Cornyn Names Corrupt Neo-Con to Campaign

Water seeks its own level (0.00 / 0)

And that usually is what is found in campaign finance reports.  The level of water.  Or in the case of Republicans, the level of sewage. 

For the most part Republicans do not seem bothered by corruption and in fact in many cases encourage it if it provides the means to an end.  And their end is obvious.  They are racist and oligarchist.    And in Texas, they represent a majority of those who vote and the legislative agenda in Texas is aimed at ensuring that majority is kept in place.  That should scare everyone.   

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Wed May 02, 2007 at 01:53:24 AM UTC

The list sounds awfully white and awfully male.... (0.00 / 0)

But I guess that should be a surprise.  Surpised there isn't anyone named Abramoff

---

by: sa grassroots @ Wed May 02, 2007 at 03:06:02 AM UTC

Remember Your Taxonomy (0.00 / 0)

Contra the post title, this guy isn't a neo-con (those are primarily foreign policy fantasists); he's more likely a paleocon.

---

by: norbizness @ Wed May 02, 2007 at 13:14:09 PM UTC

AG Cornyn (0.00 / 0)

I still don't know that I believe the rumor about Cornyn getting appointed AG. It just doesn't seem to make any sense.

------------------------
The Texas Blue - Advancing Progressive Ideas

---

by: Josh Berthume @ Wed May 02, 2007 at 14:18:47 PM UTC

... (0.00 / 0)

Not sure if I believe it either, but I think it would make sense.  Cornyn's name has come up for both openings on the Bench and AG the first few times, so his name being bandied about isn't that big of a surprise.  Plus, if the GOP sees him as being vulnerable, giving him AG would allow Perry to appoint a much stronger replacement to run in 08 (Dewhurst/Abbott), possibly saving Texas Repubs the major blow of losing a U.S. Senate seat.  But, I don't know if he's the frontrunner, but his name is on that shortlist that is making the rounds: Hatch, Olsen, Cornyn.  So who really knows...I sure as hell hope he stays put for 08 election.  I know the Senate tends to easily confirm one of their own, but I think a possible Cornyn confirmation would be pretty heated - much moreso than a Hatch confirmation process.

---

by: Indigo @ Wed May 02, 2007 at 15:00:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, but for Cornyn to give up a Senate seat that he isn't guaranteed to lose in favor of an appointment in a sinking-ship administration seems totally illogical. I mean, I see how it works for everyone else, but not for him.

------------------------
The Texas Blue - Advancing Progressive Ideas

---

by: Josh Berthume @ Wed May 02, 2007 at 19:54:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Terms Used & Quotation Cited (0.00 / 0)

Since I'm something of a Paleo in every other respect than "con", I'd like to wade in for just a sec with another old (but slightly fractured) saying and an observation or two.

Mr. Glazer is right in using the "old saying" above to assess the new Cornyn team, and it really matters little if his support network is made up of neo's or bridged-over paleo's; they are formed up in an enemy camp, and the friend of our enemies is...guess what?

However, let me say just this in the interest of fairness: I knew plenty of old-line conservative types 50+ years ago. Their views and make-up do properly define them nowadays as paleo-conservative. If it were possible to put them into today's political environs, most of those old guys wouldn't spit on any of the new-breed, or neocon, types if they were on fire. Nor would any of the more upright of them be shy about putting distance between themselves and the neo's, either. Unlike the neo's, most of the ones I knew at least had decent civic manners and a firm grasp of the difference between right and wrong. It's too bad there aren't any of them left, really. It would at least be possible to have a conversation with them if they were still around.

Yes; by all means keep an eye on Cornyn and his coyote-pack followers. If they step over a line somewhere, raise hell about it. Otherwise, don't lose any sleep over them. Strengthen your own abilities to fight the SOB's instead.

With that said, I'm compelled to point out that one possible means of keeping the scrap against Cornyn at least manageable now appears to be lost. The closed primary bill, HB3118, is set to die in committee. There are only a few days left to get it moving. If you young folks are smart, you'll get some people mobilized to at least try to get that bill off the table.

Let me spell it out for you all one more time: John Cornyn got elected in the first place because Republicans who skipped being identified as such by participation in their own primary raided the Democratic runoff in droves to vote for Ron Kirk. Kirk was the weaker candidate and the Republicans knew it. Kirk prevailed in a squeaker over Morales as a result of their shenanigans and got whipped badly by Cornyn in the general election. Don't think for a mili-second that the Republicans don't remember this.

Now; do you get the picture?

*** poll catt *** 

Seen It All; Done Most Of It

---

by: Poll Catt @ Wed May 02, 2007 at 16:07:58 PM UTC

That is illogical (0.00 / 0)

Kirk was a much stronger candidate than Morales, who is really not much more than perennial candidate now.

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed May 02, 2007 at 20:07:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh Really? (0.00 / 0)

I believe that the proper response is to ask: Based on what?

Ron Kirk was easily the most unpopular high profile elected official in this state at the time of his 2002 candidacy, and his profile wasn't that high to begin with. He was high-handed and obnoxious as mayor of Dallas and had generally worn out his welcome at home. Besides that, Kirk was virtually unknown outside his own locale.

But, enough of that. You are missing the point I've made.

To be illogical is more readily and believeably defined as drawing a conclusion that conflicts with events that one sees and hears first hand. I was a witness to what I've related in my previous remarks. I've also seen it in some elections past. I also can put you in touch with a number of other individuals who saw shady dealings in the 2002 runoff and might be willing to speak with you directly for verification purposes. Email me privately and we'll talk about it if you believe me to be a liar. The address is gooozh@yahoo.com. And the point is this: What happened, happened. Cross-over voting is a problem and registration by party preference is the solution. The Republicans didn't act in the 2002 runoff without calculated forethought. Think about it.

As for Victor Morales and his current status, let's tally up the score, based on your assessment: Two races + two back-stabbing campaigns by one's own party, added to interference by an opposing party in race #2 makes one a "perennial candidate", or loser, if you prefer. Doesn't quite add up for me.

Victor Morales earned everything he got by doing things the right way, including decidedly positive name I.D. You're wrong. He was a solid candidate. It is both shameful and disturbing that he got such lousy support from his own party when things really counted. The Democratic party of my recollection wasn't ever that way at its worst. It is also equally troubling that party insiders found it so easy to throw in with the repulsive likes of Kirk. It makes me wonder about who's minding the store these days.

*** poll catt ***

Seen It All; Done Most Of It

---

by: Poll Catt @ Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:33:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]