Replies

Damn I wish Cornyn was more inyourface campaigner ... at the debate it was like we had two moderates there ... and the journalists were asking all questions from a liberal slant. Especailly on the gun issue -- shocked to see Kirk bring up "unfunded mandates", we havent heard that since Newt was running the House of Reps!

The only giveaway on Kirk's Liberalism, which he kept well-hidden mostly, was Kirk basically saying that "privacy" aka Roe v Wade abortion-litmus test would be adecider on judicial nominees - code words used, since he cant admit it openly, but he would vote against Conservative judges that Bush nominates if NARAL and NOW tell him to.

And Kirk made it sound like Bush and Cornyn "came around" to his view on Iraq ... this is the same arrogant perspective the NY Times has on the matter, even though they are point-blank wrong and Bush has been right all along.

Final giveaway was Krik saying that 'it is not the law' that race quotas are used in Texas. well, duh, that is becuase of HOPWOOD, which he OPPOSES. Purely Clintoneque reply! He made it clear he like race used as a criteria/factor. This is same double-speak of the racial quota defenders. nobody on the liberal side defends quotas nor admits they are being used, but they exist and continue under various names. The only solution is a 'color blind' policy: Cornyn is right and supports it. and Kirk is wrong on that.

The bottom line is this: Kirk is an Ann Richards protogee and is trying the same Ann Richards style over substance campaign to hide his liberalism. Richards lasted a term and then was booted by G W Bush. Against the mild Conservative Cornyn, Kirk has a chance except for the fact that he really has NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS AT ALL in public service, unless you count his helping Dallas friends and insiders, and really is a Liberal who has been funding mostly by out of state leftists. Cornyn can and should do more to expose this to win.