Reporter Jen Biundo misses the Backus/Rose election contest big time. Anyone can look up the voting results but understanding what they mean separates objective insightful analysis and reporting from simply parroting.

Biundo asserts that Rose, “…in the eight years (of his incumbency), the Dripping Springs native has easily defended his seat against challengers from both parties …”

Is she kidding?

Rose, for the first time faced a Democrat primary opponent, Andrew Backus. Even against an eight year incumbent with widespread name recognition, a paid organized network of workers and tons of money to throw into a campaign against an obscure opponent who had less than three months to campaign Backus still received over 20% of the votes.

The 2010 election results guarantees that Rose will have a primary opponent in 2012 if he is elected this fall, and the Rose primary opponent will be well prepared and funded long before the 2012 primary. Backus was just a wake up call for young Mr. Rose.
Consider this.

Rose spent more than $ 151,121.96 (as of Feb. 20, 2010) while Backus spent about $10,000. Do the math. Rose spent $1,889 per percentage point while Backus spent $500 per percentage point of voters. That’s what the special interest contributions do for Rose. It doesn’t speak well for voters but money talks in elections—even if it’s lying.

Rose characterized Backus as a “one-issue candidate” which is true. He was. That one issue is Rose and his record in the legislature. Most voters demonstrated they believed the slick Rose version of his legislative record despite it being a super spin job. Spin is how Bernard Madoff got away with his Ponzi scheme for so long. Investors believed the Madoff spin and it cost them dearly.
Anyone who looks past the spin recognizes Rose for the slick politician that he is.

For example, Rose claims he exposed the PEC board. That’s simply not true, and I defy anyone to produce a single shred of evidence to show that Rose sounded the alarm, obtained any internal PEC documents, passed any reform legislation or did anything more than jump on a bandwagon so he could claim credit for the work of others.

Following four years of investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice regarding abuse and civil rights violations in our Texas state run schools for disabled individuals, the Governor’s Office entered into a Settlement Agreement with DOJ to resolve a federal suit against the state. A major part of that Settlement Agreement (submitted in the El Paso District Federal Court suit against the state of Texas) required the legislation that passed through the House Human Services Committee that Rose chairs. Rose did not write the bill and the legislation was required as part of the Settlement Agreement. Yet Rose takes credit for yet another bill that he did not write. It would have been passed with or without Rose’s support.

But Rose doesn’t take credit for all the special interest bills he introduced or the bills he made sure died in committee that special interests didn’t want passed. If a voter wants to learn about a candidate’s record, the most biased and misleading account is the candidate’s spin. Ask the Bernard Madoff victims.

Here is an example of media cooperation in political spin.
Biundo repeats the Rose propaganda in her article that, “on the campaign trail, Rose countered that he was endorsed by environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, and has been a leader in groundwater and surface water issues.”

Doesn’t Biundo know that the League of Conservation Voters only endorses incumbents? If Jacques Cousteau were running against Rose the League of Conservation Voters would only endorse Rose because he is the incumbent. A member of the Sierra Club Political Committee responded that he was “shocked” his organization had endorsed Rose. The Sierra Club endorsement was promoted by a lobbyist and created outrage in local Sierra Club staff who are familiar with Rose’s abysmal environmental record. Can anyone give just one example of Rose “leadership in groundwater and surface water issues?” You can’t because it isn’t true and Rose’s record clearly shows that it isn’t true.

Rose said: “I am proud that tonight this district spoke loudly for a positive, issue-oriented campaign that put consensus-building and solutions ahead of partisanship and divisiveness.”

Only Rose could translate millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the likes of the Bob Perry/Tom Delay crowd of Republicans and special interests as “bipartisanship” and “consensus-building.” Rose’s sound bite may sound great in passing but any way you cut it his “bipartisanship” is nothing more than special interests buying Rose. Just look at Rose’s legislative record (not what he claims but what he actually did and didn’t do for special interests).

Former State Comptroller, John Sharp said it best: “When those at the capital say they have been ‘Rosed’ they mean they have been lied to.” Clearly, District 45 voters were Rosed.

Voters don’t want to believe the truth but that’s what election campaigns are all about. If you don’t do your homework then pay attention to what the opponent is saying. Then check it out for yourself.

Wait till the 2012 Democrat primary. If Rose is running he will be opposed.

One last observation is in order. Reporter Jen Biundo is managing editor of the Hays Free Press; Cyndy Slovak-Barton (photo credit) is wife of Hays County Pct 2 Commissioner Jeff Barton and both own the Hays Free Press; and Brad Rollins, Editor and Publisher of The San Marcos Mercury is also a reporter for the Hays Free Press. Jeff Barton endorsed Rose.