I came down pretty hard on Big Jolly’s Goebbels-like,“Why I support Dewhurst,” endorsement last week, and his report of Monday’s Cruz/Dewhurst debate has my “justice” juice pumping at full pressure.
First, Mr. Jennings leads with a suggested summation OF THE ENTIRE Monday Night, Cruz/Dewhurst DEBATE with this:
There was a moment near the end of the debate last night that defined the contest between Lt. Gov. Dewhurst and Mr. Cruz. A question was asked about the Castle Doctrine, a common term for the law that allows citizens to defend themselves without having to retreat. Mr. Cruz answered first, stating that he had once debated a lawyer from DC about the need for the law in the capital city. Mr. Dewhurst said simply, I passed it in Texas.
Really? What debate did he attend? Was it the one where Dewhurst got tepid applause walking out and Ted Cruz got a raucous standing ovation? Was it the debate where even the FOX post debate panel, kept emphasizing how poor Dewhurst performed (“he often seemed very uncomfortable”) – one of the top 3 CENTRAL purposes of junior Senator? Was it the debate where the “neutral” FOX panel member admitted that Dewhurst was “less of a fighter, more of a compromiser” and “wouldn’t be able to effect change in D.C?”
What is so hard about being honest for Big Jolly Politics that they have to use Soviet/Saul Alinsky tactics to manipulate their readers rather than respecting their intelligence?
Here, David. Let me help you. As you know I’m supporting Cruz. Here is an honest way to have written that paragraph if I was a Dewhurst supporter:
The strength of Dewhurst came from his ability to lay claim to many legislative victories of the Texas Senate in his role of Senate President. Ted Cruz could only cite what he would do if elected and show that he, at least, was knowledgeable of the issue. An example was the Castle Doctrine question, to which Cruz recalled debating a D.C. lawyer. Dewhurst was able to claim “I passed it in Texas.”
Of course, like his GOP establishment master, Jennings STILL isn’t giving the full picture. As President of the Senate, Dewhurst himself has very minimal input on the crafting of legislation, and while rarely speaking on the floor itself advocating a position of the bill. Jennings keeps saying we don’t have time to for Cruz to “learn the job” although it’s strange that true conservative legislators who DO that job such as Jim DeMint, Pat Toomey, Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Tom Coburn do not. And unlike the establishment Republicans who gave us the out of control spending under Bush, these are PRODCUTIVE Senate members who fiercely dedicate themselves to writing and championing bills that actually WOULD start to reverse the out of control government spending and bureaucracy. But somehow Mr. Jennings knows better It seems he thinks it is better to have a corrupt and mediocre owner of an auto builder that takes shortcuts over quality, rather than a brilliant mechanic who has can actually FIX the car.
And exactly WHAT Senate legislation has David Dewhurst every authored? NONE. What major conservative initiative has he actually championed and passed, arguing for it on the Senate floor? NONE. Instead we have a litany of conservative legislation he has gone out of his way to kill when victory was assured. Sanctuary Cities and the Anti-Groping TSA bill just to name two. As mentioned in my last piece, Donna Gardner points out that the Lt. Governor Mr. Jennings wants to portray as a “conservative” not only collaborated with the corrupt and cowardly gambling pawn Joe Strauss to unseat at least 10 great conservatives in redistricting, but when given the opportunity – Dewhurst only appointed ONE out of 40 committee chairmanships to a true Tea Party conservative.
If one was to fairly judge Dewhurst in his “Senate President” duties as Lt. Governor, you would have to say he did indeed schedule some conservative legislation during his terms, and totally undercut many key conservative initiatives and conservative appointments even enlisting the help of Democrats to defeat it. And none of those skills would be helpful for a Junior Senator from Texas.
In his disingenuous coverage of the Cruz/Dewhurst debate, Big Jolly David wraps himself in fawning praise for Tea Party debate host King Street Patriots, while dropping names of the Kingwood Tea Party without ONCE disclosing that the audience was almost unanimously Cruz supporters.
But at least Big Jolly didn’t pull the mainstream media journalistic malpractice like ABC’s “investigative reporter” Brian Ross who falsely insinuated a Tea Party member was behind the Colorado Batman movie massacre. He came close though by again – shading and editing facts to try and puff up his candidate and smear the opponent. Get this:
I had the opportunity to meet Marine Corps Capt. Dan Moran (ret.). Capt. Moran is an ardent Dewhurst supporter that has had to put up with terrible attacks from a prominent Cruz supporter because he was burned in an IED explosion in Iraq.
What Mr. Jennings refuses to report (apparently for cheap political points) is the following:
- The African American single mother, Tea Party leader Katrina Pierson was “live tweeting” from the TX GOP convention and (like many of us) was sick of the Democrat/liberal use of poverty stricken mothers, babies, as “props” to try and sell a candidate rather than his positions.
- Katrina IMMEDIATELY apologized if anyone was offended, and repeated that she appreciated Capt. Moran’s service, but the tweet was not about him. It was about Dewhurst trying to use manipulative emotional tactics demeaning the intelligence of the delegates. This prompted numerous defenses from well known Texans and Katrina herself.
- Like all good liberals, the Dewhurst campaign then began a PAID SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST A PRIVATE TEA PARTY INDIVIDUAL directly inferring that Ms. Pierson was a) a part of the Cruz campaign, b) was attacking military vets, and c) then falsely accused the Cruz campaign of not addressing the issue – (although since it was NOT from the Cruz campaign, was not obligated to).
This is Bill Clinton/Barack Obama/Saul Alinsky stuff! Go out and falsely smear a private citizen who as the nerve to use their 1st Amendment right to free speech. Will David Jennings now denounce the lies of the Dewhurst campaign and unprecedented attacks on a minority Tea Party single mom who immediately apologized? Will David Jennings denounce the tactics of the Dewhurst campaign Jim Bognet for trying to physically bully Katrina into silence when she asked Dewhurst why he would not show up at the first 35 grassroots debates. Or do we only defend trumped up attacks on military vets? Will he denounce the lies of the Dewhurst campaign on the Ted Cruz China issue or the abhorrent and vicious lies like this:
This has been covered by numerous major sources with much disgust at Dewhurst. Of course, Ted Cruz is an appellate attorney for a large law firm that NEVER represented this lowlife scum EITHER personally, or criminally. He was one of many lawyers who worked on a APPEAL of an insurance company issue. WHERE IS DAVID JENNINGS BIG OUTRAGE OVER THIS? And the David Dewhurst campaign PAID for an ad to do worse to a private single mom?
But Big Jolly apparently ONLY wants to run to the side of Dewhurst supporting military veterans who themselves aren’t big enough to either accept Katrina’s apology OR protect a single mom from being smeared by the campaign he supports. You can quote me on this – the Captain is dishonoring his uniform by allowing this lie to stand. Ms. Pierson seemingly shows much more character and courage. She commented for this article:
I have been on the front lines encouraging people to get off their couches and get involved. I encourage all to speak out and fight for what it right. Most of us are not public speakers and politicians, therefore fear speaking. The average person mispeaks and as humans, we have the right to misspeak. By withstanding the attack, I have walked my talk. Silence is consent.
Erick Erickson of RedState.com has lost enormous respect for both Dewhurst and his campaign team to the point of now naming him “DewCrist” in referencing Florida Governor Charlie Crist who also pretended to be a “conservative” before endorsing Barack Obama when his slimy tactics didn’t keep him in office. As pointed out by Cornell Law School Professor William Jacobson and “Culture of Corruption” author Michelle Malkin (right), the Dewhurst campaign is stooping to the dregs of immorality to make false accusations against Ted Cruz.
What kind of man is so intent on winning, that he tries to lay the terrible molestation of a child, and then uses the family to falsely attack his opponent’s character who was only involved in an appeal of corporate civil lawsuit on a civil matter?
He also has done the same on the ambush of Ted Cruz regarding his interview on the Dan Patrick radio show. Some consider Patrick “very conservative” although he he has refused to meet with grassroots people on significant legislation. Never the less, the Dewhurst campaign launched a campaign that “even Dan Patrick says Ted Cruz lied.”
Thank God, real patriots can see through the lies that Big Jolly and Dewhurst keep perpetuating. And perpetuate the lies he surely does:
As for the debate itself, I thought that Lt. Gov. Dewhurst started strong and won the first half of the debate but that Mr. Cruz finished strong and took the second half. That has nothing to do with substance, it is just a reflection on how they seemed to come across in the room. If it is substance you want, then Lt. Gov. Dewhurst is clearly your candidate. If it is style and the ability to quickly answer a question with a series of bullet points, then Mr. Cruz is your guy.
Mr. Jennings is certainly entitled to his opinion, although I think a pretty good case has been made to question it based on his omissions already noted. Cruz had multiple crowd acknowledgements (and laughter) throughout the first half to none – that I could see – for Dewhurst, so maybe DJ of BJ is grading on a NEA sliding scale. But he screws the pooch (and proves our point) with his next folly. He calls into question the turn of the debate – that in his mind was weighted toward Dewhurst – in favoring Ted Cruz because he “got in Dewhurst’s space.” I kid you not.
Perhaps it is a debating technique of Mr. Cruz but he seemed to lose his composure a couple of times. I say that it might be a debating technique because it did seem that the Lt. Gov. wasn’t as strong after the two incidents. The first incident is widely reported and has to do with a flyer that Mr. Cruz claims questions his patriotism. He moved away from his podium and clearly got into the Lt. Gov.’s space.And, he wouldn’t let up even after the moderator reminded him that there were no rebuttals allowed.
He claims Cruz “lost composure” when he held up the brochure sent by the Dewhurst campaign to Mr. Cruz’s father, showing Ted in front of Chinese flag with the words, “Mr. Cruz betrayed our country.” Notice how Jennings conveniently doesn’t bring this up. Also – WATCH THE VIDEO YOURSELF at the 24 minute mark. Mr. Cruz turns to address the Lt. Governor but NEVER comes from behind his podium. I actually would suggest it is Mr. Jennings who has lost his composure, as well as any scruples and ability to tell the truth.
Jennings apparently condones such illicit lies and tactics by Dewhurst since not once does he rebuke his candidate for it. Again – someone who is bringing up “character” in his review of Mr. Cruz, might want to buy a few more mirrors at Sam’s Club.
What is insane – is that Big Jolly thinks that his argument HELPS the cause of David Dewhurst. Dewhurst is supposed to be a prospective Senator who is supposed to represent “don’t mess with Texas” was so intimidated by a young lawyer “getting in his space” that he cowered and lost his concentration.
What would he do if Harry Reid or Barbara Boxer did the same in the 11th hour of an ObamaCare debate!??
Jennings claims Cruz “lost his composure” in multiple incidents. The second was on a fluff question about daughters to “attack” Dewhurst.
Mr. Cruz decided to use this simple question to attack the Lt. Gov., basically saying that he was raising his daughter better because he wasn’t saying negative things about the Lt. Gov. Bizarro to me, especially since I’ve followed this campaign very closely for over eighteen months and the Cruz camp has been far more negative on the whole and has attacked much more personally, again, on the whole. How many times has Mr. Cruz himself called Lt. Gov. Dewhurst spineless, weak, timid, tired, or old? Mr. Cruz himself set the tone that causes his supporters to be so vicious in their attacks. Pot meet kettle and I think that to use a man’s child as a political target is way over the top.
Again, perhaps this is strange to David is because he is living in Bizarro Liar World. Dewhurst had JUST claimed that Cruz had “defended a pedophile” a lie proven to completely untrue. (Links below). WHY IS DAVID JENNINGS TRYING TO PRETEND THAT CRUZ WASN’T SIMPLY CORRECTING THE RECORD?
It is because David Jennings must think his readers are absolutely ignorant or gullible. His moniker, “Because truth matters” should be “Where truth tatters.”
How exactly has $10 million in Dewhurst paid negative ads, equate to NOT A SINGLE CHARACTER ATTACK AD by the Cruz campaign. (Remedial education tip #1 to Big Jolly: CHARACTER is not POLICY. Remedial education tip #2 to Big Jolly: SuperPAC ads are not the domain of the Cruz campaign.)
Mr. Jennings OUT RIGHT LIES in this post, that the Cruz “campaign” has been more negative. How so? Cruz has never called Dewhurst “spineless” or “timid” but he has said we need people who are not. (Backing down in the face of Eric Holder by the way IS timid, spineless and cowardly by definition.) Can Mr. Jennings send me a link to a simple negative TV ad, paid for by the Cruz campaign, that does anything but point out Dewhurst’s failure in HIS JOB?
Meanwhile, David Jennings is acting all girly by a simple request by Cruz to quit telling his parents he is a communist, Big Jolly totally ignores the incident when a fellow Dewhurst supporter broke the instructions given to the audience by shouting out “liar” when Cruz was speaking. Cruz was simply recounted VERIFIABLE FACT of Dewhurst’s unequivocal support for amnesty in a 2007 speech (and his ensuing direction for state employees to hide it) for what has already been widely reported in the Houston Chronicle and elsewhere.
To me it seems like David Jennings whole baseless “composure” insanity, is his attempts to merely try and find any false insinuation to falsely level Cruz’s advantage in public speaking while hiding the truth from his readers. (And it is just like a Dewhurst supporter to break the rules by lying about a lie. Perhaps he picked it up by studying Mr. Jennings tactics.)
Furthermore, Jennings completely skips over the long monologue by Cruz PRAISING Dewhurst’s military and public service
Jennings says if you want style you go for Cruz but if you want substance you go for Dewhurst. Again. Really? Did David ever take a critical thinking course in college? Perhaps he still believes we should be believe Obama because he says he won’t raise taxes on the middle class. Certainly just because Dewhurst is trying to cover up his public speeches supporting full on amnesty and expanding Medicaid is no reason NOT to believe he’ll do that once he is in Washington D.C. when it REALLY matters, right?
And what about that “substance” which Mr. Jennings claims Dewhurst came out ahead on. Here (essentially) was the “substance” Mr. Dewhurst used in the debate:
Q: What does Constitutional Conservative mean to you?
A: My daddy was killed by a drunk driver when I was a kid so I stutter.
Dewhurst then said he was a “do-er” and talked about the bill against same sex marriage which, in fact, not only never answered the question – but was only something Dewhurst scheduled for a vote that already had overwhelming support. In contrast, Cruz laid out why the law on the drilling moratorium (for which Cruz represented the US Chamber of Commerce) was not constitutional. Cruz further pointed out that the Senate has the power to hold the President to the Constitution unlike any other branch of government.
Is it “substantive” answer what being a “constitutional conservative” is with telling the people you want to represent that you can’t talk well – but somehow you should get a disadvantaged childhood affirmative action pass, regardless of how it disadvantages Texas representation on the floor of the Senate?
Now, Cruz also has talked about his rough childhood and it is important to hear this kind of stuff for context. But DAVID DEWHURST used the “my daddy was killed” like SEVEN TIMES DURING THE DEBATE! If Mr. Jennings believe that is substantive, perhaps he is in the wrong party. How many times you try get people to vote for feeling sorry for you is NOT a conservative value.
Early in the debate, Cruz is asked if he will "stay conservative if elected.” Cruz makes a good point that escapes Big Jolly. He says “yes,” but says “if you had 50 conservatives up here – they would all say yes.”
And that’s the problem. Dewhurst brazenly lied in the first debate that he never advocated a tax increase despite reporters from the Wall Street Journal and the Statesman proving otherwise. During his time to answer that same question (whether he would stay a conservative), not only did he never say “yes,” he claims he reduced taxes and did not expand government – something (unfortunately) is not quite accurate. Indeed our state has increased population by 14% and state spending has increased slightly less – but Texas has grown it’s public debt by almost 60%. It seems like our current President, Dewhurst likes balancing the budget on the backs of future Texans who can’t vote yet.
Jennings ends his piece with this:
Sure, rhetoric is fun and it sells books and gets people to rallies, but the plain truth is that that is all rhetoric does. It doesn’t “move the debate” as people claim. In fact, the debate moves right past those that are shouting the loudest and the longest.
I’m a conservative. I demand more from politicians than loud, angry rhetoric.
Tell me this Mr. Big Jolly: If rhetoric is so overrated, why is it that Obama got elected, or Reagan, or Disraeli, or Winston Churchill. Ahhhh – it is because their SPOKEN WORDS MOVE PEOPLE TO ACTION. Do you know the #1 people are fired from their jobs? A failure to communicate. Do you know how you convince constituents and fellow lawmakers to support your bills? BY BEING PERSUASIVE IN YOUR SPEECH.
It is a sad day when people like Jennings hijack the word “conservative” to intentionally lie. Shame on you.
EIGHT HOURS after posting My comment on the Big Jolly site it is still “awaiting moderation.” No doubt he is to afraid for his readers to know the truth. (Hint: Being CONSERVATIVE means being willing to allow free debate and expression of contrary opinions flow.)
No David, you are not “a” conservative. You support a man who:
- Went to Democrat leaders to kill the anti-TSA groping law and refused to bring it to the floor when the “conservatives” had the vote.
- Uses blatant lies in attack ads like the one released by his SuperPAC insinuating Ted Cruz defended a criminal (with NO condemnation from the Dewhurst camp)
- Purposely shielded Joe Strauss in redistricting that eliminated dozens of TRUE conservatives
- Appointed only ONE (out of 40) committee chairmanships to people with conservative records.
- Blatantly lies about his documented (WSJ, Statesman) comments on Income tax.
- Blatantly lies Ted Cruz’s support of amnesty (Breitbart) then lies about his own support for Immigration in a 2007 speech, then directs STATE EMPLOYEES to remove his speeches from STATE websites, likely a violation of law.
- Killed SB 9 (Sanctuary Cities) in committee requiring Perry to call a special session.
- Had a Sharia law PROHIBITION stripped from legisilation.
- Attracted not a single major Tea Party “conservative” endorsement, but does attract
The even the uber-liberal Houston Chronicle who would call John Boehner or Mitch McConnell “extereme” calls Dewhurst a “moderate.” Is your sycophantic relationship with the Chron so tight you have to compromise REAL conservative ideals to keep on their site? Please don’t tell me you’re getting money from them too.
No, if I may suggest, you are NOT a “conservative,” in the vein of the Tea Party at all, but au unprincipled, bug establishment thief of the conservative label that refuses to condemn your own candidate for deplorable attacks on Tea Party leaders like Katrina Pierson.
Conservative Equals PRINCIPLED truth, as much as LIMITED government.
You’re certainly entitled to your endorsement, but quit trying to wrap yourself in the “Tea Party” associations to sell Texans the man that just had a fund raiser with the Obama Socialist John Podesta.
1 comments:
Read it, liked it, Tweeted it... Fight ON!!! :-)
Post a Comment