US Senate candidates Paul Sadler and Ted Cruz have very different visions regarding education, Education emerging as point of contrast between Cruz, Sadler.
The contrasts are certainly stark.
Cruz has proposed eliminating what he deems unnecessary federal agencies including the Department of Education, which among other duties administers federal aid for students. Sadler’s campaign highlighted Cruz’s position as an example of contrasting visions in a press release Wednesday accusing Cruz’s campaign of being “anti-student.”
“This is reckless and dangerous and a very bad idea,” Sadler told KVUE. “It would cost the state of Texas between five and six billion more dollars in cuts to public education. Those aren’t mainstream values.”
Cruz told KVUE he believes block grants should be used to allow local government to allocate and administer student aid.
“I think we should take the funding, give it to the states and put the states in a position to make the decisions how to have the greatest impact in their communities,” said Cruz. “The needs in the state of Texas are different from the needs of California, or New York, or Rhode Island, or Nebraska.”
Their first televised clash will be one of political opposites and a step closer for one on the road to Washington, D.C.
And this from the DMN, Cruz waves off Sadler’s claim he’d gut federal college loans.
Texas GOP Senate nominee Ted Cruz on Wednesday dismissed Democratic foe Paul Sadler’s criticism that Cruz’s proposal to abolish the U.S. Department of Education would jeopardize federal student loan programs for college students.
“Of course not,” Cruz said after an Austin appearance.
“Student aid is critically important. … In my life, education opened doors for my parents and for me that never would’ve been opened,” he said.
Cruz said federal student aid funds, though, should be wrested from the federal department’s control, and sent to the states as block grants.
Earlier Wednesday, Sadler said in a release that Cruz’s stance on abolition of the federal department would endanger the student loan programs it now administers.
“The Department of Education includes Federal Student Aid,” said Sadler, a former state legislator. “If we eliminate it, then we truly make college education unaffordable for a large segment of our population in every single country, every single city, every single town.”
Anyone who would trust the state of Texas, i.e. Perry and his minions, to actually use block granted education money for education is fooling themselves. That would be a huge hit to education and the hopes of many poor, working, and middle class Texans to get ahead.
Sadler is also hittling Cruz on his change in debate tactics now that the primary is over, Senate frontrunner Cruz limits debates; Sadler calls him ‘cowardly’.
For Republican U.S. Senate-hopeful Ted Cruz, the role reversal from underdog to favorite has left him open to a charge of hypocrisy from Democrat and challenger Paul Sadler.
Sadler says Cruz is now campaigning like Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst did during the Republican primary, avoiding exchanges before Texas voters. In the months before the May GOP primary and July runoff, Cruz badgered Dewhurst for skipping dozens of candidate forums.
Cruz won the runoff.
But heading into the November election with a big lead in polls and money, Cruz has agreed to just two joint appearances; and that’s fine with him.
In Austin Wednesday to get the endorsement of the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, Cruz indicated no need to round up more than a pair of debates.
“I’m looking forward to we’ve agreed to two debates,” Cruz said, “I’m looking forward to having a direct and clear contrast between two very different visions for our state and for our nation.”
Sadler said, “He chased Lt. Gov. Dewhurst all across this state and called him everything in the world because he wouldn’t debate him and it’s a little hypocritical to me.”
The first debate will be hosted by KVUE’s sister station, WFAA, in Dallas and aired live on KVUE beginning at 7:00 p.m. Tuesday Oct. 2.
All of the sudden Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is starting to sing a different tune when it comes to campaign finance. Cornyn’s problem seems to be not with the money but with who controls the money. The new, post Citizens Untied world, is taking power from the political parties. Via Roll Call, John Cornyn Open to Campaign Finance Reform.
It’s rare for a Republican leader to express a “transparency” or “accountability”-based argument when it comes to campaign finance. And Cornyn by no means voiced support for the Democrats’ DISCLOSE Act, which has failed multiple times to clear Congress and would force more disclosure from corporate-funded super PACs.
Cornyn expressed support for the right of groups to be engaged in the political process.
“The First Amendment is a fundamental value in this country, and the Supreme Court said as a constitutional matter, you can’t suppress free speech. And we knew all along that McCain-Feingold carved out for organized labor and other groups, so it was really a lopsided deal in the first place,” he said when asked if recent court decisions, such as Citizens United, which prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, have made the system worse.
Cornyn later clarified in a statement that his concern is primarily with how the political parties have been sidelined:”I believe we should strengthen the political parties, not limit free speech, and that starts with revisiting the federal fundraising restrictions and coordinated limits on both parties. Anyone who supports more campaign finance transparency should support a stronger political party system.”
The parties, but mostly the GOP so far, is losing it’s influence on candidate selection and messaging. It’s pretty easy to see from what went on this year in the US Senate Primary in Texas. Without Citizens United, and the resultant Super PAC’s, Ted Cruz could never have competed financially with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. The “party elders” including Gov. Rick Perry were all for Dewhurst and he still lost. Those two things are likely in the back of Cornyn’s mind as he readies for his reelection campaign in 2014.
“It certainly takes away some of the power of the NRSC not only [to] pick candidates but also to drive message,” former NRSC Executive Director Scott Bensing said of the influx of outside groups.
Bensing noted that the “first evolution” of the NRSC happened in 2003, after McCain-Feingold passed. He said the campaign committee has become “a clearinghouse for best practices, specifically with online campaigns.”
“It is more difficult to hold the Senate committee accountable for outcomes, for wins and losses, but I think there are still many ways to hold the committee accountable for how it spent its money, how it distributed its resources,” Bensing said.
Cornyn himself said the “broken campaign finance system” has created a “cacophony” of political voices that sometimes drown out that of the NRSC.
It’s a thesis that could be tested again soon if outside groups rush to the aid of Rep. Todd Akin, who has featured Cornyn’s face in his own against-the-establishment fundraising pleas and whom the NRSC has vowed not to fund in his bid for Missouri’s Senate seat.
After winning the primary to take on Sen. Claire McCaskill (D), Akin lost favor after making controversial statements about rape and rape victims.
“It makes it impossible for the candidates or the political parties, for that matter, to control their message because you have so many different people – I mean, if you look at these campaigns, how many different groups are funding those races? And they can’t coordinate with the candidates or the party,” Cornyn said. “It’s this cacophony of just noise. So I think there’s a lot we could do to make this a lot simpler, if we would, but the whole idea of trying, in McCain-Feingold, to limit the flow of money into politics, has been an abject failure. The only thing that’s happened is that it’s become a lot less transparent.”
That the candidate selection process is slipping from party control, and because of that those candidates can hijack a party’s plan for taking back control of Congress. As an example the extreme Christine O’Donnell in Delaware in 2010 and possibly Akin in Missouri in 2012. This scares those in the party hierarchy, because it is stripping them of their power and control. And it can also change the national narrative and impede the Presidential ticket from pivoting back to the middle. Because of the extreme nominee for US Senate on the GOP side this year, I would encourage everyone to get to know Paul Sadler.
In the GOP primary for US Senate in Texas, where both candidates were trying to get as far to the right as possible, and only right wing Republicans were paying attention, most voters are not aware of how extreme the candidates views actually were. During the primary and runoff Lt. Gov. Davide Dewhurst and Ted Cruz were fighting over issues that were a bunch of crap – issues that don’t matter in most Texans daily lives.
The Democratic candidate for US Senate Paul Sadder is trying to change that and make sure Texans know exactly where Cruz stands on the issues that matter most to Texans. Here’s a recent article from the San Angelo Standard Times, Paul Sadler calls Ted Cruz an extremist.
The extremism of U.S. Senate Republican candidate Ted Cruz is too much to bear, his opponent, Democrat Paul Sadler, said in a San Angelo visit Monday.
Cruz would recklessly do away with federal departments such as the Energy, Commerce, Education and the IRS, and he believes the United Nations will in some measure take over the United States, Sadler said.
“I’ve got to get the message out of how extreme his position is,” Sadler said. “I am the mainstream candidate.”
Sadler said that he would work to defend Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, and that the changes Cruz and Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan would make could put the elderly and needy at severe risk.
“We’ve never seen the threat to Social Security that is posed to Social Security today,” Sadler said. “We simply cannot abandon our senior citizens who paid for the generation that went before them just because it’s hard now.”
We know the GOP has always had it out for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Some of the most popular programs in history. That keep millions of seniors and the disabled out of poverty and keep their dignity. Just how extreme is Cruz? Well in a recent Sadler campaign email it pointed out that several issues that Cruz suports polled really bad. Here are the issues that were polled
- His plan to eliminate the Federal Department of Education, including the billions of dollars it sends to Texas;
- His plan to deny contraceptive coverage to all Texas women;
- His stated philosophy that the best way to grow the economy is to give big tax cuts to the richest Americans and to remove restrictions on Wall Street banks;
- His plan to end Medicare as we know it and replace it with a voucher health care system for our seniors;
- His proposal to spend over $7 billion to build a wall from El Paso to the Gulf of Mexico – a plan opposed by almost 70 percent of Hispanics who were polled.
As Kuff points out.
Finally, on a tangential note, on the same day this came out I received a campaign email from Paul Sadler announcing that a “new poll” showed a “path to victory” against Ted Cruz. This was a campaign fundraising email, not a press release, so I have no useful numbers to share, but the clear message was that Sadler was competitive among voters who heard his message. Of course, the problem all along is how to get that message out to the voters. You can help by attending our fundraiser on Monday the 24th. It’s big hill to climb but there’s no reason not to try.
In other words the more Texas voters hear about Ted Cruz’s positions on the issues the better Paul Sadler does. I would recommend that everyone go read and/or view this interview Sadler recently did with a Midland/Odessa TV Station. Here are an excerpt:
On Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid:
“The positions that they are taking are extraordinarily destructive and they are very reckless and they hurt people. A lot of people forget that when we started social security half or our seniors lived below poverty, and if we somehow lose social security, over half of our seniors will go back below poverty. I will not abandon the generation that paid for the generation before them, that’s the way social security works. This generation of seniors paid for our parents and grandparents. I won’t abandon them. Mr. Ryan and Mr. Cruz will abandon them.
Medicare is long term hospitalization care for our seniors. We simply can’t abandon that obligation for our seniors. Medicaid involves uninsured children in our state– children with disabilities. It’s also 70% of our nursing home residents. That’s my parents, your grandparents that happen to live in a nursing home that are dependent on Medicaid. These are issues that strike us where we live and breathe, and I will defend those policies and I will do what’s necessary to keep them because I keep my promises and America keeps its promise.
We promised each other that we would grow old with dignity– that we would provide for each other in our old age, and just because it’s hard now doesn’t mean that we will turn our back now. That’s what the voucher system does — it turns our back on our senior citizens, so it’s a critical issue for us.”
On Trusting a Candidate:
“The funny thing about running statewide is that you don’t get to spend a lot of time with many people, but somehow we reach a level of trust with a candidate. And we reach a level of trust based on their record. That’s why the experience level is important.
I was trusted and blessed to be trusted with the children of this state for a decade. The education at a time we led the country in reform and we led the country in mathematics and reading for our early children. I ask the people in Texas to give that trust back to me again. A lot of people don’t like to talk about that but it’s true. You will make a decision to vote for by who you trust to take care of your future and your children’s future. I think you have to look at the record of the people involved.
I have a record in this area and it’s a good record, it’s a record of distinction. It’s one we can all be proud of. I have mainstream values. I have lived in every single region of this state. I understand West Texas and East Texas. I have seen hurricanes on the coast and tornadoes in the Panhandle. I think that with that background that I’m the best person to represent us in the U.S. Senate.
I also have the maturity level. I have been through the devastation of a child being seriously injured. I have seen my in-laws with Alzheimer’s and had to go through those lessons as well. That is something that’s important so when we pass legislation we know if affects you and your family and this community we call Texas — because we’re all in this together. Together we’re strong. I ask for the support of the people of Texas. Thank you.”
Now Sadler may not be a liberal/progressive Democrats dream, but he’d certainly be an improvement over anyone Texas has sent to the Senate in a long time. Sadler states he’s a conservative Democrat. He’s more in the mold of a Lloyd Bentsen but there’s no doubt he would be much better for Texas then the extremist the a sliver of GOP base has nominated.
“Tonight is a victory for the grass roots.”
- Ted Cruz after winning the GOP nomination for US Senate
Astro Turf, Texans well know, is the original term for fake grass. In political terms “Astroturf” means a fake grassroots movement funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms.
While Ted Cruz ran a great race, and this is not to take anything away from his win, beating an incumbent is always impressive. But it’s undeniable that he could have beat Dewhurst without the millions in out of state money he was given. Charles Pierce at Esquire has a great perspective on Cruz’s win, What Happened In Texas Is a Running Off the Rails.
However — and this is the big, honking However in Republican politics these days — Dewhurst’s greatest fault as a candidate apparently was that Goodhair liked him. Proximity to the Republican “establishment,” as Jim DeMint and the Club For Growth define it, was enough to doom Dewhurst as a candidate, even though the “establishment” in this case was represented by a governor who talked openly about seceding from the union. There is a temptation to believe here that Republican voters in Texas, realizing that their party is staring at an electoral abyss going forward, voted strategically for a Hispanic crackpot over a country-club sycophant. There is a temptation to believe that Texas Republicans have behaved intelligently in choosing Cruz not once, but twice. There is also a temptation to believe that Drano is Chateau Petrus. Please do try to resist it.
This is a guy who believes that Sharia law is “an enormous problem” in the country today. This is a guy who believes that George Soros is at the bottom of a secret United Nations plot to eliminate… golf. (Here, of course, Cruz is immersing himself in the paranoid Bircher fantasies regarding our old pal, Agenda 21.) This is a guy who’s a nullifier, thereby putting himself on the opposite side of the Constitution not only from Barack Obama, but from Sam Houston, for chrissakes. This is the guy that a majority of Republicans in Texas believe should represent them in the Senate and they said so, not once, but twice. They wanted a crackpot. They got a crackpot. The real power driving this election wanted them to have a crackpot, so it gave them a crackpot.
This was a triumph for out-of-state-money and out-of-state influence. Rand Paul and Sarah Palin both were more relevant to this election than the governor of Texas was. This was a signal that conservative extremism knows no limits and recognizes no national boundaries. The Tea Party now has morphed into a movement made up solely of three elements: corporate money, television hucksters, and suckers. The first of these make the other two elements possible. If you are a Republican officeholder, especially in a staunchly Republican state, and you don’t see what can happen to you in what happened to David Dewhurst, you should begin your search for a second career right now. If Rick Perry is own self doesn’t hear the bell tolling, he’s a fool. Right now, I’m betting Goodhair’s setting all his mighty mental powers to the task of trying to figure out how he can become more acceptable to the forces that beat him Tuesday night without putting on a gray uniform and personally storming up Little Round Top.
There is an alternate temptation, as I hinted at earlier, to look at Cruz’s victory as another attempt by Republicans to reach out to the growing Hispanic community that threatens to sink the party as its grumpy Caucasian base steadily dies off. The problem with this theory, of course, is that, while Cruz was storming to victory, the Republican
secretary-of-state attorney general, a guy named Greg Abbott, remains one of the most enthusiastic voter-suppression advocates anywhere in the country. It is Abbott who went to federal court and argued in favor of essentially gutting the Voting Rights Act. If Cruz is supposed to represent a building wave of conservative Hispanic voters that is going to power the GOP over the next few decades, it’d be nice if Greg Abbott weren’t working so hard to prevent Hispanic voters from casting their ballots.
There are those innocent souls who believe that the current raging extremism that is driving the Republican party will run its course, like a fever, and then the party will take to its bed and return to cool reason, and to its role as an honest partner in the business of governing the Republic. Well, lass’ sie nach Texas kommen, kids. They are going to continue to slake their thirst with salt water, and the rest of us are going to have to live with the delusions that follow. What happened in Texas was in every sense a “runoff.” Something’s gotten into the water supply for all of us.
Certainly there was a lot of hard work from Cruz and his supporters that went into this victory. Also there was some luck (like in any victory), Dewhurst was a bad candidate, and there was a huge assist from Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott. Whose redistricting battle pushed the primary, and resulting runoff into the Summer. Ultimately it was not a victory for the grassroots, but for the Astroturf.
Ted Cruz’s Deceptive Triumph.
Tea Party’s Cruz Vanquishes GOP Pick for U.S. Senate in Texas Run-off.
Although by Tuesday it look likely that Ted Cruz would beat David Dewhurst, none of the prognosticators predicted what happened. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst was crushed in the primary runoff, it wasn’t even close (57% – 43%). Now many pundits are trying to divine the meaning of Cruz’s win last night. With the end of an election immediately comes a fresh round of prognosticating on what the results mean.
What the results mean in the short-tem is that it’s likely that Cruz will be the next US Senator from Texas, unless a bunch of Dewhurst voters and donors decide to vigorously support Democratic candidate Paul Sadler - not likely. Sadler handily defeated his runoff opponent as well, beating Grady Yarbrough (63% – 37%). In the long-term it’s unknown, as Cruz’s comments about President Obama’s election in 2008 show, we likely don’t know what Cruz’s win will mean in the long run. Who knows, it could be just what the Democrats in Texas need.
The one rule in politics I’ve come to believe, (and can’t remember who said it), is that things are never as good as they seem or as bad as they seem. And if Cruz is going to be the next Senator from Texas things seem pretty bad right now, and not just for Democrats in Texas. It probably seems pretty damn bad for the country club Republicans right now too.
Reactions from last yesterdays election:
Kuff, 2012 Democratic primary runoffs and 2012 Republican primary runoffs.
Burka, Voters made good choices.
Slater, Cruz’s GOP Senate victory: What it means.
Ramshaw, Runoff Voters Were in Mood to Oust Incumbents.
Glazer, All Aboard The Crazy Train.
TDP, Game Change.
Williamson County results.
Digby, Tea partying billionaires buy another seat.
I haven’t written much on the GOP primary run off for US Senate. Mostly because it’s just a bunch of crap. Both candidates are trying to out “conservative” the other, and it’s really kind of sad. I’m not a GOP voter and I really don’t see much of a difference between the two. The main difference I see is that one is able to self-finance from his bankroll, and the other is being financed by someone else’s bankroll. But they are both awash in cash.
It will be interesting for many reasons if Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst loses the runoff. But one of the most ironic might be a candidate with hundreds of millions of dollars to self-finance his own campaign, will be taken down, by corporate cash that only exits because of Citizens United. In other words two years ago Ted Cruz never would have been able to compete, financially, with David Dewhurst and now he can.
The other interesting aspect of a Dewhusrt loss would be what it would mean for the Texas GOP going forward. Dewhurst has always been more of a daddy-Bush/Romney, elitist, business-first style Republican. He’s always seemed offended that he’s even being challenged. But he’s got most of the establishment GOP in Texas lining up behind him. But a Dewhurst loss will also send a pretty strong signal to moderate Republicans that they can no longer win a primary in Texas.
Will the country club Republicans be out-hustled by the tea part Republicans? That seems to be the big unanswered question of the run off, which is going to come down to turnout. Perry defends Dewhurst as ‘solid conservative,’ blasts Cruz-backing super PAC as focused on inside-Beltway politics.
A Dewhurst loss will also start speculation that Dewhurst may have run his last campaign. And it will stop all the speculation about electing a new Lt. Gov. at the beginning of the next legislative session.
My take on this race is that it’s hard to out wing nut a wing nut. There’s no way Dewhurst can get to the right of Ted Cruz, and he looks silly trying. Everyone knows Dewhurst is a moderate Republican. This race parallels the Perry/Hutchison race of 2010. Who ever gets to the right first wins. But it will be a low turnout election and can still go either way. I’m not counting Dewhurst out, but this is the first time in a while he’s been seriously challenged since 2002 and it shows.
Democratic US Senate candidate Paul Sadler may not have a bunch of money, but he’s had a few good lines so far. Today he had another one, his wrap up of the GOP Senate primary so far.
Sadler scoffed at Republicans’ high-dollar battle for their party nomination, which he views from a low-dollar vantage point.
“They spent $25 million on the other side in a Republican nomination process, and if you ask most people on the street, they can tell you two things: No. 1, that there is some lawsuit involving tires and China. And No. 2, that the other candidate, they consider him weak or timid or not conservative,” he said. “What a bunch of crap — $25 million, and that’s all we talk about?”
The crossover myth goes something like this. [Insert wing nut GOP candidate name here] is so far to the right that so-called moderate Republicans will crossover in the general election and vote for the Democratic Party candidate. That seems to be what Bud Kennedy and Democratic US Senate candidate Paul Sadler are saying in this article, To some in GOP, Tea is bitter brew.
If East Texas lawyer Paul Sadler can win his party’s July 31 runoff, he stands ready to pick up support from the 20 percent of Republicans who consider themselves too moderate for Tea.
“There is such a culture of fear in that party, I don’t think any Republican could ever publicly support a Democrat,” Sadler said on his way to raise money in Dallas.
“More than one” of Sadler’s former fellow Texas House lawmakers has promised to cross party lines and support him, he said.
“I don’t want this to come out as ‘Sadler has a chance if Cruz wins’ because I think I have a good chance anyway,” he said.
“I think a majority of voters will still respond to somebody who can solve problems and who tells them the truth.”
Sadler is your typical underfunded long-shot Democrat. But he might draw moderate voters.
Not many Democrats stayed as overnight guests in Gov. George W. Bush’s White House or were praised in his book A Charge to Keep.
As chairman of the House Public Education Committee, Sadler worked with Bush and Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff to pass the governor’s education reforms and repair Texas’ school finance system.
“We were trying to solve problems and move the state forward, and back then we thought that was important,” he said.
It’s a familiar myth, that Democrats have been hearing, (or telling themselves), for damn near 20 years. But Cruz, if he wins, could be the most right wing Texas GOP candidate, with a real chance of winning, in modern history. While Perry may say some of the same things as Cruz, the “bidness” community in Texas knows where Perry’s real allegiance is – to them and not the tea party. But with Cruz they may not be so sure.
So it’s worth asking the question, is Ted Cruz so far to the right could he end the crossover myth? Provided, that is, that Sadler wins the Democratic Party nomination. The one sticking point left, that would keep the myth intact would be this, (via Booman).
You have to read to page five of Robert Draper’s piece on Obama’s Super PAC to find the money quote.
[Bill] Burton and his colleagues spent the early months of 2012 trying out the pitch that Romney was the most far-right presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater. It fell flat. The public did not view Romney as an extremist. For example, when Priorities [USA] informed a focus group that Romney supported the [Paul] Ryan budget plan — and thus championed “ending Medicare as we know it” — while also advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the respondents simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing.
In the context of the article, this bit of information is used to explain why Priorities USA pivoted to focusing on Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital. But we should consider what this information means for the Romney campaign. His actual economic policies are so unpopular that people simply refuse to believe he could actually be advocating them. And that is precisely why he isn’t advocating them. He is not talking about what is actually in Paul Ryan’s budget proposal at all. Nor will he. It polls so badly that you can’t even run ads against it because people don’t believe anyone would be so radical as to propose such things.
So, that’s the starting point for understanding this election. Team Romney is trying to steal a page out of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign by making this an election all about the economy, stupid. But his economic plans are unmentionable. Their substance is taboo. All substance on the core issue is off limits. Romney is waging a campaign on the economy without articulating any specifics.
The specifics exist, of course, in the Ryan Plan or Romney’s 29-page economic plan (or however long it is), but he’s not interested in discussing those details. Why would he be? He might as well indicate that, if elected, he intends to infect every American with chlamydia. For the same reason that Bill Burton and Paul Begala discovered that Romney’s economic plan was not ripe for criticism, Romney knows it isn’t ripe for advocacy either. It’s just this toxic thing that neither side wants to touch.
But it really is what the Republicans want and intend to do if they get the power to do it.
That most Republicans still believe that no matter which one of these guys win the nomination, neither one of them is really serious about supporting the Ryan budget plan and austerity at the federal level.
The difference – the deal breaker – may be that Cruz is a true believer, a true regressive, where with Romney/Dewhurst it’s anybody’s guess what they really believe. (But a look at their wealth makes it obvious they’re pro-business first). But there’s one more thing that needs to be figured out, if the myth is to become reality.
How does a general election race between Cruz and Sadler play out, where Sadler is able to exploit Cruz’s failings and beat him? As we know, it’s been a while since a Democrat has won statewide in Texas. And to win, Sadler will need oodles of money, fast. How does that happen? The only way that happens is A LOT of these so-called moderate Republicans, and members of the “bidness community” in Texas, would have to come out, and decide, it’s better to support Sadler, then a wing nut Republican like Cruz in the general election.
One can hope, but that’s not likely to happen, no matter how many GOP state Senators get their feelings hurt. But on the other hand, winning a US Senate seat over a divided Democratic Party candidate, is where the GOP started it’s return to power in Texas.
Cruz leads in Texas runoff.
Texas Senate Showdown: Cruzing, But is Ted Headed for a Bruzing?
The debate was stunning. Stunning in how little of any consequence was debated. Stunning how little was said by the candidates, and questions the panelists asked, that would make a difference in anyone’s life. The wing nut panelist who asked the question, why shouldn’t we abolish the Department of Education? WTF? Are they paying attention to education in Texas? If it was for the federal government public education would be dead already in Texas.
On economics I found both of them lacking. Paul Sadler’s harping on the deficit was sad, barely mentioning jobs, treating unemployment insurance like leprosy – when it’s the best “bang for you buck” stimulus, etc.. Neither one of them mentioned the simple fix for Social Security – lift the cap. Grady Yarbrough was a little better wanting, at least, to end tax subsidies for big oil, and extend unemployment insurance.
There was nothing either one of these guys said that would fire up a Democratic voter to work for, or vote for them, much less donate to their campaign.
My suspicion is that Sadler, if elected, would a “Gang of..” type Senator. Like Mark Warner and Kent Conrad, who are all too eager to compromise on issued like Social Security and Medicare, and tax cuts for the rich. He would certainly be better than Dewhusrst or Cruz.
It’s not about purity, so much as we at least need candidates that will talk about issues that matter to the people (99%). No one gives a crap about the deficit if they don’t have a job. The only people that care about the deficit are Republicans or people with money and a job. If you don’t have the latter two, a job is more important than anything, so you can have money to take care of yourself and famiely. I can’t figure out why that is so damn hard for Democratic politicians to figure out.
If Democrats would have gone Keyenesian and unemployment was down to 6 or 7 percent we’d be looking at a Democratic takeover. Instead we’re talking about the deficit and other stuff that doesn’t matter to people who need a job. Put people back to work and the deficit goes away. Yes, we can grow our way out of this depression!!
I’d much rather have Sean Hubbard in place of these dudes.Oh well, who’s running against Cornyn in 2014?
Watch it here.
PDiddie’s take, Grady wants a border wall; Sadler parts company with platform.
[UPDATE]: They should both read and run on this, A Manifesto for Economic Sense.
As a result of their mistaken ideas, many Western policy-makers are inflicting massive suffering on their peoples. But the ideas they espouse about how to handle recessions were rejected by nearly all economists after the disasters of the 1930s, and for the following forty years or so the West enjoyed an unparalleled period of economic stability and low unemployment. It is tragic that in recent years the old ideas have again taken root. But we can no longer accept a situation where mistaken fears of higher interest rates weigh more highly with policy-makers than the horrors of mass unemployment.
Better policies will differ between countries and need detailed debate. But they must be based on a correct analysis of the problem. We therefore urge all economists and others who agree with the broad thrust of this Manifesto to register their agreement at www.manifestoforeconomicsense.org, and to publically argue the case for a sounder approach. The whole world suffers when men and women are silent about what they know is wrong.
� Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »