As fewer and fewer Democrats were elected in Texas over the past two decades, liberals would console themselves with the thought that demographics were on their side. “Just you wait, Hispanics will turn Texas back into a blue state.” Indeed, the likes of Ruy Teixeira considered the triumph of Democrats riding an ever-rising tides of Hispanic immigrants to permanent majority party status all but inevitable.
But a funny thing happened on the way to Blue State Nirvana: Illegal alien amnesty failed, even with Democratic majorities in both House and Senate, depriving Democrats of what they assumed were certain Democratic voters. And thanks to both the recession and various state-level illegal alien measures in places like Arizona and Alabama, illegal aliens are now leaving the United States faster than they’re entering it.
Worse still for Texas Democrats, Republicans suddenly became successful at wooing Hispanic voters and recruiting high profile Hispanic candidates, many of whom won.
Now fast forward to 2012. After the Ricardo Sanchez’s withdrawl from the senate campaign, there are now absolutely no Hispanic Democrats running a statewide race in Texas this year. As horrible and lackluster a candidate as Sanchez was, at least you could see him protecting down-ballot races. But now Republicans will have at least one Hispanic (incumbent Judge Elsa Alcala of Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Place 8) and as many as three (including incumbent Judge David Medina in Texas Supreme Court Place 4), one of whom, Ted Cruz, could be the top statewide name on the ballot.
Hell, even the Libertarians (Texas Railroad Commission Place 2) and the Greens (U.S. Senate) managed to find Hispanic candidates to run statewide. That’s a major Hispandering failure for the Texas Democratic Party. And to add insult to injury, by failing to run a candidate for Railroad Commission Place 2, where the Greens do have a candidate, Democrats have pretty much ensured that Greens will continue to qualify for automatic ballot access (and thus continue to leach liberal votes away from them).
In an ideal world, people would choose all their candidates based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. In the real world, ethnic identification does affect voting patterns. Even a few percentage points of Hispanic voters crossing the aisle to vote for Cruz rather than straight-ticket Democratic might be enough for Republicans to pick up a handful of down ballot races.
And that dream of a Blue State Texas grows still more distant.
Yesterday, I endorsed Ted Cruz. Today National Review did the same. Coincidence?
Almost certainly!
After all, it was hardly a surprise given the cover issue treatment they already gave him. But it’s good to be ahead of the curve, if only for one day. And their endorsement is well worth reading:
To borrow a phrase from baseball, Cruz is what one might call a “five-tool” candidate: He is good on the Constitution, on the economy, on social issues, and on foreign policy, and he possesses the intellect and rhetorical gifts to combine these views into a clear, cogent, and compelling conservative vision for America.
Lawrence Person’s BattleSwarm Blog endorses Ted Cruz for United States Senator. I believe that Cruz is the best candidate, that he has the longest, strongest, and deepest commitment to conservative principles among all the candidates running, and that he will make the best United States Senator for Texas.
Because I strive to be both fair and clear, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of all the other Republican candidates in the race, and why I believe Ted Cruz is the superior choice for Senator.
Let’s dispense with the candidates that didn’t run serious campaigns: Dr. Joe Agris never bothered to even put up a website and never campaigned beyond an event appearance or two; I can only assume his run is a way to advertise his medical practice. Ben Gambini did little better, only managing a Facebook page and a few events. Curt Cleaver at least made some effort, but not enough to make an impression,
Lela Pittenger ran a semi-serious campaign, raising some money and appearing at numerous events, but I always got the impression that she was running more for ego than to take principled positions at odds with the more prominent candidates. Plus I never got the impression she put in the sustained effort into the nitty gritty, unglamorous work that a real longshot candidate has to in order to have any chance of succeeding.
With all but one of the longshots dispensed with (we’ll get to him further down), let’s turn to the major candidates.
Given how heavily favored he was coming into this race, it’s shocking how poor a job Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst has done campaigning.
To be sure, Dewhurst has many strengths, but two of his strongest (name recognition and personal wealth) play no role in my deciding who to endorse. And while I’m impressed with his U.S. Air Force service and his business acumen in amassing a $200+ million fortune, both of those attributes must take a very distant backseat to his decade-long record as Lt. Governor.
Some of Dewhurst’s record is worthy of praise. While other state governments have spent money like drunken sailors in a Thai whorehouse using George Soros’ stolen credit card, Texas, under Governor Rick Perry and Lt. Governor Dewhurst, has generally controlled spending, has balanced the budget without raising taxes (though some of that has been accomplished through gimmicks), and actually reduced the state budget for the 2012-2013 biennium compared to the 2010-2011 budget. What share of credit does Lt. Governor Dewhurst take for this achievement? A fair amount. While constrained both by the overall direction of the Governor’s Office of Budget, Planning, and Policy, and by the Comptroller’s revenue estimates, the Lt. Governor has considerable control over the process by virtue not only of his oversight of the day-to-day affairs of the state senate, but also his ability to essentially pick half the seats on the Legislative Budget Board, which has a large hand in establishing and managing budget priorities.
This, and his efforts at shepherding through the (constitutionally required) 2003 redistricting are among the primary reasons Dewhurst has been considered a conservative. And I have defended Dewhurst from charges he was a RINO in the past. Dewhurst occupies that vast gray area between real RINOs such as Arlen Specter and Charlies Crist and true movement conservatives; call him a “big business Republican,” the sort of guy who will defend the free market 90% of the time, but won’t let anything like principles stand in the way of doing favors for well connected friends. (That would also explain why, though he has mostly contributed to Republican candidates, he did make two donations to Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen.) I fear that Dewhurst is probably the most amenable of all the candidates of signing on with the sort of “grand compromise” that gets praised by the press for selling out conservatives rather than fighting to shrink the size and scope of the federal government.
There’s been real dissatisfaction with Dewhurst among movement conservatives for years. Despite having controlling majorities in both House and Senate, conservative Republicans found their agenda being thwarted in many ways great and small by Dewhurst in the Senate and Speaker Joe Straus in the House:
All this was bad enough, but his lackluster campaign and poor public speaking skills have given even more reasons for voters to look elsewhere. The Cruz campaign was right to ding Dewhurst for his repeated failures to show up at numerous candidate debates and forums across the country, but the Belo debate went a long way toward showing why exactly why Dewhurst has been avoiding such events: He’s not a good debater, he doesn’t seem to think quickly on his feet, and he seemed to grow worse and more confused as the night went on. Frankly, he didn’t seem up to the job.
Then there’s the issue of his indifference or even hostility to both new media and grassroots conservative activism. The fact that Dewhurst was the only major Republican senate candidate not only unable to find time to sit down for an interview for this blog, but whose campaign even failed to even respond to repeated requests, is only a minor concern (after all, people are busy). But it’s emblematic of the larger issue of Dewhurst’s indifference to new media, the Tea Party, and voters. You can bash Obama failures all day, but that won’t make you stand out from any other Republican candidate in the entire country. Dewhurst is an insider, establishment Republican who seems to have made zero effort to reach out to Tea Party voters.
This quote from Tea Party 911 blogger Barry Schlech neatly encapsulates what many Texas conservatives think about Dewhurst:
There is not a lot of tea party support for Mr. Dewhurst because of his more liberal Republican views. He has probably sensed this animosity since he has been unavailable for or a “no-show” at many of the tea party events to which he was invited. He is seen, by many, to represent the “good ol’ boy moderate to liberal Republican establishment that is well entrenched in Austin. He is seen as a close ally to House Speaker Joe Straus whom the tea party does not respect. Many tea partiers are not happy with this liberal Republican clique in Austin and want to change to a more representative and more conservative legislature.
All that said, David Dewhurst has some real strengths. He’s good at making and cultivating business and cultural connections, good at managing the intricacies of the legislative agenda, good at finding compromises and building consensus, and good at the backslapping minutia of legislative interpersonal relationships. Unfortunately, those are precisely the qualities I’m not looking for in my Senator. I don’t want a negotiator, I want a conservative fighter. I want someone to fight for shrinking the size and scope of the federal government and reign in insanely bloated federal spending, not manage it better. There are quite enough get-along-to-go-along compromisers in the senate already; we don’t need another one.
There are no areas in which I think David Dewhurst would do a better job than Ted Cruz in the Senate, but many in which I think he would perform markedly worse.
Speaking of people who I just don’t think are up to job, let’s talk about Craig James. James has a lot of strengths: he’s handsome, charismatic, personable, and has done very well for himself in his post-NFL business career. Politically James’ heart seems to be in the right place, he seems considerably more authentic and less calculated than Dewhurst, and his decision to release several years of his own tax returns was a savvy move for increased transparency the other candidates were forced to emulate. James seems to have awakened politically to the numerous problems facing the nation and how far we’ve drifted from a constitutional republic of enumerated powers. That’s a great first step on your political journey.
Unfortunately, the next step in that journey is not “Run for the United States Senate.” The second step is to read widely, broadly and deeply of both classic and modern political thought. The Constitution and The Bible are great first steps, but you should also read The Federalist Papers and Democracy in America and The Wealth of Nations and The Road to Serfdom and Economics in One Lesson and The Gulag Archipelago and The Black Book of Communism and Darkness at Noon and Up From Liberalism and Conscience of a Conservative and Losing Ground and Liberal Fascism and, yes, Atlas Shrugged, even if you object to Ayn Rand’s anti-religious bias. Start there, keep reading, and soon you’ll have the intellectual underpinnings to deepen and articulate your views. (It would also help you get beyond the irritatingly vague and platitudinous nature of your answers on any issues that go beyond your standard talking points.)
James doesn’t have that intellectual depth yet, and the fact that he hadn’t even heard of the Posse Comitatus Act is emblematic of his inexperience. His problems are compounded by his late start and his background. If you start out as a professional football player and then move into sports broadcasting, you’re going to have to work twice as hard to convince people that you have the intellectual acumen to run for public office. (Jack Kemp worked very hard at establishing his policy credentials.) James’ problem is compounded by his unwise decision to declare he was living on “Real Street” as his campaign’s central rhetorical motif. Craig, you were a professional football player and broadcaster. It doesn’t matter how many mayonnaise sandwiches you ate in your hardscrabble youth, the voting public at large is never going to believe an ex-NFL player/broadcaster is living on “real street,” no matter how hard you try or how many jobs you create as a businessman. Give it up.
Craig James isn’t ready to be Senator. Could he “skill up” to be electable a few years down the road, once the Texas Tech controversy has faded? Very possibly, though more likely at the congressional than senatorial level. (Let’s face it, when the bar starts at Sheila Jackson Lee, there are few non-incarcerated Republicans that aren’t up to the task.)
I’ll give this to Tom Leppert: When this campaign started, I really didn’t see myself ranking him higher than just about any of the declared candidates (which at the time included Roger Williams, Michael Williams, and Elizabeth Ames Jones) or Dewhurst. Leppert is intelligent, he’s dogged, he’s a very good one-on-one retail politician, he doesn’t make many mistakes, he’s assembled a campaign team second only to Cruz’s in their competence and grasp of new media, and he has much better stage presence than Dewhurst.
So given all that, and Leppert’s solid conservative policy positions on a wide range of issues, why doesn’t he rank higher? Mainly because until October 13, 2010, when Leppert endorsed Rick Perry in the gubernatorial race, Leppert gave absolutely no public sign that he was even a Republican, much less a conservative Republican. Before he started running for mayor, Leppert was just another rich guy whose campaign contributions went to people on both sides of the aisle, including contributions to Democrats like Texas Senate candidate Ron Kirk in 2002, Hawaii’s incumbent Senator Daniel K. Inouye in 1992 and again in 1998, and congressional contender (and later Honolulu mayor and member of Bloomberg’s gun-grabbing Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition) Muliufi Francis Hannemannin in 1990.
While running for mayor of Dallas in 2007, Leppert:
When he first ran for Mayor, as a moderate and a supporter of working men and women, he was pro-SEIU, pro-public employees organizing, pro-collective bargaining.
So committed to these ideals was Tom, that he vigorously pursued SEIU’s endorsement.
So committed to these ideals was Tom, that he came to our union organizing launch in the Water Department — encouraging folks to join SEIU.
So committed to these ideals was Tom, he frequently threw on an SEIU T-shirt and came to our union hall.
So committed to these ideals was Tom, that he wrote a letter of support to Senator West and testified in favor of SEIU members getting a form of collective bargaining.
Tom even signed an SEIU membership card!
Now, that Tom wants to compete in a Republican primary, he has renounced his support of unions and even has the gall to declare he “has expanded the Right to Work.”
And that’s just while running for mayor. His record as Mayor of Dallas has just as many question marks on both conservative and good governance grounds:
And there are at least two or three other big question marks about Leppert’s term as mayor. Indeed, one sign of how controversial that term was is how rarely he talks about it on the campaign trail, where he puts his business background first and foremost, as though his four years as mayor of Texas’ third largest city never happened.
The least charitable explanation for Tom Leppert’s behavior is that he’s a pure political animal with no core ideological beliefs other than being elected. The most charitable explanation is that he’s been a “secret conservative” all along, and was just waiting for the opportunity to proclaim to the world what he actually believes. My own suspicion is that he, like Dewhurst, fits neatly into the “get along to go along” establishment Republican mold. Like Dewhurst, I doubt Leppert would be notably more conservative as a senator than the departing Kay Baily Hutchison. That’s not good enough.
But even if he were a “secret conservative” all these years, why would I prefer him to someone like Ted Cruz who’s never been afraid to proclaim and defend conservative principles throughout the entirety of his career?
So that takes care of all the major candidates besides Cruz. But there’s still one candidate we haven’t covered. If I weren’t voting for Cruz, I would probably cast my vote for Glenn Addison.
Though a relative unknown, Addison has probably worked harder than any other candidate on the campaign trail, he’s well-spoken with a certain folksy charm, and he’s run a serious campaign in every aspect except funding. With his energy and effort, he could easily be a successful candidate in a down-ballot race.
Addison has staked out strong conservative positions on just about every issue, but there are a few I disagree with. I oppose his desire to sanction China for currency manipulation (protectionism is still loser economics). His evidently friendliness with the John Birch Society (there’s a reason William F. Buckley, Jr. felt compelled to cast them out of the respectable ranks of the conservative movement) is not a plus. And the few areas that I do prefer his policies over Cruz (eliminating the EPA and the Departments of Education and Energy, for example) are ones which have absolutely no chance of being passed in the near future. Which doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be pushed for…
If Ted Cruz were not in the race, I would vote for Addison knowing that he would probably be creamed by Dewhurst.
Fortunately, Ted Cruz is in the race.
Early on there was debate whether Cruz or Michael Williams was the best Tea Party candidate for the seat. Cruz won that “Tea Party Primary” so decisively that Williams dropped out. Not only is Cruz the unquestioned Tea Party representative, he is the one with the broadest and deepest conservative background. While the phrase “Ivy League Trial Lawyer” is technically accurate, you don’t specialize in 9th and 10th Amendment studies because you want to be rich, and you don’t work at the Texas Public Policy Foundation if you want moderate Republicans to consider you one of their own. Cruz is not only exceptionally sharp, an excellent debater and a gifted public speaker, he’s also a classic fusionist candidate with both strong free market and social conservative credentials, and fits the definition of the rightmost electable candidate in the race.
Don’t buy the MSM consensus wisdom that Dewhurst is invulnerable because he’s rich. There are lots of “unbeatable” politicians who have been knocked off by lesser-known challengers. Ed Koch was a shoe-in for Governor of New York until he ran into Mario Cuomo. Charlie Crist was going to mop the floor with Marco Rubio until he didn’t. George H. W. Bush looked invulnerable heading into 1992. Despite Dewhurst’s numerous advantages, he hasn’t been able to poll above 50% and Cruz has been steadily eating into his lead. I’ve had relatives who aren’t nearly as politically aware as I express unbidden how impressed they are with Cruz. The grassroots excitement about Cruz is not only palpable here in Texas, but among conservative and Tea Party organizations across the country, with conservative senate stalwarts like Jim DeMint and Rand Paul eager to help Cruz join their ranks.
I believe Ted Cruz is far and away the best best candidate in the race, and I urge all my Texas readers to cast their votes for him as the next United States Senator from Texas in the Republican primary.
We’re a little more than a month out from the elections, and the rhetorical blows are already raining down among the candidates:
The Dewhurst campaign also says the longer piece will be available to watch on Hulu “in exchange for viewing an entire program on Hulu without commercials.” I must admit that the idea of using hulu in this way for a political campaign never occurred to me. We’ll see if it’s cost effective…
Craig James has to feel pleased that Leppert feels he’s worth of being attacked.
I’ve been going through all 767 pages of David Dewhurst’s Q1 FEC report to see if anything leapt out at me. Honestly, this is really more of a sampler, since as the bank in the race, there’s just no end of Presidents, CEOs, Founders and Owners of various oil companies, insurance companies, banks, car dealerships, etc. donating to Dewhurst.
Some notable names among Dewhurst’s individual donors. Unless otherwise noted (or I screwed something up) these are current donations to date and are earmarked for the primary:
Now a brief look at the corporate donors. I’m omitting the ones already announced on Dewhurst’s website that I’ve been including in the regular Senate race updates.
Overall impressions: Lots of oil industry people, bankers, real estate developers, lawyers, and, for some reason, a statistically improbable number of dairy owners. And give Dewhurst credit for one thing his campaign team has been emphasizing: The overwhelming majority of individual donor money he’s raised has come from inside Texas.
A look at the expenses side of Dewhurst’s FEC report when I have time.
A new PPP poll shows that Ted Cruz continues to gain ground on David Dewhurst. Dewhurst’s lead has decreased 6 points from a PPP poll in January, when it was Dewhurst 36% and Cruz 18%. I think this is also the first public poll where we can track numbers from the previous poll. Tom Leppert was well back at 8%, followed closely by Craig James at 7%. Margin of error was +/-4.0%.
Not only does Cruz continue to gain ground. but Dewhurst remains below the 50% threshold he need to avoid a runoff.
Fasten your seat belts, we’re in for a hell of a month…
Here’s a roundup of coverage of the Texas Senate candidate debate I liveblogged on Friday:
Well, I’ve already been distracted by shiny objects, so I guess I’ll close this out. David Dewhurst was a very poor candidate tonight, and he better hope that not too many Republican voters were watching…
Leppert doesn’t excite the base (with some reason), but he doesn’t make a lot of mistakes either. You can see why he’s hanging around, but a Republican primary doesn’t play to his strengths.
To win, Cruz has to take the fight to Dewhurst, but in tonight’s debate he did it in a way that seemed too programmed and strident. Leppert’s “I’m not a lawyer” line may be a transparent dig at Cruz, but it still comes across as more subtle than some of Cruz’s attacks on Dewhurst. Cruz needs to pull back a little, be a bit less programmed, and a bit more spontaneous.
This debate left a lot to be desired from an organizational standpoint. I appreciate a full hour without commercial interruptions, but the “Here are some polling numbers, how can you possibly oppose them” questions were dumb even by the very slack standards of liberal MSM journalism.
Cruz didn’t win the debate, but Dewhurst certainly lost it. He got worse as the night went on. No wonder he avoids debates. He doesn’t think well on his feet, and he wasn’t prepared for some very obvious questions.
All three of the other candidates had both good and bad moments. Cruz is a good debater, but, as I’ve said before, his decision to always go back to his stock answers was a mistake. He did well on the Cuba question, but I think he would have done better answering the questions straight without always trying to use them to attack Dewhurst
James probably raised his stock more than the others by simply being no worse than Leppert or Cruz. His final speech tried to cram too much in too hard.
Leppert was polished, and came across as reasonable, but his answers tended to allude to positions that were too detailed to cover in the debate format.
James: Apartment boy eviction notice mayonnaise sandwich life story. (Impassioned speech, a little strong.)
Cruz: Attacks Dewhurst. “We need strong conservatives.” Record of conservative.
Leppert: Attacks Dewhurst, attacks Cruz.
Dewhurst: Most conservative Lt. Gov. (Big pause.) Life story. (He’s gotten worse as the debate has gone on.)
Slater brings up the budget-cutting question on Dewhurst. Shouldn’t you cut it in good times.
Dewhurst: Cut state spending. I cut state spending 2003, 11, 12, 13.
(Man, even I’m wincing in sympathy for Dewhurst on this.)
Dewhurst: General revenue decline 10.7%
Asking Cruz the Cuba dictator question.
Cruz: Knocks the question out of the park. DMN retracted.
Hmmm. Washington Mutual question for Leppert.
Leppert: (Very slightly rattled, but recovers quickly.) WAMU’s problems were already in place, and mandated. (Then dances away for his businessman shtick.)
SA reporter on gay civil unions. (Clip of James opposing gay marriage.)
James: All of us will be accountable to God. I do support marriage between a man and woman.
SA Reporter: You’re letting your faith get in the way of (following some liberal poll)
James (doesn’t back down)
Leppert to Dewhurst: You raised more lobbyist money than Nancy Pelosi and (didn’t catch), (And…was there an actual question.)
Dewhurst: Rambling answer “I’ve always done what is right”???????
Cruz To Leppert: Dewhurst wage tax? Did Dewhurst cut or increase the budget?
Leppert: I might as well let you ask the question to Dewhurst. (knives Cruz about his career as a lawyer) To you business is academic, to me it’s a living.
Dewhurst: I have always opposed a state income tax. The facts are wrong. Fed vs. Texas dollars.
James to Cruz: Why didn’t you support Santorum.
Cruz: Santorum is a great conservative. But I wanted to let the voters decide. We need strong conservatives to take the Senate.
Dewhurst just had a senior moment asking whether Craig James would support Cornyn.
James: I’ll support anyone who supports the constitution and the 10 Commandments. (But he would support Cornyn.)
Cruz: I said it would be premature of me, but DeMint, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey all support me.
Candidates ask other candidates questions.
Reporter: 85% love this cherry-picked issue!
Leppert: Don’t invite the government in. (Then talks about how the government manages various sub-issues.)
Cruz: I don’t support then as mandates from the government. TAANSTAFL. Every mandate drives up the cost of health care to buy votes. (Cruz was about to hit a home run, and then went back to the European Dewhurst hit, and turned it into a triple.)
Dewhurst: I’m running for the senate, my opponents are running against David Dewhurst. We got the best stuff, but we can do better. (An ideologically incoherent answer.)
Austin reporter: Here are all the ways that ObamCare is awesome via this narrowly tailored polls.
James: 26 year olds love those provisions because Obama has destroyed the economy. (straddle)
Dewhurst: Democrats talk about more services. Improve health care outcomes and save money. (Revenge of the Vagues.) Ummm, uhhhh. Look at the cost.
James: Opposes the wall, supports sending troops to the border. Wall is not practical, (Oppose his answer, but I give him points for floating an answer that swims against conservative consensus.)
Dewhurst: Supports wall in some spots, but not all. Triple border patrol, a job program for returning vets. (?)
Leppert: (Ducks wall issue) Secure borders, put accountability in the system. Ask border guys what they need. Washington should supply the tools they want. (Don’t think that’s workable answer.)
Border wall question: Do you support?
Cruz: Yes. Triple border patrol. Opposed to amnesty. (Then the attack on Dewhurst.)
Dewhurst: I’ve always opposed amnesty. Cutting in line is wrong. (This concise format does not favor Dewhurst.)
Cruz: Dewhurst assigned bills to liberal democratic committee chairman. Washington plays this game all the time.
James: If an employer doesn’t want tor provide it, they shouldn’t be forced to. (The I’m a businessman schtick)
Reporter: (Liberal talking points on how mandated contraceptives are awesome)
James: It’s about freedom. And Democrats want us to talk about contraceptives rather than jobs.
Dewhurst: Opposes, talks about all the doctors he’s talked to, relatives, etc. Comes across even more scripted than Cruz.
Dewhurst: I’ve always supported, uh, permissive, free market alternatives
Cruz: No on contraception, violates religious freedom, is unconstitutional. (Cruz does have a tendency to go to his standard answers, which he does at the end here.)
San Antonio reporter: Contraception mandate.
Leppert: “The government was trumping individual freedom.”
Reporter: Required to mandate?
Leppert: No. Let patients and doctors make decisions.
James: Leave it to the military. (James is very good in this shorter format.)
James: Need major entitlement reform. MSAs, “This is working for middle class.” (sic)
Cruz: Fundamental entitlement reform, defense reform. (Then back to his points on Dewhurst increasing the Texas budget.)
Dewhurst: I’ve cut it 7-8 times, billions and billions of dollars, inflation + population growth.
Leppert: Rely on our armed forces, get congress out of it. Not questions here, detailed proposals.
Dewhurst: Opposed to the cuts Obama has proposed. Reform procurement.
So far the candidates are clashing more with the panelists than each other.
Dewhurst isn’t great, but so far he’s not awful.
Screw you, panelist, or the yes or no question. You suck
Panelist: Deficit. Cut defense? (no hands)
Cruz: Pork yes, defense no.
Poor job running the panel.
Mod: 1 minute answer, 30 second rebuttal.
Leppert: Why not debate? But the issue is a distraction.
Mod: Why haven’t you shown up?
David: I’ve shown up at a half dozen (Actually bout 3-LP) I have my campaign to run.
James: “Put me in an awkward position. It was unethical. I agree conceptual with Ted, because David hasn’t been showing up.”
Back to the Cruz text message before the debate.
Cruz: “I’m glad Craig got my text. Lt. Gov has chosen to skip 32 candidate forums. Leppert, James, and I attended. Not rigging.”
#belodebate on Twitter.
Just starting. Starting the debate with mention of the Cruz-James text issue.
Just waiting for the debate to start.
Tonight I’ll be liveblogging the debate between Ted Cruz, David Dewhurst, Tom Leppert, and Craig James at 7 PM.