Empower play
The following article was posted by Michael Quinn Sullivan on the Empower Texans Web site. My comments appear below:
Texas Monthly’s Liberal Best
Submitted by MQSullivan on Thu, 06/11/2009 – 10:11am.
The Texas Monthly Best & Worst lists are little more than a front for a left-wing ideological agendas. Remember who chooses the Best and Worst: liberal reporters anchored by editor Paul Burka. One of his lead writers, Patricia Kilday Hart, even wrote that the ten-best slots were open for anyone pushing liberal causes. I snidely suggested conservatives would find more friends on the “ten worst” list.
Turns out I wasn’t too far off.
TMs “Ten Best” includes six Republicans versus four Democrats. See how bipartisan they are; Texas Monthly (hearts) Republicans! The Ten Worst? Five Republicans and five Democrats. Bipartisanship blooms!
Ah, but not where it counts. Texas Monthly peppered their “Ten Best” with big-taxers and spenders. The “Ten Worst” with fiscal heroes.
Let’s look at the Republicans on the lists.
The average rating on the Fiscal Responsibility Index of the Texas Monthly “Ten Best” Republicans is a 56.25%. Big-time failing. Among TMs heroes is State Sen. John Carona, who distinguished himself this Session by pushing for higher taxes and fees to fund boondoggle transportation projects without any accountability or transparency.
TM, of course, specifically praised Carona for seeking to impose new taxes and fees.
Seven of the “Ten Best” legislators had failing scores on the Fiscal Responsibility Index.
The average rating for the Texas Monthly “Ten Worst” Republicans is 82.43%. TM scolded stalwart taxpayer heroes like Sen. Troy Fraser and Reps. Debbie Riddle and Wayne Christian.
The magazine’s bias against conservatives runs deeper; their “honorable” and “dishonorable” mentions make for an even stronger case of their bias. In issue after issue, the magazine does little to reflect the common-sense conservativism that runs deep in the state whose name they [c]arry.
With their corporate owners in Indiana, Texas Monthly has become little more than a barely entertaining style magazine, catering to liberal “sensibilities” with a slight Texas twang. In the upside down world of politics, read Texas Monthly in a mirror. The best tend to be the worst. The worst, the best friends of taxpayers.
* * * *
My response:
You evaluate politicians by applying a single litmus test. We evaluate politicians by looking at character, personality, and performance. You write for people who think like you do. We write for people who think.
We don’t have the luxury of looking at the Legislature through a single prism. We have Republican readers and we have Democratic readers; we have liberal readers and we have conservative readers. Each of these groups expect us to be fair. The Best and Worst Legislators story could not have flourished for 36 years if our audience perceived us to be biased in one direction or the other. We don’t constrict our judgment with rigid ideological tests like a “fiscal responsibility index.” Rather, our approach to the lists is to try to reflect the consensus of the Capitol community, tempered by our own judgment about who has performed well and who has performed badly.
Still, you insist, in the face of ample evidence to the contrary, that our Best and Worst lists are “little more than a front for a left-wing ideological agenda.” Whose agenda would that be? Would it be the “left-wing ideological agenda” of Jim Pitts, who passed the House version of the appropriations bill through a Republican-majority chamber by a vote of 149-0, and who did not touch the Rainy Day Fund, and whose budget spent $4 billion less than the Senate’s?. Or possibly you are referring to the “left-wing ideological agenda” of John Otto, whom we praised for being a fiscal watchdog and for keeping a careful eye on the state debt ceiling. Michael: Let me ask you something. Did you even bother to read the article before you wrote about it?
I see that you singled out Senator John Carona for criticism: “Among TM’s heroes is State Sen. John Carona, who distinguished himself this [s]ession by pushing for higher taxes and fees to fund boondoggle transportation projects without any accountability or transparency. TM, of course, specifically praised Carona for seeking to impose new taxes and fees.” It seems to me that you’re trying to seize the low ground here. What we specifically praised Senator Carona for was trying to solve a problem. Carona did not seek to impose any taxes. He sought to allow people in choked metropolitan areas the choice of whether to tax themselves to pay for new roads. The ironic thing about this is that local control used to be a basic tenet of conservatism, as did the notion that the government that governs best is the government that is closest to the people.
Finally, I am amused to read your comment that Texas Monthly does little to reflect the common-sense conservativism that runs deep in the state whose name we carry — proudly. Litmus tests and the efforts of a few to enforce a Grover Norquist-style orthodoxy are not common-sense conservatism.
Anonymous says:
I think someone touched a nerve. Its hard to take seriously a publication that shakes down lawyers for advertising dollars and then publishes glamour shots of them and calls the “SUPER LAWYERS”.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Hey, we have just as much right to participate in the free enterprise system as anybody else.
Reply »
Travis Monitor Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Sen Dan Patrick was an effective legislator who delivered on lower taxes for small business in Texas via an increase in the exemption for the margins tax. The fact that you would ignore him while in effect lauding Sen Carona for his end-of-session temper tantrum (ready to shut down the Senate over local gas tax increase before the House pre-empted him in their do-nothingness) tells quite a bit.
PB: “What we specifically praised Senator Carona for was trying to solve a problem. Carona did not seek to impose any taxes. He sought to allow people in choked metropolitan areas the choice of whether to tax themselves.”
Thank you for brilliantly making Michael Quinn Sullivan’s point. You put Senator Carona in the top ten because he was in favor of the local option gas tax; the goal at the end of the day was to get a new tax put in place; if that wasnt the goal they wouldnt have fought so hard for it. Time and again you give ‘profile in courage’ awards to those who are working to increase taxes and spending.
We already have a diversion of a billion in gas taxes for education. Adding to that diversion at the local level will not fix transportation. taxing car drivers to subsidize train riders will not fix transportation. Local municipalities, specifically 4a/4b cities, already have a local sales tax that can be used to fund their needs. Here in Austin they tapped into it to deliver a cost-overrunning train system. These communities need to prioritize their spending instead of raising taxes. Further diversion of gas taxes for light rail boondoggles is neither common sense nor conservative and will not solve traffic congestion problems, due to the low ridership.
“The ironic thing about this is that local control used to be a basic tenet of conservatism”
That argument would be valid only if we were to REPLACE the Federal and state gas taxes with local only gas taxes. Rather, this is an add-on gas tax that will add to the gas tax diversion.
Now there may be differences of opinions on this, but you have made the local-option gas tax as much of a “rigid ideological test” as Michael Quinn Sullivan.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
While Rome burns … you want to stop the people who are attempting to come up with a citizen approved plan to put out the fire. I just don’t get it. If not taxes, what? What is YOUR gameplan?
Ted Anagnostopoulus Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Yeah, those glamour shots issues of Texas Monthly are the main reason I dropped my subscription. When you look at TM on the newstand it appears at first to be full of a lot of good articles, but after you remove all the ads and “glamour shots” sections it boils down to a third of its original size.
Reply »
Elsbeth says:
Sullivan is an Aggie. According to his Facebook, a fan of Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich, among others. That’s all I ever needed to know.
Reply »
Travis Monitor Reply:
June 13th, 2009 at 12:51 am
90% of the anti-Sullivan comments on this blog post are simply ad hominem.
EMpower Texans/TFR ratings are transparent and pretty straightforward: He ranked the legislators based on about 20 votes on taxes and spending. A legislator is graded on their votes. Every group from Common Cause to the NRA uses this kind of scoring.
Attacking Sullivan for merely noticing what is transparently obvious – “huh, Texas Monthly graded the low scorers high and high scorers low” – and doing it with churlish arrogance (“for people who think”) and ad hominems is the response of a stuck pig who’s been caught, not the response of a group in the right.
Reply »
well done says:
nice response paul.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
PAC’s who use the name “Citizen” or “Texans” in their name try to make it look like millions of our next door neighbors are sending them money to support their efforts. In reality, they are funded by Big Money and Big Business. While hiding under the mask of a tax fighter, here’s what Empower Texans (Texans for Fiscal Responsibility) really do:
1. Luminant & Reliant, and all the other ancillory players have Fraser, as head of the Senate Business & Commerce Committee, squash SB1480, SB1481 and SB2128. All were consumer friendly, and electricity related, and would have added protections for the consumer and saved them some money every month. Sen. Fraser did not allow any of these bills to be brought up before his committee. He was also slated to carry Burt Solomons omnibus electricity bill that died in the House, but then refused to hear it in committee when Wendy Davis brought it back to life. He did the utility’s bidding, and in return, he gets his name on the Empower Texans website, the utility companies send money to Fraser’s campaign chest, and they also send money to support a 39 year old puppet at Empower Texans.
Phil King is on their list. He made sure that the utilties got millions in tax abatements as an incentive to build clean coal power plants that they would have built without the incentive.
Tan Parker is on their list. He wanted to give the same utility companies added millions in tax abatements for building nuclear power plants that they are already seeking permits to build. Sen. Harris caught this and killed the bill. Sen. Harris is not on the Empower Texans list.
What does Michael Q. Sullivan have to say about the tax income that his support groups won’t have to pay…that will have to be made up by the rest of us? When I close my eyes, I see both of Mr. Sullivan’s faces.
People who run most PAC’s are prostitutes that do and say whatever the people handing them money want them to say … in this case it appears to be the two giants who control the vast majority of electricity generation, transmission, and wholesale and retail sales in our state. Empower Texans is the epitome of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Reply »
Michael Sullivan Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
John,
We don’t get money from any of the folks you suggest — though might not turn a check if it arrived. The votes we used are clearly noted on our website, and were telegraphed to the members in advance. Despite your confusion over our name, we don’t work on electricity issues, and didn’t score any of the votes you mention.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Michael, there are “Citizen” this, and “Texan” that, that are all tied together …separate PAC’s, but individuals who work for both…and the same companies who contribute to most all of them. The roots of each are all intertwined and balled up together. It’s tough, alright, to figure out how the maze was constructed, but I would guess that this was done intentionally.
My question remains, how is it that most of your “best list” fiscal conservatives are giving our money away to the BIGS while squashing what are considered to be “consumer friendly” bills.
Seems odd to me.
And I forgot to mention earlier, that Wayne Christian, one of your “best”, was responsible for derailing “consumer friendly” ethics legislation. Wasn’t he?
Do your “best” guys have something against the consumer? It would seem so.
Reply »
slick says:
Michael Quinn Sullivan is the winner here — he and his organization of true believer wackos got some nice free pub. His rant doesn’t deserve comment.
Reply »
cow droppings says:
local control is not a tenet of conservatism, but a tool. Conservatives use it as a tool to advance the cause of conservatism, not the tool itself. But you could argue that local control can advance the cause of liberalism too. For instance, Austin liberal reps may resist legislative intrusion into local policies set at city hall — on a host of issues, including environmental ordinances — saying bud out, don’t interfere with local control. As such, local control advances the liberal agenda of the local ordinance makers. But it is not of itself inherently liberal.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:35 am
Conservatives don’t like the paternalistic nature of “government.”
Don’t want government telling us what’s good for us; or what’s not good for us.
OK.
But then some of these folks don’t want to give voters an election choice when it comes to a local option tax increases to finance local transporation projects.
That’s the same paternalistic attitude conservatives otherwise rail against.
Sounds like a whole lot of good-old-fashioned hypocrisy.
Reply »
Travis Monitor Reply:
June 13th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Give us the local option to get OUT of state or Federal taxes and then we’d be talking about real local option. This is not that.
If not, then all you really got is another avenue for tax increases and another avenue for further diversion of gas taxes away from roads. What, 1% sales tax is not enough for light rail?!?
Yup. Sounds like a whole lot of good-old-fashioned hypocrisy.
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
Paul, you did Sullivan a favor in responding to him. He wants to 1) raise money and 2) achieve some kind of relevece, and that’s why he attacked you whacky libs over at TM. By responding to him, you legitimized him.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
MQS is a dragon, not a dragon slayer. He is the pit bull used by the internecine wing of the R’s to go after the R’s not under their thumb. already blogging about the Straus chairs scoring low. I agree with Jeff Crosby, you just gave him legitimacy and a fund-raising tool.
Reply »
Texas Democrat says:
Texas A&M is a pretty good school, despite Perry’s pimps running the show.
Reply »
Elsbeth Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Including him. But I do agree that they’re not all wacko. I know quite a few that are normal.
Reply »
rosemary says:
What is so bad with holding legislators up to a standard of allowing tax payers to keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets? Burka was burning…MQS 1 PB 0
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Well, Rosemary, why not allow hard-working taxpayers decide IF they want to pay a higher gasoline tax, for example, to generate revenue for investment in local transit projects?
IF they don’t, you move on. But give them the option, for crying out loud.
Maybe you think it’s good that the gas tax has not increased in 18 years? All that means is that you can’t invest in the future of your children and grandchildren.
Do you know what has happened to the cost of right-of-way acquisition in 18 years….or the cost of construction?
The state is running out of transportation money.
What happens to the cost of shipping goods and commerce when they sit in clogged traffic?
What about the value of your time when you get stuck in traffic?
The state’s population grows by more than 1,000 people each and every day. But no investment in infrastructure?
What might have happened in the 1950s if folks then had decided to keep their hard-earned money in their pocketbooks – instead of investing in an interstate highway system ….for the future…for us?
Why are you unwilling to invest in the future?
Reply »
Travis Monitor Reply:
June 13th, 2009 at 1:01 am
“The state is running out of transportation money.”
We need to stop diverting our gas tax to other purposes to fix the problems you speak of.
“Why are you unwilling to invest in the future?”
Great question. Great question ask the retards who stopped the charter school expansion this session, depriving a better education to thousands of schoolkids and hurintg Texas’ future. My own son was on a charter school list for K-5 – they had 4X the applicants compared to spaces. That’s absurd, but its reality right here in Austin. Charter schools are more effective and cost less than the Govt-run schools.
The charter school caps are wrong … and yet, the people responsible for that stupidity are put on Texas Monthly’s ‘best list’.
Go figure.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Rosemary, you’re not keeping more of it. It’s the old slight of hand game. While making it look like they are fighting for decreased taxes, they actually work for utility companies, insurance companies, commmunications companies, and many others. The end result being that our monthly rates and fees, for the services we cannot live without, get higher and higher.
Reply »
he's right says:
Paul face it you’re got a hair across your rear on this. Sullivan is correct to point out what your own writers and you say. If you’re for more government you’re good and if you’re for less you’re bad.
Name one fiscal conservative who has made the ten best who did not champion a new, larger role for government?
Look at the facts your vision is blurred by your bias. Your rebuttal is beneath even your normal snippiness. You’re a partisan hack, we know it you know it every one knows it. It does not change anything.
Reply »
Michael H. says:
John, I don’t know how you think Empower Texans is funded, or who is behind it, but the only people I’ve heard talking about MQS (other than attack pieces) are grassroots people who are just neighbors and good citizens. People like me have day jobs and families – we aren’t lobbyists or big money
And we sure don’t have a platform like T.M. publishing on our behalf.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
I guess we agree that we disagree. I’ve made my point, Michael H.
Many of the people on ET’s best list squashed or killed consumer friendly bills… and ethics legislation, as well.
You can almost go down the list and then research what they actually did and didn’t do this session. If you take the time to do this, and not just listen to the propaganda that folks like M.Q.Sullivan feed you, your perspective might change a bit.
I don’t always agree with many of Paul and Patti’s stances, but I respect and appreciate the forum they have given us for applauding or poo-poo’ing them. I am also happy that it gives me an opportunity to respectfully tell you that I do not think that you are not seeing the big picture.
Since you are a participant here, I thing that you probably feel the same.
Reply »
Kimmy says:
What strong fiscal conservative accomplishments did we have this session? That could be attributed to the leadership of a particular conservative?
I could see where it COULD have happened… If, for instance, Linda Harper-Brown had a higher profile role on the TxDOT bill. Or, say, Perry had pushed something of the significance of tort reform… Or if, for instance, Gattis or Kolkhorst had stepped up with a particular agenda item this session…
But that’s not the way the Speaker’s race went down, fwiw. We all have our biases. Of course. But Burka can’t conjure the conservative session that didn’t happen if Craddick (and Dewhurst) had been in strong leadership positions in the chambers. Even Perry had a rather inconsequential session with minimal activity… remember jumping the rail for asbestos?
Reply »
Kimmy says:
Michael H:
Leininger is one of the big funders behind Empower Texans. And he certainly has a right to do so…
Reply »
Austintatious says:
Bravo Paul. Well said.
Reply »
Pat says:
Somebody at Empower Texans told me that in addition to being a crazy communist, Paul Burka is a secret muslim and wasn’t born in America! He can’t constitutionally be a journalist!
Reply »
Prince Royal Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Pat, are you referring to Paul Hussein Burka?
Reply »
Phillip Martin says:
Paul’s got a point, Michael.
Burka is the spokesperson for common-sense conservatism — not you. Given that long history and admiration of his for the conservative principles of governance, you really can’t say he has a left-wing ideological agenda.
That’s unfair to all us liberals.
Reply »
Elsbeth Reply:
June 11th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Especially all us common-sense liberals.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
yes. . . other than attack pieces. who funds those?
Reply »
Steven says:
But look underneath the numbers. One issue, the local option for transportation funding, accounts for almost a quarter of the Senate criteria votes (3 of the 13 criteria, numbers 2-SB 855, 8-SJR 52, and 10-HB 300). And an unspecified additional negative weighting was added for the Senate author/coauthors of SB 855 (TLOTA). Seems selective, almost targeted.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Looks like the Burka sycophants are out in force today.
Reply »
DGA says:
Since October of 2008 Empower Texans PAC has collected roughly $353,000 from “working Texans.” Unfortunately, $339,500 or 96% comes in this form:
$5,000 from Tom Craddick Campaign on 12/10/08
$103,000 from Tim Dunn – Oil Executive from Midland/Austin as well as founder of Empower Texans
$81,500 from Ken Legler Campaign 10/10/08 & 10/23/08
$100,000 from James Leininger – Doctor on 10/15/08
$50,000 from Bob Perry – Houston Homebuilder on 9/22
So Mike…when 5 contributors take care of 96% of your funding how are you “Empowering Texans”? You are the stooge of these guys and they dont give a crap about the Texans you claim to protect.
Reply »
Michael Sullivan Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:04 am
DGA — Just like four or five trial lawyers in Texas fund the overwhelming share of left-of-center causes, big donors are found everywhere. We also had more than 300 individual donors to the Empower Texans PAC — which is less than a year old. As for our operating entity, Texans fir Fiscal Responsibility / Empower Texans, it is a 501c4 (no tax deduction for contributions). The annual 990 forms are public information.
As to the other. We publish clearly and upfront what we believe and what our goals are. Anyone who wants to give to that pro-Texans agenda is welcome to do so, at any level they desire.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Mr. Sullivan:
Perhaps you would be willing to share some of your funding information. As far as filed semi-annual reports and maintained contributions go, the Texas Ethics Commission’s files don’t show much on Empower Texas or Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. Are you associated with any other PAC’s? Do any employees of your PAC work for other PAC’s as well? Any info you could give us about committee would be appreciated. Your website doesn’t give much info along these lines.
Reply »
Michael Sullivan Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:07 am
Texans for Fiscal Responsibility / Empower Texans is a 501c4 (no tax deduction for contributions). The annual 990 forms are public information. The Texas Ethics Commission does not administer corporations in Texas.
Our PAC has no employees. I am not associated with any other PAC, nor have I ever been.
Reply »
Paul Burka's Research Assistant says:
lol. of course liberals like you want Burka to be “conservatism.” Then anyone who is to the right of Burka (who isn’t on the right: newsflash at 11) must be crazy.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Please will someone realize that Texans for fiscal responsibility put HB 2511 on their scorecard. By the way it has nothing to do with taxes. nothing at all. It has to do with disclosure of unlimited corporate contributions. I ask MS to actually give us a similarity of this bill to McCain Feingold. Just highlight the sections please and explain why John Roberts supreme court decision asked for clarity.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
well, DGA, all *FIVE* presumably work and are Texans. Sorry, have to go, laughing so hard . .
Reply »
anonymouse2 says:
Elsbeth Reply: June 11th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
“Especially all us common-sense liberals.”
That’s rich. “common-sense” and “liberals” in the same sentence. (BTW, “common sense” does not need to be hyphenated. Are you perhaps a product of the Texas public school system or do you just read too many poorly written blogs?)
June 11th, 2009 at 8:00 pm Phillip Martin says:
“Paul’s got a point, Michael. … That’s unfair to all us liberals.”
Yeah, well, you got him. He’s a lot more like you (or vice versa?) than regular folk.
And John, John, John … Johnson, where in the Hell did you find a school that would give you a GED without passing logic and sentence structure courses? Floozikins looks good compared to you.
Reply »
KB Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
When two words are used as a single adjective, as “common” and “sense” were in this case, they are hyphenated. Get an education.
Reply »
anonymouse2 says:
Well, how lucky is John tonight? I just happened across this “consumer friendly” proposal from his and Paul’s federal government:
“The use of company-issued mobile phones could trigger new federal income taxes on millions of Americans as a “fringe benefit.”
The Internal Revenue Service proposed employers assign 25% of an employee’s annual phone expenses as a taxable benefit. Under that scenario, a worker in the 28% tax bracket, whose wireless device costs the company $1,500 a year, could see $105 in additional federal income tax.
The IRS, in a notice issued this week, said employees could avoid tax liability if they showed proof they used personal cellphones for nonbusiness calls during work hours.”
If anyone chips in with the old, “I don’t think $105 is too much to pay for …”, you’ve missed the point.
And you people have problems with Michael Quinn Sullivan?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 6:58 am
You have it all wrong, Anonymouse2, I hate taxes as much as anyone, but I supported our Metroplex area’s right to vote on taxing to solve the gridlock that is about to transpire. It is ONE option, and one that we should have been able to address here locally and decide. No one else is coming up with anything viable.
As for Empower Texans, I hold firm in my beliefs that they do the Big Boys’ bidding. They pull the strings and Sullivan bounces one direction or the other. All I know is that the people on their best list give a massive amount of our money away, or kill legislation that would protect the consumer and would keep monthly expenses down. This is the bottomline. Empower Texans is no friend of the average Texan.
Sorry, Elsbeth, that the way I express myself is not up to your standards. Didn’t know we were being graded; didn’t know that there were internet police out there that monitored such things. Please give yourself a gold star. You caught me. This being said, don’t expect anything different from me. Hope you are able to understand this without confusion.
Reply »
Elsbeth Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
I think you have me confused with Anonymouse2 who was quoting me and then said very rude things about me and John (is that you?) after doing so. Look at it again. It’s hard to see that since I was being quoted.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
My apologies, Elsbeth. I see that Anonymouse2 is indeed the one with the spelling and sentence structure hang-ups. Hope we don’t ever have a face to face, ’cause I write like I talk.
Anonymous says:
Still lmao, but DGA did you happen to see Legler’s campaign finance report to see that really he only gave the $81,500 to Empower Texans for a mail piece and tv ad on his behalf? Wonder what the other ‘working Texans’ got for their donations?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Anonymouse2, where did you get your education? If it takes the two words together to describe the noun, a hyphen is required.
You’re welcome.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Anon 11:38, you are onto something about 2511. A cursory glance at pac reports will undoubtedly show that ET gets its biggest financial boost just BEFORE the PRIMARIES. Remember, the internecine wing nut. Let’s hope they don’t whittle away the last 2 man margin (oops forgot the hyphen).
Reply »
the bigeasy 2000 says:
Very good an bullseye reply on this one Paul!
Reply »
whatareyousoscaredof? says:
MQS and his ilk are like the aging pensioner on the beach in Florida. The tide comes in but it always goes out – taking ever more sand right out from under their feet. You can run and hide from the demographic and political realites just around the corner, but ultimately they WILL catch you.
In a session marked by a rush to the middle, the right wing extremists continue to show their true colors: more corporatist than conservative, more interested in their literal and metaphoric beach houses than ideology or policy. They SHOULD be scared by the rise of compromise, reason and moderation. It undermines the core of their identity and basic strategy: pitting Texans against Texans. Did anyone else happen to notice that no African-American or Hispanic legislators make the grade on the “Index”? Just sayin’…
The relevance of ET, TPPF, Americans for Prosperity, and the comically inept Eagle Forum dwindles by the day. That said, Slick above is right. I can’t believe I just spent 10 minutes thinking about these people.
Reply »
Bill Eastland Reply:
June 13th, 2009 at 1:15 am
If ET, TPPF, AFP and EF are irrelevant (and don’t forget TURF), then how were they so spectacularly successful in stopping SB855/HB9?
The LOTA got thru the Senate with over 70% support but as it was about to be placed on the House calendar it was pulled because the two Party Floor Leaders reported the House was split 50-50 and it was losing votes by the day. To avoid a loss in the House, Carona had the Senate tack it onto the TXDOT Sunset bill (HB300) that had already passed the House and was making its way thru the Senate.
Then a funny thing happened when HB300 got back to the House. The Dem Chair of Transportation, Joe Pickett (a 40 score from ET), moved to instruct the conferees to strip the LOTA from it and it passed 86 to 59 (as adjusted).
What was happening–why did the vote turn so strongly against the LOTA? All those groups you mentioned, and more, were causing the phones in Austin to melt. Not quite what you would expect from ‘dwindling relevance.’
Reply »
Elsbeth says:
Since I was accused of being incorrect in my grammar usage (Anonymous 12:02 AM), I would like to thank whoever vouched for the “polite” use of the hyphen (Anonymous 1:11 AM).
And yes, I learned good grammar and good manners in public schools in Texas. Thank you. (Anonymous 12:02 AM)
Oh, and one of the other Anonymous’ at 6:58 AM, I have no idea what you are talking about. But I can understand how you may have thought I said something I didn’t. Reading this blog requires being wide awake and sober. No need to apologize.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
The 6:58 was from me, Professor.
Please give me the defintion of “rude”, “discourteous”, and “pompous”.
Do these fall under the “mannerly” category? If not, you might want to do another self-evaluation.
Reply »
Elsbeth Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I have replied to this upthread. You are confused about who made the very rude comments.
Reply »
Mary says:
Thanks, Anonymous, for your reply to Anonymouse2 on the adverb thingy. Who in the heck does she think she is?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Why a homeschooler, Mary! Duh!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Just as was suggested, MQS is all over facebook using this as a fundraiser. . .
Reply »
John Mecklin says:
Only in Texas could Paul Burka be considered a liberal. (Or, maybe, central and southern Indiana, where his corporate masters reside.)
There are reasonable critiques to make of Texas Monthly. The one Burka responded to is unreasonable raving, of the wingnut/McCarthyite type that has retarded Texas economic and cultural growth for decades. To put it another way: Voting straight down the line to do whatever the business powers-that-be want is not good governance, or even conservatism. It is political whoremongering, and it hurts the general welfare of the state in countless ways.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Amen, John. Sullivan is a whore. An active agressive whore. Some might even say a smart whore. He has used Mr. Burka, much like Limbaugh did Obama, to raise awareness of himself.
It should be pointed out that all the “best legislators” on his website are whores, also.
Reply »
Anon says:
“…retarded Texas economic and cultural growth for decades.”
- 12th largest economy in the world;
- Over 1 million jobs added in the last 5 years;
- Most Fortune 500 HQs in the nation;
- TX unemployment rate 6.7% vs. U.S. 9.4%;
Try again, bub.
You want to see what retarded economic growth looks like, just look to the West Coast.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Anon at 12:50
Your citings, accurate as they are, resemble quarterly earnings reports.
It’s a temporary snapshot. What about longer term?
Texas ranks:
No. 43 in home ownership rate
No. 50 in homeowner insurance affordability.
No. 50 in rate of uninsured children.
No. 50 in percentage of residents with high school diploma.
No. 46 in SAT scores.
No. 1 teenage birth rate
No. 1 air pollution emissions
No. 1 toxic chemicals released into water
No. 50 percent of voting age population that votes.
The list goes on and on….but you get the picture.
Former state demographer Steve Murdock told us what’s fix’n to happen in the out-years given the current trendline.
But ….few are tuned in.
Try again, bub
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
June 13th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
this truly shows how disingenuous statistics are when taken out of context. We are the only state in the nation with a 1,200 mile border with a third world country. Of course we have a higher rate of uninsured citizens, a lower home ownership rate and lower SAT scores because of the influx of poor people from south of our border.
We also have the largest energy economy in the nation. So, yes, we have high emissions. But you have to ignore the recent PEW report on how high we rank as a clean energy economy to claim we are an environmental eyesore.
We have worse weather patterns than just about every state, hence higher homeowner insurance rates.
The bottom line is this: if you hate Texas so much you can leave, because millions of folks will fill your spot, buy your $4 latte in your place, pay that insurance rate, even work with a small business without health insurance because all other things considered, this is a damn special place to live (no matter how much libs denigrate it like the Al Gore 2000 presidential campaign.)
Reply »
Anonymous says:
third in teen birth rate, not first
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I stand corrected. The last time I checked (last fall) Texas ranked No. 1.
CDC has updated stats.
Mississippi is No. 1 for teenbirth rates followed by New Mexico and Texas.
Reply »
Wonka Tonka says:
Nice response, Paul.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I guess now that the Legislature is out of session, all the democratic staffers can sit around and post on Burka Blog.
Reply »
1393574|=|= says:
Anon @ 4:59- Yes; collecting unemployment checks for which we are not drug tested. Oh, and we’re happy to inform small business owners that the tax increase they are going to experience (because we’re smoking dope and collecting ubemployment, just like the other several hundred thousand Texas who are currently jobless) can be attributed to Michael Quinn Sullivan’s Ten Best.
You’re welcome, Texas.
Reply »
Dos Salsas says:
My thought on Tim Dunn’s cabana boy, a.k.a. Michael Quinn Sullivan:
There are few things in life more pathetic than someone who believes himself to be relevant, and is mistaken.
Michael Quinn Sullivan, with his letterhead, fax machine and e-mail distribution list, is a complete non-entity whose sole talent seems to be the ability to mildly annoy legislators.
Neither he nor his “organization” have any effect on legislation or policy on any level, despite his claims to the contrary.
He is nothing more than a failed small-town newspaper reporter (if the errors and fragmented sentences on his blog are any indication, it is no wonder why), who works at the whim of wealthy idealogues. When they tire of playing in the political sandbox, he will fade into even further obscurity. If such a place even exists.
Reply »
MQS says:
“Let the state reporters, pundits, lobbyists and liberal apologists beware: The way government approaches issues is going to be different,” wrote Michael Quinn Sullivan, the foundation’s media director, about the November [2002] election results. “The debate has changed: New spending will be scrutinized more, and old spending must be justified. Once-sacred programs now will have to prove their worth to the taxpayer.”
Wow, those were the days…
Reply »
1393574|=|= says:
Was VoterID part of the litmus test, along withHB2511? MQS is a joke– if we’re being serious. Neither of these “election reform” had any fiscal impact… Unless of course we were to include voter education on SB 362, but that would be a multi-million dollar, and several thousand educated D voter impact. But Betty Brown wouldn’t stand for that (as per her House-wide email detailing such…)…
To directly address MQS, let me tell you that only a very select few of the D offices (if any) acknowledges the worth of you, your blog, your “constituent letters,” or your pimple-faced interns, except for comedic relief at the bar.
You are fighting a losing battle.
Reply »
pattihart@austin.rr.com says:
Michael Quinn Sullivan claims that “One of his lead writers, Patricia Kilday Hart, even wrote that the ten-best slots were open for anyone pushing liberal causes.” Here is the article that he is apparently referring to:
http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/?p=3953
I can only conclude that MQS believes that Kip Averitt’s CHIP buy-in bill, which passed the Texas Senate with only two dissenting votes: Nichols and Nelson
(http://www.journals.senate.state.tx.us/sjrnl/81r/pdf/81RSJ05-06-F.PDF#page=22) is a “liberal cause.” An interesting claim, given the widespread support reflected in the Senate Journal.
It’s worth noting that Michael does not provide links in his article accusing TM of liberal bias. That would allow his readers to see just how out of context his claims are.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Fagettaboutit. ET, as has been pointed out, is 5 guys and a “cabana boy” all pushing, through this PAC and several others, to make more money under the gise of helping “Texans”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 300 or so, $5 contributors, haven’t caught on yet. Drop this nonsense. No more about it. You’ll have Mr. Sullivan walking down Lover’s Lane, holding hands with himself. He’s gotten way too much ink here.
Reply »
rosemary says:
Go Michael GO! You’re doing just what you want to do…get a conversation going and keep the heat on. Yes, you got under Burka’s skin and the rest of the libs. Standing up for the folks in Texas who just want to earn an honest living, keep more of their money in their own pockets to spend on their families and standing against the overreach of the government is definitely goint against the grain. And if you have to annoy a few legislators to get their attention in the process: GOOD FOR YOU! Keep up the good work for the hardworking people of Texas.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Rosemary … I am conservative …I’m not a politician.
All we want to do here in the Metroplex is control our own destiny and have a chance to discuss what we want to do and how we want to do it before gridlock sets in. The key to this was taking a regional vote.
We don’t like increased taxes, but there are no better plans coming out of Austin and the dog is about to hit the end of its chain.
As for the people Mr. Sullivan has on his “best” list, they did help shoot down HB300, but 2 guys on his list were also responsible for killing over 6 bills that would have help save both the R and D consumers money each month on their electricity bills, and 2 others submitted bills that would give close to $200 million in tax abatements to the two giant power generating companies in the state as an incentive to build clean coal and nuclear power plants that they were planning to build without any incentive.
Let’s see … higher taxes that we approve – that improves our standard of living, or higher monthly electricity bills that just add more dollars to two big companies bank accounts? Which is more palatable?
Check it out. It’ all stinky.
Reply »
eam says:
MQS is a chief spokesperson for Crazytown. That’s about all the recognition he deserves.
P.S. Thank you MQS for trying to “sink” a Children’s Hospital vote in El Paso. Every kid healed in that hospital should be reminded of you and the Texas you represent.
Reply »
Ted Anagnostopoulus Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Yes, it is always for the children. MQS is an evil monster that must eat children. The only way to save the children is more big government. That is the only answer and if you don’t agree you are a spokeshuman for MentalIllnesstown!
Reply »
eam says:
… and blanket sarcasm is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
Reply »
Bill Eastland Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 11:59 am
No, ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
Reply »
Freddy Farkle says:
It is really sad how TM has sunk over the years. Burka used to be such a keen observer and commentator. Now he’s just become a leftist attack dog in the guise of a journalist, and he can’t see it himself. I don’t subscribe any more, and I read TM less and less often. It may be time for new blood or a new periodical.
Reply »
eam says:
I still believe in a place called Crazytown.
Reply »
DCSam says:
I didn’t think you had liberals in Texas.
What exactly is a liberal Texan? Someone who thinks you should be limited to a dozen automatic weapons?
I guess it’s all relative. A liberal in Texas probably wouldn’t qualify as a moderate in Iran.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Sitting in my home in southern Oklahoma with a Masters Degree tucked somewhere in my past, I’m still amazed at why I just received a speech, obviously at the behest of a computer on my telephone, from a Texas politician extolling his virtues and demeaning that of his opponent. In this time of national financial fiscal responsibility, he might want to look into the mirror of fiscal financial responsibility prior to throwing stones at another. Although, it is a cloudy day and the whims of technology are often mysterious.
Reply »