When
running in previous years for From the beginning Streusand used facts about McCaul’s life to distort his candidacy and deceive voters. First he accused McCaul of working for Democrats in the past. He justifies his deceptive campaign rhetoric by pointing out McCaul’s first job out of law school was working in the Texas attorney general's office and the attorney general was a Democrat. He now acknowledges this was a nonpolitical hire( from 1987 to 1990), but also points out that technically it was not a lie .
But it is easy to tell Streusand has no regrets about deceivivg voters with hundreds of thousands of dollars of television and newspaper ads about Mike McCaul (now Republican Congressman Mike McCaul): Streusand continues to this day defending the commercial, saying, "I think when you've spent half your career working for Democrats, it's hard to escape a logical conclusion that the time you spend working for Democrats indicates an affiliation with the philosophy of the Democrat Party."
Another Streusand ad, in a reference to McCaul's stint as a federal prosecutor, without any apology says, "McCaul worked for Bill Clinton and Janet Reno for six years, and
Analysts have concluded Streusand’s decision to go negative about Mccaul’s and deceptive about Mccaul’s association with liberal democrats was probably a defensive move more than anything else. Voters have little more to do than google and discover that while in college Streusand worked on Capitol Hill for his local Congressman and continued working for him after graduation from college. The Congressman was a liberal Democrat. McCaul didn’t have to stretch the facts. They were in black and white for any voter with a computer and some time to discover.
Streusand's GOP credentials wwere easy for voters and McCaul to question as his contributions to former U.S. Rep. Ken Bentsen, D-Houston, ($500) and former Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Krueger ($1,750 were and still are a matter of record. So while the Streusand campaign was trying to create an image of Mccaul, McCaul was having to spend boat loads of money correcting Streusand’s “technical non-lies”. And while McCaul’s steadfast commitment to Republicans was never up in the air before the election time mudslinging, Streusand, at best had his finger in the air trying to bet on the political winds as late as the year 2000 when Republicans blew the Democrat off the political map in
So how did he respond when caught. He continued to mudsling in order to make the voters suspect McCaul’s record and he defended his donations to two the liberal Democrats by saying the Bentsen and Krueger donations "were business-related at the time." This might cause some voters to suspect some of his votes would be “business-rerlated” if he were ever elected to any office.
According to the March 24tth edition of The Austin American Statesman that election year Streusand’s constant negative ads caused a campaign that “has devolved into an issue-free contest based on questioning each other's Republican credentials”. The paper also went on to point out, “Several previously scheduled debates fell through when Streusand didn't show up.”
The “no show” charge sounds familiar. It could be that Streusand was impressed with the paper’s negative comment and saved the idea for more non issue related arguing in his current race. Or it could be that he knew at least one of the eleven other Republicans in the primary had noted his tardiness and absences at a few of the forums.
But some would say all of these campaign tricks pales compared to the one against John Devine, one of Streusand’s primary opponents. In the primary a “push call” was used to deceive the public, to distort the truth, and to destroy hard-working, honest people. Streusand’s campaign benefited when an opponent of John’s made Push Calls into the homes of John’s supporters with the following statement: “John Devine has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood”. The goal was to deceive the public, to distort the truth, and to discourage John Devine supporters from voting. It worked.
After
the March Primary, Streusand was asked why he made the Push Call. He never said
his campaign didn’t make the call. His reply was, “A contributor to John’s
campaign also represented Planned Parenthood. Therefore, the statement was
correct.”
This
is who Ben Streusand is. You can not separate who a man is from what he does.
Ben Streusand’s deception and distortion of the character of Dr. Brian Babin
are simply a statement of who Ben Streusand just like when he besmirched our
honorable Unites States Representative Mike McCaul.
Two
goals of this campaigning are to win voters to one’s side and to turn off
voters and try to turn out just the negative campaigners votes.
PLEASE GO VOTE EARLY OR VOTE ON MAY 27TH
FOR DR. BRIAN BABIN
LET’S SAY “NO’
TO NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNS AND PEOPLE RUNNING IN DISTRUICT THEY DON’T LIVE IN
When running in previous years for
From the beginning Streusand used facts about McCaul’s life to distort his candidacy and deceive voters. First he accused McCaul of working for Democrats in the past. He justifies his deceptive campaign rhetoric by pointing out McCaul’s first job out of law school was working in the Texas attorney general's office and the attorney general was a Democrat. He now acknowledges this was a nonpolitical hire( from 1987 to 1990), but also points out that technically it was not a lie .
But it is easy to tell Streusand has no regrets about deceivivg voters with hundreds of thousands of dollars of television and newspaper ads about Mike McCaul (now Republican Congressman Mike McCaul): Streusand continues to this day defending the commercial, saying, "I think when you've spent half your career working for Democrats, it's hard to escape a logical conclusion that the time you spend working for Democrats indicates an affiliation with the philosophy of the Democrat Party."
Another Streusand ad, in a reference to McCaul's stint as a federal prosecutor, without any apology says, "McCaul worked for Bill Clinton and Janet Reno for six years, and
Analysts have concluded Streusand’s decision to go negative about Mccaul’s and deceptive about Mccaul’s association with liberal democrats was probably a defensive move more than anything else. Voters have little more to do than google and discover that while in college Streusand worked on Capitol Hill for his local Congressman and continued working for him after graduation from college. The Congressman was a liberal Democrat. McCaul didn’t have to stretch the facts. They were in black and white for any voter with a computer and some time to discover.
Streusand's GOP credentials wwere easy for voters and McCaul to question as his contributions to former U.S. Rep. Ken Bentsen, D-Houston, ($500) and former Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Krueger ($1,750 were and still are a matter of record. So while the Streusand campaign was trying to create an image of Mccaul, McCaul was having to spend boat loads of money correcting Streusand’s “technical non-lies”. And while McCaul’s steadfast commitment to Republicans was never up in the air before the election time mudslinging, Streusand, at best had his finger in the air trying to bet on the political winds as late as the year 2000 when Republicans blew the Democrat off the political map in
So how did he respond when caught. He continued to mudsling in order to make the voters suspect McCaul’s record and he defended his donations to two the liberal Democrats by saying the Bentsen and Krueger donations "were business-related at the time." This might cause some voters to suspect some of his votes would be “business-rerlated” if he were ever elected to any office.
According to the March 24tth edition of The Austin American Statesman that election year Streusand’s constant negative ads caused a campaign that “has devolved into an issue-free contest based on questioning each other's Republican credentials”. The paper also went on to point out, “Several previously scheduled debates fell through when Streusand didn't show up.”
The “no show” charge sounds familiar. It could be that Streusand was impressed with the paper’s negative comment and saved the idea for more non issue related arguing in his current race. Or it could be that he knew at least one of the eleven other Republicans in the primary had noted his tardiness and absences at a few of the forums.
But some would say all of these campaign tricks pales compared to the one against John Devine, one of Streusand’s primary opponents. In the primary a “push call” was used to deceive the public, to distort the truth, and to destroy hard-working, honest people. Streusand’s campaign benefited when an opponent of John’s made Push Calls into the homes of John’s supporters with the following statement: “John Devine has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood”. The goal was to deceive the public, to distort the truth, and to discourage John Devine supporters from voting. It worked.
After
the March Primary, Streusand was asked why he made the Push Call. He never said
his campaign didn’t make the call. His reply was, “A contributor to John’s
campaign also represented Planned Parenthood. Therefore, the statement was
correct.”
This
is who Ben Streusand is. You can not separate who a man is from what he does.
Ben Streusand’s deception and distortion of the character of Dr. Brian Babin
are simply a statement of who Ben Streusand just like when he besmirched our
honorable Unites States Representative Mike McCaul.
Two
goals of this campaigning are to win voters to one’s side and to turn off
voters and try to turn out just the negative campaigners votes.
PLEASE GO VOTE EARLY OR VOTE ON MAY 27TH
FOR DR. BRIAN BABIN
LET’S SAY “NO’
TO NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNS AND PEOPLE RUNNING IN DISTRICT THEY DON’T LIVE IN
AN UNSURPASSED RECORD OF LEADERSHIP
When
running in previous years to represent Texas in the United States Congress, one
of the biggest compliments Dr. Brian Babin has claim to is that his Republican
opponents in the primaries have almost always endorsed him after losing to him.
In this campaign most of his primary opponents have endorsed him and one of
them that has not is rumored to be on his run-off opponent’s payroll. Babin’s
previos attempts to win a Congressional seat were under very different
circumstances than this election. While Dr. Babin ran friendly races against
Republicans in the primaries, he has always been a very persuasive debater In
both the primary and general election. He won counties in the district when it
had been over a century since a Republican had made that kind of showing. He
didn’t do it by tearing down Republicans or deceiving general election voters. When
we analyze who this candidate for Congressional District 36 really is, and the
difference between him and his opponent, one of our biggest helps is how they
performed in previous races.
Babin has a clear record of campaigning on the conservative values he has held his entire life. While considered somewhat of a rebel in the 1980’s, Babin did not change his values to get elected. His values are now clearly the values most East Texans hold. While the other candidate claims to have a market on Tea Party endorsements and an endorsement of a Congressman, Dr. Babin has the endorsements of eight Congressmen and helped start a tea Party group. While his opponent likes to portray himself as the upcoming agent of change in this district, no one has a bigger claim to having worked and seen change in this district than him. While Streusand points toHouston
Babin has a clear record of campaigning on the conservative values he has held his entire life. While considered somewhat of a rebel in the 1980’s, Babin did not change his values to get elected. His values are now clearly the values most East Texans hold. While the other candidate claims to have a market on Tea Party endorsements and an endorsement of a Congressman, Dr. Babin has the endorsements of eight Congressmen and helped start a tea Party group. While his opponent likes to portray himself as the upcoming agent of change in this district, no one has a bigger claim to having worked and seen change in this district than him. While Streusand points to
Dr.Babin will make a great
Congressman for this District We know this because his long-time
involvement in his community as a Mayor and holder of other offices has always
resulted in his re=election by the people in his community. We know this
because when all of the elected official in this area were Democrats, Babin was
an outspoken effective leader as an early Reagan campaign volunteer, as a Republican
County Chair, as a trailblazer in his two
previous campaigns for Congress that paved the way for others as he was the
first person with an “R” by their name to win certain counties in over 100
years. His and Roxanne’s success raising children and their success in their chosen
walks of life, tells me that this is a man who has lived and learned from a
lifetime of experiences, and could represent the District well.
a man who will balance an
aggressive advocacy of conservative economic, limited-government, national
defense and social conservative principles with a prudent advocacy for the
legitimate federal interests in our District, including the Ports of Houston
and Orange, NASA, Ellington Field, vocational education for jobs related to
those facilities, the coastal flood plain and property insurance, and proper
development and maintenance of natural resources. This balanced advocacy
is crucial, because CD 36 is arguably the most interdependent district in Texas with the proper and legitimate exercise of federal
responsibilities—we need someone who understands those interests and will
balance them with the need for implementing conservative priorities in Washington
No comments:
Post a Comment