Instead of going out and doing the heavy lifting myself on a Texas vs. California update, Victor Davis Hanson [[Corrected. – LP]] has done another of his California is totally screwed pieces, and it’s a cornucopia of facts on California’s decline.
A few tidbits:
Salinas just named an elementary school after a serial cop killer
“Hundreds of thousands of the working and upper-middle class, mostly from the interior of the state, have fled — maybe four million in all over the last thirty years, taking with them $1 trillion in capital and income-producing education and expertise. Apparently, they tired of high taxes, poor schools, crime, and the culture of serial blame-gaming and victimhood.”
“One of every three welfare recipients lives in California.”
I’ve held off on offering up immediate judgment on the election because I’m incredibly lazy to get past the panic and knee-jerk reactions. The world hasn’t ended, Republicans are not doomed to permanent minority status, and the cause of smaller government is not lost forever. Go over that list of bright spots again. Republicans did not do as badly as they did in 1932, 1964, 2006 or 2008. And we survived those elections, just as the Democrats survived 1994, 2004, and 2010. We’ll survive this one.
One persistent theme in a lot of recaps is how badly Republicans did among Hispanic voters, and that Republicans must immediately cave on the issue of illegal alien amnesty to have any chance of courting Hispanic votes. Though no one can dispute that Republicans need to do better among Hispanics, much of the panic over the 2012 Hispanic vote (and the resulting predictable knee-jerk push for amnesty among prominent RINOs) has been overblown, for a number of reasons:
First, we don’t actually know how well Republicans did among Hispanics because the AP and the networks decided not to do detailed exit polling in Texas and 18 other states, the vast majority of them red states. Thus we don’t know the true percentage of Hispanics who voted for Republicans, as states where Republicans would do better among Hispanics have been systematically excluded from the count.
So take a deep breath. Republicans are far better off trying to pitch the ideas of freedom and limited government to Hispanics, and running conservative Republican candidates who happen to be Hispanic like Ted Cruz, than transparent and incompetent pandering via illegal alien amnesty.
Happy Friday the 13th! The big news this week is Ted Cruz topping David Dewhurst in two separate external polls (none of this internal crap) and Dewhurst not only making a pro-amnesty speech in 2007, but making things ten times worse by trying to scrub mention of it off his website.
Paul Burka believes the poll numbers. “I’m buying. The Dewhurst camp ran a lackluster campaign.” And then the usual Rick Perry bashing. (“From Smitty’s BBQ I stab at thee!”)
Those polls were so good for Cruz, some people are already starting to suggest that Cruz might have coattails.
Now on to what some on Twitter are calling #404gate: In a 2007 speech in Laredo, Dewhurst said “I support a guest worker program for those here today illegally.” If not full-blown Amnesty, I think it’s fair to call that “Amnesty light.”
Pulling the amnesty speech has just drawn more attention to it. I believe in the world of soccer this is what’s known as an “own goal.”
Has no one at Team Dewhurst every heard of “the Internet?” One does not simply remove something from the Internet. There’s always going to be a cache of it somewhere. And, indeed, there is.
Dewhurst has the Texas Republican Senate Caucus issue a letter kinda, sorta denying Cruz’s charges against Dewhurst on sanctuary cities, spending, and TSA groping. But if you actually read the letter, it only details the bare-bones legislative maneuvers, and not what Dewhurst did behind the scenes (which made up much of Cruz’s accusations). But give Dewhurst credit: He did get every Republican State Senator except Brian Birdwell to sign it.
Dewhurst appeared on KTSA:
Also on KSKY:
He also appeared on Fox News I would embed the video of it here, but the video quality is stunningly awful. We’re talking “wouldn’t even be acceptable for online viewing in 1997” awful…
You know, this Dewhurst Facebook Timeline parody attack video on Cruz might almost have been amusing if they could have made it shorter. But right there at 1:14, when it says “DC Special Interest Groups,” it has very legible icons for Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, and Senate Conservative PAC Fund. Guys, for the majority of people voting in the Texas Republican runoff, those are reasons to vote for Ted Cruz, not against him:
And once again, the Dewhurst campaign is slamming Cruz for being…a lawyer.
From The Hill comes word that Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar (28th District) will be joining many of his colleagues in skipping the Democratic National Convention in September. “As I get close to my election, I want to spend more time in my district and focus on my reelection. Right now, I have no plans to attend.”
The question is: Why? Most Democratic office-holders skipping the event are in competitive races and don’t want Obama’s unpopularity to rub off on them. Cueller is in a district that voted 56% for Obama in 2008. According to the most recent FEC reports, Cuellar has $600,000 in cash on-hand. His Republican opponent, William Hayward, hasn’t even filed an FEC report. Cueller survived with 56% of the vote in the Republican wave year of 2010, in a district that was a couple of points more Democratic leaning than it is now, despite having a perfect liberal record voting for all four of the big government expansion bills of recent years: TARP, cap-and-trade, the Porkulus, and ObamaCare.
Given all those advantages, why would Cueller feel a need to stay away from the DNC? A 56% Obama seat would usually be a few points outside what most analysts would consider a takeover target, and he’s a well-funded incumbent with an unknown, underfunded challenger. Has he seen some internal polls that give him reason to worry? Could voter ID have that big an effect on a border district (even assuming the Obama Administration doesn’t block it)?
Even though I’ve endorsed Ted Cruz, I think it only fair to point out that Dewhurst has, in fact, constantly stated that he’s in favor of repealing ObamaCare pretty much since he joined the Senate race. (I even used the Wayback machine to verify it.) However, Cruz has been more fervent and articulate in campaigning against ObamaCare, making the phrase “repeal every syllable of every word of Obamacare” one of his stock talking points from the very beginning of his campaign. He’s also discussed the 10th Amendment reasons why ObamaCare is unconstitutional, something that I don’t recall Dewhurst doing. (Dewhurst has mentioned the 10th Amendment in support of the Texas Voter ID law.)
Cruz’s worry (which I think is legitimate) is that Dewhurst might be willing to compromise on ObamaCare. And I could easily see Dewhurst signing on with some “Group of 14” (or whatever) to needlessly save ObamaCare despite a Republican House, Senate, and White House, rather than push for full repeal.
Which is why this rings a little hollow to me:
But unlike some of Dewhurst’s other ads, at least that one probably won’t cost him votes…
Here’s the video of last week’s Cruz-Dewhurst debate:
The Dewhurst campaign is pointing to this Cruz appearance on the Dan Patrick show as evidence Cruz is a hothead:
34 minutes? No time to listen tonight…
And here’s still another journalist opining that the mid-Summer runoff date will mean. Memo to the MSM: IT’S TEXAS! IT’S HOT! WE’RE FREAKING USE TO IT!
Grady Yarbrough and Paul Sadler also debated last week. Yarbrough said he supported a border wall, saying that the Berlin Wall was effective. Hmmm, I don’t think I would have made that analogy…
Speaking of things I’m not watching tonight, here’s KERA’s embeddable video of the Democratic debate:
More on the Democratic debate. Another summary. My summary of those two summaries: Yarbrough wants a border wall and legal pot, and Sadler is against both of those. Sadler does actually say the national debt is too high.
A typical piece on the race. But notice how the reporter mentions “As he did at the Republican State Convention, Cruz got a more vocal and enthusiastic reception than Dewhurst.”
The Texas Tribune looks at the immigration/amnesty muddle in the race. Some voters are still confused about where Cruz stands.
Paul Burka wonders if this is a viable attack issue for Dewhurst to hit Cruz with. Since it takes him a thousand words just to explain it (Cruz evidently overlooked an obscure military statute in arguing a Supreme Court case over whether imposing the death penalty for raping a child was constitutional or not), I’m guessing not. Also, the headline (“Cruz Control”) is just lazy.
I haven’t been doing much coverage of Fast and Furious, mainly because bloggers like Sipsey Street and Snowflakes in Hell/Shall Not Be Questioned were doing such good jobs moving the story forward I didn’t feel a need. But now that the Obama Administration is in full cover-up mode, well, bring the swarm.
Remember: Over 200 innocent people have died due to Fast and Furious. So when liberals tell you that “It’s not Watergate,” they’re right. It’s much worse.
I’m well aware that politics is a blood sport. The “working for Communist China” smear was pretty weak sauce, but at least there was a tiny grain of truth there. But the amnesty smear was just made up out of whole cloth. Neither Cruz, nor the groups mentioned, ever supported illegal alien amnesty. David Dewhurst and Team Dewhurst were simply liars to push it. Now the MSM confirms what anyone paying attention already knew.
But to drive the point home even further, never mind Polifact, here’s the Sex Pistols (NSFW. Duh.):
Man, the Houston Chronicle editorial board must really hate David Dewhurst: he skipped their meeting, but they went ahead and endorsed him anyway. Ouch!
The left-leaning PPP poll has Dewhurst at 46% and Cruz at 29%. Don’t see any reason to trust this more than the UT/TT poll, though both show Dewhurst shy of 50%.
Ross Ramsey looks at what happens if Dewhurst doesn’t win. Also, what’s the deal with liberals like Ramsey and Paul Burka prattling on about how Texas is some sort of uninhabited wasteland during the summers? Yeah, it’s hot. Those of us who were born here just deal with it. I believe we might even be able to make it to our local polling stations for a runoff without melting.
Democrat Sean Hubbard gets some love from the Houston Chronicle. But it’s ruthlessly realistic love: “Hubbard’s chance of taking the oath of office in Washington next January is even less likely than the Astros sweeping this fall’s World Series.”
Since it’s possible people who haven’t been following the race until now are tuning into this blog, you might want to take a look at:
