Response to a Response
Posted by Mike O on November 29, 2010
Stefani Carter responded to an open letter from Ken Emmanualson of the Dallas Tea Party calling her to pull her pledge to Joe Straus for Texas House Speaker, making the point of how unhelpful Ken had been to her election. While true, it did NOT address the question of her instant signing of a Pledge letter to Joe, despite repeated input for the vast number of her volunteers on this issue otherwise. Since she circulated her response to ken to many people, I responded to those same people with the following response to the response:
First, let’s point out a few things Stefani (because I DID work for you AND brought along others to do likewise, not to mention drove the ‘TeaApproval of your group).
I would point out that Straus violated his own pledge card to Craddick to get elected in the first place. The entire Pledge Card system is- and has been- only honored out of convenience and frankly, it’s time for that antiquated system so rife with potential intimidation to go!
Were you impressed with the Ethic Commission hearing? the one where Hughes, the accuser, took the oath (apparently both in the 2+ hour private session and in under 15 minute public session to make his accusations. And the chairman- who received $42K from Straus- and did not recuse himself- allowed the accused to NOT take the oath to read a carefully written statement (as apparently is required, per this writeup by a group that was a significant backer of you) Does this REALLY sound like the kind of stuff you want to be party to? (As I said before, being Hughes was in Straus’s camp and all of this can do for him is political damage, there was no motivation except principle for him to make such an accusation.)
Your FIRST commitment is to your constituents and supporters; if they are publicly coming out in droves for you to back Straus and ‘the way things are done’, fine. But if it’s mainly from a few Austin ‘powers that be’, please realize some of these are the same forces we did battle with in the primary up our way. Not afraid to do it again, as needed.
‘Your word’ was given before the full scope of the mandate was known. By keeping to this antiquated system your word that you gave as an Independent Conservative Republican is sacrificed. Because the message you are getting from ‘the conservative majority of the Party’- your first allegiance, supposedly- cannot be more clear.
Her response was: “Thanks, Mike, for your continued thoughts. ” Probably the briefest statement you’ll ever get from an Ivy League lawyer (but still speaks volumes).