First, some quick catchup. As many will note, the Democratic primary for the US Senate has been heated recently ever since Wendy Davis endorsed David Alameel, a rather obscure candidate hitherto. This prompted some blowback from the other candidates –namely Maxey Scherr– over Almeel’s giving history to prominent Republicans, including the incumbent John Cornyn himself.
Accordingly, as The Texas Tribune reports, Alameel recently made a somewhat bizarre and quixotic request for a “refund” from these Republicans, including Cornyn. When asked by the Tribune to expand upon this idea, Alameel reportedly discussed his previous belief in the ideal of bipartisanship, allegedly justifying his expansive donations to both Democrats and Republicans. However, attributing the encroaching extremism in the modern day Republican Party, Alameel made it clear that he wished to dissolve his fiscal bands with the GOP.
In an obvious example of tongue-in-cheek humor, Cornyn responded to the unreasonable request. As The Dallas Morning News reports, Cornyn responded by noting just how indispensable his financial contribution was, invaluable for implementing his conservative agenda. Additionally, Cornyn made a point of referencing his steadfast conservatism over the years, including those in which Alameel was a contributor. Specifically, Cornyn twice referenced his impeccable credentials as a pro-life candidate, an obvious jab to Alameel, who now has faced criticisms from his left over the issue.
From the inbox:
“Dear Dr. Alameel,
Though my campaign has not received a formal request, I noticed media reports indicating you would like a refund of the political contributions you gave to my campaign committees in 2004 and 2005. I have always run as a conservative candidate in Texas, so it is unclear why such a refund would suddenly be warranted now. Just as I was then, I am proud to be a consistent voice for the life of the unborn, those who hold the 2nd amendment so dear, and finally all who believe the federal government has gotten too big. I presume you donated to Governor Rick Perry and Attorney General Greg Abbott for similar reasons.
Thanks in part to your support for Texas conservatives like myself, Gov. Perry, Attorney General Abbott, and others, Texas has implemented a successful pro-growth agenda, marked by prolific job creation thanks to lower government spending, less taxes, and limited regulations. Equally as important, Texas has cultivated a culture that respects life and the right to keep and bear arms.
As with all Texans who stand up and join the fight for conservatism, I thank you for your enthusiastic and generous support of these causes. Without your help, conservatives across Texas could not have fought back against the big-spending, big government, pro-choice agenda that Democrats in Washington, D.C. have tried for so long to impose on our state.
That fight continues, and, regrettably, it is one for which no dollar can be spared. Therefore, I must respectfully decline your request.
I look forward to seeing you on the campaign trail.
The other big news, also from The Texas Tribune, was that State Senator Leticia Van de Putte –also the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor– endorsed Alameel’s big for the Senate. “I am proud to endorse David Alameel not only because he’s the only Democrat who can beat John Cornyn, but because he will fight to hold Wall Street accountable, ensure a quality education for all Texas children and protect Social Security and Medicare,” Van de Putte said.
Much like when Davis endorsed Alameel, I am quite curious to know if the Senate candidate donated any significant sum of money to Van de Putte’s campaign. Her ringing endorsement is still somewhat perplexing to me, as is Davis’, given just how unrealistic it is to believe the Democrats will put up a fight in this race. Make no mistake, none of the candidates stand a chance of defeating Senator Cornyn, nor do any have a chance of breaking 40% of the vote.
I have sought comment from Alameel’s campaign now probably a half-dozen times, never to any avail. As always, I extend him an open invitation to discuss and defend his record. Because right now I am hard pressed to support someone who engaged in pay-to-play, access-driven politics outside of his largess.
Democrats in Texas need to figure out what type of system they wish to lead. As I have complained about ad nauseum in the past, we still do not bother contesting a fair share of the races. The typical indignation I receive as a result of such comments is that no candidate is better than a sub-par one, as some Democrats feared would occur if the party were more aggressive about recruiting candidates for the myriad judicial posts that went unopposed. However, this line of reasoning has simply gone out the window in supporting Alameel’s candidacy. No longer is it about the purest or the most acceptable candidate, but the one that will simply fill the ballot and the coffers.
Don’t get me wrong, I am quite sympathetic to this argument and think there is something to be said about quantity over quality in this type of politics. Such is the reason I have gotten in so many tiffs about the whole “laziness” thing vis-a-vis uncontested races. If I could get a clear answer out of Alameel, I would even humor the idea of supporting his candidacy. I just wish more of my political contemporaries would be a little more consistent and upfront about it all. I’m confused, how about you?