|
Josh
|
 |
« on: September 20, 2007, 08:49:10 PM » |
|
The Athens Review published a piece yesterday in which Wade Gent, Forney resident, announced his intention to run for the office of State Representative for District 4, which represents Kaufman County as well as Henderson County. He will be competing in the March Republican Primary against incumbent representative, Betty Brown. In the Athens Review article, Mr. Gent outlines some of the issues important to him, including a complete overhaul of the school finance system in Texas, moving school finance from property tax to a new sales tax on non-food items. In what will prove to be a hot issue among voters in district 4, he also mentions Betty Brown's continuing loyalty to Texas Speaker of the House Tom Craddick, even after Mr. Craddick declared his power "absolute" in the last session and refused to allow a bipartisan vote that would have removed him from his position as Speaker. A quick check of Google shows that Mr. Gent appears to be establishing a campaign website which lists his qualifications and other information, but is still under construction. The primary isn't until March 2008, but things are already heating up in what I'm sure will be an interesting race - these two met in the 2006 Republican Primary, where Wade Gent came within a very small margin of beating Betty Brown.
|
|
|
|
TravisRanchMom
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2007, 11:31:05 PM » |
|
I hope he kicks her butt.
I'm not necessarily a Republican, but I really don't like her.
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2007, 07:44:39 PM » |
|
I hope he kicks her butt.
I'm not necessarily a Republican, but I really don't like her.
I'm inclined to support her opponent because of her support of Speaker Craddick. I was amazed and disappointed by his actions last session. Something the Athens Review article mentioned, but I didn't post because I couldn't find any details or confirmation, really shocked me about Representative Brown - from the aforementioned Athens Review article (emphasis added): Brown, one of a handful of legislators loyal to controversial Speaker Tom Craddick, previously criticized what she called the Austin insiders, and signed a written pledge to serve only four terms as State Representative. She is currently serving her fifth term, and Gent predicts that will be an issue with the voters.
?A pledge is a promise to the voters,? Gent said. ?She broke that promise, and now she?s trying to wiggle out of it on a technicality. It?s not right, and the voters deserve better. Our representative is taking orders from other politicians, and it has become evident that her friends from Houston and Midland are more important to her than the voters here at home.? She signed a pledge to only serve 4 terms, and she's seeking re-election for her sixth? Wow. I'd love to hear more about this and what this pledge was all about.
|
|
|
|
Antelope
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2007, 07:54:51 PM » |
|
I know what the pledge was all about, but if I said so here I would get reported to the moderator for inappropriate language.
In the nineteen teens or twenties, someone tried to sue a politician for breach of contract because he did not fulfill a campaign promise. It went to the Supreme Court (I believe), and they ruled that a politician's campaign pledge is not binding.
|
|
|
|
Seriously
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2007, 10:38:38 AM » |
|
Wade Gent himself, when asked at a forum, said the contract wasn't binding because it was null and void. The pledge said, 'If elected on November ...1996, I will only see 4 terms.' Well, she wasn't elected. She lost that election, and the pledge was officialy null and void. Gent agrees to that, but brings it up since it's his primary issue. If you don't believe me, ask him, as a lawyer, will be put his 'credibility' on the line that he couldn't defend that contract in court. To say it will be an issue with the voters, the voters already decided on it. Gent sent out a mail piece, wrote letters to the editor, and ran ads.
Fact: The Texas House of Reps elected Tom Craddick as Speaker for the 80th Legislative Session. Republicans shouldn't allow Democrats to unseat him in the middle of the session just because he refuses to pass their new taxes and grow government. Gent is against Craddick because his liberal trial lawyer buddies don't support him. They are against the medical and business community and want to refuse tort reform. The Texas Ethics Commission says 98% of Gent's money came from this group. He raised $0 in Hend County for the '06 election, and not much more in Kaufman. Which is why it's a joke that he claims all of this "new support". His base was Democrats that voted in the Republican Primary. It won't work this time though, the Democrats have a primary to tend to for the first time in a while.
Fact: Wade Gent considers himself a banker. Well, the banking community doesn't take well to it, since he was a cashier. Big difference. Though, he doesn't let facts get in the way of his debate.
He is a personal injury attorney. It's what he does. He makes money at the hand of suffering. No innovation, no good ideas...he's just a bottom feeder.
And let's face it, he's embarassed of his own profession. Why else would he take down his law firm's website just because it's campaign season???
Fact: Wade Gent, according to the Texas Ethics Commission and campaign reports, gave $100 to Democrat Rep. Lon Burnam. Burnam supports illegals 'right' to vote, gay marriage and a state income tax. Wow...he's really a "life-long conservative".
Now, Wade whines and has his dad do a lot of his bidding for him. His dad goes to the meetings and pulls people aside and says things like, "Why are you out against my son?" and "Why does this party eat its young?" Can't Wade just be a man? I'm sure there is a lot of embarrassment that dad won his election, brother-in-law won his election, but Wade lost by over 500 votes. Just imagine what it will be like now that his family isn't all on the ticket together, and the Democrats are marking a different ballot.
Fact: Wade is against appraisal caps on property taxes. And I understand, for the sake of tension at the dinner table he has to be. His dad keeps giving himself and his buddies raises because he raises your taxes. If there were appraisal caps, this wouldn't be happening and you'd have more money in your pocket.
Fact: Wade was NOT a charter member of the Kaufman County Men's Republican Club. Ask any charter member. He was not around.
Fact: Wade understands sueing someone if you spill coffee on yourself, but he doesn't understand federalism. A state is not allowed to "protect" its border in the way he's talking about.
"The problem with the Legislature is, there aren't enough lawyers in it." -- Wade Gent
|
|
|
|
Jim K
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2007, 02:30:33 PM » |
|
But Seriously, tell me what you really think. Seriously, I mean it, seriously, like, I am not kidding, ya know, seriously.
|
|
|
|
TravisRanchMom
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2007, 12:29:58 AM » |
|
Burnam supports illegals 'right' to vote, gay marriage and a state income tax. Wow...he's really a "life-long conservative". Cool that he supports gay marriage! And I'm not wholly opposed to a state income tax, either. Just needs certain parameters met for me to be for it. Sure, it'll be a PITA come tax time, but tax time is a PITA regardless. Oh...and I think personal injury lawyers aren't automatically bad. Accountability for one's actions is a good thing. And what they don't tell you about the "spilling coffee on yourself" thing is that the woman got third degree burns that required an 8-day hospital stay and skin grafts from that cup of McDonald's coffee. AND that McDonald's had been told multiple times that their coffee was too hot and was unsafe. They didn't care, so they deserved to be sued when that woman was injured. So...yeah...I do think it is a good thing that we have some good personal injury lawyers. Drinking coffee shouldn't be so dangerous.
|
|
|
|
Longhorn Mike
|
|
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2007, 01:48:18 PM » |
|
"He is a personal injury attorney. It's what he does. "
Hmm, I guess the work he did for my family (family/estate issues) was just for fun. Your anti-lawyer schtick is lame. I found him to be well spoken and fair.
Betty Brown, with her anti-school rant put out last week, is such a puppet that its embarrassing.
|
|
|
|
Gonzo
|
|
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2007, 02:26:44 PM » |
|
Betty Brown, with her anti-school rant put out last week, is such a puppet that its embarrassing. Do you a link to this? I am intrigued.
|
|
|
|
Longhorn Mike
|
|
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2007, 05:36:57 PM » |
|
http://www.texasisd.com/article_64785.shtmlShe goes on and on about how the wonderful legislature tried to help the taxpayer but the bad school districts and appraisal districts wouldnt let them. This coming from the people who spend 32nd in the country on education with one of the fastest growing numbers of kids to educate. She's upset that districts have to go to voters to let them decide to assist us with reaching a balanced budget? While energy costs are rising through the roof and inflation marches on districts are supposed to live on 05-06 allocated dollars, fixed per student FROM NOW ON. They cant make that happen in Austin but we're supposed to. She came to speak to the area Superintendents one time and was scolded/mocked out of the room. The woman has no idea what she is talking about when it comes to education. She was asked to explain herself and couldnt. She wont make the mistake of speaking to educators again.
|
|
|
|
Gonzo
|
|
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2007, 07:59:24 PM » |
|
Good gosh almighty. That is a self-serving article if I have ever seen one. All she is doing is being a politician and making sure she gets credit for voting for tax relief. She never mentions kids or education in that article, just tax relief and property values and the "we" that gave relief to homeowners and taxpayers. What a total waste of paper that article was.
|
|
|
|
wraithfive
|
|
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2007, 12:13:52 AM » |
|
Is Mickey Mouse running? Because I'm no sure I care for either of these jokers, and I already had my "lesser of two evils" vote this lifetime when I had to vote for (Convicted Felon) Edwin Edwards over (KKK Grand Dragon) David Duke in Louisiana.... 
|
|
|
|
Antelope
|
|
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2007, 03:28:36 PM » |
|
Someone proposed having an option for "None of the above". If "None of the above" won, the parties would have to come up with new candidates. I like the idea, except who would be in charge during the 50 or so years it took them to come up with someone that people really liked? 
|
|
|
|
