TX-22: Where Republican Voters are Proud of their Stupidity
By Ben Domenech Posted in 2008 | Crazy Republicans | Pete Olson | Shelley Sekula-Gibbs | TX-22 — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Another day, another amazing revelation about the brief reign of error of Dr. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs in Congress (emphasis mine):
Records of Sekula Gibbs' spending of the public money for her offices in Washington and the district "reveal a total disregard for taxpayer's money," Goldstein said.
Olson's office particularly questioned the $76,963.22 she spent on a mass mailing to the Houston-area district. That total included $37,692.19 in printing costs and $39,271.03 in postage.
The postage total is more than 12 other Texas House members spent in all of 2006, according to a database compiled by The Associated Press.
It turns out the good doctor spent roughly $183,000 in less than two months, a pretty impressive feat when Congress wasn't in session. The amount includes:
-$4,746 to advertise a town hall meeting
-$10,471.39 for travel, reflecting four trips between Houston and Washington for her and her chief of staff – with the final one occurring on 12/30/07-12/31/07, when Congress had adjourned on 12/9/07.
-$11,538.33 for the salary of her District Director (a former Houston City Council Member) – $10,286.11 for the period of 11/15/07-12/31/07 and $1,252.22 for 1/1/08-1/2/08.
-$20,757.12 for the salary of her Chief of Staff – $18,739.64 for 11/09/07 – 12/31/07 and $2,018.12 for 1/1/08-1/2/08.
-$76,963.22 for a mass mail piece to the district ($37,692.19 in printing and $39,271.03 in postage) –more than some members spend in a year.
If you projected out SSG's Chief of Staff salary for November out to 12 months, it's $224,868 a year (keep in mind that staff salary is capped by the House to not exceed the member's salary - approximately $160K). Now that's some nice government coin, let me tell you. But hey: when you know you're only going to be in office for a few weeks, it's time to spend like there's no tomorrow.
Many of you have written and commented about my prior posts about the monumental embarrassment of a politician that is Dr. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, asking variants of the same question: "She seems like she's either seriously confused or totally insane. Who would be nuts enough to actually vote for her again? Why would they ever do such a thing?"
I can't really answer that. I mean, we all know that there are some places where you really want to get that local flavor - I'm sure there are many small towns that would eagerly trade their overactive mayors for the famous beer-drinking goat.
But thanks to the all-encompassing nature of the blogosphere, we have an example right here of the proud Texas Republican thought process, if you can call it that:
Yeah, that's right. Pete Olson doesn't have a job. He has a wife, kids, and two houses (the family kept the one in the DC suburbs when Pete carpetbagged back to CD22). Heck, I suppose he may even have two mortgages, which I'm sure is tough to manage if you don't have job other than campaigning for Congress in a district where you have not been physically present for nearly two decades.
And this is why so many of us are opposed to Pete Olson. We already have a Democrat carpetbagger congressman who we want to get rid of in 2008 -- we don't want to replace him with a Republican carpetbagger, even if Olson is much closer to our political views...
And Pete Olson is quite disingenuous in his argument. No one I know "begrudges" him his military service. Indeed, all of us honor and respect it. But many of us who support Shelley Sekula Gibbs do have a problem with the fact that for the decade after that military service Olson has been a resident of the Virginia suburbs, owned his only home there, been a licensed driver there, and a registered voter there. Yes, he has been a top aide to two fine Texas senators, but we have concerns about the strength of his connection and commitment to our district.
So let me get this straight: you say you're not holding the fact that Pete left the district to serve in the military, the Pentagon, and on Capitol Hill against him ... and then you do just that? You penalize a guy who's come back home after working for Phil Gramm and John Cornyn, telling him he's out of touch with the needs of the district he grew up in after two decades of serving America and Texas?
This really is Sekula-Gibbs' only argument against electing Pete: Talk about the hobgoblins of little minds. By this rationale, I'd be better off electing the homeless guy who stands outside the Sugar Land Chipotle leering at Houstonian High Schoolers every day. I mean, he's lived in the district forever! He must know its needs better! He even stayed here while Shelley was flying back and forth to Washington for New Year's Eve on the taxpayer's dime! Homeless Guy FTW!
And the answer to the only valid question in this argument is: I'm sure Pete would've kept a home in the district if he was an ambitious guy who knew he was building a resume for Congress, as opposed to just serving his country. But he wasn't thinking like that. And like most families in America - and like nearly everyone who works on the Hill's or the Pentagon's salary scale - I'm positive when I say the Olson's can't afford two mortgages. Heck, even Rick Santorum could famously only afford one. It just doesn't compete with the kind of bank you make popping pimples.
Of course, if Pete had just been the Chief of Staff for Dr. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, that wouldn't be a problem. He'd be making more than the member, after all!
And I always find it interesting that folks trot out this argument -- that Dr. Sekula Gibbs has not always been a conservative...
I'll be the first to recognize that there are elements of her past record that are less than conservative. But I also recognize that her increased conservatism over time, and her decades of service to our community here in CD22 for the last 20 years.
Besides, Ronald Reagan was at one time wrong on abortion. I think he did just fine.
Look, it's not just that she hasn't "always been a conservative" - it's that we can't even tell what she really thinks about any given issue, let alone what she thinks NOW. Let's just say there's a reason that respected conservatives have all lined up behind Pete Olson, and that even former aides are supporting Pete. And of course, there's our own endorsement ... but I'll be honest, we're just following Phil Gramm's lead.
Oh, and for your own point of reference: Ronald Reagan didn't have a job either when he ran for President in 1980. And the dang carpetbagger was traveling the country after his stint in California instead of staying at home in Illinois.
Yeah, you should've voted for Carter.
h/t to Wonkette for the photo
We won't have to worry about her much longer. Pete Olson will win the primary.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
He's speaking of not holding his MILITARY service against him.
You choose to add in the capitol hill part to make your point.
Now, I'm not disagreeing with you on your recommendation of Olsen over Gibbs, but I don't think you need to make stuff up about her supporter.
And Pete Olson is quite disingenuous in his argument. No one I know "begrudges" him his military service. Indeed, all of us honor and respect it. But many of us who support Shelley Sekula Gibbs do have a problem with the fact that for the decade after that military service Olson has been a resident of the Virginia suburbs, owned his only home there, been a licensed driver there, and a registered voter there. Yes, he has been a top aide to two fine Texas senators, but we have concerns about the strength of his connection and commitment to our district.
Those are his words, not mine. He says that Sekula-Gibbs' supporters, including himself, honor and respect Olson's military service. But one of the necessary parts of serving in the military is going where the military tells you to go, in this case, to the Pentagon.
He concedes that Olson has been a top aide to two fine Texas Senators. Guess what: if you are going to be a Chief of Staff to a Texas Senator and want to see your children at night, you can't live in Texas - the costs are, you know, kinda prohibitive. Unless you want to do what one friend of mine does, and sleep on a couch in your office every night and fly back every weekend...but he doesn't have kids.
The point is that in both cases, these Sekula-Gibbs supporters swear they don't begrudge Pete Olson his service in the military or on Capitol Hill, but it's in the nature of both jobs to be done in one place, and that place is not in Texas-22 last I checked.
If you're going to throw a term like "carpetbagger" around, know what you're talking about.
Are you telling me that the military ordered him to be on the staff of Senators Gramm and Cornyn? I respectfully suggest it doesn't work that way -- Pete Olson chose to stay there AFTER his military service (which included his stint flying a desk at the Pentagon after his years flying an airplane). That is clearly what I am referring to -- why try to misrepresent what i said.
I'm curious, though -- is your dishonesty limited to teh intellectual variety, or does it extend to other areas of your life as well?
Plagiarism, Washington Post, you're still a gutless little freak who doesn't dare post under your real name.
Bye-bye!
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
It was not my intent to offend you.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
So let me get this straight: you say you're not holding the fact that Pete left the district to serve in the military, the Pentagon, and on Capitol Hill against him ... and then you do just that? You penalize a guy who's come back home after working for Phil Gramm and John Cornyn, telling him he's out of touch with the needs of the district he grew up in after two decades of serving America and Texas?
Surprisingly (or not surprisingly, given the conduct of Olson and his supporters since he unpacked his carpetbag here in CD22), you completely misrepresent what I said -- to a degree that is positively Clintonian. Were Pete Olson coming back after a 20 year career in the Navy, I'd likely vote for him. Indeed, i make a specific disclaimer about his military service, and express my concern ONLY about the decade as an inside-the-beltway congressional staffer, yet you still accuse me of holding the military service against him. I'm shocked that you think you can get away with the lie after juxtaposing it with my comment.
And as far as the endorsements go, they only go so far. I can tell you that I knew most of the candidates who ran for the seat this year, and almost all of those who competed for the seat in 2006 after DeLay's betrayal of his party and constituents. Pete Olson? A big fat zero, who was more concerned about getting the endorsement of DC insiders (including, but not limited to, RedState) before he made a serious effort to get it from his prospective constituents. Out of touch with the people of CD22? Damn straight he is!
The position you folks at RedState seem to take is "he's entitled." Excuse me, but it seems to me that was the position taken by a certain former first lady in this year's presidential race. That the people might just disagree with that assessment is not a sign of their stupidity, but of the manifest arrogance of the "entitled" candidate and his supporters.
... isn't what I'd call the most well-crafted argument I've seen at Redstate. But hey, at least none of have to read what is surely 3 paragraphs of drivel ... you lost us at "Nice Lie, Ben."
absentee
Appreciate the warning sign.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I wouldn't mind having a highly qualified conservative carpetbag his/her way here to run in 2010. It seems we can't find a decent native born son or daughter willing and able to do the job. The leader of the Kansas Republican Party even wh@#ed himself out and became a Democrat to become Lt. Governor. Anybody know how to contact Senator Santorum? He'd be great!
Tim Schieferecke
The issue is Shelly is a wackjob and a flake.
Olson is someone I would be inclined to believe if only Sen. Phil was backing.
That Shelly is working so hard to smear him instead of talk about any specifics at all tells me he is much better than her.
To pretend that Shelly is somehow a KSEV certified conservative when even they find her non-credible should tell you a lot.
That you smear everyone here tells me you are probably some Shelly staffer.
She is a feather weight in general.
She was a very moderate voice on Houston City council. Not particularly effective.
She has moved to the far extremes on immigration from her pro-illegal immigration stance on City Council.
She has become pro-life just in time for the primary.
Her idiocy in her short career in the CD22 seat, and her paranoic, bizarre behavior will forever damage her reputation.
So when I hear Phil Graham back Olson, vs. local Ft. Bend has beens backing Shelly, the course is clear: Olson.
But his campaign does not seem to be doing very well.
I hope it really catches fire in the coming week.
CD22 is a Republican district that deserves someone as good as Pete Olson.