Bell voted for that Bankruptcy bill? Unforgivable. More unforgiveable than voting to give Bush the decision to go to war, because with the Bankruptcy bill, no voters were pressuring their representatives to support legislation. Just the credit card mafia and other large sources of campaign cash. Meanwhile, a whole lot of working people suffer as a result.

And he has the chutzpah to accuse DeLay of being corrupt?

One vote for Gammage.

The bankruptcy bill did have some crap in it, but most of the bill had passed numerous times before and simply been held hostage by Schumer over some dumbass thing about abortion (I don't recall the specifics). If Bell voted for it, he is not alone as most D's probably have it on their records somewhere even if it was not the last round of voting.

You seem to focus on Chris Bell's supposed position on abortion rights as a basis to lean in his favor with regard to abortion rights and yet his position seems to be indicative that he will appease the more conservative base. His votes in Congress would indicate he will do that so there is more likelihood he would sign restrictive legislation than Bob Gammage would.

In his own words:

"Nobody likes abortion. We’re all comfortable saying that abortion should be safe, legal and rare, but Democrats should not be shy about saying just how rare we think abortion should be."

"We can work to protect and prevent the choice at the same time."

"And despite all of Rick Perry’s grandstanding on the steps of the capitol every year, his policies have failed to reduce the number of abortions in Texas."

Sounds like someone who is pandering to the Republican position. Reflected, again, by his votes in Congress.

Reality is that sex education in the education system on both ends of the spectrum have proven to be total failures. Morality begins in the home. It is a parental responsibility to teach children to make moral choices. When the parents are unable or unwilling to, society has to step in to protect the child. And the other reality is some look upon abortion as merely a form of birth control. Nothing more. We are still a pluralistic society. Our laws are supposed to reflect that. Not a narrow theological view that some wish to impose on everyone.

The Republicans for the most part will allow abortion to save the life of the mother. Some would say allowing a 14 year old to have an abortion without parental notification is doing just that. Saving the life of the mother. And sparing a child who will come into the world unwanted and unloved. I am not saying that is right per se but it is the reality.

Bottom line of Chris Bell on any position is that when you look at his voting record in Congress, some would say that it reflects someone who sought to appease the more conservative base. Abortion is the one area where there was no real decisive vote in Congress while he had a vote to cast. So his "rating" means little. And as a result, you don't know whether he would sign or veto restrictive legislation as governor. You have only his public comments to go by.

Bob Gammage did not vote against abortion despite the diatribe of the Dirty Dozen. He voted against using federal funds to pay for it. There were and still are many Democrats who felt and still feel the same way. There are conservative Democrats. But Chris Bell's votes in Congress were not meant to appease conservative Democrats. They were meant to appease conservative Republicans.

I think an informed voter will look at his voting record. And make a decision on that basis. And also look at his campaign finance records.

There was a reimbursement to Alison Bell for a $500 "sponsorship" and it would be nice to know what the organization was that she "sponsored."

Was it Planned Parenthood on whose board she serves and whose members joined the rest of the Dirty Dozen in the unwarranted attack on Bob Gammage?

That didnt really give me information I didnt have, but helped me think about the information I did have in a different light. I appreciate the effort.

Abortion is important, and so are the following:
expanding access to medicaid, or private health insurance, especially for children, meaningful oversight of the insurance industry, resisting efforts to cut social services, protecting the environment, reducing reliance on prison as a penal sanction and strengthening indigent defense, fully funding education, and raising taxes to do all of this if necessary.

Are there substantial differences between the candidates in these areas, either in campaign statements or in terms of their voting record (either in the house or on the supreme court)? Are there campaign contributions relevant to any of these issues? Just if you know. Thanks again for your perspective and time

Joel:

straight from http://www.gammageforgovernor.com/issues

Pass a Texas Excellence in Education Act to guarantee fair funding for every school district in Texas-with the standard set at “excellence” for all, not just an elite few.

Ensure Affordable Health Care for all families in times of illness and injury. We need a Governor who will work with the U.S. Congress to create a health care plan that guarantees affordable health insurance to all Texans and all Americans.

Pass a Prescription Drug Price Relief Act to regulate prescription drug costs and stop the gouging of consumers. It is time to shut the revolving door between state officials and the industries they regulate.

Pass a state constitutional amendment guaranteeing every Texan the right to clean air and clean water.

Lots of strange, bitter "fool talk" going on here. To those fools, please stick to what you know, if anything. Garnet Coleman's kids go to public schools. I could name the schools, but some jerk here might harass them. Garnet has always consistently opposed vouchers and voucher proponents like Ron Wilson. And Coleman doesn't pocket money from statewide campaigns - that's just a lie the Perry-Craddick-Wilson team spread during the 2002 campaign and 2003 redistricting to discredit a man who has the guts to stand up to them, as opposed to those who kiss their collective asses. In fact, and to the contrary, Coleman contributes his own campaign funds to fellow D's in tough races.

But there's one thing Garnet just won't do: kiss ass. But every one of you who spreads BS rumors about which you have no first hand knowledge can kiss mine.

So chill, and stick to the issues instead of spreading hearsay invective. Or have a beer with Chris Bell, because no gubernatorial candidate I've known is more down to earth over a cold one.

Maybe Garnet Coleman sends his kids to public schools at this point because Montessori won't accept them. He assaulted the principal of a Montessori school. Not a public school.

http://houstonpress.com/Issues/2002-09-26/bestof/bestcity7.html

And he himself apparenlty admitted he just lost his temper. Hearsay from the horse's mouth? Or should that be the horse's ass?

If I have time to research it I will try to find the reimbursements for "postage" to him by campaigns. As I recall, he was reimbursed for "postage" when Chris Bell ran for Congress in 2002. Maybe he only "pockets money" off congressional campaigns? That's more ethical?

Could be wrong. If so, sorry. Just the same, I still have no use for someone who thinks it's acceptable behavior to go around assaulting people. Especially when they admit, as he apparently did, that he simply lost his temper.

On the subject of reimbursements, it would still be interesting to know what Alison Bell "sponsored" that she was reimbursed by her husband's campaign for.

The thing about BOR and the Bell supporters is when you ask a question on BOR, they suddenly vanish into the woodwork. Maybe because they know the answers would raise some questions about their candidate they don't want raised?

This has nothing to do either candidate, but can we dispense with the "who do you want to have a beer with" argument? One of the reasons we're stuck with Bush is that the GOP marketing machine sold him as a regular guy you'd want to have a beer with. I don't want a good ol' boy; I want somebody who'll do the right thing and make the difficult choices.

Maybe Chris Bell is using the same marketing technique without realizing that most "good old boys" are Republican. Or maybe realizing that.

I wish him luck getting the Republican vote after it was revealed Alison Bell is on the board of Planned Parenthood. Common ground on the abortion issue is not Planned Parenthood.

Is that where the $500 went? To Planned Parenthood? A little quid pro quo? "Endorse my husband and there's more where that came from?"