San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas

STAFF REPORT

In a Facebook post yesterday, former San Marcos Mayor Susan Narvaiz said she filed to run for U.S. Congress because it was “unconscionable” to let U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett win a tenth term without opposition.

Here is her statement:

Yesterday, I filed for the Republican nomination for U.S. Congress in the 35th District of Texas.

I made the decision to run again, after prayerful consideration and careful deliberation, knowing that any re-match with Lloyd Doggett would be viewed as an uphill battle. However, I concluded that I must run in this election, because I believe that it is unconscionable and, in fact, a moral failure of our system, if we allow incumbents like my opponent to go unchallenged in any general election, especially when many of his claims in the previous campaign have been proven to be so false.

His support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obama Care, has lost all credibility under the spotlight of reality. America is watching this policy unravel, at the expense of the hardworking middle class and the uninsured, the very people he convinced he was helping and protecting.

To make this case to the voters of the 35th District of Texas, I decided to put my name in nomination for the Republican nominee for Congress. The voters deserve a competitive race for Congress, and I intend to provide that campaign to them.

Email Email | Print Print

--

23 thoughts on “Narvaiz: I’m ready for an ‘uphill battle’ versus Doggett

  1. Guess it didn’t work out for her in New Mexico afterall. Oh well, she can always look to the taxpayers of Hays County for a job. LOL

  2. How long will we keep electing the same people to office? We need term limits. We need public servants. It is unconscionable how fat the bank accounts get of those in public office at the federal level.

  3. I wish these conservative politicians wouldn’t pander to the religious right by wrapping their reasons for doing what they do in religion or morality. Our currency may say “In God We Trust,” but a basic principle of our government was the separation of church and state. Unfortunately we seem to be getting further and further from that. And the Affordable Care Act is not unraveling. Yes, there have been problems with the online registration system. And, yes there are issues with the program itself that need to be, and I believe will be, straightened out. In the meantime, I’m still waiting to hear what the Republican objectors are offering as an alternative. The only thing I can see is that they want to kick this can down the road like they’ve done for years and like they seem to want to do with every other issue that might benefit others besides their white, wealthy, 1% constituents, including themselves.

  4. ACA? It’s a rotten kluge but it is some better than what we have been dealing with these many years. Virtually all other developed countries have addressed healthcare in ways far better than what we had. We needed healthcare payment reform (single payer) but the Dems & Obama caved to the pressure of the far right and the misinformed, while trying to make ACA look bi-partisan. Too bad. We deserve far better from our reps in DC. Way too much under-the-table money from a few sources that keep their legislators in line. Narvaiz in DC would only make things worse.

  5. I’m with Bob on his discomfort with the religious language in campaign statements. It does feel like pandering, even though it’s clear that Ms. Narvaiz is a woman of faith and her religious beliefs are a fundamental part of her life.

    I just don’t understand why this needs to be broadcast so prominently in her campaign statements – unless, of course, it’s to push a button with the Republican base. For that purpose, it’s very effective. But I think it cheapens a thing that’s meant to be sacred, a thing that, I believe, Ms. Narvaiz holds to be very sacred indeed.

    The Dems have their button-pushing phrases as well. No one can or should deny that. But there’s something uniquely off-putting about using one’s spiritual faith to connect with voters. It turns something precious into a commodity that’s too easily traded when votes are at stake.

    Remember a time when you didn’t know what your elected leader’s religious affiliation was? I do. I also remember how people in general just didn’t care. It wasn’t relevant, and it certainly wasn’t used as a litmus test. Man, I miss those days.

  6. If the phrase “after prayerful consideration” offends you that much, then I suggest you check the thickness of your skin.

    I for one tend to take it as a good sign that someone would take this to be an important enough decision to have consulted their deity of choice about it……and I say that as someone who isn’t a big “Susan” fan.

  7. I’m not offended, Dano. I just find that religious language gets thrown around a lot in campaign statements these days.

    People pray about big decisions all the time — they pray about little ones too — and if we all discussed it as much as conservative politicians do, we’d start every third sentence with, “Well, Dano, I prayed about that and…”

    Anyway, more a pet peeve than anything.

    Mayor Susan is right that running against Doggett is an uphill battle. She lost to him by 2-to-1 last time around. But things change. That was before the ACA, which is obviously the peg on which she’s hanging her hat for this latest race. Maybe people will hate it as much as they do today, and that will be good for her. Maybe they won’t, and that would be bad.

    Tell you one thing: She might snare some of Doggett’s 64 percent if she proposed some useful, helpful and realistic improvements to the ACA. It’s the law of the land and probably won’t be repealed — it even survived a Roberts Court ruling — so the real progress will be made my amending and improving it. That I’d be interested in hearing from anyone trying to win my vote.

  8. God told her to move to New Mexico to start her new life. Sell the house, load up the truck and move to Eddy County. Got tells her to move back to Hays County. Does anyone really believe that God has the time to micromanage the political desires of mostly Reoublicans?

  9. While I agree with Charlie that the ACA is awful, for those who need it, like my daughter, it is a life-saver. It took about 25 minutes for my daughter to get signed up online. A single-payer system that would not enrich the insurance corporations would be far better, as well as sensible. But we will not get any sensible remedies for the problems faced by low-income families and under-paid workers from people like Narvaiz. She can see the world only through the eyes of her corporate sponsors, which is why she will not defeat Doggett in 2014 running in District 35. Maybe she needs to get an RV, since she can’t seem to make up her mind where to live. It would also make a great campaign vehicle.

    If Dano thinks consulting the “deity of choice” makes a decision important, I have a Flying Spaghetti Monster to tell him about.

  10. It appears that your reading comprehension skills are on par with your writing skills.

    I never said that consulting a deity *made* a decision important – what I said was that (at least for professed believers) consulting their deity should be part of their decision making process on important decisions. There’s a huge difference.

    Besides, it’s not really *your* opinion (or mine) of her chosen religion that matters here. The point is that she, as a professed woman of faith, believes that her decision is important and so she took the time to consult her God about it. For those who believe, it simply underscores that she is taking the decision seriously.

    Now, should you choose to doubt her sincerity in the matter, that’s a whole other discussion…..

  11. Brad, I think it might be time to pull this story or at least, and IMHO false comment down. I have to assume that Susan is referring to Congressman Doggett. Call him many things but liar is not one that fits. I am pretty sure that God doesn’t want Republican candidates calling people liars if it’s a lie to start with. I like Susan, I just don’t like the politics she practices.

  12. False comment?

    Why pull it? Why not leave it up, and refute it?

    I’m assuming it is already gone. I don’t see it, whatever it was.

  13. The Mercury’s new design, in beta stage now, has a section for a quotation prominently displayed on the front. It is intended as a teaser to selected stories in the Mercury.

    This is the quote:

    “I believe that it is unconscionable and, in fact, a moral failure of our system, if we allow incumbents like my opponent to go unchallenged in any general election, especially when many of his claims in the previous campaign have been proven to be so false.”

    The quote linked to the story we are commenting on now where the quote is still in tact.

    I replaced the Narvaiz quote with a new quote this afternoon because it had been up for several days and was growing stale. It’s being replaced was not a commentary on the truthfulness of Narvaiz’s statement. I originally posted the comment in the first place to tease to a story in which Narvaiz lays out her rationale for running against Doggett. I posted the “pull quote,” as they’re called in design jargon, to make available a different viewpoint on the same day we published Hankin’s vitriolic column about Narvaiz.

  14. “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”
    “I’ve had a real job at some point in my life”
    “Sure I live in my district”
    “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”
    “Every dollar I have in the bank was earned honestly.”

    A few to choose from Charles that I think he has said at some point.

  15. Brad’s characterization of my last Narvaiz column as vitriolic seems a bit off to me. I did not believe the article was “cruel and full of hate,” which is one primary meaning of the word. If explaining what a person has done in their public life is hateful, then every publication would be guilty of being vitriolic. Other than explaining her record as Mayor, I engaged in some political satire, which I have never seen described as vitriolic.

    Another common definition of the word is “violent hate and anger expressed through severe criticism.” I don’t write from a position of hate (especially not violent hate), but I do try to tell the truth about politicians, even when the truth hurts. I won’t claim I am always successful, but I have never written out of hate for someone. All public figures should be examined critically, which is what I try to do.

  16. But Curtis, how could you possibly get the impression that Hankins is not completely down the middle in his criticism of politics/politicians?

    He clearly puts a sentence at the bottom of each of his columns that plainly states that “Democrats do this too (sometimes)”.

    So what if he just spent 5000 words lambasting some Republican (or all Republicans)? That sentence absolutely balances the scales…..

    (see Lamar, *that’s* satire…….)

  17. As a Democrat, I would like to thank our former mayor for running, Without her entering the race, Doggett’s campaign machine would have probably set out this election. Now his excellent GOTV machine will be working and making sure that many Democratic voters that might not have turned out will. The seat was drawn unwinnable by a Republican by the Republicans (it’s called packing in redistricting jargon) so they could win several other nearby seats, uphill in deed.

  18. If Curtis Seebeck and Dano (whoever this person is) will look at all 220 columns I have written under the Freethought San Marcos byline, they will find much criticism of Democratic Party politicians. As a long-time independent, I don’t curry favor with either major party. It just happens that there have not been too many influential Democrats in the last few years.

    In 2009, when the ACA was being developed, I was highly critical of Obama, Max Baucus, and libertarian John Mackey (then CEO of Whole Foods). I have written critically of Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton.

    It is a fact that all statewide elected officials in Texas are Republican. Four of five members of the Hays County Commissioners Court are Republicans. I write about people in power – they are the ones who matter the most. When and if more Democrats attain elected positions, I will be as critical of them when they are dishonest, deceitful, and working against the best interests of the 99%.

  19. Ladies and gentlemen, the discussion should now be over. Ms. Hughson just won the thread and quite possibly the whole internet for today…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:)