CD 22 Update: David Wallace is Making His Move

As you may or may not recall, David Wallace, the Sugar Land mayor who attempted to position himself as Tom DeLay's personal pick in the CD22 race, thought he was such a lock he decided to not bother to stump for Harris County's vote. Further, he decided that he did not need to complete the Harris County Candidates' Questionnaire and not attend the candidates’ forum on 06 May. I'd say such a move isn't the smartest choice, but hey far be it from me to question his strategy. I think, however, he later learned that the forum was open to all CD22 precinct chairs, regardless of county, and it looked bad that he didn't show, because he has certainly changed his tact lately. It is one thing to decide to ignore Harris County, but if you decide to blow off everyone, you're pretty much not going to be the choice, no matter how much Fort Bend County seems to love you.

So, gentle YPS readers, I know you're asking, how has he changed his strategy? This week, in the mail, I received his CD22 candidate questionnaire completed. I've also received 3 messages from a gent named "Mack" with the David Wallace campaign attempting to set up a meeting between "Dave" and me. I gave him a call to see what he has to say, but so far all I get is a busy signal, which is odd because the number matches up with a Sugar Land business. Honestly, at this point, I seriously doubt he will change my mind, but I figure I'm in it to learn as much as I can, so what the hell. Funny thing is that I'm not aware that they've made any attempt to make these appointments with any of the potential electors; one for sure told me that little if nothing has been heard from that particular campaign. I'll bet everyone has received the questionnaire by now, and perhaps they've made contact with all of us.

I understand that Mr. Wallace later commented he did not participate in the Harris County event first, because he wasn't invited (just a bad lie) and then later due to lack of sufficient notice, which was the exact same claim set forth by Tom Campbell. Unlike Mr. Campbell, however, I can't directly call bullshit on Wallace's lack of notice claim. Campbell claimed that he had no notice, but Campbell was sending out nasty e-mails two weeks prior to the event trashing not just the process, but the event as well. I would simply say that if Wallace honestly didn't know, then he has his head up his ass and isn't sufficiently tuned in enough to the grassroots to be paying attention. What follows in my view is that he won't pay enough attention to us to be a proper representative either. I think we have enough of that already.

Update: I got someone on the phone. I'll be meeting with him next week. I'll let you know what I learn.


Socialist Economics Day?

So now Barney Frank calls agricultural subsidies what they really are:
statist, subsidized, inflationary, protectionist, anti-consumer

Uhh, I’m confused. Did economics make a comeback on the left all of a sudden? Two in one day is a bit disturbing.

McGovern Defends Wal-Mart

In a striking op-ed today over at the LA Times, sad old socialist George McGovern says that Wal-Mart is not the source of all evil. I’m shocked and amazed. He displays a modicum of understanding of economics when he discusses profit margins and worker pay. Of course, he then turns around and blows it all to shit by saying the government should provide all kinds of nice goodies instead of companies.

Mr. McGovern understands that the financial resources of companies are limited. Yet he can’t seem to see that the government’s are as well. Ultimately, he fails to see what socialists have always failed to see: somebody always pays. The costs of all these generous entitlement program he supports are always borne by someone. (I will also note that I am unaware of any broad-based entitlement that has not exceeded every initial estimate of its cost by a considerable amount.) Who pays? Ultimately, we all do. Everything government does is a cost that is imposed on all of us. We pay the straight dollars and we pay the opportunity costs. Why people don’t get this simple fact continues to elude me. I guess in Mr. McGovern’s case, when you’ve spent your entire adult life advocating for more government, it’s hard to change.


Congressional Follies

In other political news, a Louisiana congressman is caught taking bribes. So in a stunning bit of news, the FBI searches his office. From the way some congresscritters are carrying on, you’d think the Constitution was crumbling before our very eyes. You’ll pardon me if I don’t cry a river about this nonsense or get particularly alarmed.

Firstly, I am under the impression that in the American system of government, the Legislative branch makes the laws and the Executive branch enforces them. So if bribery is illegal, who is going to investigate that? Hint: it’s not Congress.

Secondly, I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for anyone in Congress who complains about how the FBI handles search warrants. Out here in real America, if a federal agency shows up at my door with a warrant, I can damn near guarantee that it will be a full tactical raid. A bunch of guys in suits is far preferable to what will show up at my door if some alphabet agency decides I’m of interest. I can’t muster up a whole lot of caring given that the asshats in Congress are the ones that allow goons with guns to kick in doors in the middle of the night on the basis of the flimsiest of excuses.

Spare me the hand-wringing, okay? If you’re caught dead to rights on tape taking bribes or smoking crack, nobody should stand up and say your office can’t be searched. You are under indictment. You are lucky they didn’t take every scrap of paper out of your office. Complaining about the kid glove treatment Rep. Jefferson (D-For Hire) got by the FBI just displays a mentality of being above the law. It’d be a little different if the FBI was combing through all 535 offices on a fishing trip. Based on what’s been released, I’d say they have probable cause. Obviously, some judge did, too. There is no reason whatsoever his office should not have been searched. Insisting on some bogus constitutional exception to the law simply makes the "culture of corruption" problem look even more widespread. What’s the problem, are all of you so guilty that you don’t want the FBI in the building? Is that it?

In the meantime, when even uber-donk apologist extraordinaire James Carville can’t find an explanation for the behavior, you’re through. We all know if there was some semi-plausible explanation, Carville would have offered it up. Hell, I’m surprised he didn’t whip out some crap about how Jefferson believes banks support the system of racism so the money stays in the fridge, instead.

Personally, I’m just waiting for a repeat of two of the greatest moments in recent political history. I’m waiting for the explanation that involves either Jews or the phrase "Bitch set me up." Who’s taking bets? I’ll give odds on those two, plus extra points if we can get a witch hunt or a stifling of dissent out of the whole mess.

Big hat tip to Bitter for the Carville link.


Well, Lloyd Bentsen is dead. I’m sure that someone somewhere is saddened and grieved by his passing. I’m equally sure you’ll be shocked to know that nobody here cares much. Anybody who served in the Senate for as long as he did is almost by definition part of the problem. I have no doubt he gladly participated in the unwarranted expansion of the federal apparatus during his 22 year tenure in the Senate.

Anyhow, I await the coming festival of bad taste. I’m predicting an array of fawning journalists and other lickspittle lackeys claiming he was the greatest Senator since the dead Kennedy. I’m also predicting what has recently become mandatory at funerals: a parade of donk asshats using the opportunity to make the evening news by delivering a poor excuse for a political screed thinly disguised as eulogy. I firmly expect the old goober grubber to be in the lead on that one.

We'll blog the inevitable when it happens, I guess, if only to continue in our mockery of the Jimster. We do so like to mock the worst living ex-president around here.



Well, I’ve been shamefully lax in making blog posts lately. I’ve started a few and discarded them because I was apathetic and uninspired. The apathetic doesn’t really matter, as I’m usually fairly apathetic. The uninspired is more critical. Anyhow, that’s all over with for now. Expect more of the usual sort of deranged babbling you’ve come to expect from the louder, less sane half of YPS.

So today we’ll review the weekend’s primary purchase. We bought 35 pounds of rock for the turtle tank, but that’s a minor purchase. The major purchase was a Springfield Armory GI Champion Lightweight. The intent walking into the gun show was a Baby Eagle in .45. The Colt Lightweight Commander was also a possibility, but unless I saw a great deal on that, it wasn’t happening. However, Northwest Houston Tactical was at the show and made us an offer I couldn’t refuse. I didn’t realize SA made a lightweight version of the Champion, and at the price I got, I couldn’t pass it up. The intent was to get J a pistol that was lighter than my .45 that was comfortable in her hand. The Lightweight Champion is a half-pound lighter than a full-size 1911 and lighter than the Baby Eagle. The deciding factor came down to accessory choice as well as price. The Champion is the SA version of a Commander. For the uninitiated, this means a shorter slide and barrel on a regular Government model frame. Virtually every accessory that is not slide specific which fits a Gov’t model will fit the Champion. Plus, other accessories like holsters are more readily available than for the Baby Eagle. One of the benefits of the 1911 platform is the array of aftermarket parts and accessories available. The number of people competent to work on a 1911 is also exponentially larger than it is for any other handgun platform out there. In these respects, it shares a lot with the AR platform in rifles. The SA Lightweight is about $350 less than the Colt Lightweight. I’ve never drank the Colt kool-aid, so I don’t see the point in paying the extra money for the dancing horse. I’ve had a number of SA products and they’ve never failed me. So now J has a short stubby black version of my pistol.

So having said the accessories are available, we also ordered some over the weekend. The first accessory is an S&A magwell and the internal giblets to replace the Springfield ILS parts. While I have no burning hatred for ILS, I don’t see it as necessary. I do see a magwell as necessary, so the ILS loses. Brownell’s is also sending a skeletonized trigger from Chip McCormick that I should be competent to install. The next step is getting a nicer pair of grips than the stock ones. We are currently exploring that option. Let me just say for the record that more companies need to make the square bottom grips for use with magwells. I’ve seen some grips that were very nice, but once you install the magwell, you really need the square bottom. It looks funny otherwise. In the meantime, the black grips that came off the Mil-Spec will look better. Pictures and updates when all the parts are here and installed.


Process Problems Redux

A commenter to my original post is confused as to how all the issues I raised with respect to the election process are connected. Since I didn’t make the original post painfully obvious for the comprehension impaired, I’ll dumb this down even further. The election code is written in such a fashion to empower and benefit the Republican and Democratic parties. It is not written to benefit voters, candidates, or anyone else but the parties. You, the individual voter, are pretty much irrelevant when the code is written. What is important is maintaining the stranglehold on politics enjoyed by the two major parties. If you follow this concept all the way through to the bitter end, it will belatedly occur to you that any provision that privileges the parties in the process is on a level with all the other provisions that privilege the parties.

So, in our particular instance, the GOP gets to run the selection process for the replacement candidate for CD22. Who does this benefit? The GOP. The GOP can make this process as convoluted, obscure, and secretive as they want and it’s exactly the same as every other section of the election code that gives the parties special treatment when it comes to ballot access. I mean, really, let’s think about ballot access. The state of Texas, in its less than infinite wisdom, automatically grants a place on the ballot to the winners of the party primaries. The state even lends the parties equipment so they can run the primaries. Hell, I worked the primary and my check came from Harris County, so the state is paying for the poll workers. In short, the state is colluding with private organizations to determine who gets on the ballot. If you’re not a member of one of those organizations, the state makes it exponentially more difficult for you to get on the ballot in the fall. How is this process fair and democratic? It’s not, and it’s essentially the same as the process for determining the CD22 candidate. The party will decide who’s going to get to play and is going to try like hell to make life difficult for everybody else.

It’s especially funny to me when the comments on the process come from somebody who claims to be a lifelong Republican, but has no idea what the party executive committees are. Didn’t get real involved in the party, did you, buddy? Casting a ballot twice a year doesn’t make you a member of the party faithful. It makes you no more special than anyone else who votes. You want the party to give a baboon’s behind about you, get more involved in the party. Otherwise, you’re just another one of the people who the party and politicians pay lip service to and ignore once the elections are finished. That may hurt, but it’s the way things are. The people involved in a substantive way with the party are the ones determining the direction of the party, not the random schmucks who just show up and vote.

If you want things to change, you need to do the hard work of making it happen. Figure out a better solution and get it implemented. Whining about the way things are going way too late to affect the process doesn’t really qualify on either count. It might help your argument if you display some idea of what the current process is, though.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: fuckity fuck fuck fuckity fuck. This apparently makes my whole argument more juvenile in whatever bizarro-world some people live in. In fact, that makes this post 5 times as juvenile as the original post! Five times the profanity, five time the juvenilia! Who says we can’t do fan service? Yes, we try hard to please at YPS. It’s just that we’re not trying to please you. Keep it in mind next time you feel obligated to comment on my word choice, mmkay? I could make the argument that an inability to look past the word choice to focus on the substance of the argument is a greater sign of intellectual immaturity than using the word fuck. However, that could be construed as petty and not nearly as amusing to me as gratuitous profanity right now. Assweasel! Check back in a day or two and see if pettiness has scored a surprise comeback. In the meantime...


Note to SRCSG Supporters: Know Your Target

We've received a few e-mails and at least one blog post (linked to previously) that we're aware of referring to the hilarious notion that I don't support Shelly-Rodham-Clinton-Sekula-Gibbs (SRCSG) because I must:

be "afraid of dealing with a smart lady",
have "a problem with intelligent women",
be "intimidated by educated people",
blah blah blah, ad nauseum, you get the picture.

I can't help but wonder if it ever occurred to any of these bandwagoneers that I don't particularly care for SRCSG because she lacks humility, and is a proven RINO, nanny state style-liberal who openly admits and brags about it? Of course, it doesn't help that she comes off in public like a complete and total dingbat, which makes it all the more hilarious that she's constantly reminding all of us how much smarter and more educated she is than the rest of us.

She was asked a couple of weeks ago how she can list as an accomplishment passing over 1,000 pieces of legislation, and yet square that with adhering to the conservative principles of limited government. She explained that she counts dealing with potholes, approving permits, and zoning requests as legislation, and someone has to examine all of these issues to keep them out of the unelected bureaucracy. Well true enough, but a building permit isn't the same as a city ordinance, and she shouldn't pretend such in a weak attempt to pad her already lackluster achievements. I find it telling that she would feel the need to "pad" in that way anyway. Nonetheless, I wonder, like John Kerry and his constant referral to his war hero status, if she's trying to convince us of her great intelligence, or herself. Note to the clan: nobody likes a know it all.

Of course, in a way, the cultists have won, because I believe that I have spent more time writing about this individual than any other candidate, so with her, I am done. After this post, I declare an official YPS moratorium on SRCSG matters, unless such matters are in direct reference to the CD22 proceedings.

In short, ladies and gents, stop with the attempts to change my mind with regard to this candidate. I am not going to support her. I am, however, going to assist those of you who are obviously satisfied to delegate your intelligence to others and thus fail to do any homework.

Here's what I mean when I write "know your target".

Two items about me:
1. I am a woman, and
2. I have a doctorate.

And yet, I don't feel the need to shout it to the world, which is obvious from what I am reading. To folks like me, the SRCSG's of the world are a total joke.


Process Problems

Well, I’ve been floating around reading the reactions to the process J has been involved in for replacing Tom DeLay on the ballot. One of the things that amuses me the most is the people who are complaining about the process being shrouded in secrecy and undemocratic. A handy little hint from the resident YPS third-party advocate: if you are a fervent supporter of either major party, you need to have a nice hot cup of STFU right about now. The donks and the efenants rigged this game long ago to the exclusion of everybody else.

The party gets to pick Tom DeLay’s replacement because both parties got together and set it up that way. Don’t like it? Boo fucking hoo. Your people wrote the rules to privilege themselves and make it more difficult for anyone else to gain access to the process. If you were fine with it when the state made Kinky and Carol go out and get signatures, don’t bitch now. If you think it’s just peachy that the state assists the parties in determining their candidates by helping with the primaries, don’t complain. It’s all well and good when the system produces a result you prefer, but once you don’t like it, you whine. The way this is playing out is the way it’s set out in the election code. Don’t like the election code, get it changed. Let me be the first to say good luck with your efforts. Call me when you’re successful. I won’t be hanging out by the phone waiting.

Outed!? ...and Commentary...

Damn...so we over here at YPS have been posting our random bullcrap for almost 2 years now and suddenly people who know us are finding us. Some of the items I've posted regarding the CD22 race have been picked up by some various fine folks, and along with T, I very much thank you for the traffic. The downside to it all is that complete anonymity is lost, and I was contacted yesterday by 3 separate people, who I consider to be friends or friendly acquaintences, asking me if I was writing about them, or whether they have behaved in a manner that I find offensive or objectionable.

I decided that my best approach is to lay it out right here so that anyone who reads can understand my POV. I have presented for a small, and now growing, group of readers my impressions of this little piece of history as it has occurred, nothing more. These are my opinions only. I believe in as much transparency as possible without causing harm, and I thought my regular readers might be interested in what is happening. I do a lot of reading online and didn't see anyone presenting an "uncanned" version of the process from the inside, so doing this has been my only motivation. I have been very careful to not mention the names of anyone who has not specifically put themselves up for public office, because I respect peoples' privacy, and hope they do mine. Yes indeed, there has been quite a bit of behavior thus far that I have found to be not particularly stellar, and in some ways it is always expected. I love the political, except for the politics part, and this experience has put me right in the midst of the worst of it.

With that bit stated, I will write this to anyone who is wondering.

If you are one of the people who thinks that I am writing specifically about you, if you believe it is negative, and you are truly concerned about that, perhaps you should perform a little self-reflection and evaulate your behavior.

Perhaps I am not the only individual who thinks some of you should tone it down a bit. Despite specific actions, and despite other offices held within the party organization, or whatever roles you're playing within a specific candidate's race, all participants in this process have equal status, and everyone's opinions are equally valid, whatever they might happen to be. So, internalize that.

Now for those of you similar-minded folks who think that I am also part of this "establishment", you're just plain wrong. As previously stated, I'm just trying to get something done from the back corner of inside the room. Over the past year, I have increasingly felt about the Republican party the same way that Zell Miller must've felt about his beloved Democrats when he figured out that he didn't leave his party, his party had left him. The difference between Zell and me; however, is that Zell has refuge. You have to work for change from the inside, or you'll be stuck throwing rocks from the outside. Anyway, with whom do people like me form an alliance? These traitors, or perhaps this group of haters? Or, I could relegate myself to working with fine folks with good ideas and intentions who will never get elected to any level of importance. But seriously, if we really want our constitutional republic back, I hardly believe relegating our ideas to obscurity is the answer.

I'm not as old as most of the very nice people who are involved. I was in my teens when Reagan was in the White House, and discovered my love of the American governmental process during that period in my life. I'm not one of the old D to R converts, I have been a conservative as long as I have had a political opinion. I have never missed a Republican primary and never passed up an opportunity, when I could, to work or volunteer at any level of the process. I have spent half my life in the bottom of the chain trying to achieve a what I honestly believe is the correct direction for this country, and have tried to accomplish it from as close to the inside as I could get. There have been many who have worked three times as long and hard as I have, and I can't imagine how frustrated the truly liberty minded conservatives must be when they look at this fine situation we're in today.

My greater motivations working within the party were simple. I wanted to be a part of the movement to rescue the country that I love from Socialists who have tried to transform her into the poor, filthy, obsolete, backwater shell that Europe has become. And yet, when I look at the sorry sack of excuses who we all worked so hard to get elected, what exactly have we achieved? From where I sit, we have just another group of socialists who shower more regularly and wear better looking suits.

As you may have guessed, my experience with the Republican party lately has frankly been not the most positive. I think that there are a lot of people who ten years ago had a fire inside, and giving credit where due, they worked their asses off, and got their candidates elected. Well now it turns out that these office holders are the wrong people, but those on the real inside, in positions of influence, have grown so comfortable and satisfied with their positions within the system, they're not going to exact the change necessary to achieve our original goal. And, in some way, being involved in this particular process has amplified that fact, as well as my frustration.

So, with all that said, I'm going to continue to record what I observe, and I hope you continue to read. And if you don't want to feel like you're being called out, don't be such an asshat.



Wow. Shows what I get for goofing off and playing GTA: Vice City instead of writing blog posts. We haven’t had this much traffic since TotalFark linked to the inflatable doll story. J has been busily working away behind the scenes on the process for CD 22 candidate evaluation. Apparently people have noticed her descriptions of the process. As we like to say, stay tuned. I’m sure she’ll have more. Not being a precinct chair, or for that matter much of an efenant, I have not been involved. Honestly, sitting in a room and listening to the parade of candidates natter for hours on end would have me playing Bejeweled on my cell phone before the first one had started talking. Hmm. Maybe additional blog posts from me wouldn't have helped any.

I’d like to thank all the people from Capitol Annex and Texas Safety Forum for passing though our humble little corner of the ‘Net. Stick around, read archived posts. If y’all keep this up, it may become worthwhile to put ads up. Well, probably not, but I can hope.


Notes from the CD22 Republican Candidates Forum

Well Saturday was the Harris County CD22 Candidate forum. Remember, as Tom DeLay has not officially been declared ineligible, all of these events are completely unofficial. I have to say, however, the process has begun to get ugly, despite the fact that we're all supposed to be on the same team.

Some group is running ads on 950 AM against the way the process is going, which is according to long established rules, by the way. I have to guess that campaign is being paid for by Tom Campbell because he has been the most outspoken advocate against the process. After this weekend, I have come to the conclusion that he believes that since he was on the ballot in March, that he should've taken the beauty queen role of "the first runner up becomes Miss CD22 if the winner becomes unable to serve." The problem is, that he got trounced in the primary, came off as a bit of a dolt on Saturday, and couldn't beat Lampson in November if Lampson got on a plane tomorrow and went to France until December.

On the internals of the process, some of the precinct chairs have politicked themselves into offensiveness, appointing themselves as some type of official spokespeople. One person in particular is talking to the media and posting on bulletin boards. Problem with this one is that while she works hard, she's really not smart or articulate enough to not sound bad and make the process sound worse. In short, people are acting like spoiled children. There is more drama than I would care to see at this point in the process; however, I have to believe that the vast majority of folks seem to be behaving like adults.

All that said, let's get to the important part of this. If I had to pick in terms of sheer performance on Saturday, I would go with the candidates in the following order:

1. Charlie Howard
2. Robert Talton
3. Shelly Sekula-Gibbs
4. Mike Jackson
(Gibbs & Jackson could really be a tie)
5. Tom Campbell
6. Andy Meyers
7. Tim Turner

David Wallace & Brad Wright made appointments but didn't show up, so I'm not considering either of them. Actually, I don't think I will consider anyone who hadn't already gotten their crap together enough to be prepared for this particular event. I can't commit to saying for sure that I definitely won't, but I don't think I will. This is going to be a sprint campaign and people will have to be ready.

Now, remember, gentle YPS readers, the above ranking is based upon Saturday' performance alone. Here are my candidate choices in rank order based on all factors. This is how I will position myself within the caucus, take this as if we were voting tomorrow.

1. Charlie Howard - I had never met or had any contact with Mr. Howard, but he really knocked my socks off on Saturday. I was really impressed with him. I had previously looked up his voting record in the State House and he puts his vote in the right place too. His questionnaire was spot on, his background is impressive and he is solid. There is a difference between a party conservative and a true conservative. You can learn which you have just by listening to them. Trust me folks, Howard is a true conservative. He's wow and ready.

2. Mike Jackson - This is the individual I went in favoring. Saturday he was very flat, uninspiring and unprepared. He acknowledged that his work in the Senate over the special session really didn't give him time to "brush up" on federal issues; however, I'm thinking that if you don't know where you stand on most of these issues by now, you deserve the job you have, and not much more. Both Talton and Howard are also in special session and gave much more solid presentations. Honestly, I am afraid that Lampson might out shine him in a debate if he can't get his crap together.. He stays my second choice, however, because I know that he's a good conservative and will vote the right way.

3. Robert Talton - I could not place Talton as my #1 or 2 for personal reasons, although he would keep a fairly solid conservative voting record. He put his friends ahead of principle once regarding a purely non-politics issue, and I can't put my trust in anyone who might have a shot at becoming "friends" with Sheila Jackson Lee or Nancy Pelosi. Plus, he makes me nervous because he stated that he doesn't support zero-based budgeting.

4. Shelly Sekula-Gibbs - I post the most about her because it seems as if she has positioned herself the most strongly amongst the precinct chairs. Or maybe her contingent is the most outspoken/annoying. Gibbs was very energetic and charismatic, but I still hold that she doesn't have the temperament for this office. She was almost too immature/girly. I didn't like in her opening statement on Saturday, how she evoked the memory of her late husband (who was a local news anchor/celebrity). As previously posted by me, she didn't take on her married name until she started running for office, so it comes off as sheer opportunism. Her worst habit, however is that nobody likes to be told how much "smarter I am than you". And she just keeps doing that, it is very condescending. She says things like "well you probably don't know this because you're not a doctor." It might be cool in Clear Lake, but that crap isn't going to fly with the industrial guys in the area where we live because it is very blue collar. Plus, quite simply, she's a "nanny stater". She actually bragged because she was the force behind the "no smoking in Houston restaurants" ordinance. Now, don't get me wrong, I quit smoking about 3 years ago and don't like it much, but I can't get behind anyone who will tell a private property/business owner how he or she can conduct his or her business. It all comes back to that "I'm smarter than you and I know what's best for you mentality". Thank you, Hillary Clinton. Further, she can't seem to get a grip on any issue outside the health care/medical side of it because of her royal doctorness, I guess. Her questionnaire answers were strong, but when she provided additional comments, she killed herself. We deserve more than her; she's too liberal.

And such is my assessment. The remainder of the pack aren't worth mentioning, in my opinion. Bless their hearts. They were outclassed, either too emotional or unprepared, and just not suitable for this particular office.


Lifestyles of the Rich and the Famous

Bill Gates states that he wishes he wasn't the wealthiest man in the world.

Hey Bill, we'll be happy to help a brother out by taking a few billion off your hands.

Send us an e-mail, I guarantee you that we can work something out.

CD22 Candidate Questionnaire & Update

The CD 22 candidate interviews will occur this week. The written questionnaire is published here on the Harris County Republican Party Website. Below are the status of candidates, effective today.

Probably in (not all have formally announced): Tom Campbell, Charlie Howard, Mike Jackson, Andy Meyers, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, Robert Talton, Tim Turner, David Wallace, and Brad Wright.

All of the above, except for Tom Campbell and David Wallace have scheduled appointments for the Harris County CD 22 candidate interview session. I'm not surprised about Campbell because he has been pretty out in the open about being against this entire process.

Definitely Out: Michael Berry, Paul Bettencourt, Kevin Corcoran, John Devine, Robert Eckels, Mark Ellis, Kyle Janek, M.J. Khan, Roy Morales, Joe Nixon, Chris Peden, Brent Perry, Lynden Rose, and Rob Todd.

Still Considering the Seat: Michael Franks, Mark Henry, J.J. Paul, Don Richardson, Geraldine Sam, Steve Stockman, Larry Taylor, Eric Thode, and Termite Watkins.

More will be forthcoming as I get the information.

Mission Impossible 3 Tix: They can't give 'em away

Here's another amusing Tribecca Film Festival story from my pal in NYC. Mission Impossible 3 was showing last night and Tribecca gave out 900 free tickets. Apparently only 550 people showed up to take their seats. So, because this is a "big blockbuster" movie, and the vertically challenged and certifiably insane Mr. Cruise was actually in attendance, the folks at Tribecca, in a desperate attempt to fill seats, took to the streets asking random passers by if they'd like to come in and see a free movie. They got no takers. My friend was told by everyone she asked, "No way, Tom Cruise is nuts." I hope the MI3 people are prepared for a giant theatrical flop. The shark that Cruise jumped is finally fading into the distance.


Impeach McCain

So now John McCain (R-Asshat) thinks ‘clean’ government is a more important value than the Constitution he swore to uphold. How a man who has spent the majority of his adult life under oath to protect and defend the Constitution can display such a complete lack of understanding of it still amazes me.

More to the direct point: why does a man who freely admits his personal policy preferences should outweigh the Constitution get to continue in his role as Senator? There is a process for amending the document. You want to eliminate the First Amendment, a prospect some people would salivate at, you know how to do it. You don’t get to abrogate it by passing laws that directly fly in the face of the plain language of the Constitution.

Well, you shouldn’t get to, anyway. The sad ugly truth is that he’s gotten away with it once and will likely get away with again, because all his pernicious scheming does is benefit incumbents who are just as incapable of reading as he is. The odd congresscritter voted against campaign finance the first time, so one can always hope more votes appear against the sequel.

In the meantime, people living in Arizona should think long and hard about the asshat they have as a senior Senator. If he won’t respect this right, what other rights won’t he respect when they conflict with his desired outcomes? We all know that John McCain is smarter and more qualified than you to determine what’s important and what isn’t, right? I mean, isn’t that why y’all elected him? If that’s not why, he needs to go, and sooner rather than later. Replace him with someone who, at the very least, can display some minimal reading comprehension skills.


May Day Illegal Mayhem

I'm not going to go into the whole illegal immigration rant right now, it has been done on several occasions within this blog, long before this was today's hot button issue. If you're interested, you can browse through our archives. Here's my impression of these stupid protests and "boycotts". I personally think they've have had the opposite from intended effect. What has hurt this group is that they let the commies get them riled up and semi-violent, which turns people against them and their issue. Now that ANSWER and their ilk have gotten a grip on this group, they're all loud and demanding the right to break our laws. So what does that mean?

More and more people are getting educated, mad, and on the opposite side of the issue. Yay. Had these idiots not taken to the streets, Congress would've probably gotten right by with their piss-poor mamby pamby amnesty bill. As it is, the commies have inflamed the masses, and the masses want an antiinflamatory. The lesson here is if you have an issue and the commies/move on want to jump on board with it, run away as fast as you can. Everything they touch turns to crap.

Michael Moore is so important, he now delegates his obnoxious behavior

I have a good friend who has been volunteering at the Tribecca Film Festival in NYC to network and have some fun. She told me that on Friday night, there was a mildly amusing incident between the festival staff and Mr. Moore's assistant. Those who know me know I could give 2 shits about any celebrities for any reason, but in this case I thought I'd share because apparently Moore and his "peeps" have at least learned the good common sense to not behave like asshats in front of the press, because their escapades tend to get reported. I watched for this incident in the press, and sure enough, completely unnoticed.

From what I gather, the folks at the film festival do the best they can to provide packages for famous people in "the business" who they can get to attend, and in some cases the celebrities call ahead for spots. Everyone wins, Tribecca gets attention called to its festival, and people get to see free movies. The festival staff reserves spots in the theaters for celebrities to salute their alleged important, and everyone his happy. Nice perks if you can get them, I suppose.

Well anyway, Moore was there to see some movie, and he got pissed because his tickets read "general admission" instead of "VIP". I'm talking printing semantics here, nothing else. They had reserved him a special place in the theater. So, does he shut the hell up, appreciate his free tickets, take his already reserved spot, and move on? No. Does he quietly approach the Tribecca staff and question the alleged "indiscretion"? Nope, wrong again. You would have the correct guess if you said that he sent his assistant up in a screaming fit to attack the volunteers for giving him "lesser tickets". In her words, after all, "he is Michael Moore". Apparently I'm not talking about a 5 minute argument either, I'm talking about a full on scene made and threats to just leave.

Here's the funny thing about it, there are no tickets printed that have "VIP" printed on them, they're all general admission.