Posts Tagged ‘John Gordon’

David Dewhurst touts the endorsement of…John Gordon?

Friday, May 11th, 2012

I missed this from a few days ago: “The Dewhurst for Texas campaign today announced the endorsement of John Gordon of Round Rock, former Texas State GOP Committeeman.”

Unless you live in Williamson County, the name John Gordon might not mean a lot to you. In Williamson County, John Gordon is most know for running as the favorite in the House District 52 race in 2010…and getting trounced by Larry Gonzalez. One reason he got trounced was his reputation as a hothead, like suing former business associates and taking a crowbar to a police boot on his car.

Anyway, that’s all water under the bridge. But it does suggest a certain paucity of Dewhurst endorsements when a guy most famous for losing a state house race is worthy of a press release…

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Gonzales Trounces Gordon

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

Early returns have Larry Gonzales trouncing John Gordon by a sizable margin in the Texas House District 52 race. As of 8:34 PM, Gonzales had 2,519 votes to Gordon’s 1,096, with just under half the votes counted. I’m going to go out on a (very short) limb here and predict that Gonzales will win. (For my next shocking prediction: Obama will not balance the federal budget next year!) I like to think my endorsement had a tiny effect on the final outcome, but the vast majority of the difference is the fact that Larry Gonzales was a much better candidate, and ran a much better campaign.

I did have a chance to drop by Gonzales victory party on my way home, where a fellow attendee was able to snap this pic before both Larry and I had to rush off elsewhere:

Lawrence Person and winning candidate Larry Gonzales

I was only able to spend a few minute there, but in person he seemed just as smart and personable as he seemed via email. (In addition to politics, we talked about the early days of desktop publishing, his work dealing with the Texas legislature, and compared our iPhones.) Congratulations to Larry for a well-earned victory.

Now I have to get back back to finishing those pesky taxes…

Updated: Preliminary final results are even more a Gonzales landslide: Gonzales 3,601 (71.28%), Gordon 1,451 (28.72%), a fairly dramatic reversal considering that Gordon garnered a slight lead in the March primary.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Austin, Elections, Republicans, Texas | 3 Comments »

BattleSwarm Blog endorses Larry Gonzales in the House District 52 Runoff

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

Lawrence Person’s BattleSwarm Blog endorses Larry Gonzales over John Gordon in the House District 52 Republican Primary runoff on April 13th. I believe that Gonzales is the better candidate, will have a better chance of winning against Diana Maldonado, and will be a better Representative in the Texas House than Gordon would.

Because both Gonzales and Gordon have been unfailing courteous about answering my questions, I want to make clear that I’m making this decision without any animosity and based solely on the facts at my disposal. I do not know either gentlemen personally, I am not privy to the inner workings of the Williamson County Republican Party, and have no knowledge about either that cannot be gleaned from receiving their campaign literature and searching the internet. And because Gordon has been so cooperative, I feel it only fair to explain the reasons for my decision, and especially which factors were and were not important in making it.

The relative ideological beliefs of the two candidates was not a deciding factor. I do believe that Gordon is genuinely conservative, and should he win the nomination, I would vote for him over Maldonado. I believe that Gonzales is also a solidly conservative candidate, and I find the political differences between them fairly minor. In fact, on two of the issues Gordon points out as differences between himself and Gonzales (opposition to an RRISD bond election, and opposition to public sports subsidies), I would support the same position as Gordon. (On a third, the extension of drinking hours, being of a generally libertarian disposition I would have supported the same postion Gonzales did; I do not think government should have any role saving people from themselves). It is possible that Gordon might, say, pull the voting lever in the state house how I would 95 times out of a hundred, while Gonzales might only pull it how I would vote 93 times out of a hundred. This is, to my mind, too small a difference to worry over.

The recent mailers and the information on http://www.thetruejohngordon.com were not themselves decisive, in that they largely contained information I already knew. Indeed, since I’m endorsing his opponent, I would like to take the opportunity to bend over backwards to clarify which items were not a factor in my decision:

  • I’m not particularly bothered by the Randy Staudt lawsuit. Granted, I would be unlikely to do paying work for a close friend, and if I did anything more than a trivial amount of it, I’d certainly get a written contract. (The famous saying is that “A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.”) But if someone owed me $7,000, much less $24,000, you bet I would eventually take them to court if they didn’t pay up, friend or not.
  • Assuming Gordon’s account is correct, I approve of the lawsuit he filed against Round Rock ISD, as I do not feel any government entity should feel free to violate the open meeting act, especially for a major decision like buying land.
  • I don’t care that he’s racked up several speeding tickets. My guess would be that between 1997 and 2004, I probably racked up more myself.

All of that said, however, the sheer number of incidents, as well as the many others covered by http://www.thetruejohngordon.com, do point to the main reason I cannot endorse John Gordon, namely temperament. There’s nothing wrong with being spirited. There are many times when it is appropriate for a congressmen to be combative (see, for example, Newt Gingrich in 1994). However, Gordon seems not merely spirited or combative but abrasive, alienating not just his political opponents, but friends and fellow Republicans. Time and time again he’s proven a very poor judge of his own self-interest, pursuing confrontational strategies when a softer approach might have produced better results, and spending his time and effort fighting needless battles that could have been avoided.

Take, for example, that traffic stop video. If you want to avoid getting a ticket, the first rule is to be polite, friendly and non-threatening. After all, policemen and highway patrolmen are just doing their job. But one thing you do not do is say things like “Let me tell you what officer,” “Believe me, it will go all the way up” and state sarcastically “You’ve got to be kidding me!” Indeed, I would think that anyone over the age of about 25 (much less 60) should know that this approach is likely to achieve, shall we say, sub-optimal results. You’re not going to win a verbal pissing contest with a police officer at a traffic stop, and the fact that John Gordon evidently feels he needs to does not reflect kindly on his temperament or judgment.

You may very well beat a ticky-tacky charge like this in court, but acting like a jerk at the stop itself is pure mule-headed stupidity. Indeed, I’ve never gotten a ticket (or even been stopped) for such minor offenses; the fact that John Gordon has, and gets tickets for them, seems to suggest that he has something of a history with local law enforcement agencies. And while I heartily defend the right of the accused to demand jury trials for traffic infractions, the fact Gordon seems to have done so for every single ticket he’s received suggests that to him, winning is far more important than the time and money involved in going to court. An effective politician has to pick his battles; John Gordon seems to go out of his way to pick fights.

While having a boot put on my car (even in error) certainly wouldn’t make my day, no way would I go all Homer Simpson by taking a crowbar to the boot. Doing something like that suggests that Gordon suffers from dangerous levels of hot-hotheadedness. Nobody is above the law, and acting like you are won’t win you many friends.

Another incident that highlights his lack of judgment is his lawsuit over Alyssa Eacono’s residency requirements. Regardless of the technical merits of the case, it was obvious very early on that Larry Gonzales was going to be Gordon’s major opponent in the District 52 primary. Why spend the time, money, and effort (three of a candidate’s most precious commodities) to attack someone who wasn’t a major competitor? Suing Eacono instead of spending the same effort directly engaging Gonzales suggests very poor tactical sense.

And speaking of engaging Gonzales and poor tactics, I believe Gordon’s decision to make Gonzales’ campaign funding from Bob Perry his biggest attack issue was a major strategic blunder. Do I worry about Gonzales getting so much of his funding from Perry? Yeah. Slightly. A candidate’s financial backers are always a legitimate concern. But it’s not like he’s getting his money from George Soros. If you look at Perry’s campaign contribution recipients for this election cycle, 2008, or all the way back to 2000, the overwhelming majority of his contributions are to solidly conservative Republican candidates and causes (Phil Gramm, John Carter, etc.), with an occasional Democrat mixed in. If Gordon wanted to make Perry’s contributions a significant issue, he should have made the case exactly how and why Perry’s interests were inimical to those of Williamson County voters, not merely expect that an attack mailer showing Gonzales as a puppet would be sufficient to make that case for him.

And speaking of campaign finances, for someone who has spent so much time harping on his opponent’s campaign contributions, Gordon’s base of campaign contributors seems pretty small. If you add up all the individual contributors whose names don’t end in “Gordon” from all five of his campaign filings (7/13/09, 1/3/10, 1/27/10, 2/22/10, 4/5/10), you get a grand total of 35 names (and that includes “in kind” voter information from the Republican Party). There’s nothing wrong with self-financing your campaign, but for someone who’s harped on Gonzales’ contributions from outside the district and has made so much of his efforts building the Republican Party in Williamson County, Gordon supporters inside it seem remarkably thin on the ground.

By contrast, if you look at Gonzales’ reports for the same period of time, you get well over 150 individual contributors. Some of those are from out of district (San Antonio and Houston), and about five from out of state. However, Gonzales has more contributors from Round Rock alone (to say nothing of Georgetown, Austin, or Taylor) than Gordon has total.

I could go on to point out little things like the fact that the news and highlights section of his website still says “Content coming soon” more than a month after the primary as an example of poor attention to detail, but the central issue is still Gordon’s hot-headedness and lack of judgment. Even though the http://www.thetruejohngordon.com website contains little that attentive observers of the race didn’t already know, it is a very effective piece of negative campaigning because it gathers all those individual issues in one place and reinforces doubts many voters already had about him.

By contrast, Larry Gonzales is a thoughtful, intelligent and conservative candidate who has run a very smart (and, until the recent round of attack ads, very issue-based) campaign and garnered a broad base of Republican support. He seems more than capable of doing the job, and doesn’t come with Gordon’s baggage. I’ll be voting for Larry Gonzales in the House District 52 Primary runoff on April 13th, and encourage all District 52 voters to do the same.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Austin, Elections, Republicans, Texas | 14 Comments »

House District 52 Attack Ads, Round 2: thetruejohngordon.com, and Gordon’s Response

Saturday, April 3rd, 2010

I’ve been spending a fair amount of time covering the Larry Gonzales/John Gordon runoff for the Texas House District 52 race, mainly because I live in the district, and because of the relative paucity of local coverage. Hot on the heels of my interviews with Gonzales and Gordon, both of which covered Gordon’s attack mailers against Gonzales over getting the majority of his campaign funds from Houston developer Bob Perry, comes a two part-response from the Pro-Gonzales (or perhaps more accurately, anti-Gordon) camp: a 3-fold attack mailer and an associated website, http://www.thetruejohngordon.com, focusing on Gordon’s combative and litigious nature.

(Before we get into the meat of the matter, I’d like to clarify one point about attack ads and negative campaigning. Many a newspaper pundit wrings their hands and decries negative campaigning as ipso facto bad. I am not one of them. Negative campaigning is simply a fact of politics, defining your opponent is almost as important as defining yourself, and as long as a negative campaign is: A.) True, and B.) Effective, then it shouldn’t be shunned. Since the current round of District 52 attack ads stem from public records (campaign contribution records for the anti-Gonzales ads, court and police records for the anti-Gordon ads), they are, by definition, fair game, and simply part of the way American political campaigns in the 21st century are conducted. As Warren Zevon put it, “the name of the game is be hit and hit back.”)

The website and mailer complaints about Gordon boil down into three interrelated issues:

  1. That he is, to put it mildly, a hothead with an attitude problem.

    “Meet John Gordon — candidate for Texas State Representative, District 52, with a cranky complexion.” [“Complexion” isn’t the word you want there, guys; try “disposition.” -LP] “John Gordon’s testy temperament is well known throughout Williamson County…the angry and arrogant trouble-maker who threatened to ‘beat to pieces’ a candidate who had the nerve to file for office against the candidate he supported…The civilly disobedient, crusty curmudgeon who doesn’t respect authority by intentionally filing his ethics reports late.”

  2. That he’s litigious and has filed “many frivolous lawsuits.” The mailer lists three cases in particular, and the website covers more.
  3. That he has had several run-ins with law enforcement.

The website supports its accusations with numerous downloadable documentation, and a particularly damning traffic stop video in which Gordon sounds both combative and incredulous at being stopped. If you plan on voting in the District 52 run-off on April 13, I suggest looking them over.

I haven’t seen any newspapers mention the story yet, and the only blogs that seem to have done so are M. J. Samuelson’s Blue Dot Blues (also here) and Holly Hansen’s Smart Girl Politics. Hansen is a Gonzales supporter, and M. J. Samuelson has been fairly critical of Gordon.

Some background: The mailer and website are funded by the Texas 1836 PAC, which Texas Ethics Commission documents state is run by a Larry Massey of Houston. Assuming it’s the same person, Massey’s public Linked-In page says that he’s Executive Vice President of the Bank of Houston. A search of his campaign contribution records shows that he’s contributed to a number of conservative Republicans over the years.

I think the website and mailer do a good job making their case against Gordon. In the interest of fairness, and since he hasn’t put up any reply to it on his website, I asked John Gordon five questions about the case via email. (I did this last night right before I headed out the door to have dinner with friends, which is why I made one factual error about Larry Massey’s current employer.) My questions are in italics below, followed by Gordon’s responses.

1. Are the allegations made by the website and/or the mailer true?

Most are half-truths – excerpts without any surrounding facts.

2. If not, which would you say are in error and how?

ALL

BOOT ISSUE – March 1996 American Statesman story (Front Page) in which the City of Austin admitted that it did not have the right to issue up to 60,000 parking tickets (1993, 1994, & 1995) to the state employees in the Capitol complex area (including putting a boot on my truck).

Randy Staudt lawsuit – he actually pleaded to a settlement which awarded me $24,000 for his failure to pay what he owed me – then further proceedings were dismissed.

Traffic ticket on my wife – FAILURE TO PUT A TURN SIGNAL ON – she was in a Controlled Left Turn Lane turning under a green arrow. Policemen stopped the car on a four lane road without shoulder in the rain in traffic – PROSECUTOR upon hearing this dismissed the ticket.

TRO against RRISD – FOR VIOLATING THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND VOTING ON LAND PURCHASE IN CLOSED SESSION – RRISD went back and held three public meetings and voted in open session – I had the request for TRO dismissed after the RRISD corrected its violation of the open meetings act.

TRO/administrative case challenging the residency of Alyssa Eacono – after the testimony of the initial TRO hearing became public, Primary voters took care of the issue by giving Eacono 7% of the vote making further court action mute. Only after Eacono was eliminated by the voters was the case dropped.

Leo Wood filed the suit, not me, against the Republican Party County Chair Darryl Pool. Leo Wood on his candidate application had failed to write in his address. He was suing to get on the ballot and his “excuse” was me. (I was an aide to his opponent State Representative Mike Krusee at the time.) The judge disregarded his unsupported accusations against me but put him on the ballot because he had listed a residential zip code 78626 which was completely in District 52 in 1994.

3. The PAC in question is evidently operated by one Larry Massey, a Vice President at Frost Bank in Houston*. Do you know Mr. Massey, and do you have any idea why he has involved himself in the case? (*This is in error, as Massey evidently left Frost Bank and now works at the Bank of Houston.)

Have no idea who Larry Massey is. It does appear that Houston must want to control District 52 in Williamson County with Bob Perry already having spent $90,000 on Larry Gonzales’s campaign.

4. A great deal of evidential material on that site has been obtained from Round Rock, Williamson County, and other various government agencies. Is all of it accurate? Would all of it be available on a Freedom of Information request, or do you think any of it was improperly or illegally released?

I encourage you get to all the cases and read them in detail. Only one case involved money – and I won that one because Randy Staudt had refused to pay me what he owed me. In the RRISD case, I stopped the RRISD from violating the law. The other case challenged a candidate’s lack of residence. The 1994 case was filed by a person, Leo Wood, who failed to fill out his candidate application properly.

5. The information on that website and in the mailer does not always give the disposition of the cases involved. Of the various lawsuits and legal cases they list, can you name which, if any, you’ve won?

I essential won all three of the cases that I filed.
1. Randy Staudt settled and the award to me was a little over $24,000.
2. I won the point of the TRO when RRISD went back and held three public hearings and then voted in public on purchasing the land.
3. I won on the point of lack of residency when the newspapers printed the accounts of the sworn testimony from the TRO hearing – the public then voted based on the evidence that was presented in multiple newspaper articles spurred on by my following administrative procedure of challenging in District Court – County Chairmen do not have the authority to resolve the issue.

Once again, thanks to John Gordon for answering these questions.

I plan to have more about the Texas House District 52 race next week. Previous posts about it can be found here and here.

Update: When I can back from dinner, there were two more mailers (one 2-fold and one 3-fold) from the Texas 1836 PAC attacking Gordon in my mailbox. As they cover much the same information as the first one and the website, I don’t think I need do any more than note their presence here. But based strictly on volume, the pro-Gonzales/anti-Gordon forces seem very serious about winning the direct-mail ground war.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Elections, Republicans, Texas | 5 Comments »

Candidate John Gordon Answers Questions About the House District 52 Race

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

Yesterday I posted Texas House District 52 runoff candidate Larry Gonzales’ answers to questions about the race. Today we post answers from the other candidate, John Gordon. My questions are in italics below, followed by his answers.

1. Do you think you’re a more conservative candidate than Larry Gonzales, and if so how?

Yes, I (John Gordon) am the person with a true record of conservative actions in Williamson County.

Larry is just talk – like Obama.

When the RRISD was putting forth a wasteful $350,000,000 bond election in 2005, I led the opposition against the “city and school district elite” who wanted the excessive spending and defeated the bond proposal by 62% to 38%. Larry supported the excessive spending.

When Round Rock city leaders tried to extend late night drinking on school nights to 2:00 AM, I organized and led the petition drive that forced reconsideration and repeal. San Marcos did not have my leadership and they extended the hours resulting in a doubling of DUI’s and a tripling of PI. Larry did nothing but support city leaders on extending late night drinking.

When TxDOT tried to ram SH 130 through central Round Rock, supported by big developers on the north side of Round Rock, I led the four year effort of 6 neighborhoods that forced TX DOT to reroute SH 130 east between Round Rock and Hutto creating a better economic engine for the area and stopping the damage to neighborhoods that would have been caused by a badly designed highway. Larry did nothing.

As Republican County Chairman, I directed placement of the Right to Life plank in the Williamson County Republican Platform for the first time. I help fund the Hope Pregnancy Crisis Center in Williamson County.

I helped lead the public effort in 1996 that voted down by 68% to 32% a $0.06 property tax increase to fund a baseball stadium in Round Rock. Larry supports public subsidizes of sports facilities.

2. On which three issues you think do you think the policies differences between yourself and Gonzales are most clear? How?

See the numerous examples above – my conservative philosophy and commitment to benefitting people is proven by my deeds and actions. Larry just goes along with the insiders.

3. Who are some of the thinkers and books that have influenced your political philosophy?

Bible, US Constitution, my grandfather and father – good conservative common sense – a good engineering background.

4. What tax and budget policies would you pursue going forward in the Texas legislature?

No increase in taxes.

Get rid of the corporate income tax (franchise tax) which is a productivity tax. It makes Texas businesses less competitive nationally and internationally.

The “Fair Tax” plan nationally is a direct example of what Texas should do versus income (productivity) taxes. Larry was helping the Legislature when they went the wrong direction in tax policy.

Spend only what we take in.

5. How should Texas build and maintain its road infrastructure going forward? Do you approve of building new toll roads? If so, should they be built the state, or by private entities under some sort of toll-sharing agreement?

Better “cost” engineering to take out the extravagance in highway design.

Capture all the highway funding instead of allowing funds to be diverted to non-road building purposes.

Streamline the design/licensing/EIS process and challenge wasteful Endangered Species regulations.

Promote early purchase of right-of-ways with minimized EIS licensing requirements.

Private construction/maintenance contracts but with state ownership to reduce costs.

Tolls used to pay off the projects which generate the tolls, then reduce the tolls to low nominal level just to support maintenance activities.

6. Do you believe that Proposition 2, Proposition 3 and Proposition 11, passed as part of the 2009 Constitutional Amendments, provide adequate protections against post-Kelo eminent domain abuses? If not, what more should the legislature do to address this issue?

Give the new propositions time to take effect and then observe the results.

7. Do you consider yourself a member of the Tea Party movement, and/or do you seek their support?

I was a Tea Party force all by myself before anyone started going around saying Taxed Enough Already. Look at my answer to question #1. I have organized and led voter revolts over the last 30 years that have probably reduced or saved property owners up to $0.35/ hundred in property taxes.

a. Blocked Cap Metro sales tax in 1983 which allowed Round Rock and Georgetown to use 0.5% sales tax to reduce property taxes.

b. Fought off Austin Community College taxes of $0.10/ hundred for 25 years.

c. Blocked the $0.06/ hundred property tax to fund a baseball stadium.

d. Defeated a wasteful $350,000,000 bond election in 2005 and then showed the ISD how to cut out $83,000,000 and get an extra elementary school out of the reduced spending – effect = $0.05/ hundred property tax savings. (The second wasteful RRISD bond election I helped defeat)

8. Your recent mailings have made much of the Gonzalez campaign receiving the majority of contributions from Houston-area developer Bob Perry. Why do you think this is a significant issue?

— and you don’t think one “special interest” individual giving Larry Gonzales $90,000 which funded his entire $81,000 of primary spending isn’t a big deal? How about the appearance of being “bought and paid for”. I am sure that the average citizen in Taylor or Hutto might question where Larry’s loyalties lie. How about common sense – is being funded by one guy out of Houston using common sense?

Go talk to the farmer in Thrall and ask if the funding smells fishy.

9. The Williamson County Sun has evidently reported that you failed to turn in your campaign finance report on time, and have refused to pay the associated late fine. Is this true, and if so, why are your refusing to pay the fine?

I have a problem with regulatory/administrative agencies not doing a good job or not using common sense – TxDot, PUC, Ethics Commission.

To prove a point, last January 16, 2009, at the end of the previous (2008) campaign season, I filed a zero-income, zero-expenditure candidate statement 8 hours after the deadline. They want to fine me $500.00

Yet, their campaign computer report form is so defective that they have no totals or accumulation nor do they check to see if candidates are showing properly accounted report totals. One campaign that I manually computed the totals on was off by nearly $250,000 in accounting for income and loans minus expenditures equaling cash on hand. The Ethics Commission campaign reporting form needs to be seriously upgraded.

So if they want to press me to get the $500, they are going to have to answer quite a few questions. What I hope they do is realize the defects in their computerized campaign I & E reporting software and fix it and set up standard levels for their fines.

Oh by the way, the Ethics Commission has the ability any time they desire to waive the fine as trivial – I just have to say that I fell asleep or submit some other lame excuse that I made a mistake.

How about the Ethics Commission, in a burst of common sense, going ahead and deciding on their own that a zero-income, zero-expenditure report filed 8 hours late is a trivial matter and not damaging the public interest in any way?

10. Any other thoughts on the race or politics in general you’d care to share with readers?

For thirty years I have stood firm for conservative values over insider relationships and special interest deals. My conservative stances have generated insiders who do not want me to be elected because they know that I can use the word “NO” when conservative values and the public interest are being threatened. Larry Gonzales is the consummate insider. The Republican Party has lost favor with conservatives because the “insiders” have talked a great line but have worked to support each others’ special interests.

The April 13 question is – who will Republican voters from District 52 select as their nominee, the experienced, tough, conservative warhorse John Gordon or the young, slick-talking, back-slapping insider Larry Gonzales?

Thanks to John Gordon for taking the time to answer my questions. I expect to post more information on the Texas House District 52 race early next week.

Previous posts on the Texas House District 52 Race can be found here and here.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Elections, Republicans, Texas | 5 Comments »

Candidate Larry Gonzales Answers Questions About the Texas House District 52 Race

Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

Here’s another installment in my series on the Republican Texas House District 52 race in advance of the primary runoff on April 13. This time I sent questions to candidate Larry Gonzales about his runoff with John Gordon. My questions are in italics below, followed by his answers.

1. Do you think you’re a more conservative candidate than John Gordon, and if so how?

Yes, absolutely. Please see my answers to question #2 below.

I also think a good phrase to use in addition to “more conservative” is “more experienced.” I have been working at the capitol and understand state policy as a real-world practical application – actually legislating the issues. It’s not theoretical or a campaign sound bite. John to this day has yet to address a state issue on his campaign website or direct mail program. He offers no solutions to the pressing matters facing Texas. There is a void of ideas. He does not offer leadership. I do. Every mail piece we produced has a theme, and each theme has bullet points of policy ideas. You can see my mail and read my ideas at www.larrygonzales.com/media.

2. On which three issues you think do you think the policies differences between yourself and Gordon are most clear? How?

(#1) TAXES. I want to look at a consumption tax as a way to eliminate the unfair and subjective property tax system in Texas.

John Gordon in his survey from the Empower Texans PAC said he opposes a consumption tax. Here is what he said regarding a consumption tax: “Do you want the Saudis and Chinese coming into Texas and buying up our property and land with no taxes ever applied to their possession of such? This “popular” idea requires some serious rethinking.”

I’m not an expert on the buying patterns of the Saudi’s and Chinese, but I can tell you that the taxpayers of Texas want a more fair and transparent system of taxation. A consumption tax does this. It’s the idea that you are taxed on the value of your expenditures. Buy a Chevy pass less taxes. Buy a Ferrari, pay more taxes. It’s transparent and fair.

(#2) TORT REFORM. I am a proponent of lawsuit reform and support the work done at the capitol for the past several sessions. These efforts have led to reduce costs of goods and services to taxpayers, consumers, and businesses. That’s why Texans for Lawsuit Reform has endorsed my campaign.

John Gordon is the poster child for lawsuit abuse, filing frivolous lawsuits and mucking up our judicial system, making it a mockery, and costing the taxpayers untold thousands of dollars. There are bad, lawsuit happy Republicans, too, and John Gordon is one of them.

As a matter of fact, when John Gordon INTENTIONALLY submitted his required by law campaign finance report late (more on this in a moment), he told the Williamson County Sun if his case was turned over to the Attorney General’s office for collection, he would “fight it in court,” stating, “I’ll subpoena them.”

Or, he could pay his fines and save the taxpayers of Texas money prosecuting an intentional, self-inflicted, ethics violation.

I am not certain of a third. These are the two biggest differences between us – I support a fairer consumption tax and tort reform. John does not support a consumption tax and is a lawsuit abuser.

3. Who are some of the thinkers and books that have influenced your political philosophy?

It’s not necessarily books of academia that have influenced my political philosophy. It’s the real people, real leaders, in real situations who I have followed, believed in, and have shaped my political philosophy around.

I have enjoyed the passion and enthusiasm of Alan Keyes.

I admired the leadership and confidence of Ronald Reagan.

I admire the hard work and attention to fiscal tax policy of Grover Nordquist.

I admire the dedication, selflessness, and humbleness of Bill Graham.

I admire the organization and strength in rallying for a cause Newt Gingrich gave us in 1994.

All of these political figures, and many more, for one reason or another, have shaped the way I think.

4. What tax and budget policies would you pursue going forward in the Texas legislature?

1. I favor a consumption tax over an unfair and subjective property tax.

2. Adopt a biennial spending limit of the sum of inflation-plus-population-growth.

3. Make certain any attempt to exceed this spending limit would take a 3/4th’s vote of both the House and the Senate and require the Governor’s signature.

4. Adopt a constitutional amendment requiring the Rainy Day Fund only be used to balance the budget in times of revenue shortfalls.

5. Adopt a constitutional amendment which says once the cap on the Rainy Day Fund is reached, surplus dollars are to be used for tax relief.

6. Protect state sovereignty by fighting against our federal government’s unfunded mandates.

7. Eliminate the practice of raiding dedicated funds for other purposes.

5. How should Texas build and maintain its road infrastructure going forward? Do you approve of building new toll roads? If so, should they be built the state, or by private entities under some sort of toll-sharing agreement?

Texas needs to build the road infrastructure with tax dollars collected for that purpose! This is very important! This is government non-transparency at its most abusive. I believe if we put this money back to work for its stated purpose, the prospect of toll roads falls further out of sight.

If an area of Texas must talk about toll roads, then here are my ground rules:

  1. The need must be evident
  2. “Need” is defined as public safety or overall good of the taxpayers
  3. It must promote first and foremost increased mobility – not be driven by profit centers
  4. Texas should never toll existing roads
  5. Texas needs a willing land partner who is compensated properly for their land
  6. There will be no over-reaching land grabs
  7. All rights of the property owner shall be enforced, considered, and protected
  8. Secure the best deal possible if the tolls are being built by an outside entity (building costs, maintenance costs, maintenance schedules, revenue goals, revenue sharing, time limits of ownership, etc.) Be a good steward of the taxpayer’s money.

6. Do you believe that Proposition 2, Proposition 3 and Proposition 11* passed as part of the 2009 Constitutional Amendments provide adequate protections against post-Kelo eminent domain abuses? If not, what more should the legislature do to address this issue? (*The first time I sent this question out I inadvertently omitted Proposition 11 from this list, and added it back during a follow-up email.)

I was a very strong supporter of Propositions #2, #3, and #11 in the 2009 November Constitutional amendments.

I can tell you in all the years I have been working on appraisal reform, I do not believe I have ever heard a link to post-Kelso concerns. I guess I can see why one might make that jump to there; I’m simply saying that to my knowledge eminent domain issues have not been tied to a purposeful appraisal hike. I’ll be watching carefully to make certain that does not become a reality in Texas.

7. Do you consider yourself a member of the Tea Party movement, and/or do you seek their support?

I am a fiscal and social conservative, and a life-long member of the Republican Party, active in politics and policy since I can remember. I understand the TEA Party movement and the frustration its members feel with an over-reaching, arrogant, federal government. It is much warranted, and I welcome them to the debates! The TEA Party has an important role in the process. I have sought the help and endorsement from TEA Party members I have met, and they have obliged, and are helping me spread the word of my campaign.

8. A recently mailing from Gordon has made much of your campaign receiving the majority of contributions from Houston-area developer Bob Perry. How do you respond to Gordon’s mailing, and do you think this is a significant issue?

It’s not an important issue and only demonstrates just how little and unaware John Gordon is of economic development and job creation in Williamson County.

While Mr. Perry lives in Houston, his business itself is HUGE employer of folks right here in Williamson County. Hundreds of jobs are provided in Williamson County – builders, contractors, subcontractors, roofers, electricians, drywall, cement, framers, and the REALTORS who sell these homes. As a matter of fact, Perry Homes is building five subdivisions in Williamson County right now. Perry Homes is a big part of our economy in HD52 supplying meaningful jobs. And as we know, jobs mean salaries, salaries mean people spend money, that money gets pumped into our local economy and we all benefit when more people are a part of our economic infrastructure. So, while Mr. Perry is not local, the hundreds of people who gain employment are, and they are very much a part of our Williamson County family. And I’ll be there for those families, helping spur economic development when elected.

This is all John Gordon has to talk about. He has no policy ideas and no real solutions to talk about. It’s the politics of diversion – plain and simple.

9. After Texas Railroad Commission chairman Victor Carrillo lost in the Republican primary to challenger David Porter, he said that his “Hispanic-surname was a serious setback from which I could never recover.” Do you think this is the reason he lost, and have you personally received any indication that your name will make it more difficult to win the Republican nomination?

No, and no.

10. Any other thoughts on the race or politics in general you’d care to share with readers?

You can tell a lot about a man’s character by his actions. We have run a campaign based on the important issues facing Texas, offering the voters a clear understanding of my positions of the issues.

The negative race John Gordon is running – lying to the voters, misleading the voters, and scaring the voters with ideas about me that are untrue, even exploiting my grandfather’s death for his personal and political gain – is sickening. I hope the voters see through this and reject his politics of fear.

Thanks to Larry Gonzales for taking the time to answer my questions. I should have John Gordon’s answers to a similar set of questions up in the next day or so.

Previous posts on the Texas House District 52 Race can be found here and here.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Elections, Republicans, Texas | 4 Comments »

Former Candidate Stephen Casey on the Texas House District 52 Race

Thursday, March 25th, 2010

There’s a primary runoff for various races to be held on April 13. Since primary runoffs are notoriously low-turnout affairs (especially this year, with the high-profile Governor’s primary over), I thought I would do some coverage of the three Republican runoffs I’ll be voting in:

  • The Supreme Court of Texas Place 3 runoff between Rick Green and Debra Lehrmann
  • The State Board of Education District 10 runoff between Marsha Farney and Brian Russell
  • The Texas House District 52 runoff between Larry Gonzales and John Gordon

I want to address the last of these first. The results from the Texas House District 52 primary were:

John Gordon 4,454 (40.84%)
Larry Gonzales 4,091 (37.51%)
Stephen Casey 1,535 (14.07%)
Alyssa Eacono 825 (7.56%)

To start off, I’d like to do something a little different, and interview one of the losing candidates for the position, Stephen Casey. Casey earned my vote by being a staunch conservative, having some interesting ideas as to how to reform the tax system, and posted supporting quotations from The Federalist Papers on his issues page, something that warmed the cockles of my policy-wonkish heart. After coming in third, Casey endorsed Gonzales in the runoff.

I wanted to get Casey’s views on the race, as well as the election process in general, before moving on to Gonzales and Gordon. (I also wanted to get Alyssa Eacono’s views, but she’s already taken down her campaign website.) I sent Casey some questions via email, and he was kind enough to provide answers to them. My original questions are in italics below.

1. What prompted you to get into the race in the first place?

I was called to run; it is an internal prompting that, in light of the current political landscape, sought to restore the idea of “public servant” to this office. Too often people are elected and fill the office without making a significant difference to the district or state. I ran to change that.

2. Do you think the race received enough attention from local media outlets for voters to make an informed choice?

To a certain extent. The only drawback I see is that I ran an issues-based campaign and believe that local media does not offer enough time to discuss the issues in depth; rather it is short sound-byte type attention that “makes news” which gets printed.

3. Obviously Gonzales and Gordon had a significant fund-raising advantage over both you and Eacono. How did you go about raising money, and was the lack of it a significant hindrance to your campaign?

I believe I received what I needed to do what I was called to do. With any race, funding is important. I’m pleased to have come in third with the funding that I had. To receive 14% of the vote means that I had a strong vote/dollar ratio. This means the message has great value.

4. One of you major campaign proposals was to abolish a personal property tax and replace it with a consumption tax. How well was this proposal received, and do you think the voters and/or legislature is willing to consider such a huge tax system overhaul?

This proposal was received well and it is gaining momentum. It is hard to both campaign on an issue and “inform” voters on it at the same time. This was made a bit easier because it became an issue at the gubernatorial level and for good reason–it could help solve this upcoming budget shortfall if we truly grasped the boon to our economic cycle that would happen if we eliminated the property tax. We would be able to overcome, with fewer cuts, the upcoming projected
shortfall.

5. What was the main reason you endorsed Gonzales over Gordon?

I found Larry to have a personal approach, as well as a positive character and reputation community-wide that was friendly and personable even over
disagreeable issues. In addition, he has served people in a variety of capacities and done so with integrity.

6. If you had it to do over again, what would you do differently with your campaign?

Campaign infrastructure is important, and I learned a great deal. I still would lead with what I consider the most important question, “How Can I Serve You?”, but would ask more voters to volunteer time as well as contribute.

7. Any other thoughts you’d like to share with readers on the race, or politics in general?

First, thanks to everyone who was involved in any manner in these races, and a more specific thank you to those who supported me through prayer and action. Please turn out to support Larry Gonzales for this runoff.

We need to think deeply and act with conviction regarding representative government. This means understanding our state’s founders and our nation’s founders as well as what they read and believed. Be involved and take seriously the privilege of self-government as it will only last as long as our involvement.

Thanks to Stephen Casey for responding. I hope to interview both Gonzales and Gordon in future posts.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Austin, Elections, Republicans | 3 Comments »

Republican Primary on Tuesday, March 2nd: House District 52

Sunday, February 28th, 2010

Another election season is upon us. If you’re anything like me, down-ballot local races don’t get a lot of my attention until the election is nearly upon me. As partial recompense, I’ll try to through up a few links to southern Williamson County races, starting with Texas House District 52.

Here’s an overview of all Williamson County races from the people at Impact News (which provides a surprisingly good free monthly newspaper).

Here are links to the issue pages of the four candidates respective websites:

And here are some resource links on the race:

Quick and Dirty Analysis: Gonzales is probably the closest to an “insider” in the race, having garnered the most endorsements, and he and Gordon (running as the Christian/social conservative “values I learned from my father” candidate) have raised the most money. Alyssa Eacono and Stephen Casey are somewhat policy wonkish longshots. Right now I’m sort of leaning toward Casey, in the full expectation that he’ll get slaughtered in the primary. My guess would be Gonzales either wins outright or goes to a runoff with Gordon. All would be a vast improvement over Democratic incumbent Diana Maldonado.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Elections, Republicans, Texas | 2 Comments »