It turns out that the Republican Party of Texas was behind those polls last fall that targeted moderate Republicans. Who woulda thunk it? Jeff Fisher, the executive director of the RPT, claims that it had nothing to do with targeting incumbents even though his party accepted more than $200,000 grand from James Leininger before the polls were commissioned. I don't think I can say anything better than this, so I'll just copy and paste:
Rep. Carter Casteel, who was Dr. Leininger's top target and who lost in the March primary, mocked Mr. Fisher's account."If you believe that, you believe in the tooth fairy," said Ms. Casteel, R-New Braunfels. "Why, sure, Leininger paid for it [and] they targeted certain people. And they certainly didn't call me and say, 'Carter, we want to help you build traditional party values, and I know this is your district and here's what we're doing.' They never said a word."
Ms. Casteel, who helped torpedo a school vouchers bill that Dr. Leininger promoted last year, said top state leaders wanted to oust Republican moderates.
"They targeted me and people who didn't drink the Kool-Aid," she said. "I've used my brain to think. I didn't let the party think for me."
Yes, missed. She was healthy for the Republican Party in Texas. Nothing against Macias or anything.
Gosh, I'm gonna miss Carter. She was a breath of fresh air. Too bad the RPT can't handle an independent, well spoken, intelligent woman...
Sort of like the Democratic Party. No independent thinkers get their support, only TTLA-sponsored Kool-aid drinkers. Funny thing, only independent Democrts are winning in close or contested races. Go figure.
d--
Don't be an idiot. the Democratic Party is supporting independent thinkers. But there's a difference between doing what's right for the district, and doing what's right for Tom Craddick. the Democratic Party has been booting out folks that vote for Craddick, not folks that vote independent. There's a big difference.
And yes -- Casteel will be missed.
Carter Casteel should have run for Governor.
Sometimes doing what's right for the district is coincidentally good for Craddick, too. Are you suggesting that when the two interests coincide, Democrats should vote aginst their districts to make sure they don't inadvertently help Craddick? Sounds like more ideological puritanism to me... exactly what Democrats criticize in Repubicans.
no, but good job twisting my words to defend your bullshit.
Let's look at, say, Al Edwards. The dude votes for a tax bill that's going to raise taxes on families in his district by 90%. Now tell me -- is that a district vote, or is that a Craddick vote?
Get real. Casteel lost b/c Leininger dropped millions of dollars into her campaign b/c of a vote on vouchers. Edwards voted w/ Craddick for years and years, and Boris Miles finally beat him (and even then, only in a run-off) after Edwards maintained a sustained track record of voting against the best interest of his district.
Yup, just like a Republican, personal insults and all.
The RPT has developed some self-destructive tendencies. But Dems, remember the stuff about glass houses and stones. Sometimes the parties have a lot in common.
newswatching is right. wizard's comment here are self-destructive: intolerant and all-too-willing to shout down anyone who dares to disagree. the worst trait of a fundamentalist, no matter the party.
Pretty sad, pretty sad. Maybe if you shout louder, we'll all understand better.
(in nice calm voice)
D, do you disagree with what I've said about Edwards?
Edwards, Glenn Lewis, Ron Wilson -- all deserved to go. They ran as Democrats but voted as Republicans. Of course I don't disagree.
But they are way different from the 20/20 PAC folks or Donna Howard or Mark Strama or Patrick Rose (or Bob Bullock or John Sharp or Pete Laney...) They are Democrats who insist on independence from their state party's dogma while remaining Democrats.
d said "No independent thinkers get their support, only TTLA-sponsored Kool-aid drinkers. Funny thing, only independent Democrts are winning in close or contested races. Go figure."
How are the independents winning in close or contested elections without the support of the party? 20/20, Howard, Strama - last I saw they are all at the top of the protect list for the Dems. How are they not being given support?
I concur with Joe. Democrats throughout Texas have been very supportive of independents. Austin -- the bastion of liberalism -- is where Howard and Strama got elected, and the 20/20 folks you talk about are never targeted by any Democrats. In fact, the folks like Dunnam, Coleman, etc. encourage those guys to cast the best votes for their district -- even when it means voting against the preferred Party line.
I still don't know where your initial criticism of Democrats not allowing independent thinkers comes from...especially since you agree that Edwards, Lewis, and Wilson all deserved to go.
If the Ds support Strama and Howard, and whoever, it's because they know that's the best they're going to do in those parts of Austin. Take it or leave it. By the way, that political reality is no doubt the same reason Strama and Howard, and whoever, maybe Rose, vote the way they do and get to be labeled "independent" thinkers.
RSS
Kudos to Rep. Casteel! Her independent thinking will be sorely missed.