TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I've tried three times to craft a response to some of the posts I've see on this thread, without violating Forum rules. I cannot.

Chas.

An attorney, rendered speechless? Inconceivable!!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I've tried three times to craft a response to some of the posts I've see on this thread, without violating Forum rules. I cannot.

Chas.

Well, I think I can come up with a response without violating forum rules...

My mother had an expression that would apply to those who support the 2nd Amendment, yet would vote for a Democrat over a presumptive "RINO" republican -- "Cutting off your nose despite your face!" And that applies to ALL Dem v.s. Rep issues, not just gun issues.

I'm not heavy into politics and will be the first to tell you I don't follow them heavily. However, I do know there is an old saying my Mom used to use, and that is 'Don't throw the baby out with the bath water'. Not voting for someone just because they voted for Strauss as Speaker is potentially doing just that.
There are a lot more issues involved in whether to vote a person in as Speaker than just if they stand for 2A rights/Concealed Carry. Anyone who doesn't look at all of the Representative's voting record on all issues and weigh them together to determine their worth to Texas is a fool. While I agree tat 2A rights, and Campus Carry are important issues, anyone who thinks that is the total reason to vote someone out because they didn't go to battle for them is awfully short sighted and narrow minded IMO.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I've tried three times to craft a response to some of the posts I've see on this thread, without violating Forum rules. I cannot.

Chas.

I feel your pain.

It's the same argument about folks that can't stand the obamanation, but don't like one or two things about Romney, so they will vote Ron Paul. That vote will fall on deaf ears and help the one they despise the most, yet they can't see that.

Okay, I’ve had a good night’s sleep so I’ll try again. This is going to make some folks mad. Since those who will be upset and will vote against our interests in the election which, if they were successful, would work against our cause during the 2013 Texas legislative session, I quite honestly don’t care.

I can well understand being upset if your Representative voted for Strauss for a 2nd term as Speaker of the House. However, as Heartland Patriot posted, the time to make changes is in the primary, not the general election. We still have pro-gun Democrats in Austin, but they are relatively few in the broad spectrum and their numbers are declining. Voting against a pro-gun Republican because they voted for Strauss and putting a Democrat in office is a very risky move, especially if little or nothing is known about that Democrat. In many, perhaps most, cases there’s no risk at all; the Democrat candidate is openly anti-gun, or is known to insiders as being anti-gun. The ever-widening gap between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is making Democrats more and more liberal and anti-gun. This is true in Texas as it is throughout the country.

So why don’t those calling for votes against current Republicans get involved in the primaries when they can make a difference, rather than just making noise? The answer is simple; it’s work and they certainly aren’t going to lift a finger to help in the political process. They’d rather lay on the sofa and type on a keyboard to complain. Let others do the work. Let others join the Party at the local level and get involved with candidates. Let others beat the bushes to find good candidates, help them shape their personal platform and commitments to their constituents, and be a volunteer campaign worker. In short, their approach is “Don’t help, just sit back and complain.” And if you are really upset about Strauss, be sure to vote against the proven pro-Second Amendment Republican. “That’ll show ‘um!” Then, when we start losing the ground we’ve gained since 1987, they can complain even louder.

Here are some hard cold facts about the power of the Speaker of the House and their election. Before a session is over, the sitting Speaker starts seeking and receiving pledges to vote for him in the next session. Refusing to give such a pledge means you will not be a committee chairman or vice-chairman and you will not be on the committees you want. This isn’t a risk, it is a certainty. Some will argue that we shouldn’t care about a Representative risking his political career, but such arguments are faulty. We need our proven pro-gun friends in the House and Senate not only to be reelected, we need them in positions of power so they can make sure our bills get a vote and to help block anti-gun bills.

The 13 Republicans who constituted the “ABC’s” (anyone but Craddock) and voted with the Democrats to oust Craddock and put Strauss in the Speaker’s Chair took a huge risk with their political careers by opposing the sitting Speaker. They were successful and reaped the rewards. A long-time Chairman of the House Public Safety Committee (now House Law Enforcement Committee) lost his chairmanship because he stayed loyal to and voted for Speaker Craddock. Luckily, he was able to stay on the committee and help to avoid some of the fallout from Strauss’ appointment of Rep. Tommy Merritt as Chairman. Merritt was a disaster for gun owners! Alice Tripp and I fought hard to hold off sweeping anti-CHL provisions in a bill in his Committee. We were successful on every single item, except for 1) the addition of “burglary of a habitation” to the 10 year felony deferred adjudication provision in Tex. Gov’t Code §411.1711(d); and 2) absurdly inviting frivolous lawsuits by limiting a CHL instructor's civil immunity when claims are made pursuant to the Texas Consumer Protection and Deceptive Trade Practices Act or allegations of fraud. (See 411.208(e).) (Government employees were not subjected to such claims; they retained full immunity.) Merritt also stopped our bills making it necessary to add some of the more important provisions to the DPS Sunset Bill. (The DPS sunset bill only comes up every 6 years or so.)

Luckily, Tommy Merritt lost the last two reelection bids. When he lost the first time, Strauss appointed Rep. Frost as chairman of the House Law Enforcement Committee, once again passing over Joe Driver who was a long time chairman of that committee and who kept Chairman Merritt from being even worse. (Frost lost his bid for reelection in the Republican Primary this year.) Why were Merritt and Frost appointed as Chairman over the far more experienced and reliable Joe Driver? It’s because both were Strauss lieutenants that’s why. But don’t point the finger at Strauss, that’s the way every Speaker operates. That’s why casting a protest vote against a sitting Speaker risks not only your own political career, but also the interest of your constituents.

Defeating a sitting Speaker of the House is a very risky and difficult task and it needs to be done in the primary, not the general election.

Chas.

Thanks for shedding more light on how the sausage factory works, Charles

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I've tried three times to craft a response to some of the posts I've see on this thread, without violating Forum rules. I cannot.

Chas.

I can understand that situation.

Charles, thank you for your posting, many people do not understand the political football arena nor are they willing to take the time to learn how it actually operates so hopefully they learn something from your post. With that said, I am not a huge fan of Straus, I do not believe he expended much effort on behalf of gun rights and actually stayed neutral when he could have been a strong voice and supporter. One thing that I do not understand is how the TSRA gave him an "A" rating in their recent voters guide, then again lots happen in politics that becomes mind numbing....

Thanks for all you do Charles, although typically we are too busy or forget to tip our hats when we should your work and candor is truly appreciated..............

A vote for Straus is a vote for Obama.

recaffeination wrote:A vote for Straus is a vote for Obama.

That doesn't even make sense.

Politics is such a fun, addictive, (and corrosive) topic. When I look across the ballot, I make it a personal goal not to blindly vote a straight party ticket, just because I think that I owe it to myself to become informed before I walk into the ballot box. Note I said 'blindly vote a straight party ticket'. I often do vote straight party, but because I did my research, and not because I 'just pick the right side of the ballot'.

I research the candidates for all the open positions, and have, at times, voted for the Democrat when I felt they may be better - for Sheriff, Constable, Judge, etc, based on my perspective of their qualifications for the job and my perspective of their vision of their role in that job. Sometimes there are multiple Republicans and/or multiple Democrats vying for the same slot, and just 'picking Republican' isn't enough information. This is especially true, as Charles and others have said, in the primaries. It's there that we get to pick the right person to even be on the ballot.

HOWEVER - all that goes out the window when I'm voting for State or Federal legislators. I know that irrespective of how good or how bad any given person may be, the ONLY thing that matters is that whichever party has the majority picks the leadership of the House or Senate. The leader carries a disproportionate amount of power, and selects the committee leadership and committee membership. The committees can kill bills anytime they want, based upon the personal preferences of the leadership or the committee leadership.

What this means is that the leader can easily set the agenda that he/she wants. If a certain bill is not interesting to them, then it's toast. If they want to highlight it, then it makes it out of committee and onto the floor.

In other words, I apply some thought capital when looking at local elections. I pick the best person for the race (and yes, more often than not, the best person is aligned with me politically). However, I simply will NEVER vote for the opposition party for the legislature.

It's an empty promise to sign on as a "coauthor" of a bill when you know the Speaker of the House will make sure the bill doesn't come to a vote on the floor. And that's all I have to say about that.

Keith B wrote:

recaffeination wrote:A vote for Straus is a vote for Obama.

That doesn't even make sense.

I'm sorry. What was I thinking?

In the past four years, Straus has killed more pro gun legislaton than Obama and Pelosi combined.

recaffeination wrote:

Keith B wrote:

recaffeination wrote:A vote for Straus is a vote for Obama.

That doesn't even make sense.

I'm sorry. What was I thinking?

In the past four years, Straus has killed more pro gun legislaton than Obama and Pelosi combined.

Please name them.

Chas.

Ok. I'll start.

As speaker, Joe Straus killed at least two campus carry bills in the house. He also killed parking lots at least once (2009) before it finally passed last year.

Your turn.