Posted on 03/24/2004 11:11:02 AM PST by 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.
I think that's a valid point and it is one of the things that turns me away from McCaul the most. The guy is downright arrogant about the fact that he was a bureaucrat, or "public servant" as he likes to call it. Whenever he gets criticized of this he seems to fire up the whine machine and starts this pseudo-moralistic line about how unfair it is to attack him. Streusand's no saint in this area but his reactions to being attacked on his own deficiencies are substantially more professional than McCaul's (in fact, if McCaul had used a little more professionalism in responding to those attacks rather than pseudo-moralism and crocodile tears, I might be less inclined to oppose him).
Normally yes. Though there are always two possible scenarios with Hotze. He endorses because (a) somebody pays him or (b) the other guy refuses his advances for payment, making him mad and causing him to endorse the opponent. Scenario (a) is more frequent, though I do know of him doing the other as well. I am currently attempting to track down verification of what exactly transpired with Streusand and, if it turns out to be what you suspect, I'll happily denounce his candidacy. That won't make me any friendlier towards McCaul, but I will no longer believe that Streusand is any better.
I still say that when practically all the elected officials that WE voted to elect are supporting McCaul, including an ex President Bush, both Senators, and a long list of State officers, including Jerry Patterson, what is it that they know that we don't know.
Patterson is a valid endorsement and one I generally respect. I don't respect the endorsements of any of those others though, regardless of what they know or do not know. Remember, Cornyn apparently "knows" something that caused him to endorse Paul Green. So did Perry. It's just that what they "know" ammounts to nothing more than the fact that Steven Wayne Smith embarrassed Perry's hand picked David Souter wannabe for the supreme court. So I really can't justify throwing my support to somebody based on the fact that he's got elected official endorsements - I guess I'm just becoming cynical ;-)
1. "Vote for me because I'm a career government bureaucrat."
2. "Vote for me because I'm John Cornyn's/Rick Perry's/the party elite's (pick one) candidate."
3. "Vote for me because I agree with all that stuff the other candidates are saying too."
4. "Quit picking on me!"
He's entirely unimpressive and, with a message like that, unfit to run for dog catcher much less congress. JMHO.
Your presumption here is that what Streusand published was the whole truth. Here is what really happened:
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.
I met privately with McCaul and Streusand last fall. I sent questions about issues to each candidate. McCaul answered, Streusand didn’t. I met each candidate in public forums for semi-private discussions of issues. I studied their campaign materials. I attended the Katy debate of all 8 candidates. I am volunteering my time and effort to support Michael McCaul because:
McCaul's experience as Chief of Terrorism and National Security (covering threats to Texas, including border security with Mexico) is needed in Congress to fund and oversee anti-terrorism efforts.
McCaul understands the FairTax (see FairTax.org) – the only tax reform plan that untaxes U.S. exports and brings jobs back to the U.S. without tariffs, subsidies, or government regulations.
McCaul is not “just another lawyer”. He has honorably served Texas and the United States as a prosecutor. He has created innovative programs to protect our families from criminals.
McCaul has experience using laws passed by Congress (including the Patriot Act) to prosecute criminals. He knows the civil liberty issues surrounding intelligence and law enforcement.
McCaul has support from: Former President George H. W. Bush, Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, Former Senator Phil Gramm, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, Representative Corbin Van Arsdale, Sheriff Tommy Thomas, District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal, County Attorney Mike Stafford, Young Conservatives of Texas, College Republicans, and more (see: www.McCaulForCongress.com).
I challenged both Streusand and McCaul to cut spending. I told them I don't want any pork coming home - I want someone who will challenge Ron Paul for the Taxpayers Best Friend award. Here is what McCaul says:
Federal spending is driven by government bureaucracies and wasteful programs that are systematically funded, year after year, through massive “omnibus” spending bills which virtually no one actually reads, especially those in Congress who vote to spend the money. I strongly favor a Federal Agency “Sunset” Law so that each bureaucracy and every single funded program must justify its existence,. This system in Texas has saved millions of dollars, and it is time we made Washington more closely account for every expenditure.
You cite McCaul's working on the Patriot Act. I would bet many conservatives, including myself, are none too happy about the Patriot Act.
I did not cite "McCaul's working on the Patriot Act". I cited McCaul's "using laws ... to prosecute criminals". This includes using the Patriot Act as a prosecutor. I met with McCaul last November with about 20 other activists. One of the main concerns raised in our meeting was over the Patriot Act. We let him know loud and clear that there are parts of it that concern us and we do not want it extended indefinitely. He is well aware of the issues and is in a position to discuss what is essential from a law enforcement perspective and what may be helpful but not essential and not worth the loss of liberty and due process. There are few in Congress who could speak from experience on this issue.
You cite his support of the Fair Tax. This must be new for Mike, as Streusand was putting out literature LAST YEAR discussing this in detail. Mike just started talking about it.
McCaul has been speaking about the FairTax in every speaking event I have seen since last November. He has also included it in some of his mailers. Granted, he has not spent as much money on advertising as Streusand. I have spoken at length with McCaul and Streusand about the FairTax as this is a hot topic for me. Streusand's understanding is that it is a hot topic. He has a general idea about how it works and that it gets rid of the IRS. He does not understand how it will impact our economy in various areas. McCaul has a much more detailed understanding of the potential for the FairTax and how it will help solve many problems, including Trade Deficit, Jobs, and Illegal Immigration. In fact, McCaul has asked specific questions about how the FairTax will impact different sectors of the economy.
You also cite the supposed experience he touts as "Chief of Terrorism" in DC. As I mentioned before, there is NO SUCH THING. Feel free to call the FBI & DOJ to find out for yourself.
McCaul's position was: "Chief, Terrorism and National Security Section within the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Western Judicial District of Texas". I apologize if my abbreviation was misleading. If you want a phone number to call to verify his position, I can probably get you one. His duties included:
McCaul was in this position last summer when threats against were received against Texas Refineries over the 4th of July weekend. He was on duty reviewing the threat, analyzing the intelligence, wishing for better data, worrying about vulnerabilities, etc.
I feel this experience is especially helpful in todays environment. I don't know of any others in Congress who have experience working on this side of the Terrorism issue. This is the biggest threat to our economic and physical security we face in today's world. I want someone in Congress who knows the issues they will have to address.
McCaul supports securing the Mexican border, including the usage of National Guard, if needed. This is required for National Security and Illegal Immigration issues. He does NOT support the Bush plan to let illegal aliens stay here as legal residents.
Yes, we must choose wisely. Is this the experience we need in Congress? Or do we need a Mortgage Banker sitting in Congress?
I choose McCaul. Please join me.
Jerry Patterson, Texas Land Commissioner
It's easier than finding someone who is undecided :). At least most people here are seeking information about the candidates before they arrive at the voting booth.
There is one endorsement that Streusand would like to have.
There are a couple of others that can't support Streusand because he gave a little money to some dimocraps before he was serious about politics. Like McCaul when he worked for Reno (I think I would have quit rather than have to spit on her to put her out if she was on fire, the Waco butcher, the Castro appeaser). McCaul also seemed to be apolitical until recently.
But how about State Sen. Lindsay? Would love to see him replaced. Voted for hate crimes law. Treated those people trying to reform property taxes like they were pan-handlers begging for a free drink. Endorses McCaul.
On the other hand, Paul Bettencourt has endorsed Streusand. One of THE MOST tireless fighters in the state against higher taxes and tax waste. Leading the fight for property tax reform. Streusand has led on tax reform and every other issue (except terrorism).
If McCaul is the guy to fight terrorism, then maybe he should stay (or is it go back to?) the US AG's office, or to Homeland Security, or FBI, or CIA, or "Chief, Terrorism and National Security Section within the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Western Judicial District of Texas"? Either way I hope he is more succesful than he was under Clinton/Reno:
1. Brags about Johnny Chung. Guess what, the bag man for Communist money (appeared to be bribing the bent US President) walked with probation.
2. Clinton walked, no charges
3. The Waco ButcheReno walked.
4. As "Chief, Terrorism and National Security Section within the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Western Judicial District of Texas". ...Investigate the porous Mexico border (any arrests, any changes in porosity of the border?) and work actively with the Mexican law enforcement officials to prevent terrorist activities (like others work actively with the Mexican law enforcement officials to catch coyote's and drug smugglers? ) Well, how successful has that been for him, for us?
I guess you just have to remind me of McCaul's accomplishments. Not where he worked. Not how long he was there. Not who he knows. Not what he investigated. Not who he coordinated with. Not what he was wishing for. Not what he was worrying about.
But what did he make happen that he was directly responsible for?
Tough guy, being "Chief, Terrorism and National Security Section within the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Western Judicial District of Texas". But so sensitive, too...
There's a general rule of thumb in the federal government bureaucracy: the longer the job title, the more useless the position.
I reluctantly voted for Perry and Cornyn because there wasn't any better choice and because I vote to mitigate the evils of government by electing the candidate who will inflict the least harm to myself and my wallet, not to gain control of the ring of power. I won't be making that same mistake ever again with Perry, and if somebody better will challenge him in 4 years I'll work against Cornyn too.
My point: That we elected those officeholders doesn't mean we have to approve of their endorsements. A soldier on the battlefield wields his sword at his attacker not because he personally desires to harm him among untold thousands of other attackers on that same field but rather because his failure to do so will result in his attacker rendering the same in reverse upon him. He therefore fights of necessity to preserve himself against a percieved evil in the enemy. He uses the sword because it is a tool to mitigate against the harm that others will inflict upon him. Just the same, the ballot box is our tool to mitigate, however small a degree it may be in, against the harm inflicted upon us by government.
If his campaign is any indicator, he'll give a speech in which he refers to it as the "undocumented worker" problem, sniffle a little, whine about how tough the pressure of congress is on him, vote for a watered down but nevertheless unacceptable version of it, and walk off claiming he scored a "victory" for conservatives.
I hope you are right and I hope any candidate for Congress would do the same. One big question remains in my mind though: why did he publicly and repeatedly use the PC terminology of "undocumented worker" to refer to illegals? I ask because there are only two types of people who regularly use that term, and neither is very desirable:
(1) Liberal PC nazis who want the illegals to vote for them in exchange for more welfare
(2) Republicans who want the illegals for cheap labor and need to sell that position to the party faithful in sugarcoated language.
Here's a question that I'd like to see McCaul and Streusand answer:
Will you commit right here and right now to joining Tom Tancredo's immigration caucus if elected?
If any of you have access to either candidate please ask them this and please ask them to make it public. Unfortunately I can't as I am the state until after the runoff.
If they answer as I desire them to do it will improve my opinion and probably that of most conservatives. Otherwise I have virtually zero reason to trust McCaul on this issue, especially in light of his "undocumented worker" freudian slip. Nor do I have much of a reason to trust Streusand on it, the only difference being a very uneasy benefit of the doubt in that he hasn't slipped up in public...yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.