Early this year, Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT), which advertises itself as the “most active political youth organization” in Texas, released a press release discussing Republican candidate for lieutenant governor Jerry Patterson. This press release closely paralleled Dan Patrick’s campaign literature, and like much of Dan Patrick's campaign talking points, it strayed from being precisely correct on a number of points. In the interests of maintaining a standard of scrupulous honesty, it is important not only to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" oneself, but also to call out dishonesty whenever possible, in order to allow others to be truthful without being tempted to resort to their own fabrications to counter their opponents’. With this in mind, a careful point-by-point examination of YCT’s press release is very much in order.
Passing over YCT’s opening vitriol and moving to their first charge, the first problem becomes readily apparent. YCT correctly points out that Patterson supports a guest-worker program - for the record, I do not agree with him on that point - but then goes on to claim that he called efforts to secure the border first a “cop-out.” This is certainly a compelling argument against Patterson; it would be even more compelling if it were true. The precise quote was “the cop-out response among some Republicans is, ‘Well, we have to secure our borders first.’ Ok, yeah. This is part of doing that.” Obviously Patterson’s argument is that most people who make that argument don’t intend to do anything beyond it - that’s the cop-out. You don’t have to agree - I don’t - but you do have to be honest about what he said. YCT went on to discuss some of Patterson’s comments on the implications of a guest worker program, and wrapped up their discussion by asserting that Patterson supports an “essentially open border.” The term “open border” has a precise definition - a border between jurisdictions which allows passage with limited or no restrictions - and what Patterson advocates does not fit that definition. Looser than is wise? Yes. Open? No. Patterson’s biggest “soft” stance on immigration lies in advocating legal status for those already here, not in advocating decreased border security. I disagree with Patterson’s stance on immigration, but YCT is simply wrong in their analysis of his position.
YCT goes on to address the votes they disagreed with during Patterson’s first term. While discussing voting records, it should be noted that Patterson’s lifetime score from YCT is 85%, while Patrick, the candidate YCT endorsed, has a lifetime score of 84% - any commentary YCT would like to offer on insignificant conservatism in Patterson’s record could be applied equally to Patrick. YCT, unfortunately, did not find it appropriate to mention this, however. YCT mentioned four votes they found objectionable: Patterson coauthored SB 456, which created “hate crime” laws in Texas, voted for the creation of the state lottery commission, supported a ban on corporal punishment in schools, and voted to advance the spectacularly unsuccessful “Robin Hood” system. All of those votes are questionable, but YCT does not tell the whole story. On the first two things are simple enough - dubious meddling with motives and a misguided plan to raise money by fleecing the gullible are simply enough. The third, the ban on corporal punishment in schools, is actually slightly different, since the motivation was not opposition to corporal punishment, but support for parental rights (actually, I might have supported the measure myself, provided it were worded correctly). Finally, YCT completely ignores the circumstances under which Texas’ “Robin Hood” system was passed. In 1987 the courts found the Texas system of funding education in violation of the Texas Constitution. Twice after that the Texas legislature attempted to create a system that would satisfy the courts, but each time the courts struck it down. This was the situation in 1993, when the Texas Senate finally tailored a SB 7 73 (R)to the Texas Supreme Court’s whims enough that it was allowed to stand (until 2006, when the Texas Supreme Court struck that one down, too - it would be laughable if it wasn’t true). That bill was the “Robin Hood” bill, and its nature was largely determined by what the Texas Supreme Court dictated. Even at that, Patterson didn't vote for the final version of the bill. Patterson joined all but four members of the state senate in voting to advance the original bill from the senate (Journal of the Senate of the State of Texas, Regular Session of the 73rd Legislature, Volume 2, p. 1848), but what YCT doesn't mention is that Patterson joined with five other senators in voting against the final passage of the bill (Journal of the Senate of the State of Texas, Regular Session of the 73rd Legislature, Volume 3, p. 3014). Once again, YCT carefully manages the facts they release to present an apparently correct but actually very misleading picture.
YCT’s next accusation stands out among a number of doubtful accusations as being particularly misleading, even dishonest. They charge Patterson with using “his position as Land Commissioner to dictate to property owners along the Gulf Coast, even going so far as to confiscate their land without compensation after a natural disaster.” What they’re referring to is Patterson’s action as the head of the Texas Land Office to enforce the letter of the law regarding Texas public beaches. The beach is considered public from the vegetation line seaward. Unfortunately, as the shore moves, the vegetation line moves. Through time, it was generally accepted that the boundary of the public beach shifted with the vegetation line, otherwise the shoreline would eventually simply shift inland and completely obliterate all of Texas’ public beaches (for various reasons our sediment balance is low, so the beaches typically move inland). When a storm hit, the vegetation line would often shift quite dramatically, and that’s what YCT is referring to. After Hurricane the vegetation line shifted inland so much that it moved behind a set of condominiums. The Land Office followed the law as written and informed the landlord that the property up to the vegetation line was now public beach (the Texas Supreme Court eventually struck down the Land Office’s decision). YCT and Dan Patrick’s interpretation of events is mind-boggling twisted and nothing short of dishonest. YCT goes on to make ambiguous complaints about Patterson’s management of the Land Office. Since they provide no support for their claims, and since those claims seem to bear little resemblance to anything that occurred in the Land Office, it is difficult to determine exactly what they’re referring to in order to refute it. It can safely be assumed, then, that it holds as much weight as the rest of the press release, or perhaps even less, since in the rest of the press release there were at least facts there to twist, whereas this appears to have been a complete fabrication.
YCT does bring out a few of Patterson’s downsides, but they intermix them so thoroughly with misrepresentations approaching outright lies that the exercise is largely pointless. Those of us who claim the mantle of Christian conservatives have a particular duty to be perfectly honest in everything we do. Young Conservatives of Texas’ press release not only fails to reach that standard, it doesn't even come close. We need to honestly examine our candidates in the primary to decide which one to support, but that needs to be a truly honest examination, not a prejudiced attempt to justify the candidate we already support by denigrating his opponents.
Labels: Election 2014, Politics