Here is if a general rule that actually works out pretty well:

If you get a negative piece of information (mailer or robocall) on an opponent in the first week of Early voting, here are some serious things to consider:

• The information was delivered in this timeframe SPECIFICALLY to prevent a response of the opponent; therefore, it is very likely without merit or there is a perfectly logical and acceptable answer for the issue.
• The candidate who had the piece sent knows this – and does care.  Their concern is winning, not ethics, nor any sense of fair play.  That speaks volumes about the character of the instigating candidate, NOT the target candidate.
• This is often a hallmark of the ‘Powers That Be’- and specific consulting groups that they utilize to support their candidates.
• You might consider the targeted candidate in a better light.  It may not be enough- one way or another to change your support (never support someone simply out of sympathy!), but it is one overall factor.

We are not aware of all the negative communications delivered this week, but we are aware of some  We just wanted to warn our membership generally.

UPDATE:  So far, here is a listing of  some of the conservative who have had cheap shots delivered in the last 72 hours.  ALL of them are BOGUS and reflect the character of their opponents:

• Jim Lantroop in the Panhandle- accused of wanting to double taxes (yeah right; with a 96% conservative rating)
• James White in Lufkin: he was ‘admonished ‘ for using improper language on 2 occesions over 2 years 6 years ago in a classroom- on performance review that listedn him as ‘expemplary’
• Mathew Krause, accused of moving into the district just to run for the office.  He’d bought his residence long before the boundaries were even fixed.

Folks; this is a pattern- and show the consistent grimy fingerprints of the Austin ‘Powers That Be’.  Reason alone to support EACH AND EVERY ONE of these candidates.

Apparently a robocall is going around from  Texans for Life (a pretty lonesome Pro-Life group in that it is backing Joe Straus for re-election this term; few are) that has some pretty nasty things to say about Jeff Leach.

These are the facts:  An individual- on their own volition and NOT directed or even notifying the Leach campaign- put out a handful (20-25) flyers in their neighborhood and mis-identified the group that IS endorsing Jeff Leach (Texas Right to Life) as Texans for Life.  This error by someone else not even associated with  Leach campaign, resulted in several thousand robocalls going out, essentially calling Jeff himself a liar.

There are those who wonder why we TeaApproved who we did in this race.  This is why; we have in Jeff someone better in terms of not only solid conservative values, but also a tendency refrain from using distasteful and/or somewhat unethical negative tactics in things like campaigning.  And, since three other solid conservative groups who actually put in a great deal of time in vetting this race (including interviews and background research) are in agreement, we feel quite confident Jeff Leach is the candidate who will not only bring vitality and solid conservative values to representing House District 67, but will also consistently conduct himself in ways to make his constituents proud.

UPDATE:  Since the individual involved continues to ‘behave badly’- repeatedly harassing our volunteers at the polling stations and being continuously confrontational over our recommendations, it is time that we ask if this is the type of conduct and character - by Terri Green and a few of her supporters (certainly NOT the majority) – that Collin County voters want representing them on the bench?  Not what we would ever consider judicial demeanor.  We will continue to report if the ‘poll demeanor’ improves- or worsens. (Mega-Kudos to our intrepid volunteer Gerald Meazell, who has taken the brunt of much of this, has kept his cool, and continued to work the poll with copies of our flyers).

We would also question John Pitchford’s continual antics in the House District 67.  We’ve NEVER seen someone less interested in actually running himself and more interested in attacking a SINGLE opponent.  It has gotten unseemly, to say the least, trying  to turn these molehills of Jon Cole into the Himalayas.  We did not TeaApprove Jon but we certain condemn this political vendetta, whatever its source.  We might question some of Cole’s campaign tactics, but we firmly reject Pitchford’s.

We would also like to commend the attitude of Ryan Dry, representing Bob Dry at the polls (UPDATE; NEVER write posting at 1am after 18 hour days: it takes a special kind of brain-death to misspell a thee letter name repeatedly!  Corrected).  Despite a difference of opinion in that race, he was gracious and accommodating to both our representative and to Angela Tucker herself.  It speaks well of Bob to have his supporters ‘play well with others’ in this venue. A starker contrast we cannot imagine.

========================================================

One thing the process of vetting candidates does, is it challenges you to determine the real character of the candidates.  And character is never more apparent during adversity (which my orphan kids in Uganda have taught me so much about) or during rejection.  How a candidate handles being told our committee (and, folks; it IS a committee- of about 10.  This is NOT a one-man show.) has decided to TeaApprove others says a lot. Some seem to shrug it off, actually understanding there is NOTHING personal in what we do.  I will single out Jeran Akers for being a class act in dealing with it.  I really like Jeran, probably because he HAS handled great adversity (a double-lung transplant, no less!) and good character was forged because of it.  The issues we had with Jeran were again minor policy ones (District 67 is TOUGH; but our pick- Jeff Leach- is a GREAT choice and wonderful character, with youthful enthusiasm and a stabilizing family- nothing like changing a few diapers to get you feet back on the ground.)

But there are others- who shall remain nameless- take such rejection as a deep personal affront.  They nearly ooze with the feeling of entitlement for the position they seek.  They belong to the right clubs, they know the right people, they’ve done the right volunteer work.  So the office BELONGS to THEM.  How DARE we say it doesn’t!  Sometimes this is the candidate, sometimes it is a supporter; but normally, it starts and continues with the candidate.

Well, we dare, because politics needs to shift from being a social game to one based on policy and principle.  And a sense of entitlement leads to arrogance in the legislature- and behind the bench (NEVER a good thing there!)  Our government system is, in many ways, broken and one of the reasons IS because some view it as a social club, not a responsibility to serve the people AND the future.

We are a small group who put in a LOT of hours to come up with our recommendations, based on Tea Party principles: we only ask people to take it for what it’s worth, considering how it was formulated.  We have done our first review of judicial candidates which include different vectors for those principles.  And one of those additional vectors IS personal demeanor; judge’s robes is a place where personal arrogance can be very harmful.  The more this election goes along, the more sure we are that our recommendations are good ones.  And, as voters see these candidates in the field, keep these aspects in mind when you pass your own judgements.  It will help improve governance.

It looks like the Austin ‘Powers That Be’ are taking liberties with our grading efforts, selecting things, using them out of context, and generally ignoring the explanations of the information offered.  It’s almost flattering that they think our opinion is so worthy to try to twist it against people we would gladly support (but we simply felt were out of our range).

So let’s make this clear.  our Committee performance Evaluation CANNOT be taken to stand on its own; it is to be used ONLY AS AN APPENDUM TO VOTING RECORDS.   It is EXTREMELY difficult for a freshman- especially one with the courage to stand up to the ‘Powers That Be’- to have significant committee impact. That is a function of the poor leadership of the House, and the Committee Chairs he selects (Note how many Committee Chairs ran screaming over the hill rather than face re-election this time.  Madden and Solomon in the House and Shapiro in the Senate are only the local ones.)

So, for a freshman in the House, one with a will of his own, anything but a ‘No impact’ would be a shocker.  It is their VOTING RECORD  that then carries the FULL weight of their score.  And freshmen like Jim Landtroop- who has an exemplary voting record at 96% and my (Michael Openshaw, Co-Founder of NTTP) personal endorsement- are EXACTLY who we need in the Texas House.

I’m almost surprised the ‘Powers that be’ didn’t search for every seventh word on our web site and try to use that to come up with a negative piece on solid conservatives like Jim.  It’s almost what I would expect.

UPDATE: And just to make things clear:  The NTTP Vetting committee has reviewed Jim’s record in office on an emergency basis and has unanimously extended TeaApproval to Jim Jandtroop based on his exceptional performance (putting him in the same category as our local Ken Paxton and Jody Laubenberg).  And, if the ‘Powers That Be’ want to continue to misrepresent our work, we say (in our best gravely voice): ‘Go ahead; make our day!”