After much back and forth with his campaign trying to find a date, I was finally able to interview Texas Senate candidate Craig James on March 21 at the Rudy’s on South 360 here in Austin. This was, alas, not an ideal atmosphere for an interview (it got better when one of his staffers asked Rudy’s to turn off their piped in music for the area, which is something I should have thought of asking for), and the first part of the interview makes it hard to hear. After the first question, I stopped the camera and moved it closer to James so you can hear his answers, so the audio gets much better about 1:35 in, though I seem to have cut off the top of his head in the process. So let me apologize in advance for the less-than-sterling sound and video quality for various parts of the interview, but the vast majority of the interview is intelligible. I filmed this with my Mino Flip camera and did a light edit in iMovie, so the crappiness is 100% my fault (or that of the environment it was filmed in).
Thoughts:
James is a very confident, well-spoken and personable speaker with a lot of natural charisma. He seems to get the big picture of the conservative agenda (a constitutionally limited government, and a commitment to free markets) and obviously comes from a social conservative background.
I like that he would eliminate the Department of Education, but it’s a bit hard to square with his emphasis on vocational training in the second part of the answer. It’s not that I disagree that it’s a good idea, it’s just that after the elimination of the Department of Education, I don’t see any viable (or proper) role for such fine-grained educational policy control at the federal level.
I’m not particularly interested in the Texas Tech question that starts part 2, but since it’s the most famous controversy he’s been involved in, the interview would have felt incomplete without it.
There are a couple of interesting admissions I give him credit for: admitting that Texans for a Better Tomorrow was created as a vehicle for him to explore a role in politics, and admitting that he would root for the New England Patriots (for whom he played in the NFL) were they to meet the Cowboys in the Superbowl, a brave position that’s obviously not pandering to his constituents.
I didn’t like the vagueness of his positions beyond a few policy specifics, and the fact he tried to straddle both sides of some issues (such as PIPA/SOPA in the second half of the interview). Both Ted Cruz and Tom Leppert were occasionally vague on some points, but James is already sounding awfully vague for someone who hasn’t ever held elective office.
The low-point of the interview (about 3:15 into the second part) was finding out that James has never heard of the Posse Comitatus Act. This is not an obscure statute, it’s one of the fundamental laws governing the limitations of using federal troops. I would expect not only anyone with an interest in politics to at least have heard of the Posse Comitatus act, I would actually expect the same of anyone with a basic college education.
I’d like to thank Craig James for taking time out of his busy schedule to speak with me, and his staff for their assistance in setting up the interview.
Now I’ve interviewed all the major Republican Senate candidates but David Dewhurst. If his campaign would get in touch with me to set a convenient date in the next few weeks, I’d like to correct that oversight…
A left-wing Irish documentary maker sets out to make a documentary about the plight of the Palestinians, but gets waylayed by those annoying facts, and instead decides to tell both sides of the story. Guess what? His friends aren’t interested. “The problem began when I resolved to come back with a film that showed both sides of the coin. Actually there are many more than two. Which is why my film is called Forty Shades of Grey. But only one side was wanted back in Dublin. My peers expected me to come back with an attack on Israel. No grey areas were acceptable.”
Israel and Hamas declare a ceasefire after four days of fighting. Honestly, maybe because I was traveling, or because I no longer feel the need to consult MSM news sources on a daily basis, I was actually unaware that there was slightly more violence than usual in the Middle East. The fact that Hamas cried uncle after a mere four days, despite the fact that Israel set it off by giving Hamas leader Zuhair al-Qaissi an express ticket to paradise, tells you that they must really have been getting their asses kicked by the IDF. Maybe Zuhair al-Qaissi really was important, or possibly Iran and Syria have had their hands too full to dole out the Qassam rockets with their customary generosity.
Like a squirrel hording nuts for winter, I’ve set aside a few tasty links for you to chew on:
George Will offers up a masterful column on why big government actually increases, rather than decreases, inequality.
Liberals have a rendezvous with regret. Their largest achievement is today’s redistributionist government. But such government is inherently regressive: It tends to distribute power and money to the strong, including itself.
Government becomes big by having big ambitions for supplanting markets as society’s primary allocator of wealth and opportunity. Therefore it becomes a magnet for factions muscular enough, in money or numbers or both, to bend government to their advantage.
[snip]
Not only does redistributionist government direct wealth upward; in asserting a right to do so, it siphons power into itself. A puzzling aspect of our politically contentious era is how little contention there is about the ethics of coercive redistribution by progressive taxation and other government “corrections” of social outcomes it considers unethical or unaesthetic.
This reticence, in an age in which political reticence is rare, reflects the difficulty of articulating principled defenses of these practices. They go undefended because they are generally popular with a public that misunderstands their net effects and because the practices are the political class’s vocation today. The big winners from these practices are that class and the interests adept at collaborating with it.
Government uses redistribution to correct social outcomes that offend it. But government rarely explains, or perhaps even recognizes, the reasoning by which it decides why particular outcomes of consensual market activities are incorrect. When taxes are levied not to efficiently fund government but to impose this or that notion of distributive justice, remember: Taxes are always coerced contributions to government, which is always the first, and often the principal, beneficiary of them.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindel makes the case for Rick Perry:
Mark Styen on the left’s idea of empathy: “In 2008, the Left gleefully mocked Sarah Palin’s live baby. It was only a matter of time before they moved on to a dead one.”
Speaking of Steyn, here are his wishes for a Happy New Year in his usual gloomy, depressing, acerbic way.
And speaking still further of Steyn, he once noted that China will get old before it gets rich. And just what is it like to be old in China now? It really sucks. It turns out Communism’s claims of taking better care of the helpless was just as big a lie as all communism’s other claims…
I’ve not been keeping up with the situation in Killeen, but evidently City Council members voted to give the City Manager a $750,000 buyout, then refused to justify their actions to the taxpayers. The result? All five remaining City Council members were successfully recalled. Note to politicians across the state: Texas is not California. Try to get away with this sort of self-dealing here and we will boot your ass out of office. (Hat tip: Blue Dot Blues.)
Speaking of cartel violence, the Mexican government evidently has the La Familia Michoacana drug gang on the ropes. La Familia was previously allied with the Gulf Cartel, but more recently worked with the Zeta cartel. I’d previously mentioned La Familia (and their activity in Austin) here.
Democrats on the “SuperCommittee” propose…wait for it…wait for it…spending more money! Remember, any time a congressional Democrat says they want to cut spending, they’re lying. (If a Republican says they want to cut spending, there’s at least a possibility that they’re telling the truth.)
David Brooks praises Mitt Romney as “smart” and “sophisticated.” Yeah, like conservatives needed another reason to vote against Romney…
By contrast, George Will says that in Romney “Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis.” (What’s the difference between David Brooks and George Will? One is a well-dressed, articulate, sophisticated, respected conservative columnist, and the other is David Brooks.)
I already mentioned this yesterday, but here’s the video of Sen. John Cornyn laying the smackdown on Eric Holder as to the difference between Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious.
I’ll try to do a Greek/Euro debt update just as soon as I figure out just what the hell Europe is actually doing…
“So, Mr. ‘You just Took a One Week Break,'” you ask, “where do I go to get up to speed on Fast and Furious, ALA Operation Gunwalker?”
I’m glad you asked.
Perhaps the best place to start is Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea’s six part series, which provides a nice overview, as well as a timeline with links to the related posts:
Now back to our regularly scheduled update, which has been on hold while I did things like Texas Senate Race updates, job interviews, etc. So some of this will be old news to many of you:
Ruben Navarrette on CNN.com: “This scandal is about dead Mexicans….Where’s the outrage?” Also this: “Bully for Issa. We need to get to the bottom of this scandal, and if the administration isn’t cooperating, there is all the more reason to keep digging. That also goes for Attkisson and CBS News, who have done first-rate work.” Question unanswered: Why did it take CNN so long to realize Fast and Furious was a real story?”
How does the FBI fit in? Plus the mysterious Third Gun.
How the ATF punished a whistleblower. And ignored death threats to his life. And then his house burned down in an arson attack. And then the ATF tried to frame him for that.
And I though I was the only one in the rightwing blogsphere who made Waiting for Godot references.
Ricardo Sanchez finally has a website up, though Google still can’t find it, and it was only announced on his Facebook page yesterday. I wonder why it took so long, since he announced back on May 11; it doesn’t take a month to put up a website.
Also, he’s apparently going to be running as “Ric Sanchez,” though most of the media (save the Dallas Morning News) don’t appear to have gotten the memo.
The website actually contains some policy substance, though you have to wade through lots of vague, boilerplate, focus-group tested blather to get to it:
Sanchez, after some hemming, hawing, and hand-wringing, supports the Dream Act illegal alien amnesty. Despite some vague comments on “enforcement of our existing immigration laws” and a nod to the drain illegal aliens put on state and federal budgets, there’s absolutely no mention of completing the border fence, and no mention of the narco-terrorist war raging in Mexico.
He also supports teachers unions. He mentions vouchers (but not school choice or charter schools), but in the sort of highly-qualified way that makes you think he only wants them for public schools. And he slams the No Child Left Behind Act, critics of which are not exclusive to the left.
So far, so standard for liberal Democrats. However, in “The Economy and Job Creation” section, in addition to the usual “green jobs,” “social safety net” and “infrastructure” blather all Obama-era Democrats parrot, there’s this: “The best approach to creating jobs in Texas is for us to provide tax cuts, incentives, and increase financing support for small businesses.” Never mind that the entire page is vague to the point of distraction, never mind that the words “budget deficit” and “national debt” are nowhere to be found; the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for the Texas Senate seat actually came out for tax cuts. Even more shocking is that there’s no mention of that holiest of Democratic talking points, “tax hikes on the rich.” Indeed, a Democratic candidate calling for tax cuts is so out of character that I feel compelled to take a screen shot in case the Nutroots read him the riot act and force him to scrub it, so here it is:
It’s in the third paragraph. Click to embiggen.
Granted, anyone can say anything on their website; it doesn’t mean they believe in it, and it doesn’t mean they won’t jettison it ten minutes after they’ve won election. But for a major Democratic candidate to call for tax cuts not before the general election, but even before the Democratic primary, suggests that either Texas is even more conservative a state than even we on the right realize, or (and I mention this only as a possibility) Ricardo Sanchez actually believes in tax cuts as a way to create economic growth. That would put him in agreement with the all the major Republican candidates, but it’s pretty close to heresy in today’s Democratic Party.
We’ll see what sort of reaction his positions get, assuming people can actually find his website…
Three of the four candidates came across as prepared, articulate, polished and effective speakers, and all four tried to portray themselves as tea party conservatives:
Ted Cruz was the most polished of the four, as you would expect of the former Texas Solicitor General. He was very good not only at making his points, but also expertly tying highlights of his career and life-story (like his work on 10th Amendment issues for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and his father fleeing Castro’s Cuba [see here for correction]) into answers without it seeming forced. His only drawbacks were that every now and then he would seem just a little bit too polished, his pitch modulations a little too calculated, and he needs to add a few touches of humor liven things up. (His one recycled Reagan anecdote isn’t going to cut it.) With Michael Williams out, I think Cruz cemented his status as both tea party favorite and frontrunner.
I have not made any secret of my doubts as to Tom Leppert‘s new-found conservative convictions, but he comes across as a very polished and prepared speaker. He says that he cut a lot of unnecessary programs as Dallas Mayor; when I get a chance, I’m going to ask his campaign for a list. If you didn’t know about his previous record, you would think him just as conservative as his compatriots. He did have a couple of weaknesses as a public speaker: shrugging and spreading his hands was his go-to move for almost every question. He also displayed a sort of nervous eye-twitch between questions, maybe because of the bright stage lights. But guess what? There are going to be a lot of bright stage lights between now and March…
Roger Williams had the most varied performance: He has an engaging, natural personality (with just the right touch of rough-hewn “old coot” country charm) and can clearly hold his own against his more polished opponents, but he went back to his “I’m a small businessman” routine two or three times too many, and too transparently. On the other hand, Williams also got the best laugh lines of the night. Referring back to an earlier question about how he’d eliminate the budget deficit in one year (he didn’t think the Ryan plan went far enough), in a question on the the EPA’s attempt to take over Texas air quality, he said “You know that 1.6 trillion I’d cut out of the deficit? The EPA would be among them.” Williams probably improved his standing the most of any candidate attending.
Elizabeth Ames Jones…look, I’m not going to sugarcoat this. Jones should get out of the race. It wasn’t her message (she made effective conservative points), it’s the fact that she was a cringingly bad public speaker tonight. I can’t tell if it’s nervousness or an actual speech impediment, but her voice sounded like it was trapped at the back of her soft palate, almost as if she had all her wisdom teeth yanked a week ago and was still getting use to her own mouth, and late in the debate she seemed to have a slight lisp. She spoke like someone who was so eager to talk that the words all tried to come out in a rush at once, causing her to stumble over herself, stop and start, and generally sound nervous; way too nervous for someone that already holds a major statewide office. She calmed down a little bit after the first couple of questions, and occasionally made good points (“I have to fight the EPA every day”), but she was far and away the weakest candidate on stage by a good measure. And her “I was down in the trenches” refrain (mostly dealing with her time in the legislature) got even tireder than Williams’ small businessman shtick. Between this and her abysmal fundraising numbers, I see no hope for Jones in this race and no reason she should continue in it. She’s doing a good job on the Railroad Commission, and she should probably stay there for the immediate future.
Not a lot of policy differences on display. All agreed not to raise taxes under any circumstances (I wondered why moderator Evan Smith didn’t ask any of them “Not even in the event of a World War with China?”), all were on-board with the Ryan plan or an even more immediate cutback in federal spending, all for greater border control measures and against amnesty, all pro-life (one of Jones’ most effective moments), all more national energy exploration, all against earmarks, all slamming Obama.
Enough for tonight. I’ll post more tomorrow if I have the time.
Speaking of Leppert 2.0, he was seen at a fundraiser for Mitt Romney. Maybe the two of them got together to commiserate on being unfairly dinged for little things like actual governing records.
Gay activist and Stonewall Democrats of Dallas President Omar Narvaez laments the disappearing act of Leppert 1.0: “[Tom Leppert] was our friend [when he first ran for the office] but when he decided to run for higher office, suddenly he wasn’t our friend.”
Jonathan Chait is buying into Obama’s Latino strategy. But this ignores Micky Kaus’s point: How many times can Obama verbally flog amnesty without actually do anything about it before pro-illegal alien voters realize he’s all talk and no action? How many times can Lucy snatch away that football before Charlie Brown finally wises up?
Why did the media endlessly hype the Rapture predictions of a few far-out-of-the-mainstream evangelical Christians? Easy: “smug superiority and cheap laughs…There’s a cruelty underlying our desire to laugh at this story—a desire to see people humiliated and to revel in our own superiority and rationality—even though the people in question are pretty tragic characters.” True, as far as it goes, but it’s missing one important reason: the loathing of all forms of Christianity by urban atheist adherents of competing religious beliefs (big government liberalism) and unlikely eschatologies (global warming).
Ex-Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney pops up to condemn the bombing of Libya. From Libya. I think the over/under for how long it will be before she’s actually endorsing Hamas suicide bombings against Israeli preschools is two weeks.
Democratic Senate candidate Sean Hubbard hopes to raise $5,000 by the end of the month. That would seem to be a reasonable goal, but he’s going to need (at a minimum) about ten times that if he wants have even a dark-horse hope of derailing the DNC coronation of Ricardo Sanchez. Surely there are still enough nutroots Code Pink types in Texas that disgruntled by Obama’s continuation of “Bush’s Wars” to come up with that to oppose the “Abu Ghraib” candidate…
Just got back from a family trip, so here’s a small LinkSwarm while I get back into the swing of things.
“For a decade, from the election of Bush 43 forward, the Left has lied and cheated as it tried to return to power. The left wants us to be civil — after being so uncivil for a decade. Bite me.”
Democrats Max Baucus of Montana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pyror of Arkansas and Jon Tester of Montana (all Senators from deep red states) all voted against the bill. And boy, the head Kossack is sure pissed about Tester, who had previously been his bestest of buddies.
