Showing posts with label Elections 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elections 2008. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

The tide is turning

Though Sessions Watchers are disappointed that we didn't unseat Pete Sessions last night, it's encouraging that Pete Sessions' brand of hyper-partisanship is growing increasingly unpopular across the nation.

Pundits will analyze McCain's loss for weeks, but in my opinion, he lost by not being himself, by concentrating on "the base" instead of moderate Republicans.

In North Carolina, Kay Hagan won Elizabeth Dole's senate seat, mainly because of negative campaigning on Dole's part. When the Dole campaign a voice actor to make it sound like Kay Hagan said "there is no God," the plan backfired, sending a wave of support to Hagan--who happens to be a lifelong Presbyterian and Sunday School teacher!

Michelle Bachmann's negative campaign sent a wave of financial support to her opponent, Elwyn Tinklenberg. Although Bachmann (MN-06) ended winning back her House seat, she did so with a margin of only 4%.

And Sessions fundraiser recipient Robin Hayes, the 10-year Republican incumbent who got $10,000 from Pete Sessions' notorious strip club fundraiser was defeated by Democratic Party challenger Larry Kissell. Robin Hayes gained nation-wide notoriety in this election cycle by saying that "liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God." Last night, he found out that over half of his constituents disagree.

The tide is turning, finally, away from negativity and hyper-partisanship. Although we still don't have a representative who works for us, it should be of some consolation to voters in our district knowing that the American people are tired of right-wing extremism, and they're ready to vote for hope over fear. In TX-32, our day will come--but, sadly, not this year.

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...

Monday, November 3, 2008

Closing arguments: the case against Pete Sessions

Since January of 2007, I've kept track of the voting record of our Congressman, Pete Sessions, operating under the assumption that Sessions keeps getting elected because voters don't really know anything about him. Since 2004, he's been elected solely because he's a Republican in a district gerrymandered as a "safe" Republican seat by Tom DeLay and his cronies. Voting for the "R" label, in my opinion, is like continuing to buy your favoring "Made in U.S.A" product, not realizing that it's now made in China.

So let's review the record of Pete Sessions.

Pete Sessions has been pretty much of a rubber stamp for the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party, and supports President Bush about 90% of the time.

But sometimes, when it suits his own special interests, Pete Sessions has been known to vote with people like Barney Frank on a bill supportive of online gambling.

That's what Pete Sessions' strip club fundraiser was really about--Pete Sessions' Vegas trip was really about online poker.

What Pete Sessions really wants is leadership of the Republican Party. He's already looking forward to winning--not to serve the constituents, but to become chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Pete Sessions is scared of Democrats, except when there's one lone protester among 100 Republicans, flanked by Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Then, Pete Sessions is brave enough to taunt the protester, but with a really strange comment that makes one wonder, "Did Pete Sessions own son lead an anti-Sessions protest?"

Pete Sessions thinks anyone who doesn't agree with him is "unhinged."

Pete Sessions votes against rate cuts to student loans, SCHIP and renewable energy. Pete Sessions also voted against the anti-predatory lending act, and Sessions Watchers know that the current economic crisis was caused, in part, by predatory lenders.

Pete Sessions got an "F" from MiddleClass.Org, which monitors votes affecting ordinary people all over the nation.

Pete Sessions' "power ranking" in Congress is 349th most powerful out of 435 members. That's actually a step up, since Pete Sessions used to be 10th from the bottom in power, at 425, pretty good for a beginning Congressman, but not for someone like Pete Sessions, who has been in Congress since 1996.

Tomorrow's Election Day, and it's time to vote for change. Once again, here are the candidates running against Pete Sessions, listed in alphabetical order:

Alex Bischoff, Libertarian: League of Women Voters survey; Project Vote Smart bio; Campaign website

Eric Roberson, Democrat: League of Woman Voters survey; Project Vote Smart bio; Campaign website.

To find your Election Day polling location, visit the Dallas County Elections website.

(And to the person who posted advertisements for another blog in my comment boxes, yes I'm "censoring" your posts, because this website is specifically about watching Pete Sessions, not watching some other candidate. By the way, your blog doesn't allow comments, so you're censoring, too, right?)

Friday, October 24, 2008

SessionsWatch PSA: "Bailout"

The following is our 2008 PSA called "Bailout," about how Pete Sessions didn't listen when voters called asking him not to vote for the bailout, and was one of only 65 House Republicans to vote for the original "blank check" bailout, with no provisions for oversight:

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?