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.
What about the House District 70 race? It appears that the TeaApproved candidate (Bracy Wilson) is using the same negative campaign tactics as outlined above. Interestingly enough, his opponent, Scott Sanford, has the endorsements of both Ken Paxton and Jodie Laubenberg. Thoughts?
Stating something generically without giving specifics hardly is a persuasive argument. Saying something negative about an opponent is not necessarily an improper tactic; only when it is outlandishly not true and deliberately held to the last minute as a way to prevent a response. Give the SPECIFIC example of the in the 70 race; otherwise your accusation ALONE is an attempt to smear.
While we highly respect Ken and Jodie, we are NOT their clones. We have respectively disagreed with some of their endorsements before and currently (for example, Jodie endorsed Sen Bob Deuell, even though he has an F grade in Fiscal Responsibility; this before he was unupposed.)
Still, in our handout, you WILL note that groups are pretty evenly split between Bracy and Scott; there is not devastation for conservatives in either choice.