Texpatriate endorses for the US Senate

We tend to swing back and forward on prioritizing issues and prioritizing experience & leadership skills when it comes to campaigns, elections and endorsements. Most of us agree that Senator John Cornyn, the Republican incumbent who has been in office for twelve years, is a strong choice in the leadership department while his Democratic challenger, David Alameel, beats him in the policy arena. All in all, though, this board believes its squabbles on policy with Cornyn outweigh our preferences with him on leadership, and we therefore will support his competitor.

In this era of Tea Party upstart leaders who come out of nothing rather abruptly, Cornyn has been an exception to the rule. He is a slow but steady growing leader for Republicans in Texas. Before he entered the Senate in late 2002, he served for one term as Attorney General and about one-and-a-half on the Texas Supreme Court. Originally, Cornyn’s experience was in the judiciary, as he started out electorally as a District Judge in his home of San Antonio. Furthermore, Cornyn has spent his years in the Senate somewhat productively, moving up the food chain ever-so-efficiently until he recently became Minority Whip, the second highest ranking Republican. The country faces the distinct, though very real, possibility that Cornyn could even be the Majority Leader of the Senate come January.

All this is to say that, if Texas voters choose to repudiate Cornyn in his quest for a third term, the state would lose a lot. But it would also lose a consistent voice against everyday Texans, one indubitably without their best interests at heart. Despite what Cornyn’s many extreme Republican primary challengers may have suggested earlier this year, the incumbent is indeed a true conservative. So true, in fact, that his positions should not continue to have a home in the United States Senate.

Cornyn continues to be a driving force behind the asinine movement to amend the constitution in order to ban same-sex marriages. Once, he likened the idea to a man loving a box turtle. He also has stood against even the most reasonable gun regulations or bipartisan accommodations designed to keep the government afloat when Tea Party zealots were extorting Washington into austerity. After vanquishing rightist challengers in this year’s primary, you would think that Cornyn could move toward the center, but instead he has sadly doubled down on the very same type of partisan rhetoric.

David Alameel, the Democratic challenger, is not a strong candidate. His considerable largess allowed him to bully the state’s top political brass into supporting him over more qualified and more interesting candidates in the Democratic primary, with the ultimately false assumption that he would be amenable to spending some of his fortune during the campaign. Unfortunately, he has been missing in action from heavy politicking for many months now. We’re not holding our breaths for a sudden reversal.

We have some serious reservations about his qualifications, temperament and other characterizations. But on policy, there is a night and day difference. Alameel is pro-LGBT rights, wants to end neoconservative foreign policy elements and supports reasonable gun regulations.

It is still an open question as to if Alameel would make an effective Senator. But Cornyn has, without a doubt, lost our confidence as one, so we are willing to take a chance on a replacement, specifically one who we agree with on principle. Accordingly, this board endorses David Alameel for the United States Senate.

A dissent to the Editorial was also published
I largely agree with the platitudes espoused by the remainder of the editorial board, and their assessment of strengths and weaknesses among the candidates. We just disagree on which one should be prioritized.

Cornyn’s positions likening bestiality with reptiles to marriage equality are offense and indefensible. Similarly, his general demeanor on the issues as a member of the Senate is somewhat poor. But our friends, we fear, drastically understate the value of Cornyn’s leadership positions. The Senate is not a collection of fiefdoms. One freshman Senator would not be very effective in shaking things up. Texas is much better served by a tried-and-true statesman like Cornyn, with what he could affect for the people.
–Andrew Scott Romo

Noah M. Horwitz also published an individual addendum
I agree with the editorial’s positions, but I would like to clarify the role of experience. Being in the Senate is not very hard, it’s not a job that requires a lot of advanced brain power; anyone who ever met Dan Quayle could testify to that. Obviously, David Alameel is no LBJ, and neither is John Cornyn. It’s useless to try and romanticize or aggrandize their power or influence. The most important thing a Senator can do is to write and advocate for her or his bills. And, for that, it is beyond debate in our circle that Alameel would do a superior job.

The Texpatriate Editorial Board is comprised of Noah M. Horwitz & Olivia Arena of Austin, George Bailey of Boston, Luis Fayad of College Station and Andrew Scott Romo of New Orleans. Editorials are comprised of a majority opinion of the voting board.

Let’s talk about 2016! (Republican primary, Part 2)

Editorial note: This article is the third installment in a series about prospective 2016 Presidential candidates by Noah M. Horwitz. On Saturday, he wrote at length about Democratic candidates. On Sunday, he wrote at length about Republican candidates in a subset he called “Establishment Conservatives.” This evening, he will write about Republican candidates within the “Tea Party Conservatives” subset.

I opined last evening that there are four basic categories of prospective Republican candidates for President. The “Establishment Conservatives,” “Establishment Tea Party,” “Fringe Tea Party” and “Outcast.” The main distinction between the outcast and the other categories is the presence of some semblance of political experience. The main distinction between the “fringe” and the “establishment” is how well-renowned the individual is on the national stage. Finally, Tea Party is a bit of an arbitrary descriptor, as there is no monolithic organization to which a member might belong, but I have done my best to weed out the so-called RINOs, to borrow the group’s lexicon. For example, in the 2012 Republican primaries, Herman Cain and Donald Trump would be “outcasts.” Michele Bachmann was “Fringe Tea Party,” Rick Santorum was “Establishment Tea Party” and Mitt Romney was “Establishment Conservative.” Hopefully, that clears it up.

ESTABLISHMENT TEA PARTY

1. Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas
Cruz came out of nowhere to defeat Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst in the 2012 Republican primary for the Senate, marking the beginning of the end for the Lieutenant Governor and the beginning of the beginning for the closest thing the Tea Party has has for a leader since its inception. A former Solicitor General of Texas with a sterling track record at the US Supreme Court, as well as a graduate (magna cum laude) of Harvard Law School, Cruz is undoubtedly brilliant. That being said, I’ve never really noticed his assumed intellectuality being used in politics. Cruz goes for the gut through soppy speeches replete with straw-man arguments and sometimes outright fabrications. But it works for him, and he is reasonably the frontrunner for this contest.

Pick a conservative issue, Cruz has put his money on it. He lacks the strange libertarian excesses of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) while still maintaining nearly cult-like following from many in those same circles. Much ink will be spilled in the next couple years asking if Cruz is the Republican version of President Barack Obama, once also a first-term Senator with higher ambitions. Both have mothers whose families have been in this country for quite long, but both have fathers who were foreigners.

I equate Cruz with Obama because of one key reason, far removed from the parallels I just highlighted. Cruz is the “Tea Party Messiah” in a way that Obama definitely was –and to a limited extent, still is– among younger crowds. I wrote at length on this subject last year up in Boston, and already see the initial effects for Cruz on the other side. If Cruz is serious about running for President, which I believe he is, he will need to move back to the center, progressively taking more and more stands on issues that will be sure to tick off his obstreperous base. But, if the “Obama effect” holds true, he will be infallible. That could be a dangerous mix for the Democrats, which is why I am confident that Cruz stands a good chance of clinching the general election against Hillary Clinton. I still think Clinton is favored, but not by that much.

2. Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky
Paul, the son of longtime Texas Congressman Ron Paul, is every bit the politician that he father was not. He backs away from conspiracy theories, but has most of the courage to take a stand on civil liberties and foreign policy issues. He is unequivocally opposed to NSA Wiretapping, the USA PATRIOT Act, and most everything going on at Guantanamo Bay. He believes in isolationism, though he may fight tooth and nail against it being characterized by that word.

On other issues, Paul is surprisingly reasonable. He was supportive of the Supreme Court’s recent decision Windsor v. United States (striking down the Defense of Marriage Act), though he remains virulently opposed to same-sex marriage on a state-by-state level. Earlier this year, he co-sponsored a bipartisan piece of legislation that would generously liberalize requirements for felons to vote. He has even come out in favor of some limited relaxing of drug laws, much like his father.

Of course, Paul more than makes up on conservative bona fides with the rest of his positions. He believes that abortion in all cases –even the life of the mother– should be illegal and a constitutional amendment to that effect should be implemented. He opposes all gun control, government intrusion in healthcare and is radically opposed to many entitlement programs. His libertarian foreign policy arguments surely will draw the ire of the neoconservative establishment.

3. Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida
Rubio is an interesting figure. His positions on many political issues are notoriously hard to get hammed down, given how fluid they are depending on the day of the week. Specifically, on immigration reform, Rubio has been on both sides of the fence more than once. Originally a vociferous supporter of comprehensive reform, even a co-sponsor of the Senate bill, Rubio infamously changed his mind once he began taking flack on the matter.

More recently, however, he reportedly was back to talk over decisive action on the immigration front. In doing so, he has effectively become hostile against both sides on the issue. Not only the Tea Party, but pro-immigration reform groups now view his word as useless.

On other issues, such as climate change, Rubio has unequivocally stated his grave doubts on the topic, making him a late-night punchline for a number of evenings. While there are plenty of specs that would make Rubio an ideal candidate on paper, he has just had a few too many stumbles in the limelight. I mention the silly little water bottle incident not because I think it marks poorly upon his performance that night, but because it showed that the rest of his speech was utterly unremarkable. If a nominal screw-up like that occurs, it is only harped upon incessantly when there is nothing else good to cover–the 24 hour media has to cover something!

4. Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin
Ryan, obviously, was Mitt Romney’s running mate in the 2012 Presidential election. For whatever reason, failed Vice-Presidential candidates never fare very well when they run for the top-spot the next go-round. Dan Quayle, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards immediately come to mind. Sarah Palin never even got around to running.

Now, you may be curious why I placed Ryan in the Tea Party crowd, as opposed to the establishment. After all, he is a self-described policy wonk and is Chairman of the House Budget Committee. I think Paul Krugman at The New York Times recently did a fairly swell job of dispelling that notion. Ever since the days of his Vice-Presidential campaign, he has used plenty of fuzzy math.

Ryan has what I would call “typical” views on most political issues, particularly within foreign policy, but he is far more malleable by the base than many of his colleagues. For someone who has been in Congress since the Clinton administration, I am hesitant to apply the Tea Party label, but think he has really jumped on the ship quite effectively. In that regard, he is eerily reminiscent of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Republican gubernatorial nominee.

Watch out for Ryan; that is, if he decides to run. He could easily run his campaign as a sort of successor to Mitt Romney. And say what you will about Romney, but the man has been vindicated on a number of issues since his failed campaign, particularly in the foreign policy sphere. I still do not think that Russia is the United States’ number one foe, but it is certainly more on our radar now than it was two years ago.

5. Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania
Santorum will have been out of politics for nearly a decade by this point, so I truly cannot tell why he would ever wish to take another longshot stab at the Presidency. Perhaps he is a glutton for punishment. Santorum has been making a plethora of trips to Iowa, and has publicly expressed interest in another run for the White House

I think Santorum is what I would call the “Eric Dick of the GOP primaries,” if he were to run again. The phrase, harkening back to last year’s failed Mayoral candidate, means someone who stands no chance of winning but could significantly affect the outcome nonetheless. Dick received over 10% of the vote in 2013, and I would expect him to garner a comparable percentage –much from the same people, low-information voters familiar with his commercials or amused by his surname– if he were tor run again in 2015. Not nearly enough to win, but certainly enough to have a huge impact if there were 8 candidates.

Similarly, Santorum has just enough support from evangelicals that he could win the Iowa Caucuses, even though he would be one of the last people that voters in 30+ States would ever support. This could throw a wrench into the plans of many candidates.

Hopefully, I get to the remainder of the candidates tomorrow. But for now, I’ve covered the frontrunners, as well as a couple others fortuitously mentioned in the same article despite having not a shred of a chance. As of now, the five frontunners are Bush, Perry, Cruz, Paul and Rubio. Two Floridians and two Texans.