That’s a terrific pickup for them. Epstein is on a very short list of the very most important conservative legal scholars in the country. His book Takings (which, I must confess, I still haven’t read) is widely regarded as the most comprehensive legal exegesis of why the New Deal is unconstitutional. I think Epstein (like Mario Loyola and Ted Cruz) will find the Center for Tenth Amendment Studies an ideal place to further his research.
Congratulations to TPPF for a very solid addition to their already impressive array of scholars.
Still waiting on Q4 fundraising numbers from the candidates. In previous quarters they came out around the 15th of the month after the deadline, but maybe the deadline is longer for End-of-Year reports.
Another blogger grading the TPPF debate. He ranks Tom Leppert first (followed by Ted Cruz, Craig James and Glenn Addison) and David Dewhurst last. However, the Leppert campaign will find no comfort in his analysis of their candidate: “Once Texans take a closer look at his actual record (and how deeply he appears to be in the back pocket of T. Boone Pickens), I think he’ll be reduced to what he actually is: the least conservative and—other than Craig James —the least qualified candidate running for KBH’s vacated seat.” Ouch! But his rating of Dewhurst is even worse: “There is a reason that Dewhurst has been ducking Ted Cruz and refusing to attend any of the previous debates: he’s really, really bad at it…Remember the cartoon Droopy the dog? That’s pretty much exactly what Dewhurst sounded like on stage on Thursday evening. No energy, seemed lost and confused at times. Halting, slow speech.” Double ouch!
In The Dallas Morning News, Robert T. Garrett brings newspaper readers up to speed on the Huckabee/DeMint stuff I covered one to three weeks ago. Though he does manage to add some sneering liberal condescension at Fox News.
The American Jewish Committee and the World Affairs Council of Houston are sponsoring a foreign policy Senate candidate debate on Monday, January 23, at the Omni Houston Hotel. According to an email from the AJC, “12 of the 16 [candidates] have confirmed,” though Dewhurst and Democrat Paul Sadler were not among them.
Speaking of which, maybe I just wasn’t paying attention heretofore, but I don’t recall nearly this many debates for statewide elections in previous cycles. I mean, we’ve already had three times as many Texas Republican Senate debates as there were Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858! Thanks to the Tea Party, Texans are really enjoying a golden age of grassroots democracy…
Dewhurst gets the endorsement of Michael Reagan, AKA “Ronald Reagan’s non-goofy son.” That won’t hurt him, but I also don’t see it swaying any undecided voters.
Glenn Addison gets some attention from his local Community Impact newspaper. (For those unfamiliar with the, Community Impact newspapers are very local (I get the one for NW Austin) free monthly newspapers delivered by mail. I generally find the quality of their stories better than the Statesman.)
He also gets compared to Ron Paul by KVUE. The problem with almost right analysis of this sort is that it would probably take way too much time to list the salient differences between the two than it’s worth expending…
David Dewhurst appeared on the Mark Davis show on WBAP:
I was busy with a family even over the weekend, so I haven’t had a chance to sit down and watch the debate all the way through. But I’ll go ahead and put it up for others to take a gander at (Hat tip: The Right Side of Austin). Be aware that the debate doesn’t actually start until over an hour into the video. I’ve heard of long intros, but that’s ridiculous…
The Cruz campaign sent out a list of links, and rather than link all of them and claim them as my own, I’ll just direct you thataway.
One link they didn’t send out was this review over at Big Jolly Politics, where he gave James, Addison and Dewhurst As, Cruz a B, and Leppert a C.
Kathleen McKinney ranked it Cruz first, James second, and Leppert last (“Not a lot of flash there”), though her overall impressions of all were positive.
This is good news, especially if the rules is invalidated, since that would prevent Texans from dying, as might well happen should older power plants that can’t meet the new rules be unavailable to provide power during peak summer days. (And remember that a 2003 heatwave killed more than 14,000 people in France.
Thanks to the Texas Public Policy Foundation (which has been following the story closely) for the heads-up.
Craig James takes a leave of absence from ESPN to mull a Senate run. That’s certainly a much stronger indication he’ll run than we’ve had before.
I was unaware until I read this Chronicle piece that James joined the Texas Public Policy Foundation (and seems to have done some events for them, though he does not seem to currently be on the board), which would indicate at least some familiarity with conservative policy issues. Of course, Ted Cruz used to work in TPPP’s Center for Tenth Amendment Studies.
Another longshot Republican candidate , “Dr. Joe” Agris, files for the race. Dr. Agris is evidently a plastic surgeon who has done some good works, many in association with late Houston broadcasting legend Marvin Zindler (who made use of Dr. Agris services on many an occasion). Dr. Agris is not entirely a political neophyte, having run in the general election for Texas House District 134 in 2008. He reportedly waged a low-effort campaign (or so says lefty Houston blog Off the Kuff), pulling in only 42% of the vote in a distract John McCain won. He’s evidently been contemplating this run at least since April.
Keep in mind that’s not what the headline says, which is a more neutral “UT law dean forced to step down.” But what else do you call “a $500,000 forgivable loan” to UT Dean Larry Sager “at a time when deans, vice presidents and other top university officials were under a salary freeze”? When you give people money they don’t have to pay back, that’s not a loan, that’s a gift. (I also wonder whether Dean Sager declared this money on his taxes. Or did he not have to, because it was a “loan”?) And slush fund seems to be the proper term for a fund from which sums can be doled out without administrative accountability.
Or, to put it another way: If it were revealed that University of Texas head football coach Mack Brown had such a fund, to receive funds from or to dole out at his discretion, not only would we be calling it a slush fund, he would be fired, National Championship notwithstanding. Should the UT Law School be held to a lesser standard than the UT Athletics Department?