0 thoughts on “Rose trounces Democratic primary challenger”

1. Pingback: It’s Barton vs. Cobb for Hays County judge - San Marcos Local News

2. Considering the relative sizes of their war chests ($485,000 vs $5.400 per Austin-American Statesman 2/4/10), I’m astounded by the amount of votes Mr. Backus was able to call up. I received enough oversized postcards from Mr. Rose to repaper my bathroom wall with his questionable claims, and the push-poll he sponsored was nothing short of shameful. Our only hope now is that Representative Rose recognizes that 20% of his constituency is onto him even without the funds to mount a significant campaign. Imagine what would have happened if the funding had been equal! Perhaps fear of this possibility will motivate Mr. Rose to pay less attention to his corporate sponsors and more attention to his constituency during his next term.

3. Yes, I am sure Patrick will really do some self-analysis after carrying almost 80% in a contested primary. I am sure he will take an even harder look knowing his opponent couldn’t raise any money either…

4. Pingback: QUOTE CORNER - San Marcos Local News

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

   Duncan asserts that Rose, “…may have gone a long way towards discouraging future primary challengers…”

   Is he kidding?

   Rose, an eight year incumbent with widespread name recognition, an organized network of supporters and tons of money to throw into a campaign against an obscure opponent who had less than three months to campaign and still receives over 20% of the votes “discourages future primary challengers?”

   Hardly. 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 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. My math tells me that’s $1,889 per percentage point while Backus spent $500 per percentage point of voters.

   Rose characterized Backus as a “one-issue candidate” which is true. He was. That one issue was Rose and his record in the legislature. Most voters demonstrated that they believed the 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. Invested believed the Madoff spin.

   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 PEC documents, passed any reform legislation or did anything more than just jump on a bandwagon so he could claim credit for the work of others.

   Another example. Following four years of investigation by the U.S. Depart. of Justice of 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 legislature was required as part of the Settlement Agreement. Yet Rose takes credit for the legislation.

   Rose doesn’t take credit for all the special interest bills he introduced or bills he made sure die 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. Duh! Ask Bernard Madoff.

   Here is the best example of that.

   Rose said: “Partisanship and divisiveness don’t have a place in this district, and that makes me proud to represent it.”

   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.” Sounds great in passing but any way you cut it Rose’s “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.”

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

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

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

   Duncan asserts that Rose, “…may have gone a long way towards discouraging future primary challengers…”

   Is he kidding?

   Rose, an eight year incumbent with widespread name recognition, an organized network of supporters and tons of money to throw into a campaign against an obscure opponent who had less than three months to campaign and still receives over 20% of the votes “discourages future primary challengers?”

   Hardly. 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 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. My math tells me that’s $1,889 per percentage point while Backus spent $500 per percentage point of voters.

   Rose characterized Backus as a “one-issue candidate” which is true. He was. That one issue was Rose and his record in the legislature. Most voters demonstrated that they believed the 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. Investers believed the Madoff spin.

   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 PEC documents, passed any reform legislation or did anything more than just jump on a bandwagon so he could claim credit for the work of others.

   Another example. Following four years of investigation by the U.S. Depart. of Justice of 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 legislature was required as part of the Settlement Agreement. Yet Rose takes credit for the legislation.

   Rose doesn’t take credit for all the special interest bills he introduced or 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. Duh! Ask Bernard Madoff.

   Here is the best example of that.

   Rose said: “Partisanship and divisiveness don’t have a place in this district, and that makes me proud to represent it.”

   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.” Sounds great in passing but any way you cut it Rose’s “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.”

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

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

7. Charles hits it on the head again. Charles, if only I had listened to you when the HTGD was formed and not that fool Russ. Patrick is a disgrace and Andrew clearly got my vote.