Casteel or Macias, some things to consider
This letter was published in the Fredericksburg Standard Radio Post newspaper on March 2, 2006.
When I first heard that there was a race for House District 73, I was mostly disinterested. My uninformed opinion was that Carter Casteel was a moderate establishment type, and Nathan Macias was a conservative Christian. I figured I’d vote for Macias, but that was it. Then, I started seeing lots of papers suggesting that Macias was lying about Casteel’s voting record, and I began to question who was the conservative, and who was the distorter of truth.
My wife and I decided to look into the matter. After spending hours just trying to find the voting records, we picked a few issues of interest to us, and began sorting through the information.
We studied Carter Casteel’s position on embryonic stem cell research. She claims that she did not vote to endorse or promote embryonic stem cell research, and she lists her vote on SB 1652 as her evidence. The impression her statements give is that she is against embryonic stem cell research. While SB 1652 did not endorse or promote embryonic stem cell research, neither did it restrict it; making it rather irrelevant to her position on embryonic stem cell research. However, we found that on July 25, 2005, on the House floor, she and Representative Wooley made impassioned arguments in favor of embryonic stem cell research, and attempted to change the legislative intent of HB 6 to be in favor of embryonic stem cell research. We made a transcript of the entire discussion for anyone interested. We also found that Representatives Wooley and Casteel sponsored and cosponsored, respectively, HB 1929 (79R), a bill which supposedly forbid human cloning. However, upon closer examination, the definition of cloning excludes anything not implanted in a uterus, meaning that human clones could be made all day long, as long as they were not implanted in a uterus. Also, the bill requires that the cloned human beings be destroyed after 14 days.
In light of her comments on the House floor strongly favoring embryonic stem cell research, and her support for human cloning in HB 1929, we find the statements in her literature misleading.
I spoke to Carter about this issue. She told me in the most unequivocal terms that she is not for stem cell research. But again, what she and Rep. Wooley said on the House floor was clearly in favor of embryonic stem cell research. When I brought this up, she told me that what they really meant was somatic nuclear cell transfer, which has nothing to do with stem cell research. I asked her if she could show me somewhere in the record proving that what they were discussing was the somatic nuclear cell transfer, but she could not. The record of what both ladies said cannot be erased or changed--they were unquestionably arguing for embryonic stem cell research. http://www.house.state.tx.us/fx/av/chamber79/072505a.ram (HB 6 starts about 1 hour 4 minutes into the video.)
If all I had done was talk to Carter, I would be completely convinced that she is against embryonic stem cell research. But having seen and heard her talk on the House floor, and having read HB 1492, what I am convinced of is that what she says in person does not match how she votes on this issue.
After she was unable to convince me that her voting record did not match what she was telling me, she tried to dismiss the discrepancy as hair splitting. But, violating conservative principles is not just a matter of hair splitting, and furthermore, it reflects on the integrity issue that drew me into this race in the first place.
I really hate to mention integrity, because she sounded so sincere and believable when we talked. I wanted to believe what she said, but the record is there in full sound and color--starkly and completely contradicting what she told me on the phone.
I don’t know to what extent the contradiction between what she says and how she votes extends to other issues, but I know it extends to her vote on third trimester abortions.
Carter Casteel claims that she "supported legislation that strengthens the ban on third trimester abortions." And, as her literature suggests, we checked for ourselves. She lists her votes on Amendment 3, and Record votes 673 and 676 for SB 419 (79R)
The vote on Amendment 3 was an amendment to weaken the originally proposed restriction against 3rd trimester abortions--it adds an exception, by allowing 3rd trimester abortions in babies with "severe, irreversible brain impairment." As Carter’s own literature states, she supported Amendment 3; but it weakens the ban.
Recorded vote 673 also was an amendment to further weaken the language, adding more exceptions to the ban, allowing for 3rd trimester abortion if the mother has a significant likelihood of suffering either brain damage, or paralysis, either of which being severe and irreversible. Again, Carter supported this effort to weaken the law.
Not mentioned in her literature are two other Record votes: 674 and 675. Vote 674 attempts to weaken the law by adding an exception if the baby has "severe...vital organ impairment." Carter supported this attempt to weaken the bill, and she also voted in Vote 675 to add further exceptions if the mother has a significant likelihood of suffering organ damage or paralysis, either of which being imminent, severe, and irreversible.
It appears that, after gutting the original ban as much as possible, she and most of the other legislators, voted to pass the watered down version in Vote 676.
I do not believe a person can honestly or accurately say they support legislation that strengthens a ban on third trimester abortions, after casting 4 votes to weaken it.
I spoke to Carter about her votes. She said, she does not support abortion. She said the legislators were voting to remove the exception that allows a woman to have a 3rd trimester abortion for "mental illness." When I questioned her about her votes on SB 419 which weakened the ban, she said she might have cast those votes while thinking about her daughter, and would she want her daughter to have organ failure, etc. Her explanations notwithstanding, her campaign literature says she voted to strengthen the ban, but her voting record says she voted 4 times to weaken it.
Keep in mind that by the 3rd trimester, there is no such thing as an abortion that is necessary to save the woman’s life. All they have to do is deliver the baby early and help him or her, instead of chopping them to pieces.
A third issue we examined was Carter Casteel’s claim that she was not against the ban on homosexual foster parents. While it’s true that she voted for the final bill that included the ban, when the ban all by itself was up for a vote, she voted against it. Then she went on record stating that she was for the bill overall, but expressed reservations on the ban portion. Again, Ms. Casteel’s literature portrays her completely opposite of how she voted. Furthermore, in researching the matter on the web, we found a number of pro-homosexual web sites speaking very favorably of her vote against the homosexual foster parent ban. Also, about 17 pro-homosexual and/or left leaning bloggers even voted her "Texan of the Year."
A forth issue we considered was the toll roads. Carter explained her support by saying she favored solving the traffic problems by giving local governments the power to raise money for their transportation problems. What that means is, she voted to give local governments a new taxing power. What government entity will resist the temptation to tax us more? Consider the "restraint" the school district has shown with their air-conditioned locker rooms, and other expensive facilities. Do you think a toll road taxing committee will show any more restraint? One more power to tax is one more means to tax us incessantly.
The only issue we found where Macias made a mistake was on Carter’s vote against parental consent. While she did vote against it, she later went on record stating that her vote was an error. Unless she has demonstrated a pattern of voting incorrectly, and then saying it was a mistake--which to my knowledge she has not done, we think she should not be criticized for this vote.
Besides looking at individual issues, we also looked at some of those endorsing or supporting Carter. As mentioned before, we found the left leaning and/or pro-homosexual web sites (Pink Dome, for example said: "We all love Carter Casteel...."), and the liberal San Antonio Express News, to name a couple.
A further important issue we considered was that many of the issues important to us will not be won by a moderate--only a strongly principled conservative will have the will to carry them to victory, even if it costs him an election. A moderate, like Carter Casteel, may vote right sometimes, and give a nod to conservative issues, but in the end she probably will not put her political career on the line for conservative principles, especially the controversial ones. To empower government taxation, to vote against bans on homosexual foster parents--maybe she would; but, to defend conservative principles, probably not.
The last item we considered was the vehement attacks against Jim Leininger from both the far left and the moderates, for his financial support of Mr. Macias. Mr. Leininger is doing nothing more than I would do if I had the money: find candidates who share my views, and help them win. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enumerates the right of free speech for each individual citizen, and spending your money on behalf of a candidate who shares your views is one way to express free speech. In their zeal to oppose Mr. Leininger’s conservative, Christian views, they are vilifying the exercise of his Constitutional, First Amendment right--that is, vilify a Constitutional right for political gain.
I’m not surprised that those on the far left would disparage free speech to beat their opponents, but I am disappointed to see moderates doing the same. Carter Casteel, unfortunately, did much the same in our phone conversation.
To summarize, in researching her voting record, on the items we studied, we found that Carter Casteel has mischaracterized her voting record on several important issues, she has voted to empower local government to tax us more, and she has vilified the First Amendment of the Constitution for political gain. Those are the actions of a moderate, not someone who will champion conservative issues, and not someone we could endorse. Instead, we would like to urge voters to support the true conservative in this race: Nathan Macias.
Unfortunately, we have seen many Christians and conservatives misinformed, and I hope this election will cause them to ask themselves a few questions. Are you going to believe what a candidate says, or are you going to believe their voting record? Do you have the ability to determine who is telling the truth? Will you stand for conservative principles, or will you find reasons to compromise them? Will you support the candidate of the establishment, the political machine, and the moderates, or will you support the truly conservative candidate?
Voters, those answers are in your hands.
For Liberty, David and Wendy Treibs
sirdavid@ktc.com
When I first heard that there was a race for House District 73, I was mostly disinterested. My uninformed opinion was that Carter Casteel was a moderate establishment type, and Nathan Macias was a conservative Christian. I figured I’d vote for Macias, but that was it. Then, I started seeing lots of papers suggesting that Macias was lying about Casteel’s voting record, and I began to question who was the conservative, and who was the distorter of truth.
My wife and I decided to look into the matter. After spending hours just trying to find the voting records, we picked a few issues of interest to us, and began sorting through the information.
We studied Carter Casteel’s position on embryonic stem cell research. She claims that she did not vote to endorse or promote embryonic stem cell research, and she lists her vote on SB 1652 as her evidence. The impression her statements give is that she is against embryonic stem cell research. While SB 1652 did not endorse or promote embryonic stem cell research, neither did it restrict it; making it rather irrelevant to her position on embryonic stem cell research. However, we found that on July 25, 2005, on the House floor, she and Representative Wooley made impassioned arguments in favor of embryonic stem cell research, and attempted to change the legislative intent of HB 6 to be in favor of embryonic stem cell research. We made a transcript of the entire discussion for anyone interested. We also found that Representatives Wooley and Casteel sponsored and cosponsored, respectively, HB 1929 (79R), a bill which supposedly forbid human cloning. However, upon closer examination, the definition of cloning excludes anything not implanted in a uterus, meaning that human clones could be made all day long, as long as they were not implanted in a uterus. Also, the bill requires that the cloned human beings be destroyed after 14 days.
In light of her comments on the House floor strongly favoring embryonic stem cell research, and her support for human cloning in HB 1929, we find the statements in her literature misleading.
I spoke to Carter about this issue. She told me in the most unequivocal terms that she is not for stem cell research. But again, what she and Rep. Wooley said on the House floor was clearly in favor of embryonic stem cell research. When I brought this up, she told me that what they really meant was somatic nuclear cell transfer, which has nothing to do with stem cell research. I asked her if she could show me somewhere in the record proving that what they were discussing was the somatic nuclear cell transfer, but she could not. The record of what both ladies said cannot be erased or changed--they were unquestionably arguing for embryonic stem cell research. http://www.house.state.tx.us/fx/av/chamber79/072505a.ram (HB 6 starts about 1 hour 4 minutes into the video.)
If all I had done was talk to Carter, I would be completely convinced that she is against embryonic stem cell research. But having seen and heard her talk on the House floor, and having read HB 1492, what I am convinced of is that what she says in person does not match how she votes on this issue.
After she was unable to convince me that her voting record did not match what she was telling me, she tried to dismiss the discrepancy as hair splitting. But, violating conservative principles is not just a matter of hair splitting, and furthermore, it reflects on the integrity issue that drew me into this race in the first place.
I really hate to mention integrity, because she sounded so sincere and believable when we talked. I wanted to believe what she said, but the record is there in full sound and color--starkly and completely contradicting what she told me on the phone.
I don’t know to what extent the contradiction between what she says and how she votes extends to other issues, but I know it extends to her vote on third trimester abortions.
Carter Casteel claims that she "supported legislation that strengthens the ban on third trimester abortions." And, as her literature suggests, we checked for ourselves. She lists her votes on Amendment 3, and Record votes 673 and 676 for SB 419 (79R)
The vote on Amendment 3 was an amendment to weaken the originally proposed restriction against 3rd trimester abortions--it adds an exception, by allowing 3rd trimester abortions in babies with "severe, irreversible brain impairment." As Carter’s own literature states, she supported Amendment 3; but it weakens the ban.
Recorded vote 673 also was an amendment to further weaken the language, adding more exceptions to the ban, allowing for 3rd trimester abortion if the mother has a significant likelihood of suffering either brain damage, or paralysis, either of which being severe and irreversible. Again, Carter supported this effort to weaken the law.
Not mentioned in her literature are two other Record votes: 674 and 675. Vote 674 attempts to weaken the law by adding an exception if the baby has "severe...vital organ impairment." Carter supported this attempt to weaken the bill, and she also voted in Vote 675 to add further exceptions if the mother has a significant likelihood of suffering organ damage or paralysis, either of which being imminent, severe, and irreversible.
It appears that, after gutting the original ban as much as possible, she and most of the other legislators, voted to pass the watered down version in Vote 676.
I do not believe a person can honestly or accurately say they support legislation that strengthens a ban on third trimester abortions, after casting 4 votes to weaken it.
I spoke to Carter about her votes. She said, she does not support abortion. She said the legislators were voting to remove the exception that allows a woman to have a 3rd trimester abortion for "mental illness." When I questioned her about her votes on SB 419 which weakened the ban, she said she might have cast those votes while thinking about her daughter, and would she want her daughter to have organ failure, etc. Her explanations notwithstanding, her campaign literature says she voted to strengthen the ban, but her voting record says she voted 4 times to weaken it.
Keep in mind that by the 3rd trimester, there is no such thing as an abortion that is necessary to save the woman’s life. All they have to do is deliver the baby early and help him or her, instead of chopping them to pieces.
A third issue we examined was Carter Casteel’s claim that she was not against the ban on homosexual foster parents. While it’s true that she voted for the final bill that included the ban, when the ban all by itself was up for a vote, she voted against it. Then she went on record stating that she was for the bill overall, but expressed reservations on the ban portion. Again, Ms. Casteel’s literature portrays her completely opposite of how she voted. Furthermore, in researching the matter on the web, we found a number of pro-homosexual web sites speaking very favorably of her vote against the homosexual foster parent ban. Also, about 17 pro-homosexual and/or left leaning bloggers even voted her "Texan of the Year."
A forth issue we considered was the toll roads. Carter explained her support by saying she favored solving the traffic problems by giving local governments the power to raise money for their transportation problems. What that means is, she voted to give local governments a new taxing power. What government entity will resist the temptation to tax us more? Consider the "restraint" the school district has shown with their air-conditioned locker rooms, and other expensive facilities. Do you think a toll road taxing committee will show any more restraint? One more power to tax is one more means to tax us incessantly.
The only issue we found where Macias made a mistake was on Carter’s vote against parental consent. While she did vote against it, she later went on record stating that her vote was an error. Unless she has demonstrated a pattern of voting incorrectly, and then saying it was a mistake--which to my knowledge she has not done, we think she should not be criticized for this vote.
Besides looking at individual issues, we also looked at some of those endorsing or supporting Carter. As mentioned before, we found the left leaning and/or pro-homosexual web sites (Pink Dome, for example said: "We all love Carter Casteel...."), and the liberal San Antonio Express News, to name a couple.
A further important issue we considered was that many of the issues important to us will not be won by a moderate--only a strongly principled conservative will have the will to carry them to victory, even if it costs him an election. A moderate, like Carter Casteel, may vote right sometimes, and give a nod to conservative issues, but in the end she probably will not put her political career on the line for conservative principles, especially the controversial ones. To empower government taxation, to vote against bans on homosexual foster parents--maybe she would; but, to defend conservative principles, probably not.
The last item we considered was the vehement attacks against Jim Leininger from both the far left and the moderates, for his financial support of Mr. Macias. Mr. Leininger is doing nothing more than I would do if I had the money: find candidates who share my views, and help them win. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enumerates the right of free speech for each individual citizen, and spending your money on behalf of a candidate who shares your views is one way to express free speech. In their zeal to oppose Mr. Leininger’s conservative, Christian views, they are vilifying the exercise of his Constitutional, First Amendment right--that is, vilify a Constitutional right for political gain.
I’m not surprised that those on the far left would disparage free speech to beat their opponents, but I am disappointed to see moderates doing the same. Carter Casteel, unfortunately, did much the same in our phone conversation.
To summarize, in researching her voting record, on the items we studied, we found that Carter Casteel has mischaracterized her voting record on several important issues, she has voted to empower local government to tax us more, and she has vilified the First Amendment of the Constitution for political gain. Those are the actions of a moderate, not someone who will champion conservative issues, and not someone we could endorse. Instead, we would like to urge voters to support the true conservative in this race: Nathan Macias.
Unfortunately, we have seen many Christians and conservatives misinformed, and I hope this election will cause them to ask themselves a few questions. Are you going to believe what a candidate says, or are you going to believe their voting record? Do you have the ability to determine who is telling the truth? Will you stand for conservative principles, or will you find reasons to compromise them? Will you support the candidate of the establishment, the political machine, and the moderates, or will you support the truly conservative candidate?
Voters, those answers are in your hands.
For Liberty, David and Wendy Treibs
sirdavid@ktc.com
posted by David Treibs | 7:32 AM
1 Comments:
Just trying this out.
Post a Comment
<< Home