Crenshaw's another Abbott

"For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."
Matthew 24:24

Soo...this happened:



We're not gonna lie.  The first time through, Crenshaw's video has a certain...emotional appeal.   The more we think about it, however, the more its utter, total, and complete lack of substance stands out.  Textbook political psuedo-event.

Which got us thinking.

Can you name another prominent Texas politician who:

• Has a compelling life story at least the first 7 zillion times you hear it?!?

• Is reasonably well spoken?!?

• Prefers psuedo-events to substance?!?
  
  *and*

• Rarely does anything (at least anything good)?!?

Obviously, the title of this blog post gives that answer away.

Greg Abbott spent years cultivating an image.  In that effort, he was successful for a long time.  Eventually, however, Greg Abbott actually had to do his actual job in a public setting.  When that happened, Abbott's image melted away.

Dan Crenshaw today is in the same place Greg Abbott was five or six years ago.

He's going to follow the same trajectory.

It's a matter of time.  We don't know how much.  But, eventually....

We just hope he doesn't get promoted too far too quickly before then.

Bottom Line: We don't care which metaphor you choose.  Hat and cattle works.  Likewise, sizzle and steak.  But the similarities are obvious.

Crenshaw's Not Necessarily Wrong about Climate Change ("Carbon Capture" Still Boondoggle tho)

"But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy."
James 3:17

There's been some chatter about comments Dan Crenshaw made during Policy Orientation:

“We can make fun of the left’s sort of alarmist views on climate change — and we should, to an extent — but we can’t ignore it completely,” Crenshaw said during a keynote Q-and-A at the right-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation’s 2020 policy conference. “From a political standpoint, we cannot ignore it completely.”

....

“It’s not totally untrue. Their alarmism is often, almost always, completely untrue and not founded in facts or data. When they’re blaming storms and things on climate change, it’s usually nonsense,” Crenshaw said. “That doesn’t mean there isn’t some effect on the climate from man-made emissions, and we can admit that.”

....

“Even if we don’t know what it’s doing to the environment, let’s at least err on the side of caution,” Crenshaw said. “But it doesn’t mean erring on the side of destroying the economy, which is what the left would have. So two things: grant some of the premise — not all of the premise — that they’re operating on, some of it, and expose them for what they’re really trying to do, which is a complete socialist takeover of the economy.”

We were there when Crenshaw said this.  To be honest, we didn't give it any additional thought.  The ensuing kerfuffle is odd.

Crenshaw drew a distinction between the global warming cultists and folks who have valid environmental concerns.  It's a distinction worth drawing more often.  Because Crenshaw's right that it's bad politics to ignore the latter group.

But the great, raging, irony is that Crenshaw made these comments while on a panel with Chip Roy.

Because Roy's been illustrating the same distinction for at least a year:

It's one thing to argue that there have been unintended environmental consequences from the increase in carbon emissions over the past 200 years. That might very well be the case. In that context, a discussion about reducing carbon emissions might be worth having.

Likewise, in that context, you have to acknowledge that collapsing natural gas prices have done more to reduce carbon emissions than anything else.

That will never be good enough for the global warming cultists. And that's fine. Don't waste your breath.

But natural gas prices are a wedge that should be driven between those concerned about the unintended environmental consequences of carbon emissions and the global warming cultists.

And Chip Roy showed us how.

Yet the media completely missed when Chip Roy did this...only to oddly glom onto Dan Crenshaw a year later.

That being said, Crenshaw's counter-proposal is still a dumb boondoggle.  It's one thing to say that innovation is the best way to solve environmental challenges.  It's something else to use that as a cover to merely have government pick a different set of winners and losers.

Which is all the GOP's so-called "carbon capture" proposal does.

Nevertheless, it remains the case that discussing how innovation is the best way to solve environmental challenges is also good politics.

And that's the only point Crenshaw was making last week.

Bottom Line: Sometimes, it's just odd to see which seemingly innocuous comments provoke a backlash.

Chip Roy Might Save the GOP's Bacon on Health Care

"He who despises the word will be destroyed,
But he who fears the commandment will be rewarded."
Proverbs 13:13

We discussed Ted Cruz and Chip Roy's recent Health Care proposal last week; yesterday, Roy discussed it in greater depth at TPPF'S Policy Orientation.

We could say a lot about it.  Obviously, we like it.  But there are a couple of reasons why we think there's a small chance this time *MIGHT* be different.  But the reality is that the only reason either is relevant is because Chip Roy is a member of Congress.

The biggest difference is that somebody is FINALLY talking about fixing the Health Care system.  Not just repealing Obamacare.  Chip Roy (and, belatedly, Ted Cruz) want to actually fix the health care system.

This is something that you can actually take to your friends and neighbors.  Chip Roy's proposal will actually lower your personal health care costs (probably significantly).  Chip Roy's health care proposal will give you more options for how you obtain health care.  No promises, but Roy's health care proposal is also likely to unleash a new round of medical innovation.

This is the first time in 25 years that we can write what we said in the preceding paragraph.

The other reason, perhaps, for modest optimism is that some of the other members of the Texas delegation also seem to get it (on this issue).  Before his panel, Roy was also the lunchtime keynote with Dan Crenshaw.  Obviously, Crenshaw's been a bit of a mixed bag as a Congressman, but Crenshaw and Roy are pulling in the same direction in health care.

Bottom Line: Obviously, a lot remains to be seen, but Chip Roy might just be the man to make it happen.

#TX2020: The NRCC is RETARDED if they think they should run incumbents in Texas

"Because of the transgression of a land, many are its princes;
But by a man of understanding and knowledge
Right will be prolonged."
Proverbs 28:2

The Cook Political Report, in discussing national congressional races, drops this nugget:

A key 2020 House battleground will be Texas. Democrats picked up two seats in the suburbs of Dallas and Houston last fall, but came within single digits in six more districts. The NRCC has already met with the six incumbents who survived close calls to secure commitments to run again and raise more money in 2020.

[Note: Emphasis added.]

No.  No.  No.  No.  No.  No.  No.  No.

This type of stale, conventional, thinking is the quickest route to a second debacle in 2020.

We can explain in two numbers from last cycle: Six and Two.

• Six -- The number of open seat races Republicans held in Congressional races.
• Note: Seats now held by Dan Crenshaw, Van Taylor, Lance Gooden, Ron Wright, Chip Roy, and Michael Cloud.

• Two -- The number of incumbent Republican congressman who lost.
• Note: Seats now held by Lizzie Pannill Fletcher and Colin Allred, which were formerly held by John Culberson and Pete Sessions.

That should be the end of this cliched discussion, but since it won't be, we'll go further.

------

Chip Roy vs. John Carter:

Nowhere is this phenomenon clearer than in two suburban Congressional districts near Austin.  In the first district, a new candidate with a dedicated grassroots following held his open seat.  In the second district, a mediocre incumbent had a closer call than anyone expected.

On the surface, the results in CD-21 (Hill Country) and CD-31 (WillCo) look similar:

It's only when one compares them to Trump's performance in 2016 that the pattern emerges:

Trump's 2016 margin minus the 2018 GOP candidate's margin follows:

• CD-21: 10% - 2.8% = 7.2% GOP dropoff between '16 and '18.

• CD-31: 13% - 3% = 10% GOP dropoff between '16 and '18.

That 2.8% is the difference between good candidates in open seats vs. lousy incumbents.

This is exactly what we predicted would happen in those two districts, and the data backs us up.

Of course, we also predicted that John Carter was in a lot of trouble in a presidential cycle...but, by all means, let's run John Friggin' Carter in a presidential cycle.

And yes, Chip Roy saved the GOP's bacon in CD-21.

-------

Dan Crenshaw and Van Taylor:

It wasn't as pronounced as the Chip Roy race, but a similar phenomenon emerged in Dan Crenshaw and Van Taylor's races.

2016 results here.

2018 results here.

-------

Learning from Pete Sessions:

Last cycle, we wrote the following about now-former congressman Pete Sessions:

Pete Sessions is a liability that should have been dealt with YEARS ago

That specific blog post was written in reference to a scandal surrounding Sessions' abuse of campaign contributions, but the headline doubles as a general metaphor for Pete Sessions.

We warned people about Sessions for YEARS.  Eventually, in a strong enough Democrat wave, he lost.  We should learn that lesson and preemptively address our other liabilities.

-------

Learning from John Culberson:

One of the open secrets among Republican campaign types last cycle was John Culberson's laziness.    Culberson might have held his seat if he'd simply worked harder.  Culberson approached the race with a sense of entitlement and the results speak for themselves.

Of course, incumbent politicians becoming entitled and lazy shouldn't surprise anyone.

Perhaps we shouldn't run entitled, lazy, incumbents.

-------

Reminder from 2018:

• Open Congressional seats Texas Republicans held: 6.

• Incumbent Congressional seats Texas Republicans lost: 2.

-------

Bottom Line: In a competitive general election environment, it's much better to have a good candidate running in an open seat than it is to try and drag some lousy incumbent across the finish line.

Texas GOP needs (a lot) more Dan Crenshaw's and Van Taylor's

"The hypocrite with his mouth destroys his neighbor,
But through knowledge the righteous will be delivered."
Proverbs 11:9

We're still sifting through the wreckage of last night.  We'll have plenty to say sometime soon.  For now, however, we want to focus on something positive.

On a night when Republicans in suburban districts got ANNIHILATED, two solid conservatives had relatively easy victories: Dan Crenshaw and Van Taylor.

It's worth pondering why.

Our hypothesis: They're both better at tying abstract principles together with tangible results in voters lives than the average Republican candidate.  As we've remarked previously, Dan Crenshaw is off-the-charts good at this.  But Taylor is also above average.

We've been complaining for awhile about messaging.  Far too many of our candidates do far too much robotic repetition of stale, cliched, talking points.  Last night, two of the candidates who don't do that had two of the easiest wins.  That's not a coincidence.

Bottom Line: There will be plenty of time to re-hash what went wrong.  But the model for how to do it the right way is staring us in the face.  Whether or not we pay attention is up to us.

Dan Crenshaw is a SERIOUSLY Impressive Dude

"Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water,
But a man of understanding will draw it out."
Proverbs 20:5

By now, we're sure you've heard about Saturday Night Live's asinine attack on Dan Crenshaw over the weekend.  If you're not familiar, you can learn about it here.  We don't want to dwell on the attack, we want to focus on Crenshaw's response.

Specifically, Crenshaw tweeted:

Good rule in life: I try hard not to offend; I try harder not to be offended. That being said, I hope @nbcsnl recognizes that vets don’t deserve to see their wounds used as punchlines for bad jokes.

— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) November 4, 2018

This is GREAT. Two days before election day, Crenshaw had every incentive in the world to gin up the phony outrage. But he didn't. He chose the high road while still getting in a couple subtle jabs.

Crenshaw was on with Glenn Beck this morning.  Unfortunately, they haven't posted the video yet.  Suffice to say, in a longer form setting, Crenshaw kept his basic message while being really clever and funny about it!!!

Back in September, we had significant praise for Crenshaw's performance on a Tribfest panel.  We never reported on it, but we attended a private event that evening which Crenshaw also attended.  We thus had the opportunity to chat in a small group for multiple hours.  The dude is a seriously legit genius; we're talking Matt Rinaldi levels of intelligence.

Bottom Line: Dan Crenshaw is going to be an awesome Congressman.  We already knew that.  But the last few days reinforced it.

#TribFest18: "The Red Team" illustrates how Texas' Congressional Delegation is improving

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan."
Proverbs 29:2

Open seat Congressional candidates Dan Crenshaw, Chip Roy, Van Taylor, and Ron Wright spoke on a panel this morning.  It was very encouraging.  We only hope they end up serving in the majority.  The candidates covered a wide range of topics, the most interesting were federal spending, border issues, and health care.

Chip Roy was the first to attack spending.  Roy pointed out that, while tax relief/simplification and the resulting economic growth were good things, federal spending remains out-of-control.  Out-of-control spending, naturally, leads to debt.  And debt remains the largest long-term threat to the U.S. economy.  Ron Wright added that "the way we've been funding the federal government is insane."

On border issues, Van Taylor made a very important point: Border security, legal immigration, and illegal immigration are separate issues.  They should all be treated as such.  Trying to solve all three in a "comprehensive" manner is a recipe for disaster.  We've also learned from experience that those sorts of bills are impossible to pass.

Taylor is correct.  The way you solve complex problems is by breaking them into their component parts.  Then you solve the component parts.  Eventually, you end up solving the big, complex, problem.

On health care, Chip Roy finally moved beyond just "repealing Obamacare" to discuss how to actually fix health care.  Obviously, this is a point we've been hammering for months.  While Roy's full remarks deserve a blog post of their own, the short version is that he spoke in favor of reducing costs and price transparency.  Wright added that "we need a system where doctors and patients call the shots."

That being said, the person who was really impressive was Dan Crenshaw.  This was the first we'd ever heard him speak.  He is seriously sharp!  We were impressed with his answers to every single question.  Especially impressive was his discussion of the defense budget.  Crenshaw explained that the military doesn't actually want a lot of that spending.  It's nothing but corporate welfare for defense contractors.  That's not something you often hear from candidates who are veterans.

Bottom Line: The Texas grassroots did a very good job in Congressional races this cycle; it shows....

The most important national story at play in Texas tomorrow (since 538 whiffed)....

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
1 John 4:1 (NIV)

We just read this embarassingly bad analysis from 538.com about the national stakes in Texas' Congressional runoffs. It's cliche-filled nonsense that, at best, illustrates the hazards of long distance punditry. 538 spends 80% of their time discussing the Democrats despite the fact that Democrats in Texas are irrelevant (unless they're being enabled by Republicans). Honestly, it's not even worth your time.

That being said, there is a national story brewing (for anyone who wants to pay attention): The Republican runoffs, and what they could mean for the Republican conference in the U.S. House.

No matter what happens tomorrow, conservatives are at least +2 in Congressional races in Texas this cycle. Van Taylor is going to replace Sam Johnson. And whoever wins CD-21 is going to be light years better than Lamar Smith. That's already two improvements.

The other four run-offs contrast Texas good ol' boy "Republicans" with grassroots conservatives. If conservatives have a good night tomorrow, it pulls the center of gravity in the Texas delegation significantly to the right. And, if the Texas delegation moves right, so does the Republican conference as a whole.

Those runoffs are below:

• CD 2 (Ted Poe seat): Crenshaw (conservative) vs. Roberts (Good Ol’ Boy)
  
• CD 5 (Hensarling seat): Pounds (conservative) vs. Gooden (Good Ol’ Boy)
  
• CD 6 (Barton seat): Wright (conservative) vs. some hack (Good Ol’ Boy)
   
• CD 27 (Farenthold seat): Cloud (conservative) vs. Bruun (Good Ol’ Boy).

Right now, the Texas delegation has one solid conservative (Gohmert). It has a few reasonably decent members (eg. Hensarling, Ratcliffe, Roger Williams). The rest are good ol’ boy types.

It doesn’t take a genius to see how, as you replace good ol’ boys with conservatives, the Texas Delegation shifts to the right.

It also doesn’t take a genius to see how, as afore mentioned impact occurs, it has a ripple effect on the rest of the Republican conference.

[Note: With all due respect to our friends in the national media, if you just had to google the phrase “good ol’ boy,” you might want to refrain from commenting upon politics in this state.]

Bottom Line: There are several races in Texas tomorrow with potentially large national impact. But they’re happening on the Republican side, not the Democrat. If you want to understand how the national media missed Trump, THIS is how the national media missed Trump.

CD-2 Runoff: "Merely" Lousy vs. AWFUL

"Your princes are rebellious,
And companions of thieves;
Everyone loves bribes,
And follows after rewards.
They do not defend the fatherless,
Nor does the cause of the widow come before them."
Isaiah 1:23

The Trib profiles the CD-2 Runoff:



We've discussed previously how we didn't know much about either candidate.  In that spirit, the Trib's profile helped.  The short version is that neither candidate inspires, but one is significantly worse than the other.

Dan Crenshaw is a retired Navy SEAL.  That's good (as far as it goes), but one lesson we've learned from experience is that a Special Forces background doesn't necessarily mean you'll govern as a conservative.  Crenshaw also openly admits to being endorsed by Pete Sessions in the Trib's video.

Kevin Roberts, on the other hand, is a single term state rep.  During his term in the legislature, Kevin Roberts was a reliable rent boi for Joe Straus.  You can learn everything you need to know about Kevin Roberts' awful record here.

Digging deeper into Crenshaw's endorsements, we notice a couple other interesting tidbits:

In other words, Dan Crenshaw has been endorsed by a U.S. Senator (Cotton) who's never met a war he didn't like.  He's also been endorsed by a former Congressman (Dick Armey) whose ethical issues are well remembered.  And Pete Sessions is, well, Pete Sessions....

[Note: A number of local activists we respect have also endorsed Crenshaw; we suspect that's only in comparison to the guy he's running against.]

But then you look at Roberts' endorsements:

'Nuff said.

[Note II: Roberts has also been endorsed by a number of highly questionable figures in Harris County.]

Bottom Line: If we lived in the district, we'd vote for Crenshaw.  But we wouldn't do so with enthusiasm.  Both of these candidates look like dirtbags....