Showing posts with label Dallas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dallas. Show all posts

Friday, July 15, 2011

Pete Sessions and wife are separating

Well, this is sad. I've been hoping that Pete Sessions would leave Congress "to spend more time with my family," but, apparently, I'm out of luck. Pete Sessions and his wife of 27 years are separating.

From NBC/DFW:
The 56-year-old Texas Republican issued a statement Friday:

"After a great deal of thought and discussion, a decision has been made that my wife and I are separating. I am grateful for many years of marriage, and the blessing of two wonderful sons. I ask for respect for my privacy and for that of my family, and I do not intend to comment any further."
Of course, he can't be reached for comment, and he dumped this news on Friday night. So there's no news on what's behind this--maybe she got tired of him running off to fundraisers at strip clubs or just got tired of him being so damned stupid.

Or maybe he's leaving her for Alan Stanford.

Whatever the reason, he's got some splainin' to do--like it or not--to his right-wing followers who've been lapping up his "family values" message all these years.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Pete Sessions co-sponsors bill to change 14th Amendment

Sure, they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, but they just want to "tweak" it a bit, and get rid of birthright citizenship--a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. For those of you who wondered whether or not Pete Sessions is a co-sponsor, yes, he is. For a look at their editing of the Constitution, check their revisions to the Amendment at the Library of Congress. A list of co-sponsors is available at this Gov Track link: H.R. 1868: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009

The bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.

Mitch McConnell is on record as wanting a "hearing" on the 14th Amendment, but not all conservatives agree, namely Lou Dobbs.

In the upcoming debates (unless Pete chickens out), listen for the latest right-wing fringe scare tactic: the "anchor baby" plot to take over America. :)

(And, if you submit a question, ask Pete if he'll considering "tweaking" the Second Amendment to exclude things like armor piercing bullets, since he's into changing the Constitution all of a sudden).

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

A Streetcar Named Hypocrisy

Count Pete Sessions among the GOP stimulus bashers who are now campaigning to get some of that money in their districts. From Businessweek:
Sessions, who called the stimulus “a massive spending binge by the Democrat-controlled Congress,” wrote LaHood three times last September and October. Sessions promoted four projects, including a Dallas streetcar line he said “will create jobs in the region and improve the quality of life for North Texans.” The project got $23 million.

Sessions, in an e-mail, called the stimulus an “abject failure” and said he’d vote against it again if he could.

The lawmaker said his objections don’t keep him “from asking federal agencies for their full consideration of critical infrastructure and competitive grant projects for North Texas when asked to do so by my constituents.” Sessions has written agencies supporting six other grants, spokeswoman Emily Davis said.
(A streetcar line, huh? Hope the contract is awarded to someone who's actually made a streetcar before).

According to Alan Simpson, this is nothing new in Washington:
“It’s the original sin of Washington -- it’s hypocrisy,” Simpson said. “You can’t do that then say you go out and cut the other stuff.”

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Pete Sessions: Sore Winner

Although Pete Sessions easily won re-election in the gerrymandered 32nd congressional district, he didn't sound too happy about it last night. While Republicans who lost last night, most notably John McCain, were gracious in defeat, promising to work across party lines, winning candidate Pete Sessions was his old partisan self in an interview with CBS 11. Since I can't embed the video, I'll attempt a transcript:
Nov. 4, 9:52 pm CT
Marianne Martinez: First of all, let's react to some of the state and local wins for the Republican Party.

Pete Sessions: Well, the Republican party appears that we're going to win the congressional races in North Texas; we appear that we're going to pick up the seat that we lost a couple of years ago down with, uh, in Texas 22 with a great Republican victory. And so the State of Texas with Senator Cornyn and the things which we have done to make Texas great, uh, that will we'll be back in power.
Yeah, I know, it doesn't make much sense, but that's how Pete Sessions talks when he's speaking extemporaneously. Continuing on:
Marianne Martinez: Tell me about the national stage, though, there must be a little bit of a down feeling considering the electoral college, 200 to 90 I believe is the last that I saw.

Pete Sessions: Well, well certainly the national scene is way different. The national scene is way different, uh, Senator Barack Obama, now what I assume will be President-elect Obama tonight has done a very good job of selling the view that we ought to raise taxes, uh, and, and do things differently. That we ought to change the way things have been done. He's going to have that opportunity. The Republican Party, while we disagree with that, we want to see the country move forward and do better. And that's where the Republican Party is going to be very much in favor of trying to work to make sure this country gets what it needs to compete and be ready. If that does not happen, the Republican Party will have a message that we have about cutting taxes and growing our economy, which we'll get back to.
(This is an example of what I refer to as "Pete Speak," circuitous sentences that don't really add up to anything resembling a coherent thought, kind of like we heard with Sarah Palin).
Marianne Martinez: Obama talked a lot during his campaign about reaching across the aisle to the Republicans. Do you think that can be done, especially considering that the Democrats will have a stronghold also now in the Senate?

Pete Sessions: Well, I don't think that Nancy Pelosi, uh, even once these past two years has reached across the aisle, not once. So if she reaches across, they'll be somebody to shake her hand and work with her, but I have not seen that desire or effort on behalf of Speaker Pelosi yet.
Again with Nancy Pelosi! He's so hung up on her. Good grief, the Democrats could conceivably elect another House Speaker, and the interviewer asked specifically about Obama. Would it kill Pete Sessions to at least acknowledge Obama's gracious message of inclusiveness, where he promised to work on behalf of people who didn't vote for him?
Marianne Martinez: Describe your mood here at this particular watch party.

Pete Sessions: Well, the mood here is, is one of disappointment. It's one, uh, where we are not going to throw in the towel. We recognize that we have a lot to be proud of. We believe the Republican Party still has a lot to offer, not only the State of Texas but really Dallas County. We believe what we did during a period of time of, of Republican control was to transform this county to what it is, and that is that it's one of the greatest cities in America, entrepreneurship lives and breathes here and the growth of jobs and the opportunity to grow jobs and have people call this home is what the Republican Party's made this.
I'll swear, I listened to that last part three times, and it still doesn't make much since. Watch the interview for yourself at this link and see if it makes sense to you: Interview with Pete Sessions, Nov. 4, 2008

What the interviewer should have asked is if Pete Sessions felt inspired by Obama to reach out to the 40% of voters in the District who didn't vote for him. But seasoned Sessions Watchers already know the answer to that--he barely reaches out to constituents in his own party, except to ask them to vote for him and put his signs all over the place every two years. The rest of the time, he's concentrated on marketing the Republican brand and raising money for other right-wing extremist Republicans.

As it stands now, the gerrymandered 32nd District remains safe for Pete Sessions; although Dallas County turn solidly Democratic in 2006 and remains Democratic in 2008, the Tom Delay gerrymandered district remains a Republican stronghold. So the next step will be a push for redistricting--not to make "safe" Democratic or Republican Party enclaves, but to better represent districts. Until that happens, Sessions Watch is watching...

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Vote early in Dallas, starting this week

Just a reminder that early voting has started in Texas. In Dallas County, you may vote at any early voting location in the country from October 20-31. A list of early voting locations is available at Dallas County Elections

SessionsWatch is non-partisan and does not endorse candidates, we just think TX-32 deserves better representation than we're getting from Pete Sessions.

Democrats in TX-32 who vote a straight-party ballot will automatically cast a vote for Sessions' Democratic Party opponent, Eric Roberson.

Republicans and Independents who don't want to cast a vote for Pete Sessions may choose between the Democratic Candidate or the Libertarian candidate, Alex Bischoff, or you may choose to skip the race altogether.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Pete Sessions "cuts and runs" after debate with Eric Roberson

Probably the most difficult thing about being a SessionsWatcher is actually seeing Pete Sessions in person. It's kinda like hanging out in the rain forest with binoculars, trying to catch a glimpse of a rare bird that only shows up every two years, then flits away into the night.

After last night's debate--which only lasted half an hour--Sessions made a hasty retreat out the door of the elementary school cafetorium, instead of hanging around with constituents, enjoying cookies and coffee and listening to the other debates of the evening. Granted, it wasn't an ideal format; it was a town hall meeting, with the congressional debate followed by the county sheriff debate and a Texas house district race, but the whole thing was over in under two hours. Congress is not in session at the moment, there's no urgent business that needs attention. Would it have hurt Pete Sessions so terribly to hang out with us for a couple of hours, pose for pictures with constituents, shake hands, work the room--you know, stuff that politicians do?

Democratic challenger Eric Roberson, on the other hand, stayed through the other debates and spent time afterward answering people's questions, calming their anxieties about these tough economic times. If he'd done nothing more than that, he would have won the debate, but he also bested the 6th-term incumbent in answering questions from constituents. As an attendee posted this morning in the comment box:
Anonymous said...

I attended the debate yesterday and I must say that Eric won a decisive victory. Pete was out of touch with the audience... Go Eric Roberson!

October 9, 2008 5:04 AM
That just about says it all--our congressman is out of touch.

Last night's debate was co-sponsored by the Republican and Democratic precinct chairs of a precinct at the far north end of the district, which voted 68.7% Republican in 2006 (75.9% Republican in 2004). So it's not like we asked him to come all the way down to my "scary" neighborhood 25 miles to the south where people vote predominately Democratic. He was in friendly territory, where usually the candidate has to do nothing more than say "I'm the Republican" to get people's vote.

But times have changed since 2006.

On Wednesday, the Dow closed at 9,258; those of use who have retirement plans received our statements in the mail this week. Some of those envelopes remain unopened on our desks, because we're afraid to see how far our savings have plummeted.

The mix of people seemed to be fairly evenly divided politically, though it was difficult to tell from audience response, which favored Eric Roberson. People are scared, they want to know how our economy got into such a mess, what our representatives are going to do to fix it, and what they're going to do to make sure this doesn't happen again.

Before the debate, organizers distributed 3x5 cards to attendees in advance of the debate; we wrote our questions, which were collected and taken to the two precinct chairs moderating the debate. The candidates began with 4-minute opening statements, then proceeded to answer questions chosen by the moderators, who took equal turns posing the questions.

Pete Sessions lost the audience with his opening statement. He began with telling us his name, reminding us how long he's been in office, and said he went to D.C. to "grow the economy and provide jobs," a statement which received a rumble of groans and one "boo" from a man in the audience. He didn't even stop to thank the debate sponsors before launching into a partisan statement:
The first vote in the House of Representatives is to elect the Speaker of the House, so you're either voting for me, a Republican, or Nancy Pelosi...
More grumbles from the audience. No one wants to hear that stuff. We want to know if we're going to have any savings left for retirement, if there are going to be foreclosures in our neighborhood, if our favorite local coffee shop is going to be there in the morning when we stop by for donuts and coffee before work, if our job is going to still be there when we get to work, or if we'll find the doors chained shut.

No one cares about Nancy Pelosi.

But Pete Sessions ignored the groans in the audience and just plowed right ahead with canned Republican talking points about cutting taxes and creating jobs; he berated Democrats for "tax increase after tax increase," giving no specifics, seemingly unaware that Republicans were in control of the House and Senate--hence, the budget--until January of 2007. He concluded with a statement I couldn't quite follow, how we should cut taxes and have more money for us instead of the government. I didn't understand that, because tax money is our money and we're the government--as in "we, the people."

Eric Roberson looked relaxed and happy to be there, welcoming the chance to talk to people in the district. He began by thanking the debate co-sponsors--which Sessions failed to do--and started with his biography, how he graduated from Richardson High School before serving in the Navy and returning back to the district to start a family of his own. He spoke briefly about his military service, and how the GI bill helped him attend college. Roberson, while respectfully referring to Pete Sessions as a "great guy: with whom he has some "disagreements," launched into some obvious differences between himself and the incumbent, namely Pete Sessions' vote against the G.I. Bill. Roberson went on to explain that he was raised in a Republican household, but that "extremists" in the party have driven away moderate people like himself. Eric Roberson's just about the only speaker I've heard who can say the word "extremist" in a way that doesn't sound like a radical. With a smile on his face, he said it with an attitude of jovial camaraderie guys have when they're hanging out together, saying something like, "C'mon, Pete, you brag about being at the far right of the Republican Party and I disagree with you on that." Roberson was interrupted several times for applause, as he talked directly to constituents about how government should work on behalf of us, our kids, our parents, and how politicians should be loyal to the people in the district, not to the President or to the political party.

Following opening statements, the moderators read questions from the audience, ranging from the economy to term limits for members of Congress.

On taxes, Pete Sessions advocated "across the board" tax cuts and delivered more standard conservative fare on lowering corporate taxes.

On the economy, Pete Sessions actually blamed "community organizers" for the sub prime mortgage crisis, implying that organizations like ACORN actually write NINJA ("no income, no job, no assets") loans.

Okay, I have to take a pause here and interject something on that topic. I almost laughed out loud when he blamed ACORN and "community organizers," the latest in a long line of Republican-fabricated boogeymen, frequently employed to scare us into voting for them instead of for our own best interest. Mortgage brokers were talking people into lying about income to get loans, and I know a little about it from a friend, who's employed as a teacher. A well-respected mortgage broker tried to talk my friend into lying about her income to qualify for a bigger loan. This broker wasn't the "liberal wacko community organizer" who exists only in Pete Sessions' imagination, but a nicely dressed professional, working in posh upscale office building--probably a Republican. My friend told me about the meeting afterward, about telling the broker that she wanted what she could afford and didn't think lying about her income sounded like the right thing to do. My friend ended up walking away, deciding not to buy a house after all. But how many other people were taken in by the nice office, the expensive suit, the professional sales job; how many people bought the lie that they could do better than just a "starter home," that they could have a "nice" house with every kid in his or her own room?

One person who promoted this type of loan was Pete Sessions' favorite president, George W. Bush. Check out this video of President Bush saying that "deserving families with bad credit histories" should be able to get "just as nice a house as anybody else," then tell me he's not part of the problem!

But I digress.

Eric Roberson countered that we don't need "across the board" cuts in taxes, we need to take a smart look at everything, cutting taxes where it will do the most good in stimulating the economy and leaving other taxes as they are, instead of coming in with a "one size fits all" tax plan.

The final question from the audience concerned a constitutional amendment on term limits for members of Congress. This question was read by the Republican precinct chair, and she got a laugh from the audience as soon as she said the words "term limits." For a few seconds, it sounded like we were at a comedy club!

Pete Sessions said that he supports term limits and has voted for them (I seem to remember him talking about term limits about 10 years ago, but a google-search of "pete sessions term limits" didn't yield much of anything).

Eric Roberson said that he does favor term limits, but would want members of Congress to have enough time in office so the people have experienced members representing them, saying that if there was constant turnover in the House, the people back home wouldn't be very well served.

After both candidates had made their closing statements, as the audience applauded and the moderators thanked them for being there, Pete Sessions slipped out the back. "He's leaving!" said a man across the aisle from me. "He's going out the back door...come out this way," he said, indicating a door behind the seating area. Actually, to be fair, the main entrance to the cafetorium was the one off the parking lot, where we all came in, and where Pete Sessions headed out after the debate. But the visual effect was the same; it looked like he was "sneaking out the back" to avoid talking to us. The applause hadn't even stopped before Pete Sessions was out of sight.

"Was it something we said?" another debate attendee joked, to no one in particular. Another laugh from others in the audience.

Well, I can't blame Pete Sessions from leaving--we didn't have the kind of venue he likes. No strippers, no high stakes poker game in the back room, just coffee, cookies and a lot of questions about what he's been doing for us for the past 12 years. Where's the fun in that?