(Really? Huh. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Pete Sessions was one of the first members of Congress to co-sponsor John Boehner's bill, H.R. 3571, to cut off Federal funding to "Any organization that has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency."
The bill was intended as a "de-fund ACORN" measure, but Democrats figured out right away that the broad wording of the bill could also cut funds to a long list of military contractors, effectively defunding the "military industrial complex."
Progressives who don't know Pete Sessions have taken his his statement about disruptive town hall meetings out of context, as if he were challenging the screamers to "bring it on." But those of us in the District know that Pete Sessions is a coward. Re-read the Politico article and you'll meet a man who pines for a fantasy town hall meeting that never existed, where only "15 or 20 of your friends show up." But in today's town hall environment he's in his element. The screamers are his base. In this video, he answers a woman's health care concern by throwing them some red meat:
According to a Politico and Washington Monthly article, Session earmarked $1.6 million to a company he may or may not have questionable ties to.
[Sessions] steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps.
What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf.
Sessions has referred to earmarks in the past with unquestioning and unequivocal opposition. Saying earmarks are "a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people."
Of course, Pete Sessions staff member and spokeswoman Emily Davis defended the project before looking at a map. According to Politico, Davis said the airship project is a worthwhile use of federal funds and says it could eventually lead to thousands of new jobs in Sessions's Dallas-area district.
As mentioned above, the company is based in Illinois with a branch office in San Antonio.
Washington Monthly sums up the bizarre situation:
While lawmakers routinely support earmarks for their home district and/or state, this particular measure has nothing to do with Sessions' Dallas-area district. The company, Jim G. Ferguson & Associates, is based in a Chicago suburb. It has an office in Texas, but it's 300 miles from Sessions' district.
What's more, when Sessions submitted the earmark, he used a Dallas address for the company, but it was actually the address of a friend of one of the company's executives.
It looks a little suspicious. The leaders of Jim G. Ferguson & Associates admit they have no background in aviation or defense, and no expertise in engineering or research. It's why it seems odd that Sessions would direct $1.6 million to the company, most of which would go towards research and engineering on a dirigible project.
We use words like hypocrisy on this site a lot to sum up the Republican Party in Texas, but this extends well beyond a complex idea like hypocrisy. This seems, at the very worst, corrupt and at the very best, unethical.
Sessions is the National Republican Congressional Committee chairman (NRCC). He is in charge of both representing and electing Republicans to Congress.
National Republican Senate Committee Chairman John Cornyn isn't all to popular these days (and we're not talking about with Democrats). As the chair of the fundraising arms for his Senate colleagues, he's charged with trying to help them claw back to relevance in the upper chamber. So while money and message are very much in his court, he's running into some problems. Namely- his donor base is becoming increasingly conservative making him beholden to the very people that are turning off the voters he needs to win.
So what happens when you mix a NRSC chair who is a Texas Senator and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee with a Latina Supreme Court nominee, a NRSC fundraiser with Rush Limbaugh, and commentary from Newt Gingrich? An epic fail of GOP entertainment.
"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."
"Here you have a racist - you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist," Limbaugh said of Sotomayor on his show.
...
"When the rubber hits the road, such as in this nomination, where are these moderate Republican groups on the nomination? Where are the moderate senators? Where is Colin Powell? Where is Tom Ridge?" Limbaugh asked.
"I'm the one doing the heavy lifting. Colin Powell panders to moderate Republicans," he said. "If the moderates in the Republican Party offer no way to address this danger, then they are useless."
Important to note, Rush Limbaugh is headlining a fundraiser for the NRSC and NRCC on June 8th expected to raise millions for the committees.
John Cornyn's reply? From the Hill...
Q: We've heard Rush Limbaugh and the former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist, saying she should withdraw. What do you make of the rhetoric that's tumbling out these days?
A: I think it's terrible. This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent.
Q: Do you worry that language like that harms the discussion? Harms your party's image- especially among Hispanics, where the Republican Party's been losing ground lately?
A: Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials. I just don't think it's appropriate. I certainly don't endorse it. I think it's wrong.
Oh snap. Double snap with his added commentary in talking with KXXV TV (Waco/Killeen) today.
Cornyn took issue with Rush Limbaugh's recent comments about Sotomayor, saying it was a "rush to judgment." Limbaugh had previously called Sotomayor a "bigot" and "reverse racist" among other things. On Friday, Cornyn said "the comments I've seen are comments that I disagree with...It should not make any difference, the ethnicity or a sex of a judge any more than it should make a difference about the ethnicity or race of an umpire in a baseball game. Their job is to call balls and strikes, it's not to somehow impose their perspective because of their ethnicity."
When asked if Limbaugh was wrong to call Sotomayor a "bigot," Cornyn said that questions should be brought up about Sotomayor but "to do so in a civil and dignified proceeding. Name-calling is not the way to get started on the right foot." He also wishes "people would calm down a lot" about discussing Sotomayor's qualifications.
If Cornyn disagrees so much with the leading message and tone coming from Republican Party leaders talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh then he can show it by making sure Limbaugh's invitation to headline the RNSC's June 8th multi-million dollar fundraiser gets lost in the mail.
Just like Texas Rep. Mike McCaul uninvited Rush Limbaugh from his campaign fundraiser in Houston this week. Photographic evidence of that included below via the Austin American-Statesman.
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.
At this point, Pete Olson (R- CT, VA, and TX) has told some whoppers this election cycle. Heck he may have even committed voter fraud before running for Congress.
Now it looks like Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison won't even stick by Pete Olson or the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).
According to the Lampson campaign:
The ad falsely claims that Rep. Lampson voted against "Strengthening our border fence" and "Funding our military bases." In support of this attack the NRCC cites Roll Call Vote 1171. Contrary to the impression given by the ad, Rep. Lampson voted yes on this legislation, which funded a wide variety of important priorities including funding for military bases such as $7.2 million for Ellington Field in Houston and the border fence.
Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison wrote the bill referenced in the deceptive ad. While stumping for Pete Olson in Clear Lake, KBH was asked some direct questions were she pointed out the NRCC ad was deceiving voters.
Listen for yourself:
"The NRCC's use of blatant lies to distort Congressman Lampson's strong record is shameful; but the voters won't fall for their dirty politics," said Trevor Kincaid. "It's no surprise that Pete Olson remains silent when matters of integrity are on the line after lying multiple times about criminal charges he faces in Virginia."
The Lampson for Congress campaign has called for television stations to remove the false ad, and we are asking the NRCC and Pete Olson to apologize for deceiving voters. We are also hoping John Cornyn will denounce his former chief of staff's actions. He cannot condone such behavior and neither can we.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is using a full court press on the Republican Party this cycle.
A recent Roll Call article focuses on two races we have had our eyes on for a long time- Larry Joe Doherty vs. Mike McCaul and Mike Skelly vs. John Culberson.
Roll Call over simplifies to the two races saying:
Culberson's 7th district encompasses much of Houston's western suburbs and is among the most conservative in a state that remains a Republican stronghold. But Culberson's opponent, businessman Michael Skelly, has attempted to position himself as a conservative Democrat and has vowed to spend $1 million of his own money on the race. As of June 30, he had nearly doubled the incumbent in cash on hand.
McCaul's 10th district, stretching from greater Houston's solidly conservative Harris County in the east to the Austin region's Democratic-leaning Travis County in the west, has the potential to be politically problematic for Republicans.
The Republican Party and President Bush are incredibly unpopular (even in Texas), and both McCaul and Culberson like to highlight their close ties and friendships with this administration. The Republican's are losing control of the Texas House. They are losing more down ballot races than ever before. Their most vocal advocated tell voters their economic woes are all in their head.
Democrats on the other hand are better funded than they have been in nearly a decade. There is more passion and focus on the Democratic Party than there has been in years.
Maybe that is why "Republican operatives who follow Texas Congressional races concede that neither the 7th district nor the 10th will be the easy ride they've been for the Republicans since being redrawn in 2003 as part of the redistricting of Lone Star State House seats engineered by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas)."
While Julie Shutley, the spokes person for the National Republican Congressional Committee argues that McCain helps McCaul and Culberson, I am at a loss to figure out how. Barack Obama received more votes in the primary than John Kerry or Al Gore received in the 2004 or 2000 general election. We have more candidates running down ballot in both districts, which will encourage Independents and disenfranchised Republicans to vote for one or more Democrat and prevent them from voting straight ticket.
"Even in Texas, one of the reddest states in the country, people are fed up," DCCC spokeswoman Kyra Jennings said. "Combine this desire for change with the strong campaigns both Michael Skelly and Larry Joe Doherty are running, and it offers Democrats unique opportunities in Texas this year."
[...]
But Skelly's team believes a district whose economy relies heavily on the energy industry will respond favorably to a candidate with his background, and they predict that fiscal conservatives disappointed with Congress' record on spending and the deficit could help him win an unexpected victory. Skelly, on cable television with his second ad, is already courting voters; Culberson intends to wait until after Labor Day to launch his air war.
At the end of that sentence, read, "Skelly is already on TV because he has the money, support, and network to be able too... Culberson doesn't so he is forced to leave Skelly on TV by himself."
While CD-07 is decidedly moderate or leans conservative, the 10th district is one of the Tom DeLay fajita strip districts. It is a "classic gerrymander" district drawn up as a "majority Republican seat by cobbling together a collection of conservative-leaning rural counties and anchoring them on either side by portions of growing counties."
The district is less Republican today than it was yesterday and is probably the most rapidly trending seat in Texas.
Doherty's optimism is [anchored in] the increasing number of Democratic voters in Travis County, which is a liberal enclave in an otherwise sea of red, and the fact that McCaul's Democratic opponent in 2006 garnered 40 percent of the vote while being outspent by the incumbent $1.1 million to $65,000.
Doherty's strategy is to court moderate voters who are most interested in a change in Washington, D.C., while maximizing turnout in Travis County and working for a split in the rural counties. His campaign believes McCaul has not developed a close relationship with his constituents, and it plans to exploit that. McCaul's campaign vehemently denies that contention.
Again Roll Call gets it wrong. Travis County is not a island of blue in a sea of red anymore. Hays County, Williamson County and Bastrop County are all purple counties turning rapidly blue. People are fed up with Tom Craddick's pay to play model and Tom DeLay's unconstitutional Republican protection plan. Texans understand that the do nothing Culberson and Mike McCaul, the son-in-law to Clear Channel mogul Lowry Mays, don't represent them.
While Roll Call thinks it can't be done, it is clear that together, we can win two more congressional seats in Texas.
