Well, it's not exactly "it"--we don't actually get any new elected officials today. We just select who will be the nominees from the two major parties in the fall General Election.
But today is the day that I've been working toward these last several months! And with an opponent who is deeply-entrenched and better-funded, I am not guaranteed another election date later in the year!
But if you are a challenger--and I am!--you've got to love the early election turnout the last two weeks!
Dallas County saw 34,599 voters cast their ballots in the Republican Primary--a significant increase over 2006, the last Gubernatorial election! And statewide figures are revealing fully 20% of voters who have never voted in a Primary previously, reflecting the disgust with Washington, D.C. and politics-as-usual.
Similar figures are being reported elsewhere in the State as well, with Tarrant County outpacing Dallas County. Tarrant reported nearly 39,000 Republican voters to some 5,700 Democratic voters. Reports out of Denton County were that Republicans were outpacing Democrats "ten-to-one." This in stark contrast to the 2008 Presidential election, when Democrats vastly outpaced Republicans.
In my own race, we don't have any solid figures yet, but in past elections Congressional District 32, 100% of which is within Dallas County, typically accounts for between 33% and 40% of total County-wide votes. That means that between 11,000 and 14,000 votes have been cast in my race against U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions.
In contrast, in all of 2006 Rep. Sessions only took in 13,000 votes unopposed with some 3,000 no votes. We have likely exceeded his total vote count in early voting alone. And the 2006 early voting total of 13,000 was nearly tripled this year!
So, if 13,000 County-wide early votes equated to about 13,000 total votes for Rep. Sessions, what will 2010 voter turnout look like in our CD32 race if some 34,000 voted early? I would say that it is likely that we will draw between 30,000 and 36,000 in our race. And a high voter turnout favors the challenger in this anti-Washington, anti-incumbent atmosphere!
Now, if these numbers end up being even remotely accurate...who do you think those incremental 20,000 voters turn out for?
Or, perhaps the correct question simply ends..."turn out"?
Now's the time,
Here is the place;
I am the candidate,
And THIS is the race!
David Smith for Congress, TX32!!
Paid for by Friends of David Smith, David Smith, Treasurer.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
DMN: Sessions requested Stimulus funds NINE times!
I suppose its a classic case of, "I opposed it before I supported it" that we should be used to from my Republican Primary opponent by now. He pulled the same game when he voted against the Medicare D expansion, following that vote up by voting to override President Bush's veto, effectively passing the legislation!
Well, now it turns out that U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions has followed up his "principled opposition" to the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 'Stimulus' legislation by requesting stimulus funding for North Texas projects nine times!
The Dallas Morning News reports that my opponent requested funds for such projects as DART, police in Irving and Grand Prairie, the cities of Dallas and Carrollton as well as the Big Brothers and Big Sisters club.
Oh, remember that "bipartisanship" that DMN and Sessions both gushed so effervescently about in their endorsement of the 14-year incumbent? Sessions used his strong cross-the-aisle ties to secure a $51 million tax credit for Texas Instruments so they can outsource some more high-paying American jobs, and a $350 million clean coal project in West Texas. He was, however, unsuccessful at securing $3 billion for NASA.
I just love this quote:
"What I have not done is allow my strong, principled objection to the bill to prevent me from asking federal agencies for their full consideration of critical infrastructure and competitive grant projects for North Texas," Sessions said.
Let's talk about these funds. I have discussed the value and detriment of debt spending for projects like these elsewhere. In brief, building aircraft carriers and freeways is one thing. But funding the Big Brothers? That should be coming from private contributors not government debt.
The short and skinny of it is that we will be repaying this debt--and make no bones about it, with a deficit of $1.3 Trillion last year, this is debt!--for the next thirty years! Not to mention the interest that will actually make the cost of these projects more like 2 1/2 times what we are paying for them.
ON A POSITIVE NOTE...
Voters in District 32 have an alternative in the Republican Primary. My name, David Smith, is literally the TOP name on the ballot in early voting (continuing through Friday) as well as the Republican Primary Tuesday, March 2nd.
I opposed this stimulus package spending on infrastructure projects during the 2009 Texas Legislative Session in analysis that I provided on freeways to Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (TURF), Terri Hall's San Antonio-based citizens' activist group. I said that if the toll roads that TxDOT and Governor Rick Perry are pushing amount to double taxation (tolls on taxpayer-funded roads), then Federal stimulus funding would actually amount to quadruple taxation! Here's why.
We pay gas taxes, which are supposed to fund freeways. A portion of those funds is used for freeways and tolls will pay the rest. Hence "double-taxation." Adding Federal spending, were it cash, would be triple taxation, since we also pay Federal taxes. However, Federal Stimulus funds are borrowed funds, meaning that they are accruing interest and will thus be paid for long into the future. Quadruple taxation.
Thanks, Pete!
But I have already staked a position as a citizen lobbyist against such fiscal irresponsibility, and our Congressman has a long history of spending excesses. It is truly time for a change in CD32!
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-stimulus_20nat.ART.State.Edition2.4c030fc.html
Paid for by Friends of David Smith, David Smith, Treasurer.
Well, now it turns out that U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions has followed up his "principled opposition" to the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 'Stimulus' legislation by requesting stimulus funding for North Texas projects nine times!
The Dallas Morning News reports that my opponent requested funds for such projects as DART, police in Irving and Grand Prairie, the cities of Dallas and Carrollton as well as the Big Brothers and Big Sisters club.
Oh, remember that "bipartisanship" that DMN and Sessions both gushed so effervescently about in their endorsement of the 14-year incumbent? Sessions used his strong cross-the-aisle ties to secure a $51 million tax credit for Texas Instruments so they can outsource some more high-paying American jobs, and a $350 million clean coal project in West Texas. He was, however, unsuccessful at securing $3 billion for NASA.
I just love this quote:
"What I have not done is allow my strong, principled objection to the bill to prevent me from asking federal agencies for their full consideration of critical infrastructure and competitive grant projects for North Texas," Sessions said.
Let's talk about these funds. I have discussed the value and detriment of debt spending for projects like these elsewhere. In brief, building aircraft carriers and freeways is one thing. But funding the Big Brothers? That should be coming from private contributors not government debt.
The short and skinny of it is that we will be repaying this debt--and make no bones about it, with a deficit of $1.3 Trillion last year, this is debt!--for the next thirty years! Not to mention the interest that will actually make the cost of these projects more like 2 1/2 times what we are paying for them.
ON A POSITIVE NOTE...
Voters in District 32 have an alternative in the Republican Primary. My name, David Smith, is literally the TOP name on the ballot in early voting (continuing through Friday) as well as the Republican Primary Tuesday, March 2nd.
I opposed this stimulus package spending on infrastructure projects during the 2009 Texas Legislative Session in analysis that I provided on freeways to Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (TURF), Terri Hall's San Antonio-based citizens' activist group. I said that if the toll roads that TxDOT and Governor Rick Perry are pushing amount to double taxation (tolls on taxpayer-funded roads), then Federal stimulus funding would actually amount to quadruple taxation! Here's why.
We pay gas taxes, which are supposed to fund freeways. A portion of those funds is used for freeways and tolls will pay the rest. Hence "double-taxation." Adding Federal spending, were it cash, would be triple taxation, since we also pay Federal taxes. However, Federal Stimulus funds are borrowed funds, meaning that they are accruing interest and will thus be paid for long into the future. Quadruple taxation.
Thanks, Pete!
But I have already staked a position as a citizen lobbyist against such fiscal irresponsibility, and our Congressman has a long history of spending excesses. It is truly time for a change in CD32!
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-stimulus_20nat.ART.State.Edition2.4c030fc.html
Paid for by Friends of David Smith, David Smith, Treasurer.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Dallas Morning News endorses Sessions...but wait until you read WHY they did this!
The Dallas Morning News, surprising nobody, issued its endorsement in the race for U.S. House in District 32 to 14-year incumbent Rep. Pete Sessions.
But wait until you hear why they endorsed Sessions! You'd think he was a Democrat, they lather him up so well!
Despite reminding everyone that the Morning News reported on Sessions' relationship with Ponzi schemer Allen Stanford, the DMN then followed up by praising Sessions' votes for both the 2008 TARP bailout as well as the expansion of Medicare D under President Bush. Sadly, Bush vetoed the Medicare D legislation, which Sessions originally also voted against, only to "support it after he opposed it," voting to override Bush's veto. Ironically, in our interview with the DMN, Sessions steadfastly pointed out that he voted against Medicare D, failing to dredge up the part about the veto override vote. That's alright, Pete--the Editors have your back!
The DMN Editorial Board was quick to criticize me for my role in defeating the Local Option Taxing Authority during the 2009 Legislature, failing to mention that if that legislation had passed, we would all likely be paying between $300 and $1,000 more today as a result. And my efforts to defeat tax increases are a bad thing because...why??
The problem with the freeways is not the lanes, it is the entrance and exit ramp configurations. And solving this problem will not take hundreds of billions of dollars of toll roads, it takes reconstructing the ramps at a significnatly lower cost. Thus, the need to create and increase taxes in unnecessary. We must simply end diversions from gas taxes. The DMN simply doesn't understand this concept, having swallowed every word of TxDOT's toll strategy.
But back on topic, how funny is it that suddenly the Morning News is making the exact opposite argument for my opponent that I have been criticizing him for?
The DMN credits him with voting for the bailout and the Medicare D expansion. I have criticized these votes.
The DMN criticizes my efforts to fight raising taxes and my desire to abolish the Federal Department of Education as "shortsighted." And it praises my opponent's desire to continue to reach across the aisle--a practice known as "bipartisanship" which led to the bailout, No Child Left Behind, Medicare D and, through the government's policies involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the present financial crisis!
I instructed the Editors that I define the term "bipartisanship" as "Conservatives being asked to compromise on our principles." And if elected that I would work to instill a more partisan atmosphere in Washington. For, if we Conservatives desire to see a balanced budget, we must act differently than we have seen our elected officials act this decade--Republicans as well as Democrats! If we desire a smaller government, one which would truly allow lower taxes to be realized, then we must elect different people than we have this decade, because the Pete Sessions' of Washington put up a great talk, but their walk is sadly lacking.
And that is exactly what caused 2006!
So there you go, voters! Your contrast could not be more distinct. The Liberals already hate me, in the form of the Dallas Morning News Editorial Board! And now they find that, perhaps the semi-conservative, sometimes fun to meet with and talk to, empty-suit of a "go-along-to-get-along" incumbent isn't so bad after all! Wind him up and listen to him go blah, blah, blah!
Results. I will achieve them. U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions will talk about them. It could not be more distinct!
Thank you, DMN--I believe your endorsement of Rep. Sessions is far better than an endorsement of myself ever could have hoped to be!
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-sessions_0219edi.State.Edition1.33f7b80.html
But wait until you hear why they endorsed Sessions! You'd think he was a Democrat, they lather him up so well!
Despite reminding everyone that the Morning News reported on Sessions' relationship with Ponzi schemer Allen Stanford, the DMN then followed up by praising Sessions' votes for both the 2008 TARP bailout as well as the expansion of Medicare D under President Bush. Sadly, Bush vetoed the Medicare D legislation, which Sessions originally also voted against, only to "support it after he opposed it," voting to override Bush's veto. Ironically, in our interview with the DMN, Sessions steadfastly pointed out that he voted against Medicare D, failing to dredge up the part about the veto override vote. That's alright, Pete--the Editors have your back!
The DMN Editorial Board was quick to criticize me for my role in defeating the Local Option Taxing Authority during the 2009 Legislature, failing to mention that if that legislation had passed, we would all likely be paying between $300 and $1,000 more today as a result. And my efforts to defeat tax increases are a bad thing because...why??
The problem with the freeways is not the lanes, it is the entrance and exit ramp configurations. And solving this problem will not take hundreds of billions of dollars of toll roads, it takes reconstructing the ramps at a significnatly lower cost. Thus, the need to create and increase taxes in unnecessary. We must simply end diversions from gas taxes. The DMN simply doesn't understand this concept, having swallowed every word of TxDOT's toll strategy.
But back on topic, how funny is it that suddenly the Morning News is making the exact opposite argument for my opponent that I have been criticizing him for?
The DMN credits him with voting for the bailout and the Medicare D expansion. I have criticized these votes.
The DMN criticizes my efforts to fight raising taxes and my desire to abolish the Federal Department of Education as "shortsighted." And it praises my opponent's desire to continue to reach across the aisle--a practice known as "bipartisanship" which led to the bailout, No Child Left Behind, Medicare D and, through the government's policies involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the present financial crisis!
I instructed the Editors that I define the term "bipartisanship" as "Conservatives being asked to compromise on our principles." And if elected that I would work to instill a more partisan atmosphere in Washington. For, if we Conservatives desire to see a balanced budget, we must act differently than we have seen our elected officials act this decade--Republicans as well as Democrats! If we desire a smaller government, one which would truly allow lower taxes to be realized, then we must elect different people than we have this decade, because the Pete Sessions' of Washington put up a great talk, but their walk is sadly lacking.
And that is exactly what caused 2006!
So there you go, voters! Your contrast could not be more distinct. The Liberals already hate me, in the form of the Dallas Morning News Editorial Board! And now they find that, perhaps the semi-conservative, sometimes fun to meet with and talk to, empty-suit of a "go-along-to-get-along" incumbent isn't so bad after all! Wind him up and listen to him go blah, blah, blah!
Results. I will achieve them. U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions will talk about them. It could not be more distinct!
Thank you, DMN--I believe your endorsement of Rep. Sessions is far better than an endorsement of myself ever could have hoped to be!
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-sessions_0219edi.State.Edition1.33f7b80.html
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Incumbent in CD32 draws NO endorsements in Conservative and Republican spheres
Common Sense Citizens Network, an offshoot of the Dallas Tea Party, sent out an email Wednesday that links to their web site showing endorsements by various groups for the March 2nd Republican Primary. And 14-year incumbent U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas' 32nd Congressional District failed to earn the endorsement of even one of the organizations listed. These include:
Empower Texans
Young Conservatives of Texas
Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom
Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas
Republican Liberty Caucus
The Liberty Institute (formerly Free Market Foundation)
Conservative Hispanic Society
The Alliance of Texans Against Government-Controlled Healthcare
Texas Conservative Review
Texas Eagle Forum
Link to Dallas Tea Party web site:
href="http://dallasteaparty.org/3360/"
Now, some of these groups like Texas Eagle Forum only issue endorsements of candidates for State elected office. However, I am pleased to report that after meeting with Texas Eagle Forum President Pat Carlson, Mrs. Carlson chose to endorse my campaign over the incumbent's. Some of these organizations also only issued voter's guides such as The Liberty Institute.
But the loudest point in such a diverse set of groups was the complete absence of a single endorsement for a 14-year incumbent who enjoys the benefit of a $1 million war chest and the backing of the entire Republican establishment.
Further, although my campaign did not earn the endorsements of either the Young Conservatives of Texas or the Dallas County Republican Assembly, it should also be noted that...neither did the incumbent! And in the case of the DCRA, where two-thirds of voting members had to vote for either candidate for the organization to issue an endorsement, that means that the incumbent failed to earn 67% support from a Republican organization.
The DCRA had 21 voting members present at their endorsement meeting, meaning that neither candidate gained 14 votes. So we each earned between 8 and 13 votes. Let's say for argument's sake that the incumbent earned 13 votes--the maximum possible without an endorsement being issued--and the challenger earned only 8 votes. Now let's toss in 10 Tea Party activists, who hold strong anti-incumbent and anti-Washington tendencies. What are the odd's that they vote for the challenger by an 8-to-2 margin?
That makes 16 votes for the challenger and only 15 for the incumbent. Even if my numbers are inaccurate by a couple votes, expanded out to 31,000 votes in the Primary, a 17-to-14 win for the incumbent shows a sizable portion of the populace ready to vote out the incumbent. And given the wide disparity in funds raised by the incumbent over the challenger, those are not impressive numbers for a well-entrenched incumbent in leadership by any set of measures!
So get out and early vote...for David Smith, of course!! This Primary election race is shaping up to be a real nail-biter. And one where the complete absence of an endorsement for the incumbent is beginning to speak as loudly as his complete absence on the public scene since late November!
Paid for by Friends of David Smith, Lucie Weaver, Treasurer.
Empower Texans
Young Conservatives of Texas
Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom
Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas
Republican Liberty Caucus
The Liberty Institute (formerly Free Market Foundation)
Conservative Hispanic Society
The Alliance of Texans Against Government-Controlled Healthcare
Texas Conservative Review
Texas Eagle Forum
Link to Dallas Tea Party web site:
href="http://dallasteaparty.org/3360/"
Now, some of these groups like Texas Eagle Forum only issue endorsements of candidates for State elected office. However, I am pleased to report that after meeting with Texas Eagle Forum President Pat Carlson, Mrs. Carlson chose to endorse my campaign over the incumbent's. Some of these organizations also only issued voter's guides such as The Liberty Institute.
But the loudest point in such a diverse set of groups was the complete absence of a single endorsement for a 14-year incumbent who enjoys the benefit of a $1 million war chest and the backing of the entire Republican establishment.
Further, although my campaign did not earn the endorsements of either the Young Conservatives of Texas or the Dallas County Republican Assembly, it should also be noted that...neither did the incumbent! And in the case of the DCRA, where two-thirds of voting members had to vote for either candidate for the organization to issue an endorsement, that means that the incumbent failed to earn 67% support from a Republican organization.
The DCRA had 21 voting members present at their endorsement meeting, meaning that neither candidate gained 14 votes. So we each earned between 8 and 13 votes. Let's say for argument's sake that the incumbent earned 13 votes--the maximum possible without an endorsement being issued--and the challenger earned only 8 votes. Now let's toss in 10 Tea Party activists, who hold strong anti-incumbent and anti-Washington tendencies. What are the odd's that they vote for the challenger by an 8-to-2 margin?
That makes 16 votes for the challenger and only 15 for the incumbent. Even if my numbers are inaccurate by a couple votes, expanded out to 31,000 votes in the Primary, a 17-to-14 win for the incumbent shows a sizable portion of the populace ready to vote out the incumbent. And given the wide disparity in funds raised by the incumbent over the challenger, those are not impressive numbers for a well-entrenched incumbent in leadership by any set of measures!
So get out and early vote...for David Smith, of course!! This Primary election race is shaping up to be a real nail-biter. And one where the complete absence of an endorsement for the incumbent is beginning to speak as loudly as his complete absence on the public scene since late November!
Paid for by Friends of David Smith, Lucie Weaver, Treasurer.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Review: Dallas Morning News Editorial Board endorsement interview
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, right? My opponent and I met with the Editorial Board at the Dallas Morning News Tuesday afternoon for our endorsement interview. First of all, U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions had a chauffer for the occassion, staff member Emily Davis. And I had to get a little dig in on my opponent when he introduced me to Ms. Davis, saying, "Sure, I've read an awful lot of quotes from Ms. Davis lately," in reference to her many statements to the press following events Rep. Sessions had better things to do than comment on. You know, the Allen Stanford incident ("I love you" email) and such.
And as one supporter termed it "elitist," Ms. Davis was brushing Rep. Sessions hair with her fingers before we went in with the Editors. Now, I won't go quite that far, but I will clarify for the record that I drove myself and cared for my own hair.
But perhaps the funniest aspect of the experience was the fact that Pete's driver literally parked in the FIRE LANE! Not kidding. Here's the photo proof.
Well, I have no pre-conceived notions that the DMN Editorial Board would take such a humorous occurrence into account when issuing their endorsement in our race, but wouldn't it be interesting to see?
A hypothetical editorial, just for grins...
"We truly appreciate Rep. Sessions' years of experience, his conservative voting record and his role in the leadership of the House Republican caucus. However, his abysmal parking record cause us to have to endorse Mr. Smith in the CD32 Republican Primary."
Oh, well...I can hope, right?
Well, as for the content of the interview, I was pretty pleased both with the content of the questions asked as well as my responses. When I was quizzed for details of my proposal to move toward a privatized Social Security system, I pointed out that this isn't actually an original proposition on the part of some wide-eyed challenger. As I have pointed out many times, Galveston County already has a private retirement system for its employees that outperforms SSA by two to three times! And I proceeded to provide details as to how we could transition from the current system to a private system.
My only real misstep was when being quizzed on a program begun during the Bush Administration that set up a partnership between the U.S. and Mexico meant to decrease the violence in Mexico due to drug cartels there. Not being familiar with the specific program, I defaulted to my answer on related topics in my reply to the DMN's online questionnaire. I replied that we must assist Mexico in combatting the violence there, but not with a military presence in that country. Instead, local law enforcement, Federal Agents and military forces can be called on to provide cooperative training for their counterparts in Mexico, thus helping Mexico to take care of the problem within its own borders without the U.S. taking the lead role in the matter.
And to be honest, I'm not sure that Rep. Sessions answered a single question he was asked! He used words like "leadership" and "reducing spending," even referring to my bringing up the Allen Stanford affair as--I have to make sure to get this right--I LOVED this term!--"a political characterization by a political opponent." Totally blew off the issue. Unfortunately, I have heard from investors who lost significant assets with Stanford who view things a little bit differently. Sessions stated that he had made donations to charities of his choice following the incident. While admirable, again, I'm sure there are investors who would rather have seen these funds returned to them!
So, a pretty good, and even somewhat enjoyable experience! I snapped the photo above as I was leaving. My only regret was that I was unable to get Rep. Sessions and Ms. Davis in the photo as well. Of course, with a record involving bailouts, blimps and burlesque fundraisers, Sessions has become quite adept at avoiding the cameras.
As well as relying on his staff to make him look and sound good!
Paid for by Friends of David Smith, Lucie Weaver, Treasurer.
And as one supporter termed it "elitist," Ms. Davis was brushing Rep. Sessions hair with her fingers before we went in with the Editors. Now, I won't go quite that far, but I will clarify for the record that I drove myself and cared for my own hair.
But perhaps the funniest aspect of the experience was the fact that Pete's driver literally parked in the FIRE LANE! Not kidding. Here's the photo proof.
Well, I have no pre-conceived notions that the DMN Editorial Board would take such a humorous occurrence into account when issuing their endorsement in our race, but wouldn't it be interesting to see?
A hypothetical editorial, just for grins...
"We truly appreciate Rep. Sessions' years of experience, his conservative voting record and his role in the leadership of the House Republican caucus. However, his abysmal parking record cause us to have to endorse Mr. Smith in the CD32 Republican Primary."
Oh, well...I can hope, right?
Well, as for the content of the interview, I was pretty pleased both with the content of the questions asked as well as my responses. When I was quizzed for details of my proposal to move toward a privatized Social Security system, I pointed out that this isn't actually an original proposition on the part of some wide-eyed challenger. As I have pointed out many times, Galveston County already has a private retirement system for its employees that outperforms SSA by two to three times! And I proceeded to provide details as to how we could transition from the current system to a private system.
My only real misstep was when being quizzed on a program begun during the Bush Administration that set up a partnership between the U.S. and Mexico meant to decrease the violence in Mexico due to drug cartels there. Not being familiar with the specific program, I defaulted to my answer on related topics in my reply to the DMN's online questionnaire. I replied that we must assist Mexico in combatting the violence there, but not with a military presence in that country. Instead, local law enforcement, Federal Agents and military forces can be called on to provide cooperative training for their counterparts in Mexico, thus helping Mexico to take care of the problem within its own borders without the U.S. taking the lead role in the matter.
And to be honest, I'm not sure that Rep. Sessions answered a single question he was asked! He used words like "leadership" and "reducing spending," even referring to my bringing up the Allen Stanford affair as--I have to make sure to get this right--I LOVED this term!--"a political characterization by a political opponent." Totally blew off the issue. Unfortunately, I have heard from investors who lost significant assets with Stanford who view things a little bit differently. Sessions stated that he had made donations to charities of his choice following the incident. While admirable, again, I'm sure there are investors who would rather have seen these funds returned to them!
So, a pretty good, and even somewhat enjoyable experience! I snapped the photo above as I was leaving. My only regret was that I was unable to get Rep. Sessions and Ms. Davis in the photo as well. Of course, with a record involving bailouts, blimps and burlesque fundraisers, Sessions has become quite adept at avoiding the cameras.
As well as relying on his staff to make him look and sound good!
Paid for by Friends of David Smith, Lucie Weaver, Treasurer.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Sessions' wikipedia page undergoes massive "editing"
Call it insecurity if you wish, or perhaps outright deception. Then again, maybe it was just a supportive "friend" doing the Congressman a favor before early voting begins tomorrow! But U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions' page on Wikipedia.org has undergone significant...shall we say...revisions.
One of my supporters previously added my name to Sessions' web page, noting that he would be facing an opponent in the 2010 Republican Primary on March 2nd. Well, another supporter called me this evening (2/15/10) to inform me that he had added me to Sessions' page and that I was not listed before he added mention of me. When I mentioned the other supporters' activities previously, we determined that Sessions' site had been altered.
Come to discover...it turns out there have been some other "edits" to Sessions' page as well!
Compare the following items:
Sir Allen Stanford and the "I love you, man!" email are not listed on Sessions' page. On the day that Allen Stanford was busted by Federal Agents for allegedly defrauding investors out of $7 Billion in a massive Ponzi scheme, Sessions emailed Stanford, saying, "I love you and I believe in you." Apparently the Congressman did not want mention of the $44,000 Stanford contributed to Sessions in 2004 made on a public access web page!
This item has been covered extensively in the blogosphere as well as in online media. The story was originally broken by the Miami Herald in late 2009.
No mention of the 2008 TARP Bailout is made, nor Sessions' voting for the bailout two times, on both 9/29/08 when it failed as well as 10/3/08 when it passed. I guess the term "Editor Pete" is preferrable to the term "Pete Bailout," huh?
I don't suppose that this type of behavior should surprise anyone who has followed Sessions for more than, say, five seconds. He refuses to debate me or even show up for our candidate forum on March 1st--the night before the Primary, for crying out loud! I guess being remembered as a sore loser will be preferable to having anyone think of him as honorable, trustworthy, kind, etc--all those Boy Scout things Sessions is so renowned for exhibiting.
Oh, it does make mention of his activity with the Boy Scouts...as well as his son's participation in the Boy Scouts...and his father's participation in Scouting!
I was a little surprised that it still had the "Taliban Pete" comment mentioned. I'm just a little bit put out that his Wikipedia page would mention "Taliban Pete" but not me.
Oh, well. Early voting begins tomorrow morning. Vote early, vote often!
One of my supporters previously added my name to Sessions' web page, noting that he would be facing an opponent in the 2010 Republican Primary on March 2nd. Well, another supporter called me this evening (2/15/10) to inform me that he had added me to Sessions' page and that I was not listed before he added mention of me. When I mentioned the other supporters' activities previously, we determined that Sessions' site had been altered.
Come to discover...it turns out there have been some other "edits" to Sessions' page as well!
Compare the following items:
Sir Allen Stanford and the "I love you, man!" email are not listed on Sessions' page. On the day that Allen Stanford was busted by Federal Agents for allegedly defrauding investors out of $7 Billion in a massive Ponzi scheme, Sessions emailed Stanford, saying, "I love you and I believe in you." Apparently the Congressman did not want mention of the $44,000 Stanford contributed to Sessions in 2004 made on a public access web page!
This item has been covered extensively in the blogosphere as well as in online media. The story was originally broken by the Miami Herald in late 2009.
No mention of the 2008 TARP Bailout is made, nor Sessions' voting for the bailout two times, on both 9/29/08 when it failed as well as 10/3/08 when it passed. I guess the term "Editor Pete" is preferrable to the term "Pete Bailout," huh?
I don't suppose that this type of behavior should surprise anyone who has followed Sessions for more than, say, five seconds. He refuses to debate me or even show up for our candidate forum on March 1st--the night before the Primary, for crying out loud! I guess being remembered as a sore loser will be preferable to having anyone think of him as honorable, trustworthy, kind, etc--all those Boy Scout things Sessions is so renowned for exhibiting.
Oh, it does make mention of his activity with the Boy Scouts...as well as his son's participation in the Boy Scouts...and his father's participation in Scouting!
I was a little surprised that it still had the "Taliban Pete" comment mentioned. I'm just a little bit put out that his Wikipedia page would mention "Taliban Pete" but not me.
Oh, well. Early voting begins tomorrow morning. Vote early, vote often!
Crockett: "Not yours to give!" Tenth Amendment Center article
I must first preface this entry by noting that the story quoted herein, regarding Col. Davy Crockett's remarks while Congressman from Tennessee, may actually be a fictional one. But it is a very good story at that, and one that is quite solidly based on sound Constitutional theory. A good story either way, and a decent article on my part, if I may so myself.
Further, once again showing my ability to go out on my own and offer analysis on the leading edge of the curve, I have since seen several reproductions of this story and even did one for Examiner.com for a column that I write.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/11/19/not-yours-to-give-limited-federal-powers/
But, once again, it shows my solid understanding of the Constitution and the Framers' intents at instituting a limited government, as opposed to the general powers exerted by our contemporary government in Washington.
Further, once again showing my ability to go out on my own and offer analysis on the leading edge of the curve, I have since seen several reproductions of this story and even did one for Examiner.com for a column that I write.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/11/19/not-yours-to-give-limited-federal-powers/
But, once again, it shows my solid understanding of the Constitution and the Framers' intents at instituting a limited government, as opposed to the general powers exerted by our contemporary government in Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
