McCaul, Streusand finally square off (Texas CD 10)

AMERICAN-STATESMAN ^ | March 24, 2004 | Ken Herman

[SwinneySwitch]

Candidates for new congressional district focus on their Republican credentials.

HOUSTON -- Face to face for the first time since the primary, GOP congressional candidates Ben Streusand and Michael

McCaul stayed in tune with a runoff campaign that has devolved into an issue-free contest based on questioning each other's Republican credentials.

After several previously scheduled debates fell through when Streusand didn't show up, and after some last-minute negotiations needed to get McCaul to show up Tuesday, the two candidates sparred at an evening event organized by several Houston-area Republican clubs.

Streusand and McCaul will face off in an April 13 runoff that will decide who will represent the new 10th Congressional District, which stretches from Austin to suburban Houston.

No Democrat sought the seat, and, to date, no third-party or independent candidates have qualified for the November general election ballot.

The evening featured a four-question Q-and-A that showed little difference on the issues as the candidates, businessman Streusand and former federal prosecutor McCaul, tried to make the case that they had the most valuable experience.

Both offered bedrock Republican values, promising to defend the nation's borders, get government out of the way of business, cut federal spending and work to ban abortion.

The event started with opening-statement thrust and parry, with McCaul getting the ball rolling.

"I am getting kind of bloody, I must say, recently," McCaul said, blaming Streusand for a campaign that has "spiraled into one of the most negative, nasty campaigns the state of Texas has ever seen."

"The truth will prevail at the end of the day," McCaul said. "Good will prevail over evil, and it's time for this negative campaign to stop."

Streusand responded by blaming McCaul for initiating the negative battle.

"I am as committed as he is to running a clean campaign, and I want you to know that despite the expressions of righteous indignation on his part and despite the feeling that I don't feel like I've been treated fairly, I hope tonight we can talk about the issues," Streusand said.

What followed was 45 minutes of questions and answers that showed little difference between the candidates on the issues. McCaul touted his experience as an anti-terrorism official in the U.S. attorney's office.

Streusand, a mortgage banker, seemed unimpressed with McCaul's government service.

"Who do you want to give your checkbook to?" he asked voters in his closing statement. "Do you want to give it to somebody who has been in private enterprise his entire life, or do you want to give it to somebody who has worked for state and federal government his entire life?"

McCaul closed by challenging Streusand to stop running ads that erroneously say McCaul failed to sign an anti-tax hike promise.

Previous efforts to stage debates after the March 9 primary fell through when Streusand backed out of events in Houston and Brenham. His campaign cited a scheduling conflict when he missed a previous Houston event and dissatisfaction with event organizers when he skipped the Brenham debate.

The Brenham event had been organized by McCaul's Washington County chairman, who also is the head of a GOP club in that county.

Until Tuesday afternoon, McCaul was unsure whether he would attend the event because of concerns about moderator Debbie Riddle, a state representative and Streusand supporter. After several hours of negotiations, McCaul decided to show up.

Streusand, who has put more than $2.3 million of his own money into what has become the nation's most expensive congressional race, is running television spots tying McCaul to Democrats, a link that could be fatal in this heavily Republican district.

McCaul has been forced to spend much of his time and some of his money ($1 million so far) responding and reminding GOP voters that Streusand, who has given more than $500,000 to Republican candidates and causes, made contributions to two Democrats, former U.S. Rep. Ken Bentsen and former U.S. Sen. Bob Krueger.

Streusand's commercials note that McCaul worked in the Justice Department under President Clinton. The spot does not mention that McCaul was a nonpolitical appointee who began at the agency when the first President Bush, who is endorsing him, was in office.

[GOPcapitalist]

I don't care whether you have medical insurance or the degree to which you have it (nicely nuanced Mr. Kerry).

The term degree implies a range of successively greater ammounts and a range of that sort by necessity includes from nothing at all to full 100% coverage. There is accordingly no need to nuance anything.

I DO care that you see fit to advise college-educated 20-somethings to forgo medical insurance because their premium costs will probably outweigh their incurred costs in the early years of coverage.

I posted no more than what works for me. Since it is ultimately their decision to make you have no more right to dictate what they choose than you do to dictate what I choose. If you want to advise them something other than what I have simply stated to work for me, be my guest. Maybe they'll listen or maybe, like me, they'll decide that your reasons still aren't economical or enough of an incentive to merit doing what you percieve to work for you. Either way, it's their right and beyond offering advice, which nobody is stopping you from doing, you are infringing upon a decision that is not yours to make.

Yeah? Try showing up at the ER after a serious accident without medical insurance and watch what happens.

All the more reason to avoid accidents. The game of insurance is inherently and ultimately a game of risk and risk aversion. Some people are more risky than others. Some people are more prone to step in front of a bus than others. Does the fact that you are stupid and accordingly very prone to step in front of trains mean that we should all have anti-train stepping insurance? Absolutely not! The more alert among us can minimize our risk from through that alertness and eliminate the purpose of paying for something that we don't really need. Would I advise a person whose mother, father, brother, uncle, and three cousins all had the same form of genetic kidney disease to forgo insurance that may cover that disease if it emerges in him? Probably not. But that doesn't mean those of us who have no incidence of kidney disease in our families are also at enough risk to merit taking out "kidney insurance." So once again it's all a case of risk and since people have different risk levels they will also have different levels of health insurance demands ranging from very little if anything to full coverage. So my question to you: why is it so wrong for people who have very small risk levels and accordingly have very little insurance demand to opt against taking out a policy that may be good for the guy nextdoor with all the health problems who makes weekly doctors visits? The answer is that it isn't and your one-size-fits-all insurance demands neglect the very concept and reason for which insurance was invented in the first place: to be a device of risk management for people with levels of risk that correspond to and merit their demand for that insurance!

Of course you could always refuse to pay or plead poverty as so many others do.

Why should I do that when I could simply write the check for what they charge, which is something I would be more than happy to do so long as what they charged for was merited, acquesced to when possible, and priced at or near the going market rate for that procedure.

[GOPcapitalist]

Also, you avoided several of my previous questions such as why you're lurking around an obscure thread on an equally obscure congressional race in Texas that only people from Texas know or care about, and why on that thread you randomly arrived at my perfectly harmless and non-controversial conversation with another Texas freeper about halfway through it where you chose to start a fight over your claimed right to tell others what insurance they should have.

[mac_truck]

This is a public forum and your comments on it are subject to rebuttal by any and all members. If you want to have a private conversation use, FReepmail. Otherwise either watch what you say or be prepared to defend it. Are we clear?

[GOPcapitalist]

This is a public forum and your comments on it are subject to rebuttal by any and all members.

That still doesn't answer my question: what were you doing hanging around an obscure Texas congressional race thread that was only of interest to people from Texas? I never disputed your ability to do so, nor have I demanded that you leave it, mac. I simply asked what brought you here to respond to a single conversational post I made to another freeper about halfway down the thread, and you have yet to provide an answer.

[esarlls3]

Jerry Paterson Explains Endorsement

Folks,

I know some of you are supporting Ben Streusand, and some of you are supporting Mike McCaul. McCaul asked me to endorse him twice, and I turned him down twice. Only after I heard Streusand's ad implying McCaul was Johnny Chung's defense counsel, and also found out Streusand doesn't vote very often (didn't vote in 2000 and explained it by saying "Bush was going to carry Texas anyway" - what about all the other R candidates on the ballot?) did I decide to endorse McCaul. I believe Steusand is a decent guy, but he has allowed an overzealous consultant to craft his ads to intentionally deceive voters, and that's what got me involved. I know McCaul has gone negative also, and I don't want to debate who went negative first, but McCaul couldn't let his opponent go negative on him without responding in kind. I almost never get involved in primaries, and I did so reluctantly this time. I don't care that Streusand contributed to Ken Bentsen and Bob Kreuger, but Streusand's inartful response that he did it "for business reasons" bothers me. One of my good friends, Rep Ray Allen is supporting Streusand, and that doesn't bother me. When this is over, Ray Allen will still be my good friend.

This is the dilemma we face. We are the majority party, and now elections are decided in R primaries in many races. We will need to learn to disagree and then put it behind us to maintain our majority, or we will suffer the fratricide the Dems suffered through that ultimately brought the R party to power. I call them like I see them, and sometimes I'm right, and sometimes I'm wrong, but so far I'm comfortable with this choice. Frankly, both of these guys would likely vote exactly the same, but for me its a matter of style. I'm sick of intentionally deceitful ads, even though in the distant past I've done some of it myself. I won't be doing it anymore. If that's what it takes, I'll just go home. Playing to the lowest common denominator of voter ignorance is just not worth it to me. I'm pushing 60 and I would rather go fish or hunt.

If Streusand wins this, he's my man and I'll support him in his next campaign- after we visit about how not to allow zeal to trump judgment.

Jerry Patterson

[YCTHouston]

Thanks. Jerry is always (ok, usually) a voice of reason. He's one I always pay attention to anyway. Streusand probably has let his consultant take too much reign, and now,thinking about it, this campaign does remind me in some respects of his previous work for Phil Sudan and others.

I think Jerry's essentially right that there won't be much difference in either man as a congressman (meaning even though I question Ben's late conversion to the party, I don't truly expect him to break with the party on votes- assuming he shows up for them :)). I hope the rancor dies down and everyone supports the nominee once this race is resolved.

[YCTHouston]

GOPcap, this is a public forum and every lurker has a right to question anyone they like about their insurance coverage. "ARE WE CLEAR?"

Just kidding of course. It's always amusing to see how tough people try to sound when they can post anonymously, while probably sitting meekly in a cubicle, frustrated about the latest "PC Load Error." That, and too much coffee, or too much whisky in the coffee, makes for some real tough guys here on FR. When ever I see one of these toughguy posters, I can't help picturing Milton from "Office Space."

[YCTHouston]

On a semi-related note, just found that Steve Root, who played Milton, along with the great station owner on News Radio and the cyclops in Oh Brother Where Art Though, is also the voice of Bill and Mr. Strickland on King of the Hill. Good to know.

Sorry for posting that here, couldn't find the King of the Hill thread.

[iamright]

I heard Streusand's ad implying McCaul was Johnny Chung's defense counsel,

I haven't heard that one. McCaul did work on the Chung case. Chung walked with probation. Clinton walked. Dozens left the country and got away. Chung claims that McCaul called him a 'great American', and asked Chung to speak at his funeral if the commies got to him. Chung claims that he had a long friendly dinner at McCaul's house with the family.

I don't care that Streusand contributed to Ken Bentsen and Bob Kreuger, but Streusand's inartful response that he did it "for business reasons" bothers me

Yeah. In '82, or '83. Small potatoes. McCaul never gave any to anyone until 2000. Streusand was contributing to republicans since '89. Another was a honorarium for a speech to a business group. Also small potatoes. McCaul makes this out to be like the Texas chainsaw massacre because Streusand gives a few bucks to dems 20 years ago. He has been a delegate and given lots of money and support for many years to republicans.

I have seen some flat out lies from McCaul. One about a wall street journal article saying Streusand was overcharging customers fees. There is no record to back that up. He distorted and obscure article. Another about the mortgage bankers association endorsing McCaul. He had to backtrack on that because it wasn't true. Another about Streusand giving money to the Texas democrats that left the state to stop redistricting. I have never seen or heard one source to back that up.

All McCaul does is whine, whine, whine, about the negative campaign. But according to GOPcapitalist, some of the worst are coming from his connection Lowry at the stinkletter.

I'm sick of intentionally deceitful ads

I think a lot of these guys are just shmoozing with the insiders, and don't want to rock the boat. They saw Judge Green get kicked by Perry, and don't want to go against the grain. Streusand is not one of these insiders.

I don't like the negative ads I've seen by Streusand, Devine, or McCaul during this race, either.

But I haven't seen Streusand lie. He can back it up. He has accomplishments to tout, built a business, created jobs, raised hundreds of thousands for republicans.

McCaul just had government jobs, and got Chung probation, and helped keep Reno out of trouble.

I still think Streusand is a good conservative, and that McCaul is a me-too moderate.

[esarlls3]

TEXAS RIGHT TO LIFE ENDORSES McCAUL

Houston, TX—U.S. Congressional Candidate Michael McCaul today earned the endorsement of the oldest, largest, and leading statewide pro-life organization in Texas.

Dr. Graham, President of Texas Right to Life, commented on McCaul’s candidacy: “Texas Right to Life is proud to endorse Michael McCaul for this runoff election. Michael has shown his devotion to protecting the unborn and his belief in faith and family. We have a duty to make sure these values and beliefs are protected when we send someone to Washington. Michael will represent us with compassion, determination and vision, and we are proud to endorse him.”

Texas Right to Life is one in a growing number of other organizations and key leaders supporting McCaul’s candidacy, including the Texas Farm Bureau, Justice for All, the Young Conservatives of Texas, CLEAT, former President George H.W. Bush, Governor Rick Perry, Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs, Congressman Joe Barton, Dr. Joe Pojman, Executive Director for Texas Alliance for Life State Representatives Todd Baxter, Jack Stick, Lois Kolkhorst, Corbin Van Arsdale, Dwayne Bohac, Bill Callegari, State Senators Jon Lindsay and Jeff Wentworth, Harris County Sheriff Tommy Thomas and many others.

[esarlls3]

McCaul did work on the Chung case. Chung walked with probation. Clinton walked. Dozens left the country and got away. Chung claims that McCaul called him a 'great American', and asked Chung to speak at his funeral if the commies got to him. Chung claims that he had a long friendly dinner at McCaul's house with the family.

McCaul was a Prosecutor, not Chung's "defense counsel". McCaul says:

Michael McCaul uncovered one of the most profound and far-reaching political scandals of the Clinton administration. Through determination to reveal the truth, McCaul exposed the fact that Communist China was illegally funneling money into the Clinton administration in an effort to corrupt American elections. Michael McCaul prosecuted Johnny Chung during this investigation. Chung pleaded guilty and was a central witness. After his guilty plea, Chung turned state’s evidence and became a cooperating witness. Subsequently, he was placed under federal protection. Chung came to Washington DC and testified before the grand jury and the US Congress. McCaul worked with Republican leaders in Congress to reveal the truth regarding illicit behavior. Johnny Chung later tried to parlay his notoriety into a book or movie deal, and wrote sensational and largely fabricated stories about his experiences. Some of these are being used to try to misrepresent McCaul’s record. If it were not for one determined federal prosecutor – Michael McCaul – the American people would never have known about China’s illegal behavior. McCaul is an American patriot. Ben Streusand is wrong to suggest that McCaul did anything less than aggressively investigate and prosecute one of the biggest embarrassments in the Clinton administration.

What does it say about Streusand if he is using Communist Chung as his information source?

McCaul never gave any to anyone until 2000. Streusand was contributing to republicans since '89. ... [Streusand] has been a delegate and given lots of money and support for many years to republicans.

Neither candidate has contributed significantly to Republican candidates compared with their resources. Both have given less than $10k since 2000 and nothing before (FEC records). Streusand started doing fundraising and went to one convention after deciding to run for Congress. That's nice but sounds more like campaigning than being a "leader in the Republican party".

I have seen some flat out lies from McCaul. One about a wall street journal article saying Streusand was overcharging customers fees. There is no record to back that up. He distorted and obscure article. Another about the mortgage bankers association endorsing McCaul. He had to backtrack on that because it wasn't true. Another about Streusand giving money to the Texas democrats that left the state to stop redistricting. I have never seen or heard one source to back that up.

Have you reviewed the WSJ article about Streusand? If so, please post it. If not, it's unfair to call it a lie.

I don't know the details of the the mortgage banking association endorsement. I noted that it had a qualifier on it when it was posted.

Here is my interpretation:

A subset of the mortage banking organization gave McCaul an endorsement. Streusand was embarrassed by this and arranged for the endorsement to be retracted and obtained an endorsement by the entire organization.

I have never seen anything from the McCaul campaign about Streusand donations to the Chicken-Ds. Just a post on FR that was unsubstantiated.

The net result of all of this that you call "McCaul lies" is that none of them were "McCaul lies".

I don't like the negative ads I've seen by Streusand, Devine, or McCaul during this race, either.

Agreed.

But I haven't seen Streusand lie. He can back it up.

Here are a few Streusand lies:

• "Janet Reno hand-picked Mike McCaul to be her lawyer, defending her incompetent actions in the Branch Dividian fiasco."

  McCaul says: Two years after the tragedy in Waco, the Justice Department mobilized many lawyers to assist with the Congressional hearings. McCaul was one of many lawyers asked to attend the hearings, like scores of other Republicans and prosecutors in the Justice Department. Michael McCaul was never lead counsel to Janet Reno.

• "Mike McCaul told Chung that he 'would tell everyone that I (Johnny Chung) was an American hero.'"

  This is hearsay from a Communist. McCaul says: Johnny Chung later tried to parlay his notoriety into a book or movie deal, and wrote sensational and largely fabricated stories about his experiences. Some of these are being used to try to misrepresent McCaul’s record.

• "McCaul says Ben Streusand does not live in CD 10."

  McCaul never said that. He did say that Streusand moved into CD 10 in December - just weeks before the filing deadline. That is the truth.

• "McCaul refused to sign the Taxpayers protection pledge."

  The truth: McCaul signed the pledge in December.

That doesn't even start to address the Streusand misrepresentations like trying to link McCaul with Clinton allowing gays in the military, Mattox saying that home school children were the property of the state, etc.

[GOPcapitalist]

Greetings -

For purposes of clarification I don't think that McCaul is being completely honest either when he's saying that Streusand lied:

* "Janet Reno hand-picked Mike McCaul to be her lawyer, defending her incompetent actions in the Branch Dividian fiasco."

McCaul says: Two years after the tragedy in Waco, the Justice Department mobilized many lawyers to assist with the Congressional hearings. McCaul was one of many lawyers asked to attend the hearings, like scores of other Republicans and prosecutors in the Justice Department. Michael McCaul was never lead counsel to Janet Reno.

Notice that McCaul's response is carefully crafted to work around the Streusand quote while never directly rebutting that quote itself. This tactic is called equivocation. For example, McCaul points out he was "never lead counsel" to Reno yet Streusand's original quote did not say that - it said only that Janet Reno had hand picked him as her lawyer. McCaul also responds that he was "one of many lawyers" asked to attend the hearings. It is indeed true that hearings of that sort and magnitude have many lawyers "invited" to attend them, including from the justice department's many divisions. What he does not note is that these lawyers fall under many, many categories. It is perfectly feasible and in fact likely that the Justice Department brought along several of its rookies, interns, and other low level attorneys to simply observe that hearing for the experience value. Low level staff lawyers almost assuredly attended as well to provide logistical support for their agencies. These are the paper shufflers and errand runners who communicate messages and carry documents for the boss. Then, of course, is the actual legal team itself - a small group of the agency's high level attorneys who physically sit right behind the AG and serve in a very large part as her counselors. Mike McCaul was one of these. They generally don't stick the rookies and interns who are fresh out of law school in this third group, nor do they stick the mid-level paper shufflers there. They call on the DOJ's best and most experienced.

* "Mike McCaul told Chung that he 'would tell everyone that I (Johnny Chung) was an American hero.'" This is hearsay from a Communist.

Actually no, it isn't hearsay in the strict sense. It is the word of an eyewitness, albeit one of questionable credibility. If, for example, Joe Smith off the street went to the Streusand campaign and said "I heard Johnny Chung say that he heard McCaul tell him he was an American hero" then it would be a clear case of hearsay. By analogy, suppose your neighbor was indicted for murder of his mother in law. And suppose your wife was talking to him the day before the murder and he told her "I'm gonna let you in on a little secret of mine - I'm going to run over my mother in law with the SUV tommorrow night when she gets home from her evening jog." Your wife could probably testify against your neighbor without it being hearsay and in doing so give a strong piece of evidence to premeditation. OTOH, if your wife tries to testify that she heard from Mary Sue down the street that your neighbor told Mary Sue he was gonna run over his mother in law, it would be thrown out as hearsay without so much as a blink.

McCaul says: Johnny Chung later tried to parlay his notoriety into a book or movie deal, and wrote sensational and largely fabricated stories about his experiences. Some of these are being used to try to misrepresent McCaul’s record.

Knowing Chung that is entirely possible. I'd also advise McCaul, in the event that he believes himself to have been defamed by Chung, to pursue any pertinent charges against Chung in court.

[GOPcapitalist]

But according to GOPcapitalist, some of the worst are coming from his connection Lowry at the stinkletter.

Yes. If any candidate is getting unusually strong support from the Stink Letter you can safely bet there's money involved and lots of it. Lowry supported McCaul or attacked Streusand in 3/4ths of this issue's articles - arguably the most space he's ever donated to any one candidate including those who are known to have paid him $20,000+ according to TEC and FEC records (Peter Wareing, Kyle Janek, and Ken George in '02 all fit into the 20 grand plus category and only got a few pages apiece). Something stinks big time with the way Lowry is backing McCaul and IMHO it is probably the dirtiest event to date in the CD 10 race...and that's saying a lot considering Steve Hotze's support for Streusand, Devine's backers sending out those attack pieces in round 1, etc.

Perhaps it is simply how shameless Lowry is with this sort of thing. Hotze is a high dollar political prostitute to be sure. But Lowry is the trashy gutter tramp that will do anything for any person willing to pay.

[esarlls3]

The unborn are counting on you next Tuesday, April 13th!
The unborn are counting on Michael McCaul!

Texas Right to Life is proud to endorse the candidacy of Austin attorney and family man Michael McCaul for US Congressional District 10 in the Republican runoff election. Michael McCaul has proven himself through years of volunteer activities as a stellar pro-life leader in the State of Texas. McCaul has earned the support of prolife leaders in Texas, including Governor Rick Perry, Senator John Cornyn and Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson.

McCaul will work hard to promote compassionate alternatives to abortion, help women and families in crisis through pregnancy centers, and encourage adoption. McCaul has also pledged to sponsor federal laws requiring parental notification and waiting periods for minors and support legislation protecting unborn victims of violence.

McCaul realizes that the prolife movement faces many challenges with an aging population facing end of life decisions and with the increasing biotechnological attacks on innocent human life. McCaul welcomes opportunities to promote the culture of life in opposing euthanasia and Orwellian experiments on embryonic humans.

A lifelong Catholic and father of 5, McCaul holds to Texas Right to Life's belief's that we must defend all innocent human life from the moment of fertilization until natural death. Texas Right to Life is confident that Michael McCaul will take the common sense, pro-family initiatives we've passed here in Texas to the national stage.

VOTE PROLIFE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 13TH!
VOTE FOR MICHAEL MCCAUL!!!
For more information, visit www.McCaulForCongress.com.

Texas Right to Life is the oldest, largest, and only statewide prolife organization in Texas solely dedicated to defending the right to life of all persons from the moment of fertilization until natural death. Texas Right to Life works only through legal and peaceful means to educate and activate our statewide membership and elected officials.

[GOPcapitalist]

I'm happy to see that TRTL deems McCaul pro-life. It should be noted however that this does not indicate his opponent is any less pro-life than he is. TRTL has a long history of endorsing candidates in races where two or more individuals meet their pro-life criteria. In some past cases they have also refused to endorse for seemingly political reasons in which one candidate is substantially inferior in pro-life credentials (case in point: the SD 17 Polland-Janek race two years ago where they did a non-endorsement. Polland had strong pro-life credentials while Janek did not and in fact sponsored legislation to provide state funding for Planned Parenthood). I personally believe that they should stay out of races when two or more candidates are sufficiently pro-life and endorse only when a clear difference exists. Unfortunately they play politics when they should know better. The last time they got into primaries like this they got burned big time and their donors dropped off. One would have thought that they learned their lesson the hard way then.