Stop this nonsense. The enemy has nothing to do with a school.nortex97 said:
Burnt orange seems like an appropriate color to choose.
Texas Speaker GOP Caucus House Vote Saturday Dec. 7th
18,941 Views |
236 Replies |
Last: 7 days ago by nortex97
They aren't worried at all about fairness. If they were, they would represent Texas voters who overwhelmingly vote Republican.Ag87H2O said:
I agree. Said it on another thead, but I'm sick of Republicans that are more worried about placating Democrats and sense of fairness than they are working with members of their own party.
It's completely "unfair" to betray voters for you own power and pocketbook. It's also un-Texan and un-American. Make no mistake, this continues to be about their money and power and NOT about what Texans want.
Quote:
they know that I have honored my word and commitment
What about his word and commitment to support whoever the Republican caucus nominated for speaker? He literally has more commitment and honor to democrats than republicans.
The latest Quorum Report teaser covers the Texas GOP Chair's efforts to reach out to the Burrowcrats before sending direct mailers.
https://www.quorumreport.com/
https://www.quorumreport.com/
Quote:
Texas GOP Chair George informs certain Texas House Republicans the party will send targeted direct mail about speaker race
GOP Rep Jay Dean and others pushed back: "The party didn't help us with spending money in general elections, but they want to pursue a legally questionable tactic of censuring candidates and excluding them from the ballot?"
Republican Party of Texas Chairman Abraham George spent some of his weekend informing certain Texas House GOP members that the party plans to send direct mail into their districts about the race for speaker.
If you aren't going to be a Republican you shouldn't be allowed to run as a republican. Parties aren't public entities and should be able to run their party elections however they want.
Burrows helped write the GOP Rules with the binding language to support the Caucus Nominee.
Anything he says is about as trustworthy as Kamala and Allred promising to close the border.
Anything he says is about as trustworthy as Kamala and Allred promising to close the border.
Is that the same Michael Quinn Sullivan who reached out to libs wanting to team up with them during the Paxton impeachment? It seems that we have the Wilks/Dunn side and everyone else. It's a sad state of affairs that you can't get a majority on the GOP side.
Unless you somehow consider Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Attorney General Ken Paxton, Ag Commissioner Sid Miller, and even Donald Trump Jr.supporting the Republican caucus speaker nominee as all under Wilks/Dunn control , then you are mischaracterizing this.
Abraham George sent an email to Cody Harris about sending us direct mail. I bet Harris is squirming. There is a thread on Harris's Facebook site and he is getting slammed by his voters.
We have a majority of the R caucus that voted for Cook. Burrows and his sycophants decided to instead form an informal caucus with the Ds to thwart the will of the majority of the R caucus.Charpie said:
Is that the same Michael Quinn Sullivan who reached out to libs wanting to team up with them during the Paxton impeachment? It seems that we have the Wilks/Dunn side and everyone else. It's a sad state of affairs that you can't get a majority on the GOP side.
Is Michael Quinn Sullivan running the Texas House? Who is? I would expect it to be Texas voters via their elected representatives.Charpie said:
Is that the same Michael Quinn Sullivan who reached out to libs
Seems to me that some of those elected reps are choosing to advance their own agendas.
It's a sad state of affairs when a minority group of Republicans would rather side with Democrats to maintain their power than to side with a majority of fellow Republicans and do what Texas voters expect.Charpie said:
Is that the same Michael Quinn Sullivan who reached out to libs wanting to team up with them during the Paxton impeachment? It seems that we have the Wilks/Dunn side and everyone else. It's a sad state of affairs that you can't get a majority on the GOP side.
The Burrows group will either back down or they bettter enjoy this session because they won't be long for elected office.
Many people are going to the Capital in support of Cook on January 14. The True Texas Project and other organizations are taking buses to Austin. I encourage everyone who can go to do so.
YellAg2004 said:
Got this text Friday afternoon. Sure seems like Burrows is fully embracing them Dem approach of just adopting R positions to try and get elected. I responded (waste of time, I know) that I would instead email Mano (again) and reiterate my desire that he support Cook for speaker.
Parents are already in charge…
And if these quislings follow through and vote with the democrats we'd better make damn sure every one of these rinos pays with their seat!Ag87H2O said:It's a sad state of affairs when a minority group of Republicans would rather side with Democrats to maintain their power than to side with a majority of fellow Republicans and do what Texas voters expect.Charpie said:
Is that the same Michael Quinn Sullivan who reached out to libs wanting to team up with them during the Paxton impeachment? It seems that we have the Wilks/Dunn side and everyone else. It's a sad state of affairs that you can't get a majority on the GOP side.
The Burrows group will either back down or they bettter enjoy this session because they won't be long for elected office.
But when parents try to show up to school board meetings to show they are in charge, the federal government puts them on a list and starts "investigating" them.Howdy, it is me! said:YellAg2004 said:
Got this text Friday afternoon. Sure seems like Burrows is fully embracing them Dem approach of just adopting R positions to try and get elected. I responded (waste of time, I know) that I would instead email Mano (again) and reiterate my desire that he support Cook for speaker.
Parents are already in charge…
Science Denier said:But when parents try to show up to school board meetings to show they are in charge, the federal government puts them on a list and starts "investigating" them.Howdy, it is me! said:YellAg2004 said:
Got this text Friday afternoon. Sure seems like Burrows is fully embracing them Dem approach of just adopting R positions to try and get elected. I responded (waste of time, I know) that I would instead email Mano (again) and reiterate my desire that he support Cook for speaker.
Parents are already in charge…
I feel confident that's not a problem vouchers are going to solve. (Though this probably isn't the thread to discuss the merit, or lack there of, of vouchers)
Okay. I guess we just have different opinions about it. Just seems weird that every rep is one wrong vote away from being dubbed a 'RINO' when the majority of their career has resulted in conservative policy wins. People somehow believe its possible for the state or federal representatives to get everything done during session without agreeing with democrats. That doesn't happen. People also seem to assume conservatives and liberals never agree on anything. Also not true. Sure its the more mundane stuff, but it happens....all...the...time.txags92 said:No, it doesn't. If you have to band together with 60+ democrats to vote against the rest of the republican caucus to get the leader you want, you are not a conservative. You don't get to call yourself a conservative just because you will later "vote for" things that you know the speaker has already promised the democrats will never get passed. My rep is Stan Gerdes. He was endorsed by Abbott and Patrick this cycle because he voted for school vouchers in the last session. I can promise you he was not out campaigning in Bastrop County on his desire to work with the democrats to block vouchers and limits on public employee lobbying. I don't know if I would call him a RINO, but for sure he is bought and paid for by Dade Phelan. I didn't vote for the guy to go to Austin and be a sycophant for guys like Phelan and Burrows. Unless he reconsiders his position between now and January 14th, I plan to work like hell to make sure nobody here is allowed to forget what he did two years from now.BluHorseShu said:So ultimately, are these representatives beholden to their constituents or what the current party zeitgeist is? Because someone might be called a 'RINO' for how they voted on one issue, but that may be what their constituents want.Tea Party said:It sounds like you are missing the point of the issue at hand, but also are more concerned with the amount of power the two party system has which I would venture most people here agree with.Ag_of_08 said:
I dont know what you want me to say. I hold that the idea an elected representative can be punished/censured/influenced by a party in any way for choosing to vote in a manner they deemed appropriate is dangerous.
You don't, especially in this instance.
If the two party system was not so powerful, then your take would carry significant weight and a lot of people here would agree with you.
But for now, these RINO's are screwing over the conservative ideology the GOP supposedly is advocating for, all in favor of the RINO's gaining power.
If my representative ignored the interests of our district just to kiss the party ring of someone on high, then I wouldn't vote for them again. Many of these issues aren't out side conservative ideology. If my rep still supported Phelan but also does a great job for my district, I'm not going to play this stupid political game just because Paxton gets his knickers in a wad for those that don't kiss is ring.
People make these generalized 'RINO' comments, based often on one vote that still falls in the conservative category.
Anyone voting consistently for more liberal agendas and from a conservative district will be taken care of in the next election.
This ONE vote is a very important vote. Much more important than any other vote that will happen during this session. It will determine what future bills even make it to a vote.BluHorseShu said:Okay. I guess we just have different opinions about it. Just seems weird that every rep is one wrong vote away from being dubbed a 'RINO' when the majority of their career has resulted in conservative policy wins. People somehow believe its possible for the state or federal representatives to get everything done during session without agreeing with democrats. That doesn't happen. People also seem to assume conservatives and liberals never agree on anything. Also not true. Sure its the more mundane stuff, but it happens....all...the...time.txags92 said:No, it doesn't. If you have to band together with 60+ democrats to vote against the rest of the republican caucus to get the leader you want, you are not a conservative. You don't get to call yourself a conservative just because you will later "vote for" things that you know the speaker has already promised the democrats will never get passed. My rep is Stan Gerdes. He was endorsed by Abbott and Patrick this cycle because he voted for school vouchers in the last session. I can promise you he was not out campaigning in Bastrop County on his desire to work with the democrats to block vouchers and limits on public employee lobbying. I don't know if I would call him a RINO, but for sure he is bought and paid for by Dade Phelan. I didn't vote for the guy to go to Austin and be a sycophant for guys like Phelan and Burrows. Unless he reconsiders his position between now and January 14th, I plan to work like hell to make sure nobody here is allowed to forget what he did two years from now.BluHorseShu said:So ultimately, are these representatives beholden to their constituents or what the current party zeitgeist is? Because someone might be called a 'RINO' for how they voted on one issue, but that may be what their constituents want.Tea Party said:It sounds like you are missing the point of the issue at hand, but also are more concerned with the amount of power the two party system has which I would venture most people here agree with.Ag_of_08 said:
I dont know what you want me to say. I hold that the idea an elected representative can be punished/censured/influenced by a party in any way for choosing to vote in a manner they deemed appropriate is dangerous.
You don't, especially in this instance.
If the two party system was not so powerful, then your take would carry significant weight and a lot of people here would agree with you.
But for now, these RINO's are screwing over the conservative ideology the GOP supposedly is advocating for, all in favor of the RINO's gaining power.
If my representative ignored the interests of our district just to kiss the party ring of someone on high, then I wouldn't vote for them again. Many of these issues aren't out side conservative ideology. If my rep still supported Phelan but also does a great job for my district, I'm not going to play this stupid political game just because Paxton gets his knickers in a wad for those that don't kiss is ring.
People make these generalized 'RINO' comments, based often on one vote that still falls in the conservative category.
Anyone voting consistently for more liberal agendas and from a conservative district will be taken care of in the next election.
So yes.. voting wrong this one time absolutely makes one a RINO.
This isn't just some random vote on a single issue item. It is literally a vote for who controls the house of representatives' agenda and bill calendar for the next year and who appoints the committee chairs. Dustin Burrows helped write the House GOP rules that said Rs agree to vote for whoever wins the caucus vote for speaker. By now deciding to break that rule, they are literally a republican in name only, because they have broken their promise to abide by the rules of what is required to be a republican in the Texas house.BluHorseShu said:Okay. I guess we just have different opinions about it. Just seems weird that every rep is one wrong vote away from being dubbed a 'RINO' when the majority of their career has resulted in conservative policy wins. People somehow believe its possible for the state or federal representatives to get everything done during session without agreeing with democrats. That doesn't happen. People also seem to assume conservatives and liberals never agree on anything. Also not true. Sure its the more mundane stuff, but it happens....all...the...time.txags92 said:No, it doesn't. If you have to band together with 60+ democrats to vote against the rest of the republican caucus to get the leader you want, you are not a conservative. You don't get to call yourself a conservative just because you will later "vote for" things that you know the speaker has already promised the democrats will never get passed. My rep is Stan Gerdes. He was endorsed by Abbott and Patrick this cycle because he voted for school vouchers in the last session. I can promise you he was not out campaigning in Bastrop County on his desire to work with the democrats to block vouchers and limits on public employee lobbying. I don't know if I would call him a RINO, but for sure he is bought and paid for by Dade Phelan. I didn't vote for the guy to go to Austin and be a sycophant for guys like Phelan and Burrows. Unless he reconsiders his position between now and January 14th, I plan to work like hell to make sure nobody here is allowed to forget what he did two years from now.BluHorseShu said:So ultimately, are these representatives beholden to their constituents or what the current party zeitgeist is? Because someone might be called a 'RINO' for how they voted on one issue, but that may be what their constituents want.Tea Party said:It sounds like you are missing the point of the issue at hand, but also are more concerned with the amount of power the two party system has which I would venture most people here agree with.Ag_of_08 said:
I dont know what you want me to say. I hold that the idea an elected representative can be punished/censured/influenced by a party in any way for choosing to vote in a manner they deemed appropriate is dangerous.
You don't, especially in this instance.
If the two party system was not so powerful, then your take would carry significant weight and a lot of people here would agree with you.
But for now, these RINO's are screwing over the conservative ideology the GOP supposedly is advocating for, all in favor of the RINO's gaining power.
If my representative ignored the interests of our district just to kiss the party ring of someone on high, then I wouldn't vote for them again. Many of these issues aren't out side conservative ideology. If my rep still supported Phelan but also does a great job for my district, I'm not going to play this stupid political game just because Paxton gets his knickers in a wad for those that don't kiss is ring.
People make these generalized 'RINO' comments, based often on one vote that still falls in the conservative category.
Anyone voting consistently for more liberal agendas and from a conservative district will be taken care of in the next election.
If Dustin Burrow or Stan Gerdes or any of these other runaways want to vote against vouchers when it comes to the floor or wants to kowtow to the teacher's lobby when it comes to voting on public employee lobbying, fine. They can answer to their constituents for how they vote on any given issue, and one issue doesn't define who they are. But violating their oath to abide by the House R rules to work together with democrats against the majority of the R caucus to decide who gets to run the entire legislative session? Yeah, that makes them a RINO.
I voted for Patterson (live in Denton County) so this is personally angering/disappointing to say the least.
Jared, Denton County GOP Executive Committee is holding on Line 1. pic.twitter.com/SnJqlqdw2N
— Mitch Little (@realmitchlittle) December 20, 2024
Not that anyone really cares, but to his credit I think he did respond to my email about this:
His points are fair, I just disagree.Quote:
Thank you for reaching out about this. I really encourage you to consider the records of the two men running. I wrote about it here: The Race for Texas House Speaker
Please let me know if that link works. David Cook is a moderate, at best. I just can't get behind him. To the contrary, Burrows has a long history of passing conservative reforms. When considering the policy they've each supported - or not supported - while in office I think it makes it more clear. An about-face from Cook to convince people he's some die-hard conservative just to seek higher power has scared away a number of Republicans.
The long history "conservative reforms" are erased the moment one makes a deal with the democrats to get himself the speakership.
Exactly!aTmAg said:
The long history "conservative reforms" are erased the moment one makes a deal with the democrats to get himself the speakership.
He may have responded to the email, but voting with the Democrats makes him untrustworthy in my book.
The time for that argument was before the caucus voted. Once the caucus voted for Cook, that argument became moot. Also, if the majority of the coalition voting for Burrows is democrats, I don't think anybody joining them has the right to complain that Cook is a moderate.nortex97 said:
Not that anyone really cares, but to his credit I think he did respond to my email about this:His points are fair, I just disagree.Quote:
Thank you for reaching out about this. I really encourage you to consider the records of the two men running. I wrote about it here: The Race for Texas House Speaker
Please let me know if that link works. David Cook is a moderate, at best. I just can't get behind him. To the contrary, Burrows has a long history of passing conservative reforms. When considering the policy they've each supported - or not supported - while in office I think it makes it more clear. An about-face from Cook to convince people he's some die-hard conservative just to seek higher power has scared away a number of Republicans.
nortex97 said:
Not that anyone really cares, but to his credit I think he did respond to my email about this:His points are fair, I just disagree.Quote:
Thank you for reaching out about this. I really encourage you to consider the records of the two men running. I wrote about it here: The Race for Texas House Speaker
Please let me know if that link works. David Cook is a moderate, at best. I just can't get behind him. To the contrary, Burrows has a long history of passing conservative reforms. When considering the policy they've each supported - or not supported - while in office I think it makes it more clear. An about-face from Cook to convince people he's some die-hard conservative just to seek higher power has scared away a number of Republicans.
Burrows is part of the Straus/Bonnen/Phelan pack even buddying up with Bonnen to offer MQS press access for limiting challenges to their chosen 10 Republican incumbents.
Cook is 37th most conservative and Burrows is 73rd (12th most liberal) out of 84 rates representatives in the 2023 regular and special sessions.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/15/mark-jones-texas-house-special-2023-liberal-conservative-scores/
Cook has signed the Contract with Texas which limits Democrats and Speakers from killing conservative legislation through committees and parliamentarian shenanigans while keeping the Speakers authority in check.
Cook is the GOP Caucus Nominee which is a binding vote for all Texas Republican Representatives.
Patterson is currently acting like a RINO and trying to rationalize his actions that are more likely driven by promises of plush committee positions.
Again, I agree with you on all points.
Featured Stories
See All
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Battle At Reed' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
Scouting Report: No. 13 Texas A&M vs. Abilene Christian
by Tom Schuberth
35:16
14h ago
3.6k
Yesterday
LIVE from Allegiant Stadium: Texas A&M vs. USC (2024 Las Vegas Bowl)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
42