Texas Speaker of the House deleted from list of national GOP convention delegates

Paleo Conservative ^ | June 9, 2012 | Paleo Conservative

[Paleo Conservative]

Texas Speaker of the House Joe Straus was deleted from the list of delegates to the 2012 Republican National Convention by a woman on the Nominations Committee who put herself on the list in his place.

[ngat]

Dewhurst is the proven conservative on fiscal issues, both spending and tax, the life issue, the Tort Reform issue, foreign issues, immigration issues, the Obamacare issue, the Tenth Amendment issue, etc. etc, & etc.

As for Cruz, who knows? The guy has never, ever served in elective office, not even dog-catcher, and has therefore never taken a recorded vote, never introduced, written, or passed any legislation, has absolutely no executive experience, no military experience no private business experience.

To put a point to it Cruz, HAS NO RECORD! So all you can do is go by his campaign promises, and I hope you know what those are worth!

[pogo101]

Well, wait a minute. You’re all over FR, in less than a year, pounding Cruz for being liberal. (You also call him a Harvard trial lawyer, but that applies to Chief Justice Roberts.) How can you call him liberal and simultaneously say he has no record?

[ngat]

“How can you call him liberal and simultaneously say he has no record?”

Easy. When you have a Goldman-Sachs connected Harvard trial lwayer who has never held an elective office, with no record of his own, telling lies about a proven conservative, using the Romney-perfected attack techniques, and using out of state Superpac money and support to tear a good man down, you can safely assume the guy is a liberal!

[pogo101]

OK, enough with the reekingly obvious talking points. I started out willing to believe that Dewhurst could be a good guy, but if lackeys like you are any indication, the consensus of FReepers is right on: He’s a RINO with paid turds trolling here.

I asked you for examples of issues on which Dewhurst was conservative while Cruz was liberal.

You didn’t answer that question.

Instead, you changed the subject and avoided it, asserting that Cruz hadn’t been ELECTED to anything yet, and therefore had not taken any “recorded votes.”

Of course, that’s silliness. Cruz has issue and position papers, I’m betting. You know it. You also know, I am betting, that there are comparisons out there of Dewhurst vs. Cruz ON those issues. If Dewhurst’s record is so good, and Cruz’s positions — if not “record,” although I don’t necessarily need to have a Senator with prior elective-office experience — are so “liberal,” then you would offer up one or two examples.

Instead, you run and hide behind “Harvard,” “Goldman Sachs” and “trial lawyer” flash cards.

Listen up, troll. Neither Harvard, nor Goldman Sachs, nor trial lawyer is an intrinsically bad thing. There are many good people at one, two or all three. It is what LEFTISTS do, not conservatives who belong on FR, to substitute that sort of nonsense for analysis. “Oh, he went to Harvard / worked at Goldman / was a trial lawyer, so he just MUST be wrong for us.”

I gave you every chance to supply some issue, even one, on which Dewhurst was conservative and Cruz was not.

You failed and instead showed yourself for what you are.

You’ll reply to this, troll, but I won’t read it.

You’ve been outed. Go find another board to pretend to be a conservative.

[ngat]

I did list the issues where Dewhurst has proven himself conservative, and all you can do is throw out the word “troll” and say I must be a paid staffer for Dewhurst? That, of course, is not true, but it is interesting that nearly every time I start kicking the ass of some dummie who has been suckered by the trial lawyers guild and their attack ads on behalf of Cruz, and I inform them of the truth, all they can think of is “duh, he must be a paid staffer”, maybe I’ll call him a troll and tell him to go away and find another board and then I can stop thinking and won’t have to consider that maybe I had it wrong.

[SaraL]

He came on stage under cover of our newly elected State Reps who were being presented to us. He was not announced and gave a 2 minute speech and walked off stage. You could almost say he skulked on. By the time people realized he was up there, folks saw they would have been walking out on their own new Reps. He knows he is not wanted. Bryan Hughes should be selected as the new Speaker when the time comes. He is a solid conservative unlike Straus who is a liberal RINO

[SaraL]

This is a Convention of delegates for delegates in the Republican Party. Why should any politician get an automatic pass to go as a National Delegate above We the People of Texas as some sort of Party royalty or some such elitist snobbery. Bully for the woman who had the balls to do it!

[SaraL]

It is called The Texas Solution on page 21 and it amounts to an amnesty lite. It sucks that this was pushed thru.

[BillEastland]

Everything you said about Straus is accurate. However there is a mischaracterization about the woman who moved to reject Straus. I served on that committee with her and know exactly what happened. She did NOT make herself a delegate in place of Straus. All committee members, under the rules, had the right to name themselves a delegate to Tampa. That happened early in the proceedings and the controversy over Straus was much later. There was no connection between the two actions.
We have a tradition that some member will move to make all our ‘statewide’ office holders delegates. Joe Straus technically does not meet that criteria because he is not elected statewide. But the Speaker in Texas is very powerful. Texas government is often described as a Triumvirate because the Governor, Lt. Governor and Speaker hold roughly equal Constitutional powers. Not much gets done unless they all agree.
All three officeholders are very controversial figures among the grass roots of the Texas Party—meaning the 8,000 plus delegates in attendance. Straus and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst had little support there and it is unlikely any report our committee forwarded to the floor with their names on it would have been approved. Dewhurst had the sense to tell us he did not want to be named and Straus was rejected by the committee. The resulting list was approved without dissent.
The woman should not be criticized for her role in rejecting Straus. She was straight up and represented the views of her district and of the overwhelming majority of all delegates. I can and have criticized her for other things she did that day—and in the past—but she should be applauded for her stand regarding Straus.