First Texas Governor Rick Perry pontificated on whether or not it was an "act of God." Then Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott rushed to BP's defense. Now Republican Bill Flores, a former oil executive recruited out of Houston to run in the TX-17 race, is hurrying to paint BP as the victim in the ongoing coverage of the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
“I don’t think it’s helpful at this point to be having a bunch of Congressional hearings and trying to make victims out of the companies involved,” he said.
Congressman Chet Edwards was quick to respond:
"In light of the worst environmental disaster in our nation's history, which took 11 lives, coated our beaches in oil and will ultimately cost thousands of people their jobs, it is shameful that Mr. Flores is worried about protecting BP from being seen as a victim. As a recently retired Houston offshore oil executive, Mr. Flores might not know who the victims of this tragedy are, but the American people certainly do. Mr. Flores might spend his time worrying about BP being victimized, but I am a lot more interested in helping the true, hard-working, victims along our Gulf Coast."
"I don't know if Mr. Flores is completely out of touch, or is just more interested in siding with his offshore oil friends rather than the everyday hard-working citizens and communities devastated by the BP disaster, but either way, it's sad that he doesn't know the difference between the perpetrator and victims of an economic and environmental disaster."
Bill Flores defending BP? Good luck explaining that one for the next five months, Bill...
The Dallas Morning News reports that Republican candidate Bill Flores, running against Democrat Chet Edwards in Texas-17, is backtracking on his suggestion that the federal government should not be guaranteeing loans for the construction and expansion of nuclear power plants. From their article, "GOP House candidate Bill Flores backtracks on loans for nuclear power plants":
Nuclear power is a key issue in Edwards' conservative-leaning Central Texas district, home to Comanche Peak nuclear power plant. The plant is being considered for expansion, and most utilities say loan guarantees are essential for building new plants because of the high costs of financing the projects.
The Flores campaign initially called Edwards' claims dishonest and denied ever speaking against the loan guarantees. But after the Edwards' staff released the audio and specifics of Flores' comments at a Waco tea party event in February, Flores aides said he had changed his mind since then.
Edwards' spokeswoman Megan Jacobs said, "Mr. Flores cannot hide from his real position, no matter how hard he tries."
Flores made his original statements -- about how the federal government shouldn't be in the business of guaranteeing federal loans -- back in February. As the DMN article mentions, the Chet Edwards campaign has the audio, and released it on YouTube.
After Edwards released the audio, Flores switched sides. Flores' campaign manager, the utterly unintelligent Matt MacKowiak, argued the following in the DMN story:
Mackowiak said that after the Waco event, Flores spoke to several power companies that own nuclear facilities and they stressed the need for the loan guarantees
You know why Flores didn't say the right thing the first time? Because Bill Flores an NRCC-recruit who doesn't know a thing about the district.
Great to see the Chet Edwards campaign continue to take it to Flores like this. This is why Republicans can never and will never defeat Edwards -- he's too good at what he does, and they're too terrible.
(A terrific piece from Left of College Station, one of the best political blogs in Texas. - promoted by Phillip Martin)
All politics is local. That is, unless you are a Republican campaigning against an incumbent Democrat. Then all politics becomes national. At least that what Republican Bill Flores is hoping, as he campaigns against Democratic Congressman Chet Edwards. While Edwards campaign strategy is centered around painting Flores as an outsider to the district who was picked by Washington, D.C. insiders (and who accumulated his personal wealth in the oil business), Flores is going to attempt to connect Edwards to President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. The problem is that one strategy has worked before, and one strategy never has.
The Rothenberg Political Report reported on the results of a Republican poll which shows Flores leading Edwards by twelve points, 51% to 43%. Surveying 400 "likely voters" OnMessage Inc, a Republican firm, conducted the poll from May 2nd through May 3rd. Although, it appears that Edwards has a strong approval rating of 53% and only a 38% unfavorable rating. While 53% of those polled do not have any opinion of Flores at all, who has 37% favorable rating and 10% unfavorable rating.
The pollster, Wes Anderson, is framing the election as a referendum on President Obama and the Congressional Democrats:
"There are a whole bunch of Republican voters who like Congressman Edwards. They say that they voted for him in the past, but they aren't going to do it this time. This election isn't about Chet Edwards."
But Edwards responded to the poll by stating that Republican challengers and the RNC have release several polls over the years to predict defeat, and that this election will not be about President Obama and Congressional Democrats:
"I have my toughest time against a generic Republican who isn't well-known. By the end of this race, Bill Flores will not be a generic Republican. I intend to demonstrate by the end of this race that my values reflect this district better than his do."
This morning, Chet Edwards' campaign manager Alex Youn released a statement from the Congressman about his upcoming general election and a brief statement about his opponent Bill Flores.
"This race will focus on two key facts. First, I am a champion for our veterans and military families and have worked effectively on a bipartisan basis for jobs and economic development for our district.
Second, Mr. Flores has been recruited by Washington, D.C. insiders to try to buy our district's congressional seat with millions of dollars he has made as a Houston oil executive, even though he has never once voted in a general election in our district-not even once."
Campaigns, take note on this e-mail. It is four paragraphs long. It includes an introduction paragraph, a two paragraph statement, and an ask. If you are running a state house race of larger, you should sign up to get the campaign updates.
It also includes a contribution and a volunteer button as well as a video from the Congressman.
The message may sound similar.
This is incredibly smart. While Flores is coming off a nasty and brutal primary, Edwards is already moving forward with his campaign. Flores' campaign is being run by Republican consultant and Kay Bailey Hutchison apologist Matt Mackowiak who has shown time and time again he is both willing and ready to go negative at any time.
Regardless, of how Republican the district is, the Edwards campaign seems ready for re-election and the first e-mail out is highly encouraging.
On February 2, 2010 at a Republican debate, Bill Flores was asked directly by his GOP Primary opponent, Rob Curnock, who he had voted for in the 2008 General Election. Without missing a beat, Flores said, "I voted for you." He went on to repeat two more times that he had voted in 2008 for Rob Curnock, the 2008 Republican congressional nominee in CD17.
[...]
Official voting records from the Brazos County voter registrar, however, show that Bill Flores DID NOT VOTE AT ALL in the 2008 General Election. (Source: Brazos County Voter Registration Department)In fact, the only 2008 voting activity by Bill Flores was a vote he cast in the 2008 DEMOCRATIC Primary. The Texas Tribune also reported earlier this week that Flores skipped the 2008 General election (Source: Texas Tribune, March 29, 2010). The facts and the record are clear: Bill Flores did not vote for Rob Curnock and when asked about his vote, Flores spun an elaborate lie.
This is a stupid lie. This is someone who doesn't realize voting records are public information. He lies to the people in CD-17 because he wants to win and then lies again by omission when he fails to mention he didn't even vote in the 2008 general election. Makes sense he wouldn't fess up since in 2008, Flores voted in the Democratic Primary and now he has decided to run as a Republican.
Flores is a joke, a liar, and has already shown he is a political opportunist. Maybe that's why Republican shill and Kay Bailey Hutchison apologist Matt Mackowiak is Flores consultant and media contact.
Bill Flores is running against Democratic incumbent Chet Edwards in the 17th Congressional District. He has been recruited and supported by the National Republican Campaign Committee and Pete Sessions.
For now, at least, the BAE Systems plant is still alive.
The federal government's General Accountability Office has determined to uphold the protest conducted by Navistar and BAE Systems about the awarding of the defense contract to Oshkosh. They determined that the "Army's evaluation was flawed" and the proposals must be re-evaluated. However -- and this is important -- they denined many of the challenges made by BAE Systems, including challenges to Oshkosh's price.
What this means is that the contract is not necessarily staying here in Texas -- but there's still a chance. BAE Systems is now getting a fair chance at the bid, something they didn't have before due to Michael McCaul's gross negligence. Thankfully, with the help of Democrats like Chet Edwards and Bill White, BAE Systems will get another swing at the contract.
Last week, a day before his announcement, Bill put politics aside and joined forces with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to fight for an Army contract that could jeopardize more than 10,000 jobs (direct and indirect) and have economic impact of 1.8 billion annually to Southeast Texas region.
Bill said after the 90-minute meeting, "When it comes to matters affecting Texas, we put politics aside. That's who Texans are, at our best. Obviously, there are some who play by different rules, but that's who we are."
I'm still reading news reports as it comes out. I'll post something more this afternoon, once I get more details. For now, here's the official statement from the GAO:
We recommended that the Army: reevaluate the offerors’ proposals under the capability evaluation factor, in a manner consistent with the terms of the solicitation; conduct a new evaluation of Navistar’s past performance that adequately documents the agency’s judgments; and make a new selection decision. We also recommended that if, at the conclusion of the reevaluation, Oshkosh is not found to offer the best value, the agency should terminate Oshkosh’s contract for the convenience of the government. We further recommend that Navistar and BAE be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing the successful grounds of their protests related to their challenge of technical and past performance evaluation issues, including reasonable attorney fees. By statute, the Army has 60 days to inform our Office of its actions in response to our recommendations.
Navistar Defense, LLC, of Warrenville, Illinois, and BAE Systems, Tactical Vehicle Systems LP, of Sealy, Texas, protested the award of a contract to Oshkosh Corporation, of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56HZV-09-R-0083, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, for production of the family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV). Navistar and BAE challenged the Army’s evaluation of the offerors’ technical and price proposals, and contend that the selection decision was flawed.
The Army received proposals and conducted negotiations with Oshkosh, Navistar, and BAE. The agency selected Oshkosh’s proposal for award on August 26, 2009, and Navistar and BAE each filed a protest with our Office on September 4 and 5, respectively, with each supplementing its protest several times thereafter. In accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations, we obtained a report from the agency and comments on that report from Oshkosh, Navistar, and BAE. Our Office also conducted a hearing on November 9 and 10, at which testimony was received from a number of Army witnesses about the record. Following the hearing, we received further comments from the parties, addressing the hearing testimony as well as other aspects of the record.
Our decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms' respective approaches to produce the FMTV. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs are largely reserved for the procuring agencies, subject only to such statutory and regulatory requirements as full and open competition and fairness to potential offerors. Our bid protest process examines whether procuring agencies have complied with those requirements.
The decision was issued under a protective order because the decision contains proprietary and source selection sensitive information. We have directed counsel for the parties to promptly identify information that cannot be publicly released so that we can expeditiously prepare and release, as soon as possible, a public version of the decision."
While the NRCC may be targeting Congressman Chet Edwards, he's just fired back a direct shot with his 3rd quarter fundraising report. Congressman Chet Edwards’ campaign will officially report $1,125,907 cash-on-hand as of September 30th.
The total represents a record sum for the Edwards campaign and is over $200,000 more than Edwards reported at the same point during the 2008 election cycle. As of June 30th, the FEC’s last reporting period, Edwards had $869,464 cash-on-hand.Since that time he has added an additional $256,443 in cash-on-hand.
“As of the June 30th FEC report, Chet had a huge $855,000 cash-on-hand advantage over his closest potential rival. If Chet’s potential rivals have not significantly increased their fundraising, it will certainly raise questions about their inability to gain grassroots traction for their campaigns,” said Elizabeth Connor, Edwards’ campaign spokesperson.
2010 should be a better electoral environement for Chet than 2008 where Edwards is the federal race on the top of the ballot, not the Obama-McCain matchup. Also, Edwards is now a more powerful incumbent in a Democratic majority where he can get more done for his district as one of the few senior members of either party left in the Texas Congressional delegation.
"As Chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, he championed the building of a much-needed, new $927 million hospital for Fort Hood soldiers and families and worked with the Veterans Administration to bring 224 new jobs to the Waco VA hospital. That is an impressive record of accomplishment in just one year,” commented Connor.
Chet isn't a liberal Democrat, but he is a Texas Democrat and one that we are proud of each time he defeats a Republican. He's well on his way to doing that once more.
If you get a phone call tonight it could be from your Congressman. Chet Edwards is holding a telephone town hall meeting tonight between 6:30-7:00pm, and will call over 200,000 households throughout the twelve counties of Texas' 17th Congressional District. It should be expected that those phone calls will be filled with questions about the Obama Administration's health care reform plan. Many of the people that Edwards will talk to tonight will be critical of the plan to reform health care. It is evident from reading the internet forums, the comment sections of local media, and the letters to the editor that conservative constituents, that comprise a significant portion of this district, are critical of Edwards and have expressed their disapproval. However, in reality the people that should be expressing their disapproval are Progressives. While Edwards may not be conservative enough for some of his constituents, who would never vote for a Democrat, he may be losing support from the very people that help him get elected. While conservatives may have the loudest concerns with Edwards, progressives have the most legitimate concerns with Edwards.
Health care is one of the most important issues facing Americans today, and perhaps the most significant problem in the health care system is the number of uninsured people in America. The National Coalition on Health Care notes that "nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007." According to Health Affairs, due to the economic recession the number of uninsured people in America will increase by 6.9 million by 2010. Bloomberg reports that health-insurance premiums for families have risen 119 % since 1999, and in the last fifteen years America has increased the amount it spends on health care from $912 billion to $2.5 trillion and the amount of uninsured has only increased.
Edwards states that his goals are "lowering costs, maintaining competition and choice, and preserving quality health care." However, the most significant way to lower cost is to provide a public option, without a public option it is unlikely that health care reform will actually be able to significantly lower the cost of health care. Also, the idea that Edwards supports maintaining competition and choice suggests that there is current competition and choice, while for many Americans that only competition is the choice they have to make on whether or not they will actually be able to afford health insurance. It is obvious that "preserving the quality of health care" is important, but the real goal should be expanding access to the quality health care that is currently not available to many Americans. It is often said that the best quality health care can be found in the United States, however, who is that health care actually available to?
You want everyone in America to have access to affordable health care? Then it's time to make some calls.
We need to know which members of the Texas congressional delegation support the public option for universal health care, and which ones don't. The reason is simple, as Chris Bowers wrote, "Let’s Get Some Answers On The Public Option" --
For years, candidates for, and members of, Congress told us that we needed to elect and re-elect them in order to lower health care costs and provide universal coverage. And so, for years, we dutifully worked our collective asses off, delivering wide majorities for Democrats--who said they would lower health care costs and provide universal coverage--in both branches of Congress.
Now, when it comes time for them to deliver on health care by providing a public option--the care minimum required to reduce costs and provide universal coverage--what we are getting instead are backroom deals, flip-flops, and cop-outs.
Enough.
Everyone is on board with this plan. Health Care for America Now, Democracy for America, and dozens of progressive bloggers around the country are joining forces to ask Congress these simple questions:
Do you support a public healthcare option as part of healthcare reform?
If so, do you support a public healthcare option that is available on day one?
Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to Congress?
Do you support a public healthcare option that can bargain for rates from providers and big drug companies?
TX Democrats: Congressman Chet Edwards and Congressman Gene Green have not issued any comment about the public healthcare option. All other Texas Democrats have said "yes" -- that they support the public healthcare option.
TX Republicans: Not one member of Texas' Republican delegation -- including Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn -- have said anything about whether or not they support a public healthcare option.
Folks, its time to make some phone calls.
Follow this link to find out where each member of the Texas Congressional delegation stands. (I've also copy and pasted the information below the fold for those members of Texas' Congressional delegation that have not yet announced their position). That link also has phone numbers and e-mail addresses for each member of Congress -- write them or call them with the questions listed above, and then let us know what they said.
You can respond in the comments with any answers you get, or e-mail me privately at phillip@burntorangereport.com.
I'll take a Blue Dog over a Republican any day in a conservative district. You can't purify what you don't own!
Rural Democrats in Texas are a tough breed. They are always going to have a tough challenger. They are always targeted. They live and vote under a microscope. They are good, proud Democrats, but they are usually under siege by both sides of the electorate-- Democratic Primary voters and Republicans.
That's one reason I expected to see a few Texans on the list of the Blue Dog Caucus released by Huffington Post 2 days ago.
In the list of 51 members, there is only 1 Democrat.
The only Texan on the list is Henry Cuellar (TX-28), who is a Democrat who represents a very Democratic district.
In 2008 Cuellar won re-election by an impressive 40 points against Jim Fish. In 2006 Cuellar didn't even have a challenger. Cuellar will never be on the NRCC target list and that is probably even more true now that Pete Sessions is running the show.
The other surprise was not seeing Chet Edwards on the list. Edwards is having a great session already and his influence has only been bolstered by being on the Obama short list for Vice President. Perhaps that is the reason Edwards has left the Blue Dog caucus. In either case, the list is interesting for a number of reasons.
The full membership and it's leaders are below the fold.
Update: From a friend and former staffer to some Blue Dogs.
Chet has never been a blue dog, but there have been some significant blue dogs from Texas. One current congressman, ralph hall was a blue dog before he switched parties. Lampson was a blue dog on both of his runs in congress.
Also Charlie Stenholm and Max Sandlin were both Texans and Blue Dogs early on in the Blue Dog history - in fact, i believe stenholm was a founding blue dog.
To Congressman Edwards, sorry for giving you the label. The national online folks tend to tag Edwards with the Blue Dog label and I was wrong and passing the title.
