Showing posts with label Ernest Bailes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ernest Bailes. Show all posts

Thursday, February 14, 2019

#TXLEGE: Organization that ignored grotesque sexism during last campaign suddenly concerned about "Republican women"


"Strength and honor are her clothing;
She shall rejoice in time to come."
Proverbs 31:25

Texas Tribune this morning:
For female Republicans looking to become freshmen in the Texas Legislature, last year was the year of the woman — or, if you want to include both of them, women.

Candy Noble and Angela Paxton were the only freshman female Republicans elected to the Texas House and Senate, respectively, amid a surge of women running for office.

Noble and Paxton exemplify what’s widely viewed as a dearth of female GOP lawmakers in the Legislature. In the Senate, the number of Republican women serving is at an all-time high, but they make up less than a third of the chamber’s GOP-held seats. Across the rotunda, the gender gap is far more visible: Of the 83 Republicans serving, six are women. Democratic women, by comparison, hold 27 of the party’s seats.

As recently as 2012, 19 Republican women served in the House.
To be sure, this topic warrants discussion.  Conservatives have been arguing (correctly) for years about inherent biological differences between men and women.   Thus, it is only logical that we should respect those inherent differences in political communication.  Republicans should take heed.

However, coming from the Trib, one cannot help but think back to the last Republican primary:



That would be incumbent state representative Ernest 'Dirty Ernie' Bailes.  During the last campaign, Bailes called his young, female, opponent a "prostitute" because she worked with a pro-life organization that wasn't aligned with the former speaker.  It was grotesquely sexist.

Here's the thing: The Texas Tribune, literally, didn't cover it.

If the Texas Tribune is honestly curious about why there aren't more Republican women in the legislature, they might want to start there.

Consider what we said at the time:

#TXLEGE: Bailes calling Cook a "prostitute" SHOULD be litmus test for Toxic Capitol Culture....



....

Since the Daily Beast reports about the culture of chronic sexual abuse at the Texas Capitol came out, we're heard a lot of talk about part of the solution is for more women to run for office. To be honest, this website agrees with a lot of that talk. So what happens when a young woman runs for the Texas legislature against a male incumbent with a lousy record?!?

Emily Kebodeaux Cook is a well known activist who has worked with Texas Right to Life the past several legislative sessions. She's currently running against liberal Republican Ernest Bailes for a house seat north of Houston. This is a textbook case of a young woman running against the corrupt status quo.

....

Ironically, we've believed for some time that this race was a good test for those who believe "we need more women in politics." As stated above, this is a textbook case of a young woman running against a male-dominated status quo. But, in this case, the male in question happens to be a reliable vote to preserve said status quo who enjoys support from Democrats.

Then the male in question calls the female in question a "prostitute."

....

Bottom Line: This race was always going to be an interesting test of the philosophical consistency of those who believe 'more women in politics' is (at least part of) the solution to recent scandals. And that was before the pro-status quo male incumbent called his conservative female challenger a "prostitute." Won't it be interesting to see the reaction (or lack thereof) in this case....
As we suspected would happen, "lack thereof" was an accurate prediction.

Now, a year later, the Texas Tribune wonders why there aren't more Republican women in the legislature.

-------

Ironically enough, we wrote the above words before we saw what we saw at the last RPT convention.

-------

In fairness to the Trib, they did interview Cook for the article:
That’s not to say women aren’t trying. During last year’s primaries, Emily Kebodeaux Cook, a first-time political candidate, was one of many Republican women who challenged male incumbents or ran for open seats at the Legislature.

In Cook’s case, she ran against incumbent Rep. Ernest Bailes of Shepherd, who won the primary with 59 percent of the vote, compared with Cook’s 41 percent. Cook said she ran because she disagreed with Bailes' voting record during the past legislative session. She added, however, that “the Republican Party will be stronger overall when it’s not just one side of the aisle that has elected officials who look like our daughters.”

But campaigning as a Republican woman comes with its own set of hurdles. Cook said when voters brought up her gender as she and her team went canvassing, those questions often came from other women — rather than men — which she found “astonishing.”

“While a man might ask me where I stood on policy matters,” Cook said, “the first question from another woman would be, ‘How can you balance raising a young family with serving in elected office?’”
That's fine.  It certainly is interesting that female voters are more likely to ask female candidates about work/life balance.  But come on.

-------

Bottom Line: If you ignore a malicious creep calling a young woman a "prostitute," you're not in a position to decry the afore mentioned creeps re-election.

Saturday, June 16, 2018

#RPTCon18: A DEVASTATING end to an otherwise great Convention


"It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness,
For a throne is established by righteousness."
Proverbs 16:12

[Note: You can read Olivia Messer's original 2013 piece in the Texas Observer here.  You can read her 2017 reports here and here.  You can read the Texas Tribune's reporting on the subject here.  You can read the Austin Chronicle's reporting on the subject here.]

We still can't believe that it happened.

Assuming it survived the vote by the delegates, we expect plank 187 of the 2018 Republican party of Texas platform to read:
Sexual Harassment: RPT supports a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment.
The good news: This is the first time in history the RPT platform has addressed it.

The bad news: It's a weak, toothless, unenforceable position.  It doesn't mention why the plank is in there in the first place.  It's the Texas Alliance for "Life" of sexual misconduct planks.

We moved to amend the plank to instead read:
Sexual Misconduct:  RPT supports a zero-tolerance policy for all forms of sexual misconduct in the Texas Legislature.  We furthermore call upon the Legislature to create a credible system of due process to adjudicate complaints within two weeks.  In the event complaints are found to be valid, we call upon the legislature to create tangible penalties including, but not limited to, loss of committee chairmanship and dismissal.
Our amendment was designed to give teeth to the existing language.

Unfortunately, and inexplicably, the delegates voted it down.  It wasn't close.  Two thirds/one third.

[Note (11:48 pm): We're trying to edit this post to get it up before midnight...and we still can't believe we read that last paragraph.]
.
We don't get it.

The Texas Legislature is a disgusting cesspool.  Whatever the excesses of the national "hashtagMeToo" movement, the Texas Legislature is a legit case.  The Texas Legislature is Harvey Weinstein, not Aziz Ansari.

And, to be honest, some of the behavior we saw the past few days confirmed our worst fears.

We saw a Texas house Committee Chairman get into an elevator at one in the morning with a woman who wasn't his wife.  We saw another member of the Texas house at the hotel bar gettin' real grabby with any hot young thing that would move.  By themselves, neither is proof of anything...but let's just say that the circumstantial evidence is strong.

Also, this is not one of those "allegedly" cases.  We saw this with our own eyes.  We dare either of the legislators in question to sue this author.  We have witnesses.

[Note: We wanted to get video, but there was no way to film in a way that wouldn't have been obvious.]

-------

The worst part is that the objections during floor debate didn't make sense.

One person spoke against who he made vague comments about political correctness and lack of due process in Title IX investigations.

Here's the thing: WE.  LITERALLY.  INCLUDED.  THE.  PHRASE.  DUE.  PROCESS.  IN.  OUR.  AMENDMENT.  LANGUAGE.

-------

In hindsight, our biggest mistake was not taking the time to educate the delegates (we should have literally used the phrases "adultery" and "prostitution").  There was limited time to discuss platform amendments. We were trying to be a team player.  We were trying tosave time.  We assumed that if we mentioned Olivia Messer by name, delegates would take our word for it and do their own research later.

We all know what they say about the word "assume."

Our other mistake was not forcing a discussion on this topic in the legislative priorities committee.  To be honest, the taxpayer funded lobbying/union dues stuff was going so well that we didn't want to annoy the committee by asking for more.  We assumed we could get the language we wanted in the platform, and that that would be good enough.

Once again, everybody knows what they say about the word "assume."

[Note for future legislative priorities committees: If we had had seven legislative priorities to work with, instead of five, this author wouldn't have felt that pushing this issue would be perceived as selfish.]

-------

Note to this website's left-of-center readers: The real reason for today's result was the backlash to the national "hashtagMeToo" movement.  They went too far.  And, obviously, the results speak for themselves.

Imagine a world where the Republican Party of Texas adopts strong language condemning sexual misconduct by elected officials...and know that the only reason we're not currently living in that world is because an ambitious feminist blogger went after Aziz Ansari.

[Second note for this website's left-of-center readers: Even though RPT just face-planted on cleaning up the state legislature, given the cases of Joe Barton and Blake Farenthold, RPT still has the strongest record of ANY state level political party in the country at getting our own elected officials to leave office once the evidence becomes undeniable.]

-------

Note for this website's right-of-center readers: You don't understand the opportunity you just missed.

The saddest part is that we just re-read our blog post from the day Joe Barton left office.

-------

Republicans like to waste time holding pointless meetings about "millennial outreach."

News Flash MORONS:  THE.  AMENDMENT.  LANGUAGE.  WAS.  AN.  ACT.  OF. MILLENNIAL. OUTREACH.

And you just whiffed.

-------

Bottom LIne: A very small improvement on the status quo...but it could have been so much more.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

#TXLEGE: Bailes calling Cook a "prostitute" SHOULD be litmus test for Toxic Capitol Culture....


"And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever."
1 John 2:17

Since the Daily Beast reports about the culture of chronic sexual abuse at the Texas Capitol came out, we're heard a lot of talk about part of the solution is for more women to run for office.  To be honest, this website agrees with a lot of that talk.  So what happens when a young woman runs for the Texas legislature against a male incumbent with a lousy record?!?

Emily Kebodeaux Cook is a well known activist who has worked with Texas Right to Life the past several legislative sessions.  She's currently running against liberal Republican Ernest Bailes for a house seat north of Houston.  This is a textbook case of a young woman running against the corrupt status quo.

So, what did Ernest Bailes call Emily Cook at a candidate forum last night?!?



Ain't that something....

Ironically, we've believed for some time that this race was a good test for those who believe "we need more women in politics."  As stated above, this is a textbook case of a young woman running against a male-dominated status quo.  But, in this case, the male in question happens to be a reliable vote to preserve said status quo who enjoys support from Democrats.

Then the male in question calls the female in question a "prostitute."

Finally, allow us to pre-emptively address the alleged 'substance' of Bailes' remark.  We suspect that, at some point soon, Bailes will try to weasel out of his remark by claiming he misspoke and saying something vague about "special interests."  Well, you can learn everything you need to know about Ernest Bailes' record with special interests here.

As for which candidate in this race is raising more money from special interests, recent campaign finance reports speak for themselves:



Bottom Line: This race was always going to be an interesting test of the philosophical consistency of those who believe 'more women in politics' is (at least part of) the solution to recent scandals.  And that was before the pro-status quo male incumbent called his conservative female challenger a "prostitute."  Won't it be interesting to see the reaction (or lack thereof) in this case....

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

#TXLEGE: Thoughts on #SINEDIE (take 2)....


"For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God."
Romans 8:19

We're still digesting the past 24 hours, but a few observations in no particular order:
  • 83 Republican house members showed up to today's caucus meeting.  That's a heck of a lot more than we expected.  We were also pleasantly surprised by the length of the meeting.
  • Joe Straus personally showing up is an admission that all is not well in the Republican caucus.
  • There was a whole bunch of traditional media at today's caucus meeting; media interest can only raise the profile of the issue..
  • We're not sure who said it (Jim Graham?!?) but they're absolutely correct: You can't support both Greg Abbott and Joe Straus anymore.
    • At this point, it remains an open question whether Greg Abbott supports Greg Abbott or Joe Straus.
  • The arrogance of house leadership remains a sight to behold: Had they simply shown up for work this morning, they probably could have run out the clock with a fairly typical act of failure theater.  But they just had to jam their thumb in the eye of Abbott, Patrick/the Senate, and the Texas grassroots.  In doing so, they elevated their profile all over again.
    • Note: The only reason we haven't completely given up on Greg Abbott is because the degree to which he's been publicly disrespected essentially demands a response.
  • Apparently, the house Republican caucus has a September retreat scheduled; grassroots activists really ought to crash that party.
    • Note: If the new RPT leadership really wanted to impress this website, they'd convince the caucus make the whole event open to the public.
  • The kumbaya messaging coming out of today's caucus meeting was obnoxious.
  • Abbott said all the right things in today's radio interview.  But Greg Abbott frequently says all the right things.  Its Greg Abbott's follow through that leaves a lot to be desired.
  • Another special session won't accomplish anything right now.
    • Note: But then there's redistricting....
  • Random Thought: We wonder if the Texas Association of Business has ever taken any money from George Soros?!?
    • cc: Abbott, Greg
  • We're getting really, really, really sick of the socialized education industrial complex's sense of entitlement....

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

#TXLEGE: "Save MUNY" bill refuses to die....

We apologize for the blurry picture, but that's actually a good metaphor for the revival of this bill.
"Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?!?"
Matthew 20:15

[Note: The hearing can be viewed here, our testimony is just after the one hour mark.]

It's not often we testify in a committee hearing on the same side of an issue as Greg Fenves and the Texas Exes, but such is the nature of an obscure land dispute in West Austin in which the legislature has inexplicably chosen to involve itself.  We had thought this one was dead.  But late yesterday afternoon, the House Land and Resource management committee announced a hearing on short notice.

We outlined the reasons for our opposition to SB 822 when it was heard in the Senate back in March.  The short version is that UT is sitting on an extraordinarily valuable tract of land in West Austin, which UT has occasionally considered selling to residential/mixed use developers.  In a city with a chronic housing shortage, keeping this option on the table seems prudent; unfortunately, that prudence exists alongside some dirty local Austin politics.

At this morning's hearing, UT and their representatives (led by Fenves) testified that it was in the interest of everyone involved to respect the wishes of the original donor.  Furthermore, they testified that this could lead to remittance clauses being inserted into all future gifts, but not just gifts to them.  Thus, there could be unintended consequences in any number of areas where a future legislature might invent a future jurisdictional claim.  But here's the thing [Note: we can't believe we're about to say this]: UT's argument isn't entirely crazy.  Who's to say how a future legislature in 10 or 20 years would interpret this action?!?  Does the legislature really want to create this precedent?!?  Tread carefully....

As to our personal testimony: we gave the same schpiel we give any time the "Save MUNY" issue comes up.  In a city with a chronic housing shortage, it strikes us as absurd to place artificial restrictions on prime real estate that presently hosts a golf course.  If UT wants to sell this particular tract of land to developers...that would be a good thing!

Rep. Ernest Bailes attempted to obfuscate by asking a straw-man question about whether we would apply the same logic to Central Park in New York City.  While Bailes question was a curveball we didn't expect, we replied that midtown Manhattan doesn't have the 6000-square foot lot size requirements that Central Austin has, and that his question was irrelevant as long as that distinction applies.  That being said, having had a few hours to digest Rep. Bailes question, if we were offered the deal of leaving the Muny tract alone in exchange for upzoning the surrounding neighborhood...we would take it.

Making matters worse: Lyle Larson (who's carrying the bill in the House), used his closing argument as an opportunity to throw Wallace Hall under the bus.  Rather than addressing the issues, Larson reminded the committee of his role in the Wallace Hall impeachment and reminded the room "I have been sued by a UT regent."  If there weren't already enough reasons to shoot this bill down on the merits, hearing the bill sponsor cite his role in that disgraceful fiasco makes us oppose it all the more.

Bottom Line: We hope this bill dies....

-----

Note: During the Senate hearing, we criticized the Texas Exes for their lack of attention to this issue; giving credit where it's due, they had a significant presence at today's hearing.

-----