TexasCHLforum.com

bblhd672 wrote: Sounds like he needs to be "primaried out" next time he's up for reelection

I wonder if it would be easier to run against him as a Democrat. We would have to find the right Trojan horse but he or she could get a lot of straight ticket support from low information voters. The hardest part would be to keep it on the DL until after the election.

Lambda Force wrote:

bblhd672 wrote: Sounds like he needs to be "primaried out" next time he's up for reelection

I wonder if it would be easier to run against him as a Democrat. We would have to find the right Trojan horse but he or she could get a lot of straight ticket support from low information voters. The hardest part would be to keep it on the DL until after the election.

Funny, I've thought the same thing about having conservative people join the Democrat party and run for office. If you can get past the party apparatus and onto the ballot I think you'd have a decent chance of getting the low info voters.
And once you're elected and change all your stances you just shrug and say "what difference does it really make now?"

I haven't been able to confirm this, but somewhere I read Joe Strauss' PAC spent more money than was spent in all other Representative districts combined.

Whatever he spends, look at the huge contributions in this Dallas News article given to fight Strauss, then look further down and see the millions Strauss controls.

As long as voters can be lulled into thinking their choices are limited, this situation will continue. Disappointing Republicans will trade power with Democrats who don't live up to their faithful, either.

If that situation destabilizes, we'll get a disrupter. People like Strauss created Donald Trump. Abbott is pretty close to what I'd like to see in office, but the rest of State leadership is playing games with us.

My Senator, Schwertner, keeps his head down. Kacal, same thing in the House. When there is something I see going wrong in the State, I'm more active than, and probably more effective, than they are.

The 64K question, why in the world we elect a Dems as a speaker when we have a super majority?

bblhd672 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

KLB wrote:

ninjabread wrote:Not really when you remember who they chose as Speaker.

Of course, the "who" choosing the speaker were the Democrats plus enough Republicans to put him over 50%. Not all Republicans are to blame.

So why so many Republicans voted for him in the first place?

because he's a bully. if they don't vote for him, they don't get any bills passed, they don't get any committee assignments.......And Dan Patrick has been taking lessons from him.

the guy who ran against him for speaker last session....I heard the story....He was convinced to do it..."oh, we'll vote for you!" "hey we have the votes" So he finally said ok" He did it, Everyone turned away....He was ruined...Done. His first Session and these jerks ruined his career.

Sounds like he needs to be "primaried out" next time he's up for reelection

He'll never be "primaried out", I've given up that dream. He'll have to retire and then someone can run in that district. He posts huge signs even though everyone knows who he is. When someone runs against him they have to have enough money to run against that, it's impossible.

Beiruty wrote:The 64K question, why in the world we elect a Dems as a speaker when we have a super majority?

Why Is he in on the Republican ticket anyways?

Beiruty wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

KLB wrote:

ninjabread wrote:Not really when you remember who they chose as Speaker.

Of course, the "who" choosing the speaker were the Democrats plus enough Republicans to put him over 50%. Not all Republicans are to blame.

So why so many Republicans voted for him in the first place?

because he's a bully. if they don't vote for him, they don't get any bills passed, they don't get any committee assignments.......And Dan Patrick has been taking lessons from him.

the guy who ran against him for speaker last session....I heard the story....He was convinced to do it..."oh, we'll vote for you!" "hey we have the votes" So he finally said ok" He did it, Everyone turned away....He was ruined...Done. His first Session and these jerks ruined his career.

Bully on who ? the super majority?

the individual.

He controls what goes on the Senate floor calendar. He also controls who is on each committee. Thus He controls what Leg passes. And if you pay attention in some areas if a baliff wants a pay raise it has to go through the leg. Each Rep has to get certain things through the leg for their district.

Beiruty wrote:So why so many Republicans voted for (Strauss) in the first place?

I live in his district and would love to see him lose the primary, but he comes from a long-time prominent political family with loads of connections and money. He is well entrenched in the establishment and is unlikely to lose. Alas.

and here we come back to term limits again :)

loktite wrote:and here we come back to term limits again :)

Funny how that works, right?

Beiruty wrote:The 64K question, why in the world we elect a Dems as a speaker when we have a super majority?

Because all the dems and just enough of his republican cronies support him to negate the truly conservative republicans vote. Since they have no chance of replacing him as speaker, they aquiesce and vote for him.

Too much power resides with the speaker. Straus and his cronies are prime examples of why we need term limits. His war chest and list of wealthy crony supporters that have a vested interest in him remaining in power is vast.

Beiruty wrote:The 64K question, why in the world we elect a Dems as a speaker when we have a super majority?

Same reason as why we have a judge here in this county who has a known leftist leaning, but also has money and connections.

It's a "good ol' boys'' club, and mentality is that if you're not at the table, you'll be on the menu.

We also have a very conservative and decent freshmen rep who just like the rest is told to shut up and sit in the back of the bus, and go along...

Term limits!

Beiruty wrote:What is status of the Restoration of Gun Rights in Austin?
Nothing is going on?

It is so quiet here.
1) Are we going to have reduced fees for LTC?
2) Is Constitutional Carry dead?
3) What else is on the Agenda?

These are excellent questions. Unfortunately I've been very busy lately and have not had a chance to follow this session as closely as I normally do. I understand HB 560 is dead. I understand there was at least a hearing on constitutional carry so who knows? I watched a tiny bit of a hearing dealing with the 30.06/30.07 signs but that was an anti-'s bill to get them eliminated. Last I checked the elimination of the LTC fees had been changed to a reduction in LTC fees. I have heard nothing at all about cleaning up the language dealing with the posting of government owned or leased buildings.

I will be extremely disappointed if all we get out of this session is a $40 LTC fee and maybe clarification on church security volunteers. Not to belittle those things, but HB560 and the government building clean up both seem far more important. I'll of course take constitutional carry if we can get it but again, that's not at the top of my priority list.

Beiruty wrote:The 64K question, why in the world we elect a Dems as a speaker when we have a super majority?

If you're assuming that Strauss is a Democrat, he's not. If you're thinking he acts like a Dem, he's from San Antonio.

Its shaping up to be the worst session in over 20 years for gun owners. Hoping that maybe they can pull the magic rabbit out of the hat, but its looking more and more unlikely