Now that Ken Paxton has been acquitted of all charges, Paxton can talk about the forces that conspired to push his bogus impeachment, which he does in this interview with Texas Scorecard’s M.Q. Sullivan.
MQS: “We had a secret investigation take place in the Texas House, with unsworn witnesses offering uh what John Smithy described as triple hearsay as evidence [and] no public hearings.”
MQS: “It’s been said that the Republicans were told this is a loyalty vote to the speaker of the House [Dade Phelan], and if it’s taking out Ken Paxton is what it takes to show loyalty, you have to do it.”
KP: “Democrats have figured out they can block vote. There’s 65 of them. Right now they block vote. They go to the Republicans and they say ‘We’ll get you elected as as speaker if you do what we say. We want to negotiate this deal.’ And so then that speaker who’s really controlled by the Democrats only needs 10 Republicans votes and then the Democrats effectively control [the House].”
KP: “I don’t think it’s any accident that the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice had two lawyers involved with the House investigating committee.”
KP: “I think the Biden Administration was tired of being sued. We’d sued him 48 times in two and a half years, and have been relatively successful with those cases, and I think that was a directive to the Democrats.”
KP: “[Phelan] was directed by the Democrats.” House Republicans need to be as united as Democrats.
KP: “They never had any evidence, and they obviously didn’t when they got to the Senate floor. But I think the message was ‘Do what we tell you to do or else.'”
MQS: “It seemed apparent to a lot of observers that the old Bush machine was ratcheted up against you. Johnny Sutton, Karl Rove, folks like that, who had not had much to say about Texas politics, their fingerprints were all over this from from very early on.” Sutton held several roles at the state and national level under George W. Bush, and was eventually appointed U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas.
KP: “This whole Coincidence of George P., after, what, 10 years of not having his license, on October 1st he asked the State Bar to get his license back. That just so happened to be that later that day that the these employees of mine told me that they’d turn me into the FBI. So somehow on that same day, before I knew about it, George P. is applying for his license.”
KP: “I think that that was the first sign that the Bush people were involved in this. And I think you can see from Johnny Sutton representing every one of these employees, that he was he’s doing this for free for the last three years, without ever sending a bill or even having a fee arrangement, that doesn’t make any sense either.”
KP: “Karl Rove wrote the editorial and he was directed, and I think given, that editorial by Texans for Lawsuit Reform. So you have all of these Bush connections that sought to get rid of me.”
MQS: TLR “is a group that has been kind of the de facto business lobby for more than two decades.”
KR: “They have definitely changed. They become a lobby group. They’re beholden to large, either corporate interests or individual interests, that don’t necessarily reflect the views of the Republican party.”
Sullivan suggests Paxtons problems may have started when he started targeting big tech and big pharma.
KP: “There’s a reason that we we’re looking at Big Tech, because they control the marketplace and they’re trying to control speech and control entire market activity on on advertising. There are issues related to them being deceptive in how they advertise, and also in what they tell consumers about what they’re doing with their information.”
KP: “Big Pharma obviously involved in this vaccine mandate, and potentially getting away with not actually testing their their vaccine, and telling us it does one thing when it does another.”
Paxton also brings up the role of banking as an industry that may not have been happy with him.
In another interview with Tucker Carlson, Paxton said he considers Texas Senator John Cornyn “a puppet of the Bush family” and will consider running against him in 2026.
Incumbent governor Greg Abbott walloped Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke by about a point less than he walloped Lupe Valdez in 2018, the year O’Rourke got within three points of Ted Cruz in the Texas senate race. 2018’s Betomania seems to have slightly raised the floor for Democrats in various down-ballot races, but not enough for them to be competitive statewide. This is O’Rourke’s third high-profile flameout in five years, and one wonders whether out-of-state contributors are getting wise to the game.
Vote totals seem down a bit from 2018, with the governor’s race drawing about 266,000 fewer voters.
Incumbent Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick increased the margin by which he beat Mike Collier (also his opponent in 2018) from about five points to about ten points.
For all the talk of Ken Paxton being the most vulnerable statewide incumbent, he also won his race over Rochelle Garza by about 10 points, as opposed to a three and half point victory over Justin Nelson (a man so obscure he has no Wikipedia entry) in 2018. (Thought experiment: Could Beto have beaten Paxton this year? My gut says his money would have made it a lot closer than his race with Abbott, but I think he still would have lost by about the same margin he lost to Ted Cruz in 2018. But his lack of a law degree would have worked against him, and I doubt his ego would ever consider running in a down-ballot race like AG…)
In the Comptroller, Land Commissioner and Agriculture Commissioner races, Republicans were up a bit around 56%, and Democrats were down a bit more. (And Dawn Buckingham replacing George P. Bush should be a big improvement.)
Railroad Commissioner Wayne Christian had the biggest spread between him and Democratic opponent Luke Warford, 15 points (55% to 40%).
Three Republican statewide judicial race winners (Rebeca Huddle in Supreme Court Place 5, Scott Walker in Court of Criminal Appeals Place 5, and Jesse F. McClure in Court of Criminal Appeals Place 6) were the only statewide candidates to garner 4.5 million or more votes (possibly due to the absence of Libertarian candidates).
In the House, the GOP grew its ranks by one — giving them an 86-to-64 advantage in the 150-member chamber for the 2023 legislative session. The Senate has 31 members, and Republicans previously outnumbered Democrats 18 to 13. The GOP will hold at least 19 seats next session. Democrats will hold at least 11, though they are leading in one Senate race that is still too close to call.
The Republicans’ victories were felt prominently in South Texas, where the GOP won key races after targeting the historically Democratic region of Texas after Democratic President Joe Biden underperformed there in 2020.
In House District 37, now anchored in Harlingen, Republican Janie Lopez beat Democrat Luis Villareal Jr. The seat is currently held by Democratic state Rep. Alex Dominguez, who unsuccessfully ran for state Senate rather than seek reelection. The district was redrawn to cut out many of the Democratic voters in Brownsville from the district to the benefit Republicans. Biden carried District 37 by 17.1 points in 2020 under the old boundaries, but would have won by only 2.2 points under the new map.
Lopez would be the first Latina Republican to represent the Rio Grande Valley in the House.
In another major South Texas victory, Rep. Ryan Guillen of Rio Grande City, who defected from the Democratic Party and ran this cycle as a Republican, won reelection handily.
In another crucial battle in southern Bexar County, which has traditionally been dominated by Democrats, Republican incumbent John Lujan prevailed over Democrat Frank Ramirez, a former San Antonio City Council member.
Who did well? Incumbent Republican congressman Dan Crenshaw. Remember this ad from 2020? In addition to Crenshaw winning reelection by some 73,000 votes, August Pfluger and Beth Van Duyne won reelection to their districts, and Wesley Hunt, who ran a close-but-no-cigar race for TX7 in 2020, managed to win the race for newly created TX38 this year. (My guess is that, just like Rep. Byron Donalds (FL19) and Rep. Burgess Owens (UT4), Hunt will be blocked from joining the Congressional Black Caucus.)
Is there any sign of black support for Democrats eroding? A bit. In 2018, Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (one of the very dimmest bulbs in congress) received 75.3% of the vote from her black and Hispanic majority district. In 2020, she received 73.3%. In 2022 (post redistricting), she received 70.7%. Slow progress, but progress none the less.
Leftwing fossil Lloyd Doggett was elected to his fifteenth term in congress, crushing his Republican opponent for the newly created 37th congressional district, while communist twerp Greg Casar (formerly of the Austin City Council) was elected to the 35th, formerly Doggett’s prior to redistricting.
Tarrant County had been trending more purple recently, going for O’Rourke over Cruz there by about 4,000 votes in 2018, and going for Biden over Trump by a mere 2,000 votes (less than .3%). But Abbott beat O’Rourke there by some 25,000 votes.
Jefferson County (Beaumont) is another county that’s flipped back. It went for O’Rourke over Cruz by about 500 votes,and flipped back to Trump over by around 500, but Abbott walloped O’Rouke by over 8,000 votes this year.
The runoff in the Austin Mayoral race will be on December 13 between hard lefty Celia Israel, and soft lefty retread Kirk Watson. If Watson picks up a clear majority of third place finisher Jennifer Virden’s voters (which seems likely), he should win.
This is a side effect of Williamson County, formerly a reliable Republican bulwark, becoming decidedly more liberal as Austin has become a hotbed of radical leftism. Abbott still edged O’Rourke by some 2,000 votes here, but Biden beat Trump by about 4,000 votes in 2020.
If 1978 is the year this election reminds me of nationally, then 1984 is the template year for Texas politics. In 1982, Phil Gramm resigned after Democrats threw him off the House Budget Committee (because why would you want a professional economist on a budget committee?), switched parties, and ran for his own vacancy in a special election as a Republican, winning handily.
Gramm’s switch showed that the time for conservatives to remain welcome in the Democratic Party was drawing to a close, and the way he resigned to run again rather than just switching made him a folk hero among Texas republicans. In 1984, Gramm ran for the senate, walloping Ron Paul, Robert Mosbacher, Jr. (a sharp guy who eventually did better in business than politics) and former Texas gubernatorial candidate Hank Grover in the Republican primary before decisively beating Lloyd Doggett (yep, the same one that’s still in congress) in the general by some 900,000 votes.
Gramm’s victory showed that the political careers of conservative Democrats who switched to the Republican Party could not only survive, but thrive. Between 1986 and the late 1990s, a series of high profile conservative Texas Democrats (including Kent Hance and Rick Perry) would switch from an increasingly radical Democratic Party to the GOP.
So too, this year showed that Hispanic Democrats could leave a party increasingly out of tune with people they represented (largely hard-working, law-abiding, entrepreneurial, conservative, and Catholic) for the Republican Party and win. Republicans may not have flipped terribly many seats in south Texas, but except for recent special election-winner Myra Flores, they held their gains.
The combination of Trump’s distinct appeal to working class Hispanics, deep opposition to disasterous Democratic open borders policies, and Gov. Abbott’s long term dedication to building out Republican infrastructure there have all primed Hispanics to shift to the GOP. Just as it took years for all Texas conservatives and most moderates to abandon the Democratic Party (Republicans wouldn’t sweep statewide offices until 1998), it will take years for the majority of Hispanics to switch.
But if Democrats continue to push open borders, social justice, radical transgenderism, soft on crime policies, high taxes and socialism, expect Hispanics to make that switch sooner rather than later.
That’s my Texas race roundup. If you have any notable highlights you think I should have covered, feel free to share them in the comments below.
All the favorites won in yesterday’s statewide Republican primary runoff races:
Ken Paxton clobbered George P. Bush with more than two-thirds of the vote. Paxton won 67.90% to Bush’s 32.10%. Bush went from getting more votes than Greg Abbott in 2014 to garnering less than one-third of the vote in a runoff, and the only sizeable county he won was Travis. Back in 2014, a whole lot of political pundits talked about Bush as though he were some political golden boy destined for higher office. Those notices proved premature. Now everyone is talking about “the end of the Bush dynasty.” Maybe, but that talk may also be premature; that bush has a lot of branches…
Wayne Christian didn’t quite get 2/3rds of the vote against challenger Sarah Stogner, but didn’t fall short by much, winning 65.04% of the vote to Strogner’s 34.96%. So that $2 million that transexual West Texas ranching heir Ashley (formerly Andrew) Watt poured into the race may have bought Stogner an extra 2% of the vote.
In other races, Pete Flores beat Raul Reyes in Senate District 24 (as expected), and Ellen Troxclair beat Justin Berry with 56.48% of the vote in State House District 19.
Texas Scorecard notes that in open races, a lot of school choice advocates beat the candidates that Governor Greg Abbott endorsed…
Today is the Texas runoff election. Here is some brief coverage of the races and who I’ll be voting for.
Texas Attorney General: Incumbent Ken Paxton vs. current Land Commissioner George P. Bush. Paxton has campaigned on a solid conservative record and an endorsement of President Donald Trump, while Bush has dropped a bunch of direct mail flyers trying to label Paxton as corrupt. My pick here is strong favorite Paxton, who has constantly followed conservative principles in filing lawsuits against both federal overreach and neglect of enumerated constitutional duties. Moreover, the charges against Paxton have dragged out over seven years, long after the underlying federal charges were dismissed, making it seem more like a political witch hunt and possible Sixth Amendment rights violation than anything resembling justice. George P. Bush has hardly been impressive in his stint as Land Commissioner and doesn’t deserve a promotion.
Texas Land Commissioner: Former Texas Senator Dawn Buckingham vs. Dr. Tim Westley. Buckingham is the pick here, and she’s going to win this one running away, having been endorsed by Trump, Ted Cruz and the NRA, and holding a significant financial advantage over her underfunded challenger. Westley seems like a nice guy, but he has the profile of someone who should start out running in a local race.
Texas Senate District 24: Pete Flores vs. Raul Reyes: Flores is the heavy favorite here, having been endorsed by Trump, Cruz, Abbott, Perry and Patrick. Despite all that, I will be voting for Reyes, based on Flores seeming a bit squishy to me, and Reyes receiving the endorsements of Gun Owners of America and several Tea Party groups.
While testifying before the House Budget Committee yesterday, Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary Xavier Becerra affirmed that yes, his department was in favor of taxpayer-funded sex-reassignment surgeries for minors. “So for the record, you favor HHS funding . . . for sex-reassignment surgeries for minors?” Lauren Boebert, (R, Colo.) asked. Becerra answered:
I will do everything I can to defend any American, including children, whether or not they fit the categories you have mentioned or not. And if they talk about gender-affirming care, I am there to protect the rights of any American.
In other words: yes.
Related:
“They’re losing their minds because parents want to protect kids from grooming. Pay attention to this.” pic.twitter.com/j8EhsQi9gM
“Black Lives Matter Secretly Bought a $6 Million House.” I’m shocked, shocked that people who encouraged riots to help out Democrats are corrupt. (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)
Biden: Surely Democrats everywhere will embrace my scaled-back Build Back Better bag of bloated bilge! Kyrsten Sinema: “LOL! Get rekt!”
Neither snow no rain, nor gloom of night, shall stay these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds. But multiple assaults? Yeah, they’re drawing the line there. So no more mail for a block of Santa Monica, California, until they fix the problem. This is your mail on one-party Democratic control.
Get A Rope Part 1: “Hospital Refuses Father-To-Son Kidney Transplant Over COVID Jab.”
In theory, at least, the role of an organization such as McKinsey is to ask, “Why?” Everyone wants to start a streaming service. Why does yours make sense? If CNN were run by thoughtful people, it might have taken the opportunity to ask some fundamental questions of itself before procuring a new toy: “Who are we?” “What do we do?” “Are we good at it?” “Why do our staff keep getting themselves embroiled in scandals?” “Has anyone heard Brianna Keilar utter a single sentence that might be termed useful?”
Had these questions been asked, it might have dawned on CNN’s leaders that the way in which Brian Stelter sees the network is not, in fact, the way in which anyone else sees the network. Had these questions been asked, it might have become apparent to CNN’s leaders that Americans do not regard CNN and its staff as brave, diligent, indispensable firefighters, that consumers do not believe Jim Acosta to be a hero, and that, when people think about America’s turbulent democracy, the last person who comes to their minds as a fix is Jim Sciutto. Had these questions been asked, CNN’s leaders might have learned that the network’s obsession with Fox is annoying to viewers, and that launching CNN+ with a flagship documentary, The Murdochs: Empire of Influence, would probably send the wrong message. As for the network’s slogan: “The Most Trusted Name in News”? One might as soon call Chris Cuomo a wit.
Thus, the entirely predictable disaster that is unfurling before our eyes. And, thus, CNN’s bafflement that it has become a joke. And what a joke! 10,000 people a day? That’s the size of the home crowd at a Durham Bulls minor-league-baseball game. It’s the number of people who attend “MerPalooza,” a “celebration of mermaids and mermen,” or the international UFO convention and film festival, or BronyCon.
I think this comparison is unfair to BronyCon, which has historically attracted a much lower percentage of sex offenders than CNN…
As predicted, incumbent Republican governor Greg Abbott cruised to victory with over 66% of the vote, and steams into the general election against Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (who slaughtered his no-name opponents with over 91% of the Democratic primary vote) with nearly $50 million cash on hand. Allen West and Don Huffines finished distant second and third, with just over and under 12% of the vote.
Incumbent Republican Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick pulled in just under 75% of the vote, with all four challengers in single digits.
Incumbent Republican Attorney General got 42.68% of the vote, and is headed into a runoff with Land Commissioner George P. Bush at 22.7%, with Eva Guzman and Louie Gohmert each garnering just over 17%. Basically, all Paxton has to do is grab half of Gohmert’s voters in the runoff, which should be easily doable.
Incumbent Republican Agriculture Commissioner Side Miller garnered 58.5% of the vote, holding off a spirited challenge from James White with 31%. He’ll face Democrat Susan Hays in the general.
Dawn Buckingham garnered 41.3% of the vote, and is headed to a runoff as the overwhelming favorite against Tim Westly, who eked out 14.7% of the vote.
Incumbent Republican Comptroller Glenn Hegar cruised to victory with 81.6% of the vote.
Incumbent Republican Railroad Commissioner Wayne Christian was unable to avoid a runoff, garnering 47.1% of the vote, and will now face Sarah Stogner, whose claim to fame is evidently appearing semi-nude in a campaign Tik-Tok. Expect Christian to make short work of her in every demographic except guys who send money via OnlyFans.
The biggest surprise to me among the Democratic primary results was Joe Jaworski (who I expected to cruise to victory) coming in a distant second (19.6%) behind Rochelle Garza (43.2%), an open borders Social justice Warrior type. This is probably just a case of me not paying attention to that race (the last few months have been a bear).
Mark Loewe beat loon Robert Morrow for the Republican nomination for State Board of Education District 5. Gonna be an uphill struggle against Democratic incumbent Rebecca Bell-Metereau for an Austin-centered district.
A Republican runoff between Pete Flores (46%) and Raul Reyes (32.8%) in Texas Senate District 24. Kathy Jones-Hospod is the Democratic nominee.
(Note: I’ve had the Texan News results page crash on me several times…and take out other Firefox windows (like YouTube videos) as a side effect. The Texas Tribune page is an alternate source for results.
Due to redistricting, several of the races I vote in have changed.
U.S. 37th Congressional District: Jeremiah Diacogiannis. This is the Austin district carved out for Lloyd Doggett, so any Republican winning is going to be an uphill climb. I liked his questionnaire survey answers, and he seems solidly conservative.
Texas Governor: I’m voting for Don Huffines though I fully expect Greg Abbott to win handily.
Texas Lt. Governor: Dan Patrick. Patrick has made the occasional misstep, but he’s generally been a very solid conservative who successfully pushed conservative legislation through the Texas Senate, only to frequently see that same legislation die in the house.
Texas Attorney General: Ken Paxton. Paxton has done an extremely good job, successfully suing the Biden Administration on a wide variety of federal overreach issues, from vaccine mandates to border control failures.
Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, Place 5: Clint Morgan. This is the race where Texas Scott Walker got elected because his name was Scott Walker. Morgan’s been endorsed by True Texas, Eagle Forum, etc.
Texas State Board of Education Member District 5: Mark Loewe, who previously ran as a Libertarian. Opponent Robert Morrow is a conspiracy theorist and general jerk. I remember Morrow asking JFK assassination questions at a Robert Caro book signing I attended. He did not impress me as someone worthy of public office.
Texas State Senate District 24: Paul Reyes. This is a weird one. Both Trump and Cruz have endorsed Reyes opponent Pete Flores, but Reyes has been endorsed by Eagle Forum and Gun Owners of America.
Texas House District 136: Michelle Evans seems to have some solid conservative policy positions. Those of opponent Amin Salahuddin seem a lot more vague.
Williamson County Judge: Bill Gravell. I think he’s generally done a pretty good job.
Williamson County Court-At-Law #2 Laura Barker. Unlike some previous judges, she hasn’t been an embarrassment, she has some decent endorsements, and unlike her opponent, she has a website…
Williamson County 368th District Court: This one is very close. Right now I favor Will Ward by a whisker over Sarah Bruchmiller based on law enforcement endorsements, but I’m still reading up on the race.
I’ve been looking for a meaningful hook to talk about the Texas Attorney General race since Republican U.S. Congressman Louie Gohmert officially joined. Gohmert’s entry was a bit more puzzling than the others. Paxton is the incumbent, George P. Bush is attempting to move up from Land Commissioner, and Eva Guzman is attempting to move up from the Supreme Court. But from U.S. Congressman to Texas Attorney General is not a clear-cut move up. And I don’t particularly like his chances.
In just over a month, [incumbent Ken] Paxton will face the most significant primary challenge in his career with three other widely-known candidates in Texas politics: Land Commissioner George P. Bush, former Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman, and Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX-01).
The first financial reports to be released since the list of candidates were finalized for the ballot corroborate the viability of each of the candidates, as all raised over a million dollars in the period between July 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021 — more than any of the Democrats vying for the nomination.
Having been in the position for nearly two full terms, Paxton’s war chest is still the largest out of any candidate with $7.5 million cash-on-hand.
Becoming available a day past the due date, Paxton’s finance report showed that he raised $2.8 million and spent $2.1 million.
Over half of his expenditures — $1.3 million — was spent on direct mail. Of note, another $153,000 was spent on “campaign advertising services” and $130,000 was listed for “legal fees.”
Citing contributions from “ more than 5,000 grassroots conservative donors” with about half giving to Paxton for the first time, his campaign stated, “With these dominant fundraising numbers and the groundswell of grassroots support behind him, it’s clear Ken Paxton’s campaign has both tremendous enthusiasm and financial advantages over his challengers in the primary.”
“As the stakes get even higher moving forward, there is no question that Ken Paxton is the only candidate positioned to defeat the radical left’s candidate in November,” said Paxton’s campaign in a press release.
Though Paxton’s war chest is the largest, the candidate to receive the most contributions for the period was Guzman.
Backed by the powerful Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) PAC, Guzman reported a haul of $3.7 million.
The majority of her contributions came from a handful of wealthy donors.
TLR PAC topped the list of contributors to Guzman’s campaign with a total of $626,000 listed. Richard Weekley, the chairman of the board of directors for TLR, contributed another $500,000, and another board member, Alan Hassenflu, contributed $250,000.
Guzman also reported receiving $500,000 from Harlan Crow, $500,000 from Robert Rowling, and $250,000 from Jan Duncan.
Advertising accounted for a large portion of the $2.6 million Guzman reported spending, with $1.2 million on media buys, a combined $555,000 on printing and postage for direct mail, and another $269,000 listed for political advertising.
Bush, who was the first challenger to jump in the race, reported raising $1.9 million, bringing him to a total of $3.2 million cash-on-hand at the beginning of January, the second-largest war chest behind Paxton.
“We have a good number of cash-on-hand, but the real factor in this campaign that’s different is the ‘Texas First Tour’ that we’re putting together,” Bush told The Texan at a meet-and-greet in Round Rock.
“We’ve got about 20 events lined up over the course of the next three weeks leading up to early voting, and then we have two weeks of early voting,” said Bush.
The focus on a more event-oriented ground game was reflected in Bush’s campaign expenditures as well. While $132,000 was categorized for consulting expenses and $154,000 was for advertising, $635,000 of the $1.8 million total expenditures went toward salaries for campaign employees and contractors.
Gohmert, the last candidate to enter the race who joined partway through the candidate filing period in November, also put more expenditures toward grassroots campaigning.
The East Texas congressman spent far less than the other candidates with only $126,000 in total expenditures. Of that, over half — $65,000 — was listed for the “purchase of campaign vehicle,” and another $32,000 was used for “yard signs/stakes.”
Gohmert’s total fundraising haul for the period tallied to slightly above $1 million, his target goal when he announced he was considering a bid for the position.
But the finance report I want to hone in on is not Gohmert’s, but Bush’s.
Going after an entrenched incumbent, this is the first race Bush has run where he’s a financial underdog. $3.2 million is only slightly more than the $2.8 million he raised at this point in his 2014 Land Commissioner run, where “his two main challengers, a Republican and a Democrat” had raised “a combined total of around $20,000.” To be running behind both Paxton and Guzman in the money derby in a higher profile race seems to be a setback for the candidate who garnered more votes than Greg Abbott in the 2014 general election. (In 2018, he ran some 220,000 votes behind Abbott.)
Conventional wisdom is that Paxton is vulnerable due to his pending state security fraud charges, but those charges have been pending for over six years despite the federal charges having been dismissed, and didn’t keep him from winning the general by almost 300,000 votes in The Year of Beto. These lengthy delays suggest that the case is all smoke and no fire, and that the case is more useful for Democratic county DAs as a club against Paxton than actually trying the case, and the indictment will probably run into Sixth Amendment issues if it hasn’t already.
But back to Bush. Back in 2014, there seemed to be an unspoken assumption among establishment types that George P. Bush was some sort of golden boy of Texas politics, destined for the Governor’s mansion at some point based on his last name, in much the same way that his father Jeb was seen as the likely 2016 GOP Presidential nominee. Well Jeb!’s campaign came a cropper, and Bush seems considerably less golden these days. The Bush dynasty’s one persistent advantage, their reputation of fundraising prowess, doesn’t seem to be working well enough thus far for George P.’s uphill charge against an entrenched incumbent.
Conservative activists have always been cool to Bush: The Third Generation, but were willing to give him a chance as Land Commissioner because, frankly, he was on the ballot. After the Alamo redesign controversy, the bloom was definitely off the Bush as far as conservative activists are concerned. But in a four-way race, Bush is at risk of missing the runoff, with Eva Guzman drawing a lot of the same moderate/business/Hispanic Republican support base that Bush needs. By contrast, Paxton’s record for being a strong advocate for conservative principles (and filing lawsuits against the Biden Administration) has a lot of activists still standing behind him.
Bush could still get into a runoff with Paxton, but right now it’s no sure thing.
Over the past year, DeSantis has emerged as one of the most articulate political spokesmen for the anti–critical race theory movement. His new policy agenda builds on successful anti-CRT legislation in other states but goes two steps further. First, it provides parents with a “private right of action,” which allows them to sue offending institutions for violations, gain information through legal discovery, and, if they win in the courts, collect attorney’s fees. Second, it tackles critical race theory in corporate “diversity, equity, and inclusion” training programs, which, DeSantis says, sometimes promote racial stereotyping, scapegoating, and harassment, in violation of state civil rights laws.
At heart, the battle against critical race theory is a fight against entrenched bureaucracies that have used public institutions to promote their own racialist ideology. “This is an elite-driven phenomenon being driven by bureaucratic elites, elites in universities, and elites in corporate America, and they’re trying to shove it down the throats of the American people,” DeSantis said. “You’re not doing that in the state of Florida.”
Following his speech, DeSantis invited me to address the crowd. I explained that the reason critical race theory has upset so many Americans is that it speaks to two deep reservoirs of human sentiment: citizens’ desire for self-government and parents’ desire to shape the moral and educational development of their children. Elite institutions have attempted to step between parent and child.
DeSantis has deftly positioned himself as a protector of middle-American families. One of the guest speakers, Lacaysha Howell, a biracial mother from Sarasota, said that left-wing teachers tried to persuade her daughter that the white side of their family was oppressive. Another speaker, Eulalia Jimenez, a Cuban-American mother from the Miami area, said that left-wing indoctrination in schools reminded her of her father’s warnings about Communism in his native Cuba. Both believed that critical race theory was poison to the American Dream.
As they begin their next session in January, Florida legislators have the opportunity to craft the gold standard for “culture war” policy. The governor’s team has worked with a range of interested parties, including the Manhattan Institute, which has crafted model language for prohibiting racialist indoctrination and providing curriculum transparency to parents. The battle is ultimately about shaping public policy in accord with public values. “I think we have an ability [to] just draw a line in the sand and say, ‘That’s not the type of society that we want here in the state of Florida,’” said DeSantis yesterday. The stakes are high—and all eyes are on Florida to deliver.
How the Democratic Media Complex managed to destroy what was left in the public’s trust in it:
That episode single-handedly destroyed trust in public health officials, proving they'd politicize their expertise when convenient.
Corporate media celebrated a douchebag-lawyer shaming families at deserted beaches, then — overnight! — cheered densely packed street protests. pic.twitter.com/DvOzIr5JX8
As usual, elite institutions — media, government, public health authorities — love to whine about the refusal of the public to trust their pronouncements, complaining people turn to other less credentialed and worthy sources.
Earlier this month, a federal grand jury in Houston indicted four men on charges of conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering in a scheme to rip off the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) by submitting over 80 false applications for forgivable loans and writing checks to relatives and fictional employees, among other fraudulent activities.
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) stated in a press release on December 15 that 29-year-old Hamza Abbas of Richmond, 55-year-old Khalid Abbas of Richmond, 55-year-old Abdul Fatani of Richmond, and 53-year-old Syed Ali of Sugar Land could be sentenced to up to 20 years on each count of wire fraud.
The indictments against them are the most recent in an apparent scheme that prosecutors say involved 15 defendants from Texas and Illinois, all of whom are accused of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
The DOJ stated that Khalid Abbas, Fatani, Ali, and another defendant, Houston resident Amir Aqeel, 53, have been charged with money laundering in the superseding indictment. The money laundering counts carry potential sentences of up to 10 years.
Last year, a grand jury also indicted Aqeel on a charge of aggravated identity theft. The government accuses Aqeel of using stolen identities to apply for the PPP loans.
According to the DOJ, several of the accused have already pleaded guilty for their involvement, including Siddiq Azeemuddin, 42, of Naperville, Illinois, Richard Reuth, 58, of Spring, and Raheel Malik, 41, of Sugar Land, all of whom entered their pleas in October. Houston residents Abdul Farahshah, 70, Jesus Perez, 31, and Bijan Rajabi, 68, pleaded guilty in late November.
Rifat Bajwa, 53, of Richmond, Pardeep Basra, 52, of Houston, Mayer Misak, 41, of Cypress, and Mauricio Navia, 42, of Katy were also indicted last year on charges of participating in the conspiracy and committing wire fraud.
Why, it’s almost like just about all the defendants share some characteristic in common. If only I could put my finger on it…
Speaking of criminals, did mentioned that a second CNN employee was being investigated for child sex allegations? “The allegations against Rick Saleeby, a former senior producer for Jake Tapper’s “The Lead,” appear to be connected to reporting by Project Veritas. Saleeby resigned from CNN this month.” It’s hard to keep the media pedophiles straight without a scorecard…
The City of Austin’s director of the Office of Police Oversight (OPO), Farah Muscadin, abused her authority, a third-party arbitrator decided this week.
In a 31-page decision, Lynn Gomez, the arbitrator, ruled that Muscadin and the OPO violated Article 16 of the Austin Police Department’s employment contract that was negotiated in 2018. Article 16 governs the parameters of civilian oversight of the department, which progressive groups lobbied hard for during the labor standoff.
“Contrary to the city’s claim, Director Muscadin was not acting within the scope of her authority…[she] clearly was seeking to dictate some future outcome rather than simply making a recommendation as Art. 16 permits,” Gomez ruled.
“[T]he evidence and arguments raise[d] by the city indicate that the city does not consider itself or OPO bound by Article 16’s provisions.”
Has the Biden Amdenistration tipped its hand that considers Taiwan too strategically important to not defend it in the case of a Chinese attack?
Ely Ratner, assistant secretary of defence for Indo-Pacific security affairs, told a Senate hearing three weeks ago that Taiwan was “critical to the region’s security and critical to the defence of vital US interests”. In words strikingly similar to MacArthur’s, he emphasised the island’s location “at a critical node within the first island chain, anchoring a network of US allies and partners”.
This may well be remembered as the moment Washington came clean on its intentions regarding Taiwan. In Beijing at least, the statement is being read as dropping all pretence that the US could acquiesce to a unification of Taiwan with China.
Wu Xinbo, director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in China, believes that US strategic thinking regarding Taiwan has always followed the lines laid out by MacArthur.
Even after establishing diplomatic relations with China, the US “worked to ensure the continuation of a state of separation across the Taiwan Strait”, Wu said. “When we ask the US if they do not hope to see the unification of China, they deny that. But judging from the US’s concrete actions, it is clear that they indeed do not hope to see China unify. Ely Ratner has now said this out loud.”
In Washington, too, some observers think the testimony allows little conclusion other than that the US should not allow Taiwan to become part of China under any circumstances.
Hopefully true, but betting on Joe Biden’s stalwart fortitude is putting your hopes on an extremely weak horse…
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez spotted in Miami Beach while New York City Flu Manchu cases hit alltime highs. As always, Covid Theater rules are for the little people.
I really should have bought this for Dwight for Christmas.
The Critical Drinker is not thrilled at the latest Matrix film:
Ultimately The Matrix Regenerations fails on just about every level possible. It fails to properly honor the past by leaving it well enough alone. It fails to tell a compelling new story, or add new ideas to the world it created. It fails to establish interesting new characters, or take old ones in a new direction. It fails to surpass the spectacle, energy and originality of a 20 year old film. And most of all it fails to deliver a compelling reason for its own existence. The Matrix Retaliations is a film that never should have been made in the first place.
Left-wing sponsors vs. right-wing sponsors:
This satirical video is based on an undeniable truth: the bulk of mainstream corporate and billionaire money resides in and supports liberal-left, not right-wing, media. As the Dem Party became the preferred vehicle of oligarchs, their largesse goes to those urging votes for it. https://t.co/UpuF2ZuGxr
We touched on this last month: For a long time, Democrats have boasted that immigration (legal and otherwise) would make them the “natural majority party” in short order. Well, looking at the results from the 2020 and 2021 elections, there’s a lot of evidence to the contrary.
For years, progressives have prophesied that a more culturally diverse America would be a more Democratic America, with a grand coalition of African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans teaming up with liberal whites to put the Republican Party on a path to extinction. If anyone could have summoned this coalition into being, through opposition, it was Donald Trump, the president who made hardline stances on issues like immigration a cornerstone of his politics. Yet Trump actually increased his share of the minority vote in 2020. One exit poll suggested that he had received the highest share of the black vote of any Republican over the past 20 years. The GOP expanded its support among Hispanics, too, to its highest level since 2004.
Digging deep into neighborhood-level results, the New York Times unearthed some surprises. “Across the United States, many areas with large populations of Latinos and residents of Asian descent, including ones with the highest numbers of immigrants, had something in common this election: a surge in turnout and a shift to the right,” the paper noted. Much of this movement toward Trump occurred in heavily Hispanic communities in South Texas, many bordering Mexico. The liberal Democratic theory that a less-white America will be bluer politically appears less and less plausible. In fact, Joe Biden may owe his 2020 victory to shifts in the white vote.
This presents both an opportunity and a challenge for the Republican Party and conservatives more broadly. The 2020 election results suggest that they can find support among some immigrant communities, but the GOP is also home to America’s immigration skeptics, who worry that progressives have judged the situation correctly—that as America grows more diverse, it will also become more socially and culturally liberal. But if the progressive narrative about immigrants and their political allegiance is flawed, then so, too, is the electoral basis for conservative skepticism about immigration.
In 1996, California had one of the most contentious ballot-initiative fights in its history. Proposition 209 gave voters the choice to end the state’s system of racial preferences, used in the university system and elsewhere to extend opportunities to members of certain minority groups. The battle lines were clear: liberals overwhelmingly opposed Prop 209; conservatives supported it.
Voters went on to approve Prop. 209, and a Los Angeles Times exit poll conducted that year showed that white votes made the difference. Majorities of every other ethnic group opposed the referendum.
Last year, liberals organized to overturn Prop. 209 with Proposition 16, which would once again authorize the state explicitly to consider race in college admissions and public hiring. It’s easy to see why organizers were optimistic about their chances. For one, California was much more Democratic in 2020 than it was in 1996: Joe Biden won the state with 63 percent of the vote, compared with Bill Clinton’s 51 percent. The progressive narrative about demographic destiny provided even more reason for optimism. California was a majority-white state in 1996; by 2020, whites had become a minority, and Latinos a plurality, of residents.
Prop. 16’s endorsers included virtually every top Democratic official in the state, including now-vice president Kamala Harris, as well as major corporations like Uber, Twitter, and Facebook. This was also the year of America’s great racial reckoning, when liberals everywhere were openly encouraging institutions to transfer opportunities—even for cartoon voice actors— from whites to nonwhites.
Yet when the votes were counted, Prop. 16 had failed—and by a slightly larger margin than Prop. 209 succeeded in 1996 (57 percent in 2020 vs. just under 55 percent in 1996). California’s increased diversity had done nothing to improve the proposition’s chances. Even worse, polling conducted a few weeks before the vote suggested that just 37 percent of Latinos supported Prop. 16, only 3 percentage points higher than whites.
Though Prop. 16 supporters raised small sums of money compared with other referendum fights, they outraised the measure’s opponents by more than 16 to 1. The opposition to Prop. 16 was made up of a ragtag group of grassroots activists. Many were immigrants who came to America because of its promise that hard work and ingenuity would determine their success, not the color of their skin. Take Ronald Fong, a California-based doctor who emigrated with his parents to the United States from Hong Kong in the 1960s. “The public school system actually was pretty decent,” he said of the United States. “And there was a great deal of trust [among] my parents that the school system would educate us. And for the most part they did fine. It really was that sort of, you know, ethics of hard work, and keeping your nose to the grindstone, good things would happen,” he explained.
Over time, Asian-American immigrants like Fong came to believe that elite college admissions processes were designed to discriminate against them. They have sued institutions like Harvard, alleging that such schools are penalizing Asian applicants to balance student demographics. The campaign against Prop. 16 offered a chance to strike a blow against such a system.
Though Fong didn’t have much political experience, he reached out to others who felt similarly, both inside and outside immigrant communities. They set out to mobilize opposition to Prop. 16. “We did YouTube videos, we did a lot of . . . literal and figurative door-knocking,” he explained. “We had home-made signs, we tried to do car rallies as much as we could. It was . . . a bake sale and car wash mentality and tenacity in terms of getting our message out.”
Snip.
In 2018, Gallup released a set of global surveys asking people whether they wanted to relocate permanently to another country. Of the more than 750 million people whom Gallup estimated would like to move, about one in five (21 percent) preferred the United States as a destination. The second-most popular country, Canada, was the chosen destination for 6 percent of respondents.
This number may surprise Americans who get their views of global attitudes from cable news and social media, which often serve as the propaganda arms of the country’s oikophobic elite. But America’s immigrants take a different view. A 2019 Cato Institute study found that three out of four naturalized U.S. citizens said they were “very proud” to be American—higher than the 69 percent of native-born Americans who said the same. A higher percentage of immigrants also believed that “the world would be better if people in other countries were more like Americans” (39 percent of immigrants shared this view versus 29 percent of natives). Almost 70 percent of native-born Americans said they were “ashamed” of some aspects of America; only 39 percent of immigrants agreed. These differences also show within minority communities. Seventy-three percent of immigrant Muslims, for instance, told Pew they agreed that the “American people are friendly to Muslims,” compared with 30 percent of native-born Muslims who say the same.
We can only speculate about why these differences exist, but it’s important to recognize that immigrants have something most native-born people don’t: a basis for comparison.
My own parents came to this country from Pakistan in the 1970s. They described America to me as a country with some of the kindest, most welcoming people in the world. As a child, I had a hard time believing them. But the more I traveled abroad myself and studied global problems, the more I came to the same conclusion.
Immigrants don’t come to the United States just because they like the people. They largely come here to work, and many are a living testament to the American Dream. As a group of academics showed in one 2019 working paper, “children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than their U.S.-born peers.”
There is, of course, a world of difference between assimilated, upwardly mobile legal immigrants and a permanent underclass of unassimilated illegal alien Mexican laborers, but it seems like Democrats fully expect the former to vote like the latter. And people who came to America for economic opportunity are really pissed off when you lock them out of earning a living for months on end.
The Democratic Party has historically taken Latinos for granted, something that we just witnessed play out in several elections across the country. Driven by two main issues–education and public safety–Latinos are emerging as a significant voting bloc capable of flipping blue seats red and realigning either party in regard to platform and policy.
In Virginia, Republican Glenn Youngkin defeated Clintonista Democrat Terry McAuliffe for governor. Youngkin ran on school choice, an issue dear to Latinos who understand that education is the key to prosperity and the middle class. A survey by AP VoteCast showed that black voters supported McAuliffe by nearly 8-to-1. Latino voters, on the other hand, appear to have favored Youngkin, who received 55 percent of the Hispanic vote, compared to only 43 percent supporting McAuliffe. If Latinos had voted in the same pattern as other minority voters, it would have guaranteed a Democratic victory. They didn’t, which does not portend well for the future of the Democratic Party, since President Joe Biden won Virginia by 10 percentage points a year earlier.
So did Latinos leave the Democratic party, or did the Democratic party leave them?
The Democrats have lurched left towards socialism, embracing values that vilify private property and individual rights. During Barack Obama’s 2008, 2012, and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaigns, Latinos were solidly Democratic voters, second only to African Americans in their loyalty. However, the Barack Obama that ran in 2008 and captured the hearts of Americans would be considered a right wing Republican by today’s standards.
The Democratic Party and Latinos have changed over the past decade and now seem irreconcilable. This is especially worrisome to Democrats since Latinos are the largest of the fast-growing demographic groups in the nation, growing by 23 percent from 2010 to 2020. Latinos now account for 62.1 million or 18.7 percent of the U.S. population.
Last year, the Biden-Harris ticket won a comfortable majority of Latinos across the country, but the administration’s poor handling of the border crisis directly impacts Latinos, and it is a serious mistake for anyone to believe that Latinos favor open borders. In fact, polls routinely demonstrate that helping illegal immigrants achieve legal status is of low concern to most American Latinos, who list jobs, education, housing, crime, and other such matters as of higher importance.
In South Texas, which has long been seen as the gateway to the rest of the region, there have been signs that the Republican Party is making headway with Latinos. In the runoff for the 118th Texas House district, which includes San Antonino–a majority 73% Hispanic city–Republican John Lujan eked out an upset win against Democrat Frank Ramirez by 300 votes. Lujan is a veteran firefighter and former Bexar County sheriff’s deputy, and ran on a platform promising to fight efforts to “defund the police.” Democratic also-ran Robert “Beto” O’Rourke campaigned heavily for Ramirez, claiming that the nation is “watching and paying attention about what happens here, because national Republicans are saying this is a stepping stone to … South Texas.” He’s probably eating his words now.
It should be noted that O’Rourke—a white man of Irish descent who was given the nickname “Beto” as a child initially to distinguish him from his namesake grandfather—is not Latino.
For decades, Texas Democrats have banked on the growth of voters of color*, particularly Black and Latino voters, as the key to their eventual success in a state long dominated by Republicans.
But with less than a month left for candidates to file for statewide office in the 2022 elections, some in the party worry Democrats could see their appeal with those constituencies threatened by a Republican Party that is rapidly diversifying its own candidate pool.
The GOP slate for statewide office includes two high-profile Latinos: Land Commissioner George P. Bush and former Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman, who are both running for attorney general.
I bet it really sticks in the craw of Texas Democrats that a Bush is Hispanic and Beto isn’t.
It also includes two Black candidates who have previously held state or federal office: former Florida congressman Allen West and state Rep. James White, who are running for governor and agriculture commissioner, respectively.
By contrast, the Democrats’ most formidable candidates are white — Beto O’Rourke, who is running for governor, and Mike Collier, Matthew Dowd and Michelle Beckley, who are running for lieutenant governor.
They then list some Democratic Party minority candidates. If I every do a roundup on the Attorney General’s race we’ll cover them, but none of the people they mention look like they have a chance.
In MSM pieces on Democrats, it always seem to be the “messaging” that’s the problem, not the fact that their ideas are unpopular:
[Political scientist Sharon] Navarro said Democrats will have to perfect their messaging on this point to be successful, not simply rely on voters of color to side with them. Earlier this month, Republicans in Virginia flipped the major statewide offices by making the election about wedge issues like so-called critical race theory and forcing Democrats on the defensive. Texas Republicans could do the same on issues like border and election security.
“So-called” Critical Race Theory. As always, the Democratic Media Complex idea that they can warp the fabric of reality by insisting that only SJW-approved words can be used to frame the debate is another reason why they lose.
“Republicans have a better understanding of how to create the message and how to flip it for the audience,” Navarro said.
Jean Card, a Republican political analyst, said that strategy paid off in Virginia, where the GOP elected Winsome Sears, a Jamaican-born Black woman, as lieutenant governor and Jason Miyares, the son of a Cuban immigrant, as the state’s first Latino attorney general.
“What we saw here was policy over personality,” Card said. “That’s why they were so effective as candidates.”
Also, Republicans can actually address issues without worrying that telling the truth will offend some intersectional Democratic Party faction.
And truth is always a powerful weapon.
*”Voters of color” and “people of color” are both politically correct catchphrases intended to paper over the vast difference between different groups. These phrases essentially mean “minorities that should be voting for Democrats” and, as such, their use should be avoided. And it seems that an awful lot of Democrats recently decided that Asians are secretly white people…
