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.

[Tall_Texan]

There's no Democrat to run against, so why would anyone not want the most conservative of the two candidates? IMO, that's Streusand. I'm a little weary of "electable" pretty boys who say one thing to get elected and then do something else when they get there. McCaul hasn't been there yet but some of the big names he trots out (Bush, Perry) certainly have and I don't see why we need another one.

Streusand's not going to win any votes on his looks. He has to win with ideas and business smarts. As long as they are the right ideas, that's better credentials than another lifetime lawyer who looks pretty and sings the right tune even though he sometimes flubs the words.

On a personal note, there is one major difference between the two candidates. McCaul's campaign spams my home answering machine while I'm away at work. Streusand doesn't. If you want my vote, don't ever leave canned speeches on my answering machine. It accomplishes the exact opposite of what you are hoping for.

[GOPcapitalist]

On a personal note, there is one major difference between the two candidates. McCaul's campaign spams my home answering machine while I'm away at work.

LOL! Are any of them recorded by Rick Perry? I believe he used to be our governor but as of the last primary I'm pretty sure he has moved into the telemarketing business.

[YCTHouston]

Please rest assured that McCaul's "pretty boy" looks, whatever you mean by that, have nothing to do with my support. They both look like your typical middle-age stuffed-suit, as far as I can see.

[YCTHouston]

I never suggested that you are required to support the same candidates as our leaders. My point was that it was absurd to rail against a candidate for having "too many" endorsements from within our party.

[YCTHouston]

You've been repeating this "undocumented worker" line incessantly. When did you hear McCaul use it? How many, if any, CD10 forums have you been to?

I've only been to one specifically CD10 forum, and other GOP events where the candidates have been, I've listened to all the commercials, seen most of the print material, and the ONLY place I've seen or heard the "undocumented worker" line was in a post by a Streusand/Deevine supporter.

If I've missed something in McCaul's literature or on his website where he discusses "undocumented workers" at length, please feel free to correct me. Otherwise, it's kind of silly to turn that into a mantra. Strikes me as reminiscent of the rumor-mill campaign in the general primary.

[Tall_Texan]

Elliott gives support--Second former opponent endorses congressional candidate Streusand

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 1:42 PM CST


Brenham Banner-Press



Ben Streusand, a candidate for the 10th District seat in Congress, has received an endorsement from a second former opponent.

Streusand said today that he has received the endorsement of Patrick Elliott, who was also a candidate for the seat in the March 9 Republican primary.

Streusand, a mortgage company executive from Spring, is locked in a runoff with Austin attorney Mike McCaul for the GOP nomination that is tantamount to election since there is no Democratic candidate.

Elliott, who is from Washington County, finished sixth in the eight-person Republican primary.

"During my campaign for Congress, I was impressed with Ben Streusand's knowledge of the issues and his commitment to conservative principles," Elliott said in a written statement. "There is no doubt in my mind that Ben Streusand will be an independent voice in Congress for all of us in the 10th District.

"Ben's independence, knowledge of the issues, business experience and integrity make him the best choice."


Streusand earlier picked up the endorsement of former District Judge John Devine, who finished third in the primary.

"I am extremely honored to receive Pat Elliott's endorsement and humbled by his kind remarks," said Streusand. "Pat and I share a sincere commitment to conservative constitutional values and I look forward to his active participation and support in the runoff campaign."

McCaul has been endorsed by attorney Dave Phillips, who also ran in the GOP primary and placed fourth.

The 10th Congressional District includes portions of Harris, Travis, Bastrop and Burleson counties as well as all of Washington, Waller, Austin and Lee counties.

The runoff election will be held April 13.

[Tall_Texan]

I never suggested that you are required to support the same candidates as our leaders. My point was that it was absurd to rail against a candidate for having "too many" endorsements from within our party.

The issue isn't "too many" endorsements, it's from whom. Clearly, the Bush/Rove/Perry wing of the party recruited McCaul and backed him with their machine, hence the wide array of endorsements. Now if you see those as standard-bearers for what you think a GOP candidate should be, you should be voting for McCaul.

If you think your standard-bearers should be more conservative than that and independant from the Bush/Rove machine, you should be voting for Streusand.

In part, I'm sending a message that Bush/Rove should not run away from true conservatives who aren't their RINO annointeds, as they did to Schundler and Simon. They chose to back the "electable" RINO and then left in a snit when the RINO couldn't win the GOP primary. (In California, after losing to Simon, Bush/Rove recruited pro-abortion, pro-gay Arnold and annointed him rather than the conservative McClintock.)

In the CD 10 race, there are no Democrats to be concerned with. We can just vote the true conservative. That's what I plan to do.

[GOPcapitalist]

You've been repeating this "undocumented worker" line incessantly. When did you hear McCaul use it? How many, if any, CD10 forums have you been to?

I've heard it verified by two independent witnesses at the same CD 10 forum, one of whom posted it here and the other I spoke to. It is highly probable that a tape exists of it as well if you desire to hear it. Seeing as it was an apparent slip, I am certain he has since taken care to ensure it does not happen again at other forums. Nor could we expect him to use it in campaign literature, since it would obviously solicit negative feedback.

[YCTHouston]

Tall_Texan, I understand your reasoning, though I disagree that Bush is a RINO trying to sell conservatives down the river, or that there is quite such a thing as a big monolithic Bush/Rove/Perry/Cornyn machine with an unlimited reach waging war on conservatives.

At any rate, I suppose I understand where you're coming from, but don't agree with your conclusion. I am still pretty sceptical about Streusand being the "true conservative" rising up from the grass roots, especially in light of the shots the Devine camp was taking at him just a few weeks ago.

[YCTHouston]

You're still spreading a second-hand rumor as if it were the gospel truth revealed to you from on high, and inspite of every statement McCaul has made regarding immigration.
That strikes me as deceptive, perhaps knowingly so. At any rate, it doesn't meet any standard of political debate. I'll repeat that, in my opinion, this kind of rumor-mongering was one of the factors contributing to the abysmal turnout in March. Ironically, a higher turnout in Harris County would have helped John Devine, who probably shot himself in the foot by running such a negative campaign. It isn't surprising to see the same attacks now being used on behalf of the candidate he endorsed, and I wouldn't be too shocked if the result repeated itself.

[GOPcapitalist]

You're still spreading a second-hand rumor as if it were the gospel truth revealed to you from on high

It's independently verified factual testimony. Two people who were there and who are not to my knowledge affiliated with each other heard it and can testify to hearing it. Since it was a public forum and since there does not seem to be any solid reason to doubt either, much less the fact that they independently corroborate each other, that's good enough for me.

and inspite of every statement McCaul has made regarding immigration.

His published campaign material on immigration, like any published campaign material by any candidate, is carefully screened before release by consultants, managers, or media handlers. It should therefore be of little surprise that the term is not used in any of them. At the debate though McCaul was speaking from the stump. That is not screened and it is not edited for terminology purposes. If he makes a freudian slip there it is open for all to see and very little can be done to retract it.

At any rate, it doesn't meet any standard of political debate.

Sure it does. He said it in public, multiple people witnessed him saying it in public including two who I have corroborated it with, and most likely a tape exists of him saying it in public. When a candidate slips up in public and says something on the stump that seems to conflict with his published, screened, and prepared campaign statements it is absolutely within the standards of political debate.

Ironically, a higher turnout in Harris County would have helped John Devine, who probably shot himself in the foot by running such a negative campaign.

Everyone says they hate negative campaigning when polled on it, but the paradox is that they also listen to it, meaning it works. It may be a sad reflection on our society but that is a simple fact. Devine's negative campaign hurt him not in the fact that it was simply negative but rather because he tried to hide the fact that he was firing the shots and he got caught. Sometimes candidates get caught at this. Sometimes they don't. In Devine's case he did because (a) his reputation preceded him among Harris County voters and (b) he was sloppy about it.

And yes, Streusand is using those same attacks from Devine against McCaul, though McCaul's team has done more than its part in returning the favor by using Devine attacks on Streusand. But as I've been saying all along, that both are doing so only shows them to be hypocrites. McCaul and Streusand have both opted to turn this thing into a "republican purity" battle, the problem being that neither has pure credentials in that area. So once again, the silly "but teacher, he started it!" excuse when used by either has no merit or bearing upon this race.

[Tall_Texan]

I never whine about turnout. If you don't care enough to vote, don't vote. If just 5% of the electorate votes, at least that's the 5% that cared enough to go vote and they will likely be better informed than the other 95% who couldn't be bothered.

The only time I would care is when something important, like the hospital taxing district ,is shoved into an odd election date so as to expect it to pass due to low turnout. That's rather offensive. But a runoff generally doesn't produce turnout and that's fine with me. Let them throw away their votes. It just makes mine that much more meaningful.

[GOPcapitalist]

You also may recall a famous historical incident that may have some bearing upon this situation. Througout early 1861 Abe Lincoln's line in virtually every published and prepared speech was "preserve the union" and "hold the forts." His public words do not vary from that message in any substantial way. Most came in the form of pre-written speeches with multiple earlier revisions by the president's handlers. And upon these speeches, many historians conclude Lincoln's core belief was exactly that - preserve the union and defend the forts.

A closer look at his political activities outside of the realm of carefully prepared and edited speeches indicates a more complex picture. As reported from an 1861 conversation at the white house with at least three corroborating witnesses, Lincoln's real concern was not the vague notion of "preserving the union" but rather, as he put it, "[if I don't act] what will become of my tariff?" This line, or minor variations upon it, was heard and publicly reported by multiple witnesses almost immediately after it was said and, considering its consistency with other known private conversations in which he assured his political advisors that he would "take care of" Pennsylvania's tariff concerns upon which he won that state, is probably more representative of his true position than anything he said in public.

Same goes with Fort Sumter, which was publicly said to be a peaceful resupply mission only to "hold the fort." The private conversations, private letters, and dispatch orders all demonstrate that the Fort Sumter relief mission Lincoln dispatched had the overt intention of provoking a battle in which heavily armed warships would be able to enter Charleston harbor. Private records of his cabinet meeting even show several of the secretaries pointing out to Lincoln that it would assuredly mean full fledged war. So once again, what was publicly said is substantially different from what was privately believed and acted upon.

That did not stop a few freudian slips from coming out though. Speaking from the stump on his hotel balcony to an audience in Pittsburgh that February, Lincoln let his tariff priorities be known. Pittsburgh was part of the iron tariff constituency so he probably felt that he was among friends where he could speak openly on the issue. But everywhere else the message was the vague, unexplained, and wholly meaningless phrase of "preserve the union" (a phrase which Tocqueville, I might add, explicitly warned would be used at some future point by politicians who seek to better their financial interests by holding the other states hostage yet cannot publicly admit to something that nefarious without political consequences). Put another way, it's dangerous to take a politician's words at face value and in this race very little exists to merit our trust for either of them. McCaul, as I noted, has already let it slip that his immigration views probably aren't as conservative as his polished statements indicate. Streusand has not had a similar slip yet to my knowledge, though the only thing covering him right now is a very unstable and shallow benefit of the doubt.

[esarlls3]

Clearly, the Bush/Rove/Perry wing of the party recruited McCaul and backed him with their machine, hence the wide array of endorsements.

So, in your opinion, what other wings of the party are there and who represents them?

What you're basically saying is that Texans only elect "the Bush/Rove/Perry wing of the party" so any endorsment by an elected official is unacceptable to you. While I agree that I would prefer more Conservative Republicans, we have to do the best we can with what is electable.

I don't think McCaul was "recruited and backed" by any "machine". I think he decided to run and asked his old bosses for their endorsement. They had been impressed with his work for them, so they endorsed him. In fact, while he started campaigning in October and opened offices in early January when the Justice Department approved the district map, his first "Bush/Rove/Perry" endorsement did not come from Cornyn until mid-February, just 3 weeks before the Primary. Every few days another Republican leader signs on to endorse McCaul. For most of them, this is the first Primary race they have endorsed in.

Here are today's latest additions endorsing McCaul:

• State Representative Lois Kolkhorst
• State Representative Bill Callegari
• Waller County Sheriff Randy Smith

Here is the entire list: http://www.mccaulforcongress.com/endorsements.php

[esarlls3]

I accept the posted reports of McCaul's use of "undocumented worker" as I trust those posting here are honestly reporting what they heard.

I forwarded the question about Tancredo's Immigration Caucus to McCaul earlier today and will post the response when I receive it.

[GOPcapitalist]

Thanks!

[Tall_Texan]

What you're basically saying is that Texans only elect "the Bush/Rove/Perry wing of the party" so any endorsment by an elected official is unacceptable to you.

Nothing of the sort. Rove is George W.'s political tactics guru. And Perry was the hand-picked Lt. Gov. who ascended to Governor when Dubya gains the presidency. Cornyn, part of the same slate, gets pushed up to Senator when Gramm resigns. You don't notice the common roots here?

If any McCaul endorsement carried weight with me, it would be Gramm's but, in listening to his commercial on behalf of McCaul he doesn't tell me anything about McCaul that you couldn't also say about Streusand if elected. Streusand, too, will vote to defend the military, stop terrorism, keep the second amendment strong, etc. There's practically no difference in their stated positions.

I still question why Gramm retired when the Republicans were in the Senate majority after all those years of being in the minority. Wouldn't he prefer to stick around and do the work he wanted to get done now that he theoretically has a majority of like-minded senators? Maybe deep down he knew he couldn't be himself and be consistent with the Bush juggernaut.

While I agree that I would prefer more Conservative Republicans, we have to do the best we can with what is electable.

There's that electable word again. Why does that matter? No Democrat is running. No Libertarian is running. No Green Party is running. It's just GOP vs GOP. So which adjective would your candidate rather have? Conservative or Electable? Sounds like you've chosen electable. What I want is conservative.

BTW, when I call McCaul a "pretty boy", that's my psuedonym for "electable". It means handsome and harmless-looking enough to attract moderates and Democrats. That's what they said about Dubya. That's what they said about Perry. And what we got were photogenic moderates who just pose as conservative enough to win in the primary and then returns to being a moderate. I don't honestly know if McCaul is that sort but I've been burned too often by the machine to trust the annointed Rove candidate when a better alternative exists.

I don't know how Streusand will actually be if/when he's elected either but I know he won't owe his victory in any way shape or form to Karl Rove and that makes me believe he might actually *vote* conservative when elected and not just as a new tone Bush Republican.

[iamright]

this "undocumented worker" line incessantly. When did you hear McCaul use it? How many, if any, CD10 forums have you been to?

I've been to two where both candidates were there. I took notes. I saw with my eyes and heard with my ears. I posted the info here, this thread, post 6. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104533/posts?page=6#6

Streusand's people video taped it too. Wanna see it?

a post by a Streusand/Deevine supporter.

Not. Never supported Devine.

[YCTHouston]

Sorry if I mistook you for a former Devine supporter, I wasn't sure. Most of the enthusiastic Streusand email I've been getting lately is from Devine supporters. The same people who were sending out personal attacks on Streusand a few weeks ago and are now backing him while continuing the same style of attacks against McCaul.

[esarlls3]

McCaul on Immigration:

• I oppose amnesty for illegal aliens.
• I believe the border patrol and INS have failed their fundamental responsibility to control our borders - I will lead a reform effort to beef up the border patrol and improve the effectiveness of the INS. It is just too easy for illegals and terrorists to slip across the border.
• I have called for the deployment of the National Guard during times of emergency and we should have a national debate about the on-going use of the Guard on the border to supplement the Border Patrol until the Patrol is ready to fulfill its obligations.
• I am the only candidate in this race to investigate, arrest and deport illegal aliens as part of a security sweep called Operation Tarmac at the Austin Bergstrom International Airport.