(This got buried earlier. Bumped. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
According to the Dallas Morning News the National Republican Campaign Committee has withdrawn it's reserved advertising buy as a demonstration of retreat in efforts to unseat the 20-year incumbent, Chet Edwards, in Congressional District 17:
The Republican Party has scrapped plans for a costly last-minute TV blitz on behalf of congressional nominee Bill Flores.
Democrats said the move signals that Republicans are giving up hope of unseating Rep. Chet Edwards. But Flores disagreed, saying that it means he's in such good shape, the national party can devote its resources elsewhere.
This is a story you're not hearing much of around the country-Republicans beginning to conduct candidate triage in which the NRCC and other Party entities are retreating in many congressional districts in order to conserve resources and invest in seats that Republicans have a better shot at winning. Pundits and talking heads love to pontificate right now about just how many seats Democrats are going to lose in the House. At times you hear 50+, and other times you hear as much as 100. I suppose we'll know on Election Day, won't we? One seat that Republican's were counting on though-Chet Edwards-may just be ok. That should give D's across the country some cause for hope.
What might prevent this massive tsunami of Teapot extremists being elected as Republicans across the country are a few nuggets that some aren't thinking about:
Republicans have begun candidate triage. CD-17 is an example of the NRCC beginning to retract its initial investment, retreat, and move on to fight somewhere else. As we close in on November 2nd Republicans are forced to hone strategy down to where they are most likely to win and target districts they are within the polls margin of error. All of that costs a lot of money, which is something the NRCC has trailed its DCCC counterpart for all of 2010. In other words, you're seeing Republicans beginning to create their own electoral firewall of what they are capable of winning versus what they are quite likely not to win. Which brings me to point #2.
Money. Democrats have consistently outpaced, despite gloomy predictions from talking heads, Republicans in raising money this election cycle. That is certainly a stark contrast to where Democrats found themselves in 1994, which is the mid-term election cycle pundits love to compare 2010 to.
Field operations. The fact is that Democrats have become really good at voter targeting, communicating, and turnout. Arguably the Democratic field machine is more superior then the Republican one given the electoral success that Democrats have enjoyed since 2006. Those successful election cycles have allowed Democrats to perfect their field machine over time, while Republicans have been sent time and again for the last four years back to the drawing board to try and figure out how to compete in the field. Rest assured that Republicans are not capable of activating a field program and turnout machine in every single competitive congressional district across this nation. And where they may have a field program and turnout machine they still must compete with those on the other side of the political aisle which have become pretty good.
Platform. Oh yeah, that thing Republicans need to actually communicate to voters about what you would do differently than the last decade of tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of the market system, gutting of public education, ravaging the healthcare system, growing the divide between rich and poor, and otherwise causing the catastrophic economic mess this country now finds itself in. Hardly a Contract for America, right?
Leadership. Who leads the modern GOP? John Boehner? No, I don't think so--although he is set to become Speaker should Republicans take back the House, he hardly is the spokesperson for the Republican Party. Michael Steele? Naw. Mitch McConnell? Hardly. Sarah Palin? Yeah. Glenn Beck? Yep. Rush Limbaugh? Oh my-uh huh, I think so. The entertaining wing of the modern Republican Party is what has usurped the perceived leadership that encompasses the GOP. Voters are realizing that although Palin-Beck-Limbaugh might be quite the three stooges comedy skit, it doesn't inspire much confidence in leadership or policy.
The fact is that as we close in on November 2nd voters are beginning to take stock of the fact that the Rand Paul's, Sharron Angle's, Joe Miller's, Bill Flores's and Christine O'Donnell's of the world aren't capable of governing and are so fringe and extreme from the center of this country that one can only conclude that extreme has become mainstream in the modern Grand Ole' Party.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is back with a big buy in the TX-17 race between Congressman Chet Edwards and "Bailout Bill" Flores. I have to imagine that the alleged DCCC reallocation of funds last week was nothing more than a head fake to Republicans, because this ad is very strong and is supposedly got a big buy behind it:
Bill Flores received an $11 million taxpayer funded bailout of his failing business. Flores signed a document agreeing to repay the full $11 million.( Dallas Morning News, 10/9/2010)
When the business went bankrupt Flores admitted "the deal worked fine for everyone but the federal government"(Dallas Morning News, 10/9/2010)
After bankruptcy Flores and his business partners went on to make millions.
The taxpayers are still owed 7.5 million
There's another web ad -- posted by the YouTube account "billfloreslies" -- below the fold
The midterms are headed into the final two weeks of the campaigns, and the candidates are beginning their sprint for the finish line. In Texas Congressional District 17 that means we are going to see a blitz of television advertisements, and next week Democratic Congressman Chet Edwards will debate Republican challenger Bill Flores twice. The Bryan-College Station Eagle reported this week that both candidates are making their final pitch to the voters, and they are both going to be campaigning quite heavily in the district. The campaign for District 17 exemplifies the overall campaign during the midterms, as Democrats like Edwards have chosen to focus on local issues, while the Republicans like Flores have focused on making the election about national issues. Both parties have decided to follow the conventional wisdom. In stead of campaign on actually policy ideas the Republicans have campaigned as the opposition party, and have provided no real alternative. The Democrats have campaigned on their disagreements with the Obama Administration instead of campaigning on their legislative achievements.
Many of the major political observers are projecting the edge to Flores in the campaign, and Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight projects that Flores has a 95% chance of defeating Edwards. Real Clear Politics, CQ Politics, and the Cook Political Report all have the race leaning Republican, but I wouldn't call this race for Flores just yet. First of all there has been no real public opinion polling in this campaign, with the exception of internal polling which generally favor the campaign conducting the poll. Edwards also has history on his side. He has defeated three straight Republican challengers, and actually fairs better in midterm elections than he does in Presidential election years. That being said, this is a seriously tough year for Democrats in any district. Let alone a district in which President Obama only received about 35% of the vote in during the 2008 election. In many ways this is Flores' campaign to lose.
With the only polling in the 17th Congressional district coming from the Republican candidate Bill Flores, it's not entirely surprising that Democratic incumbent Chet Edwards would share his numbers as well.
Yesterday the Edwards campaign released internal polling showing he's trailing Flores by 4 points, as compared to the 12 point deficit Flores's poll showed three weeks ago. Edwards' longtime pollster Bennett, Petts & Normington released a memo outlining their findings.
Findings from our most recent survey conducted October 4-5 show Chet Edwards gaining ground and moving into a tight race with challenger Bill Flores. Over the lass 3 weeks Edwards has cut Flores' margin by more than half, with the race closing from ten points own to only four. Currently, Edwards received 42% of the vote while Flores receives 46% and 11% are still undecided in the race for Congress in TX-17. In a district where Republicans outnumber Democrats by a margin of two-to-one, Chet Edwards is in a neck-and-neck race with his opponent.
The Edwards campaign stated their internal numbers had him down 10 points three weeks ago, which would track with the Flores campaign poll from that time showing a 12 point gap. That gives some credibility to Edwards's release, even with it being partisan internal numbers, because they appear to mirror Flores's partisan internal numbers.
If Chet were able to pull out a victory next month in the most Republican district held by a Democrat in the U.S. House- especially this cycle- it would be the upset of the year and a testament to the relationship he has built with voters in his district (as well as his field operation).
The political advertisements from have become a regular feature on televisions across Texas Congressional District 17, as both Democrat Congressman Chet Edwards and Republican Bill Flores flood the airwaves with advertising. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, over $1.8 million has been spent already by both campaigns, and while Flores has already spent $1.2 million Edwards has over $2.1 million cash on hand that he will likely spend in the an advertising blitz during the last month of the campaign. However, there is not just money being spent by the two campaigns trying to influence the election in District 17. A conservative advocacy group, American Future Fund, is also spending money in the district. The AFF has released two advertisements attacking Edwards:
The culture wars have been largely absent from the national debate over the last few years. However, over the course of the last several months the culture wars have begun to heat up over the debates over immigration, religion, and gay rights. Among the issues that has been absent from the national debate has been reproductive rights, although abortion has been a secondary issue in some of the debates. In the campaign for Congressional District 17 there are several differences between the candidates, and the differences between the candidates on reproductive rights might be the most stark.
While Congressman Chet Edwards has a moderate voting record on several issues, Edwards has been reliably progressive in supporting reproductive rights and protecting a woman's right to choose. According to Project Vote Smart, Edwards has received high marks on legislative report cards released by pro-choice organizations for his voting record on reproductive rights. NARAL Pro-Choice America resented rated Edwards' voting record as supporting reproductive rights 100% in 2009, and Edwards supported the interests of Planned Parenthood 85% of the time in 2008. From 2007-2008 the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association rated Edwards has supporting reproductive rights 100%. Edwards has vote for protecting women's reproductive rights on several key pieces of legislation.
Edwards voted against the so-called Stupak Amendment (H.AMDT.509) in the health care reform legislation that not only prevents federal fund from being used to provide women with reproductive health care through federally funded programs, but also prevented women from receiving reproductive health care in private insurance plans if they used tax credits or federal subsidies. In 2006 Edwards vote against the so called "Abortion Pain Bill" (HR 6099) which would have mandated that a physician provide a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy medically questionable and medically inaccurate information. In 2005 Edwards vote for an amendment (H.AMDT.209) that would have lifted the ban on privately funded abortions at US military facilities overseas, a ban that prevents women from having the choice to terminate a pregnancy who are serving their country in uniform.
Last week, as part of a series analyzing the candidates for Texas Congressional District 17 positions on the issues, Left of College Station looked at the positions of Democratic Congressman Chet Edwards and Republican challenger Bill Flores on the issue of energy. This week Left of College Station examines where each candidate stands on the issue of immigration. Even though according to a recent Gallup poll only 7% of those surveyed considered it the "most important problem facing this country," immigration has become a hot button issue and is often connected to the economy by voters.
According to Edwards' campaign site, the Congressman believes that more must be done "protect our borders from potential terrorists and to end the flood of illegal immigration, which puts a financial strain on our local schools, hospitals and communities." However, according to a recent report by the Pew Hispanic Center, that "flood of immigration" has actually dramatically decreased over the last several years. While Edwards "strongly opposes amnesty for those here illegally" he also believes "that it is impractical and would harm our economy to try to identify and deport over 12 million illegal immigrants." Edwards has a mixed voting record on immigration. He voted for the Secure Fence Act which authorized the construction fence along the US-Mexican border, and recently voted for the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill for Border Security which adds 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents, and 250 new Customs and Border Protection agents along the southern border. Edwards also voted for the Real ID Act set minimal security requirements for state driver licenses and identification cards, but voted against legislation that would require hospitals to provide information on undocumented immigrants seeking emergency medical care.
According to Flores' campaign site, he believes that we must control our borders and effectively police our interior to "ensure that terrorists, drug smugglers, human traffickers, and other criminals are hunted down, prosecuted, and imprisoned or deported." Flores says that he would "never support any program which grants unilateral amnesty" and while "we need to improve the path to citizenship" it is important to "focus on securing our borders, enforcing our laws, and targeting criminal illegal aliens who threaten our neighborhoods and safety." However, according to a report by the Associated Press, the top four large cities in America with the lowest rates of violent crime are all in border states: San Diego, Phoenix, El Paso and Austin. That same report showed that police officers are much more likely to be assaulted than Border Patrol agents. During an interview with the Star Group newspapers editorial board, Flores said the federal government should "seal the border" and then "freeze" the immigration system, and then essentially deport any criminal undocumented immigrants and "try to make a decision about what to do with the rest." Flores said that when an "illegal alien takes a job with a company, they're taking that job, they're preventing an American from taking that job" and that companies should hire "legal Americans first."
Among the issues that voters are concerned about during the midterm elections, energy may not be a deciding factor in how they cast their votes. However, energy is often considered to be a component of the economy, and the economy will easily be the most important issue during the midterm elections. According to a recent Gallup poll, 30% of those survey said that the "economy in general" is the most important problem facing the country, and 28% said that "unemployment/jobs" are the most important problem. Where do each of the candidates for Congressional District 17 stand on the issue of energy?
According to his campaign web site, Flores believes that America should focus on fossil fuels and develop "more of our own oil, natural gas, oil shale, clean coal, and geothermal resources." Also, Flores argues that nuclear power should be developed and we should eliminate "barriers to create new nuclear power plants" because "it is proven to be safe, clean for our environment, and a cost effective energy source." However, Flores does endorse alternative energy and states that "expand incentives to allow more wind, next generation solar, and other energy technologies to emerge." While Flores states that he supports alternative energy he also is against Cap and Trade and argues that it would "stifle domestic energy development, kill our economy, and cause the export of American jobs."
Edwards makes the case on his campaign web site that there "is no one silver bullet to ensure more energy independence" and that it "includes more domestic production, research on renewable energy and clean coal technology, robust expansion of America's nuclear power and sensible conservation." Also, Edwards supports "tax incentives such as oil depletion and intangible drilling costs" as well as supporting "domestic gas producers to use hydraulic fracturing," and Edwards also supports "increasing nuclear loan guarantee programs."
Democrat Chet Edwards has a commanding cash-on-hand lead against Republican liar Bill Flores in TX-17. Flores has been caught in a lie -- not once, but twice -- and has defended BP. I expect Edwards, as he always has, to maintain a strong advantage in the race.
Republican Speaker Joe Straus has given $260,000 to House Republicans, and reports approximately $3,000,000 cash-on-hand. Makes you wonder why Michael Quinn Sullivan and the Republican tools at Empower Texans are so opposed to Joe Straus, until you remember the fact that their willful ignorance makes them one of the least respected groups in Texas.
Texas Congressman Chet Edwards played a key role in helping keep the Big 12 together. An Associated Press story from last week - "Pac-10 commissioner has no animosity toward Texas" - the Pac 10 Commissioner credited strong political pressure, which Congressman Edwards was out in front of early, to a key reason as to why the Big 12 didn't split up:
[Pac 10 Commissioner Larry] Scott said he believes the expansion to 16 teams with Texas leading the way failed for three reasons.
"Number One, I think there was a tsunami of Texas political pressure from Texas A&M and Baylor," he said.
“What we saw clearly during the past two weeks was the impact of swift and strong leadership on the part of our elected officials when the focus of the discussion becomes what is best for our community,” Starr told the Tribune-Herald on Thursday.
Congressman Edwards, for his part, played a strong role. At the request of Baylor leaders, Edwards called publicly for Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and Speaker of the House Joe Straus to hold hearings on the Big 12. The political pressure, quite clearly, worked well. Edwards released the following statement in a press release (read the full release below):
"I am proud to have worked with Baylor and Waco leaders to stop the breakup of the Big 12, and for Bill Flores to criticize me for that effort shows he is badly out of touch with our district. It is disappointing to think that someone who wants to represent Baylor and the Waco area would have abandoned us on a critical issue that will affect Baylor and our community's economy for decades to come."
Edwards' opponent, Bill Flores, thought nobody should get involved. He told KBTX that:
"The last thing you want is a candidate for federal office or an existing federal office holder getting involved in college athletics. That's not in the constitution, just to be quite frank."
Jeez, Bill -- is there anything you want to do, other than apologize to BP?
