Patrick vs. Dewhurst for U.S. Senate?
Patrick was genuinely angry when he blamed Lt. Gov. Dewhurst for sinking his anti-groping bill Tuesday night. But his decision to stand by that accusation in the cold light of day Wednesday afternoon was much more interesting, as was his choice of words. “Someone who will not stand up to the federal government–” Patrick said of Dewhurst, “you have to ask yourself: ‘Is that the kind of person you want in the U.S. Senate?’” Was this the first shot across the bow in a coming primary battle between Dewhurst and Patrick for U.S. Senate? Twenty-five percent of Republican primary voters polled by UT and the Texas Tribune earlier this week chose Dewhurst from a list of possible candidates, which put him well ahead of the rest of the field. But Patrick’s name was not on the list, and fifty-seven percent answered “don’t know” or “someone not on the list.”
I asked Patrick this afternoon if he was going to throw his hat in the ring. After a long pause, Patrick said, “No comment, for now.”
AreYouKiddingMe says:
I am not a great Dewhurst fan, but Texas does not need any more nut jobs representing us at the National level, so he would definitely get my vote over Patrick. Patrick’s fringe politics nonsense really gets old. Privates in UIL, expanding charter schools, anti-”groping” bill, blah blah blah. How about spend some time working on real problems, like how to equitably fund PUBLIC EDUCATION, which is supposed to be the primary job of State government. This teabag movement may be shorter lived than anyone ever thought with guys like Patrick leading the cause…
Reply »
Brook Reply:
May 31st, 2011 at 4:12 pm
If education is a state issue it is IRRELEVANT in a US Senate race. We need a Senator that wants to limit the power of the federal government to spend our money on nonsense. Let’s take the US Dept of Ag money used to install cameras in San Antonio schools to track what every child eats for lunch. You can’t make this stuff up. We hear this kind of b.s. going on every day — billions wasted! Congress is out of control, and guys like Patrick are America’s last hope to avoid insolvency.
Reply »
Tim says:
Oh, please let Dewhurst run as Republican and Patrick as Tea Party, and let us have a Democrat representing Texas.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Yah, let’s return to socialist government in Tejas. In your wet dreams. You still can’t win any statewide races with 30% of the vote.
Reply »
Lake Worth Monster Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
It kind of worked for Perry in ’06.
Reply »
JUICE says:
He did courageously stand up for teachers in support of Senator Nelson’s amendment about longevity pay, which pitted the middle class (state employees) against the middle class (teachers).
Reply »
Another Wilco Voter Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
All that means is he has occasionally bouts of sanity.
Reply »
Anon says:
I hope Patrick does run. He’ll lose, and it will be the quickest way to get him out of office and back into hype radio, which is where he belongs.
Reply »
Garyfan says:
As a matter of principle, I don’t vote against people, I only vote for them. However in this case I’d be willing to make an exception.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Yah, socialists ALWAYS find a way around having any “principles”. The end justifies the means, ANY means, right?
Reply »
Lake Worth Monster Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Are you saying that Dewhurst is a socialist?
Reply »
Jed says:
i would be pleased to vote for patrick next march (or april).
quite pleased.
giddy, even.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Sen Patrick has accomplish so much more than most bashing here. He has also let many look foolish trying to make him look foolish.
Reply »
Jed says:
so we agree, JBB?
need help setting up an austin campaign office?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Don’t worry liberals like you will help more than you’ll ever know.
Reply »
Jed Reply:
May 26th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
no worries. i’d like to help even more than that.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 9:33 am
you will.
Capitol Observer says:
Watch for Sen. Patrick to announce for US Senate withing the next few days.
Reply »
Republican Patriot says:
Any sane Republican knows that the groping bill was a joke. Time to move on.
Reply »
Brook Reply:
May 31st, 2011 at 4:17 pm
It wasn’ta joke. 10 other states are moving on this issue. What is being done amounts to illegal search and seizure. The TSA is now being sued for groping kids at high school proms! You want to try and justify that?
If you want to voluntarily be felt up — that is your call, Pal. The rest of us have rights to.
Reply »
GotchaGoeb says:
Best news about Dan Patrick for U.S. Senate: it gets him out of the State Senate and off the air until at least next March!
Reply »
Alan says:
The groping bill shows how completely out of touch with reality that man is. Airport security protocols are set at the federal level by the Department of Transportation. This is not a states’ rights issue. If Dan Patrick really cared about this issue, he’d hand it off to someone in our congressional delegation and let them deal with it. Otherwise the only thing he will accomplish is leaving Texas without any commercial air service because our airports won’t be TSA-compliant.
I live in northwest Harris County and I am tired of this boor treating my home like his personal political fiefdom. He got rid of Corbin Van Arsdale because he wouldn’t play his games and replaced him with one of his lackeys. And his only rival in the contest for highest crazy coefficient is his House counterpart Debbie Riddle.
Reply »
Cylhill514 Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Awww, but 10 other states have bills just like this one that expect to pass by 2012. Tenth Amendment is alive and well…..
Reply »
Brook Reply:
May 31st, 2011 at 4:22 pm
The feds threaten to shut down airports all over the state, because they won’t allow 6 year olds to be groped, and you don’t see anything wrong with this picture? If they wanted to grope your kids at a prom — would that bother you? (hint they already did that). If all this groping is really necessary, why isn’t the EU doing it? They’ve had more attacks than we have.
Reply »
BrightLightsBigCity says:
Patrick has no grasp of governance since he loathes government.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Sen Patrick hates big government so he understand what the Founding Fathers intended, a smaller less oppressive government.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
If there is anything this session of the Texas Legislature has proven it is that whoever is teaching the equivalent of what was 9th grade civics in the deep dark past when I went to school is doing a P POOR JOB.
Time after time it has become obvious that perhaps a majority of the members of the House especially (plus a few like Patrick in the Senate) have no idea about what the U.S. Constitution actually says of what powers it gives to the state and federal governments.
The House may have created a special committee on state sovereignty….but it is certain that neither the members of that panel or most of the house members know anything about the subject.
I can only hope that something is done about this before the next time the Legislature meets (which we all must hope will not be before January of 2013).
Perhaps the best way to do something about this horrible lack of understanding is to send each member of the Legislature a copy of The Federalist Papers as well as one of the new book by Pauline Maier entitled Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. Just reading those two works should be enough to give intelligent members of the Legislature enough knowledge to allow them to reject some of the crazy things that were proposed this session should they (or worst) come up during the next session. Although I doubt it would do much good for the likes of Berman, The Riddle and David Simpson for which there is probably no hope.
It would probably not hurt either if the Speaker would give his state sovereignty committee an interim charge to hold hearings on the question of what are the powers of the U.S. government and those of the states under the U.S. Constitution. Of course, if he did, the Committee would probably only listen to folks from the 10th Amendment Association and the Federalist Society—both of which seem to have trouble understanding that John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis were not the authors and sole interpreters of the U.S. Constitution. But one could hope for better.
Reply »
ElPaso2011 says:
“Patrick’s fringe politics nonsense really gets old.” When did we get lulled into thinking anyone who supports the Bill of Rights is a fringe politician? The TSA is like a dog hiking a leg on our 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. Then to have the DOJ threatening a no-fly zone over the state unless we permit these minimum wage goons sticking their hands in our pants was the last straw. The Texas Senate spinelessly capitulated to this federal tyranny, and this issue is far from dead, no matter what the sheeple think.
Reply »
anita Reply:
May 27th, 2011 at 10:52 am
ElPaso, Patrick and his fellow purveyors of hyperbole seem to view the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a ‘cafeteria plan’, something that they can simply pick and choose from at will.
That’s not the way it works.
Reply »
Brook Reply:
May 31st, 2011 at 4:25 pm
You mean like Obama who is currently ignoring the War Powers Act in Libya?
Reply »
The House is Not a Home says:
As much as we wish for the issue to go away, “states’ rights” isn’t going anywhere.
Also, can we agree that in Texas, the Tea Party and the Republican Party are one in the same. The Tea Party may largely focus on only fiscal issues in other parts of the country, but the Texas Tea Parties spend as much time on social issues as they do fiscal issues, if not more.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
I do not think I know anyone who does not respect “state rights” (as Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun and even Jefferson Davis termed it) when there is a legitimate qestion about what powers the States have and those enjoyed by the federal government. But you can either read the Supremacy Clause or you can’t. If you can, you know that much of the junk being pushed this year is invalid.
I know it is really a waste of time to try to provide some factual data to the hardcore “state rights” types who are screaming about this issue. But, while I also do not like the TSA’s policies, they might want to consider that:
1. No where in the U.S. Constitution does the phrase “state sovereignty” appear. Nor is there any specific guarantee that the states retain any form of sovereignty INDEPENDENT of their roles in the union created by the Constitution. That phrase does not even appear in the 10th Amendment which they like to cite so often. The concept of the states retaining an independent sovereignty does appear in the Articles of Confederation…BUT THOSE WERE REPLACED by the Constitution, which, as noted above, includes no such provision.
2. What IS IN the constitution is the “supremacy clause” that provides that all laws (and treaties) adopted by the United States Government override or overrule any law adopted by a state. This means that any law the State of Texas tried to adopt to control the actions of a federal agency (such as the TSA) is invalid. The Legislature, as such, did not want to waste the probably millions of dollars that would have been required to defend a case that it was certain to lose.
3. There is no provision in the Constitution that allows any single state or group of states to overrule or nullify a federal law. No federal law has ever been successfully nullified by a state. (The last attempts were efforts by southern states to block the extension of full civil rights to U.S. Citizens of African-American origin in the 1950s and 60s.)
4. Nor is there any provision in the Constitution that requires that any set number of states must approve actions taken by the Congress. There was a provision in the Articles of Confederation that provided that the votes of 9 of the 13 states/colonies were required to pass a law…but, again, that was replaced by the U.S. Constitution which contains no such provision. The only requirements are that that a majority of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate must approve a law and that it be signed by the President or allowed to go into law without his signature.
5. If a state or any of its citizens object to a federal law they have two alternatives:
(a) To convince the Congress to repeal it; or (b) To challenge it in a FEDERAL court with the hope that the Courts will rule that it violates some provision of the U.S. Constitution. If you object to the TSA’s search methods and believe they violate the 4th Amendment, your avenue of redress is the Congress or the courts; not passing a law that clearly violates the Supremacy Clause.
6. The U.S. Constitution was NOT ADOPTED by the States or Colonies. The terms of its adoption specifically provided that the decision as to whether or not to adopt it was to be made OUTSIDE the existing structure of state/colonial governments. In fact, as it says in the PREAMBLE, it was adopted by “THE PEOPLE”, not the states.
7. Both the opponents and supporters of the new Constitution clearly understood that once in there was no out without the approval of all the other states. There is no right of a state to secede from the Union….even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia, the most conservative of the 9 justices, has said that “If the Civil War settled anything, it is that there is no right to secede.”
8. No where in the Constitution does the word “God” or any substitute for it such as
Creator”, “Supreme Being” appear. In fact, there are only two references to the topic of “religion” in the Constitution and both try to keep it out of the government. (The First Amendment and the No Religious Test for office
Reply »
Brook Reply:
May 31st, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Nice ramble, but there is NO FEDERAL LAW allowing the TSA to grope citizens at airports. This is what the current TSA chief says we have to do. Congress never voted on it. It’s simply a rule the TX ledge believes violates the 4th Amendment, and the burden of proof should revert to the TSA chief to prove it doesn’t. This mans logic treats us all as criminal suspects, every time we board a plane. There is nothing more Un-Constitutional than that.
Reply »
Tell them We're From France says:
Dewhurst has not shown leadership this session by killing good bills, lying to legislators, being indecisive. I don’t want that kind of wishy-washy guy as my U.S. Senator. At least you know where Patrick stands-you may not like his positions-but you know where he stands
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat Reply:
June 2nd, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Dewhurst has won 4 statewide elections as Land Commissioner (1998) and Lieutenant Governor (2002, 2006 and 2010), and he’s got $$$ and lots of it, so I’d still rate him as the favorite to win the US Senate seat overall.
Reply »
Jed says:
damn right.
patrick for republican nominee for u.s. senate.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
So, Patrick is going to up into the Senate over a single issue and split votes and money with M. Williams and Cruz. Sounds like a plan. Then the Dew can just run the ball up the middle for the primary win.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
Well, we may not elect a Democrat but Republicans get to spend tons of $100.00 bills competing against each other. It sounds like a stimulus program at least for ad companies and campaign staff.
Reply »
Rog says:
Could Texas Republicans look any more ridiculous to the rest of the nation than electing a Senator who’s base is radio talk show callers? To make it a complete circus, maybe Sarah Palin can endorse him.
Reply »
Steve Bresnen says:
I admire and respect WUSRPH’s grasp of the U.S. Constitution and its history. That is the kind of discussion we should be having unlike constant name-calling by the guy who uses “socialist” for anyone’s ideas he doesn’t like.
BUT, to coin a phrase, “read the bill.” It creates a defense to prosecution for the screener who acts pursuant to an explicit and valid federal law. If the screener does not act within a valid federal law, does the Supremacy Clause apply? I haven’t searched the cases, but it would seem, as a logical matter, that it would not. The conduct would be ultra virus. Probably also a violation of the federal 1983 statute, which was adopted way long ago before Commerce Clause jurisprudence became so advanced and federal dominance of the field was so pronounced.
Personally, I don’t like taking off my shoes because a guy tried to light a bomb in his sneaker. I doubt the incremental gains to security versus the greater loss to liberty (and just plain decency) are worth it. When I saw a guy going through security at the El Paso airport getting frisked way beyond the pale, I realized our fears are overrunning our good judgment.
Reply »
Brook Reply:
May 31st, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Exactly, Steve. The law federalizing airport security does not allow for this conduct.
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat says:
Brook, what are the odds that Williams leaves the Senate race (due to the possibility of Patrick jumping in and splitting tea party votes) in the GOP primary and goes for the AG gig in 2014 since Abbott is a likely contender for Lieutenant Governor ?
Reply »
bang can nuoc sonchongtham says:
Magnificent beat ! I wish to apprentice whilst you amend your site, how could i subscribe for a weblog web site? The account aided me a applicable deal. I had been a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast provided vibrant clear concept
Reply »