“Politics is (un)civilized warfare.”

That phrase that my father shared with me has stuck with me over the past few months, as I’ve endured being a part of a campaign that I really enjoy.  Today, in the midst of professional campaign high, as far as being associated with the campaign, I got to experience the reality of that statement.  In all honesty, I also got to experience that, at its worse, politics is also uncivilized warfare. 

It seems that as a candidate I support garnered the local major newspaper’s endorsement (the Houston Chronicle, in this example) early this morning, the “uncivilized” portion leapt and researched campaign finance documents.  Oh, to be fair, it was possibly also the announcement that The Honorable Sylvia Garcia, State Representative Jessica Farrar, and HISD Trustee Juliet Stipeche all endorsed Cargas well before this was posted, too, that caused the uncivilized portion to just go overboard.  However, our opponent felt it necessary to take facts and answer them with hate and lies.  

So, what I’m perplexed at, is why both the candidate and her Communications Director blogger think this is going to be a winning strategy.  For one, the opponent has engaged in a strategy from day one in which she makes fun of Cargas supporters, including calling his wife, Dr. Dorina Papageourgiou, an illegal immigrant, because she has an accent.  When called on it, she claims it’s a myth, a lie that the other party is making up to turn people against her.  She said as much to me not five minutes before she turned around and made fun of me directly to my face, nearly four weeks ago, a fact I wasn’t going to bring up unless I had to.  Apparently, I had to.  

After today’s blog dropped, it’s going to be much harder for her to deny that she engages in a campaign of attacks, considering said blogger (*cough* Communications Director*cough*) sent out post cards to voters on her behalf: 

Theorizing that the campaign paid not only for printing of those post cards, but also the labels, and the postage, one wonders yet again, where her Campaign Finance documents are?  Misdirection only works so long.  (I think it’s beginning to wear off now.)  Because, while the Cargas campaign legally participates in full disclosure, something the other candidate continues to say she’s in support of, she fails routinely to participate in the act herself.   I guess she’s above campaign finance laws.   

It should be noted that attacks are where you go when you have no coherent structure on the issues: when you want to paint the other person as horrible as possible, so voters don’t look into you or your sordid background, so they don’t notice the lack of what you’re actually saying about issues that are important to this district, so they don’t notice how little you do actually know or that the source material you get that information from can sometimes be questionable at best.  

Of course I could go on and address rumours, innuendo, and hate.  I could also fight hate with fact, but the truth is: there’s no point.  The other side has shown exactly who and what they are, not just to me, but to this district at large, and this entire city.   They’ve also shown that they don’t care to report the factual corrections that they’ve received in the past.  Also, I’ve heard how horrible it is: I haven’t read it.  Because, truth be told, Perry Dorrell’s opinion doesn’t matter to me.  I wasn’t going to even write this up, but I had to.  

Think I’m overreacting?  Personally, I think I’m not reacting hard enough, but.. what else is there left to say of people like this.  

More importantly, after today’s early morning events, that the blogger and his candidate went with this kind of attack…? Seriously?  

Dear Tom Vincent:

I feel that had you communicated with me, by any other form, (such as via the email link in the sidebar or via the comments section) other than how you and the candidate you choose to support chose to do so this evening, this matter could have been handled in a more civilized manner.  I do not believe you ever read the blogs that I wrote, but rather were led to believe that they said one thing, when in fact they said something else entirely.  

This is a screen shot of the blog in question and the specific section you referenced.  This is the only time I’ve brought up religion in regards to the campaign: 

As you can tell, that section references one specific group of people, by referencing language referred to in this blog, in which the candidate you support’s (unpaid) Communictions Director directly attacked the candidate I support on an issue said blogger and (unpaid) Communications Director has personally been contacted about on four separate occassions and which Mr. Carreno has responded to on three other occassions on a very public email distribution list sent out by Carl Whitmarsh.  

The blogs in question, in which I have written about the candidate you have chosen to support are:

Here

Here

Here

Oh, and not really, but I guess technically here, too 

I said that I would issue a retraction of calling you an atheist, however, upon review, I never did such thing.  If you feel I did, I apologize.  You are not an atheist.  

In fact, my comments were actually, far more pro-religion than they were given credit for: the candidate you support has aligned herself with bloggers who openly mock the Christian faith, by calling the most Christian day of the year, “Zombie Jesus Day”.   Where is your outrage at that? I was wondering how that candidate was prepared to cross the divide, so to speak, if she won the primary, with the person that is her de facto mouth piece ridiculing the faith in such a horrific manner.  

I have never once attacked, criticized, or mocked the Christian faith, nor attacked anyone for their faith.  I feel to attack any faith is horrendous, as it is deeply felt and extremely personal.  As a matter of fact, I even keep my grandfather’s bible, with his name inscribed in the cover, for sentimental reasons, and any Christian should know that my name is not only Aramaic, but is a village in the bible.  Look under Matthew 26:6.  

Again, if you feel I called you an atheist, I deeply regret that.  As I said, I feel it is morally reprehensible to do that to someone.  I would, however, prefer it if you read the blogs themselves, in their entirety, before accosting me in an environment in which I was having a professional discussion with the President of the organization I am a member of.  Neither Lissa’s supporters as a whole nor you, sir, on your own, were ever labeled “atheists”, but the way you went about your conversation and the people you did so in front of, very much so, meant that my reputation could have been damaged.  

I would appreciate an apology on your behalf for the attack that I suffered, due to your overreaction from not reading the blogs in their entirety or from not requesting a conversation in a polite and courteous fashion.  I would be more than happy to sit down with you, sir, should you have any further questions on this matter, but that will have to be done so at your request and via my email or in the comments below.  We can even have a public meeting in a public place, but give me the consideration of being prepared for our conversation, as you would give anyone, and also have the courtesy of reading the blogs on your own, before you jump to conclusions about what they say.  

Thank you, 

- Bethany 

Dear CEWDem (Carl) -

I feel it necessary to issue you an apology (both publicly and privately) for the attribution to you, made completely in my own error in the blog titled: “The Best Thing I Saw All Day Yesterday”.  I probably should have corrected the blog when I found out the following day that they were not your words, but considering the timing and everything, I thought it best just to let the proverbial sleeping dogs lie.  It was, after all, a blog, and I don’t consider my writings to carry that much weight.  Apparently, I was very much mistaken on that.  

I will strive to be more vigilant in attributions to you (or anyone else) in the future, because I do understand the value of what you do and how hard it is to maintain your invaluable wealth of information that you forward on daily.  I also strive, even though this is a “blog” to release accurate information that is clearly reputably sourced.  

For most of us embroiled in the CD7 Congressional Race, we completely understand that this run-off is not something you are following (at least other than to repost reputable and newsworthy items you are asked to), for reasons you have stated at a minimum of two times publicly on your list.  We have even requested that we keep the tit-for-tat away from your list, for that very reason.  

We do appreciate and hope that you keep the issues based news releases and items on your list, because there are people on your list that do need to be informed between the distinctions between the two candidates.  I hope you believe me when I say I never wanted my blogs about the current CD7 race to appear on your list, especially with what has perpetrated their release.   They were meant merely to be an answer to the ongoing onslaught of misinformation being perpetrated elsewhere and I felt that we were accomplishing that through other methods.  Speaking in retrospect, apparently we were.   

Your list is so vital to the Democratic Community and not appreciated as often as it should be, sir.   Again, I apologize for whatever grief my misquotation provided to you at 1:30 a.m. on a very early Sunday morning.   (For anyone in the Houston / Harris County area that is a Democrat, you should be following and appreciating this man’s list and you may do so by contacting him at cewdem@earthlink.net.)

With much respect - 

Bethany 

There’s A Difference…

There’s a difference between asking an obvious question or stating observable fact, such as “we never see “x” candidate’s children on the campaign” than there is in deliberately stating that someone would not make a good Congressman because he and his wife have not had children. 

As a woman, you should be familiar with a wide range of health and employment issues affecting the inability to have children.  You should also know how heartbreaking some of those choices can be, regardless of whatever the story may be.   As a woman, you should have a heart and not comment on these issues and how they affect your opponent publicly, to potential voters, especially when you don’t know the story or have the facts.  You should not corner people in an elevator and spread absurd gossip about another woman and her husband.  There are potential medical issues involved, which involve privacy rights, and in public life, this is the only still sacrosanct rule: medical issues are still not commented on, unless they are made public by those they affect.  Period.  End of discussion.  

As a woman, you should just plain know better.  Especially, if you are running as the “woman” candidate who can best speak on women’s issues because she’s a woman. 

Seems to me, that, if you can’t have a heart and ask the common sense questions prior to making assumptions and spreading false rumours, or avoid these kinds of topics because of basic common decency, you do not have the professionalism required or the knowledge necessary to govern women on their health issues.  

Of all the things I have seen this month and a half, these rumours have been the nastiest.  Indeed, in all my time in the political sphere, I have never seen something like this.  There are things you do not mess with - very basic issues that can be heartbreaking at best that you just don’t touch.  Asking where physical children are, in the real world, when they’re not seen campaigning on behalf of their mother who prides herself on being a single mother and talks about it, and makes it a campaign issue is one thing.  Asking where nonexistent children are or using that as a litmus test on how someone could possibly govern is another thing entirely.  

Shame on you.  

The Best Thing I Saw All Day Yesterday

As I’ve written previously, I’m pro-Cargas for Congress, and yes, I’m working on behalf of the campaign in a professional aspect.  I thought we could differentiate between this being my opinion of what I saw transpiring in the campaign versus the actual news releases, but a flying monkey still persists in implying that his blog is an actual credible source of news, in which he has subjected himself to the same rigorous examination of his “sources” as the mainstream news with none of those pesky regulatory monitors and that mine is, well… not.  

That same flying monkey likes to put words into people’s mouths.  He and the candidate he is working on behalf of, object to anyone from the Cargas campaign referring to him as the “communications director” of the campaign, simply because he’s not being paid.  So, from now on, I will be referring to him as Lissa Squiers’s (unpaid) Communication Director, because if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, common sense reaches that it must be a duck.  In this instance, the quacking stems from the fact that the same language and phrases that Lissa uses often originate in his blog and vice versa.   I believe Citizens United refers to that, as collaboration, but since Ms. Squiers feels reporting her donations to the FEC is above her, as well, I’m sure the word collaboration is just as foreign.  

Over the last few months, that flying monkey has decided to imply that James Cargas is not a Democrat.  Lissa has also followed suit.  In fact, she questioned why a candidate needed to be a delegate (by replying to this blog) to the state convention and told me that I was “indicating” that to be a good candidate, one must have participated in the process before, mostly by aiding other candidates.  That is, in fact, true.  There is, after all, this mantra of practicing making perfect.  If you haven’t been on a campaign, you don’t know what all it takes.  Engaging in whisper campaigns in both one-on-one conversations and using a blog are both charming aspects of what you think a campaign is and does, but it’s obvious from comments made by the blogger that he thinks that working on campaigns  as paid staff are a gateway to great wealth.  With that comment, it’s almost embarrassing how obvious it is that he’s never been a paid staffer on one.  (That was one of the many things we got a great kick out of yesterday.)   That’s okay, I’m sure there’s a lot of integrity to be had in being a “sales” man.  

However, for those of you that don’t know, the Cargas campaign (finally) answered these month long allegations in a press release, which provided unbiased proof of the two candidates’s voting records, as shown below: 

Once again, Lissa proves that she feels she’s above all the regular work that goes into a campaign, but it goes even further than that.  She doesn’t believe in participating in the process unless there’s something in it for her.  Rather than participating in her obligatory civil duties or participating in the process of the Texas Democratic Party’s State Convention, she’d rather go to the parties and engage in rhetoric while cornering people on elevators (not to mention blindsiding them).   With what’s hiding in her past, that behaviour doesn’t really shock me.  

But, even better than the press release, was Carl Whitmarsh’s* own comment from his email list: 

I couldn’t have said it better, Carl.  

Coincidentally, this was the worst thing I saw all day yesterday.  There’s nothing like a poor winner to spoil the fun.  Normally I love Juanita Jean, but this has tainted her blog.  She should apologize to the Van Os’s for the cheap shot.  There’s winning and then, winning with honour and dignity.  Considering what happened at the convention, you could afford a little humility to those that did lose.  I am not a fan of what went down, as far as the elections are concerned, and I know quite a few people who aren’t, either.  But to rub our noses in the process of what happened by making fun of those that decided to offer the people of Texas a choice at the Democratic State Convention, to participate in an election the way things should be run, is outrageous.  If this is an indication of how the next two years are going to go, you’re going to lose a lot of people in the party, and frankly, that’s something we can’t afford.  

*Edit - The attribution to Carl Whitmarsh that appears in this blog was made in complete error by yours truly.   His list is still a kickass list to belong to and he still works hard at it.  The error was an innocent mistake on my part.  

Lesson Learned Of the Week: If You Dare Question Lissa “Misdirection” Squires, Be Prepared To Be Lied About

Less than a week or so ago, I wrote a blog that offered a defense of James Cargas, candidate for U.S. Congress in Texas’s 7th district.  I wrote it because I had gotten to know the candidate, because I volunteered for his campaign, and because I felt that Lissa’s flying monkeys had pretty much had free reign in the blogging world for a bit too long, especially one monkey in particular.  For those of you that know what I’m talking about, great.  For those that don’t, I’m sorry, I will not be linking to his blog, and risk him getting far more publicity from me than I did from him.  (Really, dude?  Like less than five clicks onto my site and I know where two of them came from.)  

It’s very apparent that Lissa is attempting to use bloggers and claim that they are a part of the regular, main stream and credible media.  Unfortunately, this is not true.  As a blogger myself, I have never taken myself serious enough to even consider myself in the same league as those that write for traditional news outlets.  I like to write, simple as that.  I don’t have a goal in mind, I just share my world the way that’s easiest and in which most people agree I have some kind of talent at.   Bloggers that do take themselves too seriously actually are kind of obnoxious because they think they can blur the journalistic lines while not being held under the same microscope.  It’s important that this distinction is made and now. 

It’s also apparent that Lissa’s goal is to discredit James Cargas by linking him to Hector Carreno repeatedly and negatively.  She also desires to call James Cargas out as an “oil and gas schill”, while avoiding one of the biggest holes in this story: James Cargas could, undoubtedly, choose to work for an Oil and Gas firm.  He could make a high six-figure salary and run as the “Golden Boy” replacement for John Culberson.  There’s only one reason he doesn’t:  he has chosen not to.  He has chosen his integrity above his desire to be a U.S. Congressman.  He has chosen his love of the environment, over selling out for power.  Can Lissa say the same thing?  One wonders. 

Very little is known about Lissa Squiers.  This is absolute fact.  What is known is troubling.  Right now, she seeks to publicly grasp at straws, both in one on one conversations on her own in meetings like last night’s CEC gathering and by having her mouthpiece try to cover up the fact that they’ve been openly telling lies about Dr. Dorina Papageourgio (Cargas) for months.  Add to the fact that now, Lissa is seeking to play the victim when she’s tried to instigate a fight these many months, and you have a real three-ringed circus being played out in full view of the voters.  

Ms. Squiers and those she aligns herself with only have themselves to blame for going to great lengths to show that they are not accepting of others.  This exclusive group considers everyone that doesn’t honestly agree with every little thing they have to say a “Republican” or to have “Republican leanings”, including yours truly (and laughably so).  Apparently, even having a Republican friend, is so traitorous that it means that you have to surrender your Democrat card at the gate, despite putting in hard work, time, and effort into getting Democrats elected, both locally, at the state level, and nationally.

Ask yourself here and now: who is a delegate at the Texas Democratic Party’s State Convention set to take place in the next few days.  James Cargas or Lissa Squiers?  Those in Democratic circles know.   What’s more, they’ll see the answer when they show up this weekend.  

And don’t even get me started on religion.  Apparently, this little group has a hatred of religion that runs deep.  ”Zombie Jesus Day”?  Really?  Gee, one wonders how Lissa is going to win this district and find supporters by being anti-Christian or aligning herself closely with anti-Christians.  Apparently tolerance is just a word to preach to those that disagree with her, but never to practice on her own. 

There are a few other rules she feels she’s above, too, which gets us back to asking some difficult questions that Ms. Squiers still has not answered.  So, let me pose them to her:

Since you and your personal blogger have insisted that Hector Carreno is running this campaign, please produce the FEC reports that show him receiving money from the campaign, even as an “advisor”.  Until you do, I must kindly ask you to refrain from lying about it further.  The truth is, that this campaign is being run by Frank, not Hector.  So, it seems that as much as you want to scream and cry and shout and have your blogger friends try to misdirect the conversation back to Hector, it’s not going to work.  We’re still going to ask the voters to ask the hard questions of you, such as:

Where are YOUR donations coming from, since you seem to think it’s a crime to have personal friends and family donate to a political campaign

Who do you work for or on behalf of?  Who are your clients?  What do you do all day besides run for office? 

Why does a woman who is advocating on behalf of issues that are best answered at the state level seek a position in the U.S. Congress?  Is it because the U.S. Congress is glitz and glamour, in your mind, or because being in the Texas House would mean a lot of hard work for very little reward.  Is it the six-figure government salary at the national level that you’re intrigued by over the five-figure state-level one?  I mean, why else would someone who routinely touts how “Texan” they are, seek to run away from the very state that she professes to love. 

Where are your deep political roots?  How many Congressman have you worked for, on behalf of?  How many people have you campaigned for?  Where is your political background?  Since these questions seem to be in play, not only for James Cargas, but his supporters, as well, shouldn’t you be answering them, too?  Or, is your Green Party devotee blogger a big part of the answers we should be inferring?  

And finally, why do you consider only winning 40% of the vote a “win”, if you’ve been campaigning for three years for this one office?  40% of the vote after that many years, is actually pretty disappointing.  

Yes, there are some unanswered questions about Lissa “Misdirection” Squires and her campaign.  Too many, in fact.  However, with Lissa’s past history, one wonders if she knows she’s playing a dangerous game of misdirection?  The answer is: probably not.