Saying no only goes so far. The Congressional Republicans obstructionism has been purely a political strategy, but it is a shortsighted political strategy with no long term vision. Perhaps that is because that Republicans have no long term vision, and that their campaign agenda amounts to nothing but clichés and platitudes. Over the course of the primary campaign season we have heard Republican candidates use phrases like "pro-growth," and "free enterprise," and "lower taxes," and "less spending," and of course "smaller government." These candidates have spent most of their time informing voters about everything that they're against, but they haven't spent much time explaining to voters what they support. Some may argue that Republicans don't have a coherent narrative for a policy agenda because they do not have one. However, the real reason they don't have a coherent narrative might be because they do have an agenda, and the policy ideas that Republicans are advocating are to simply double down on the failed economic policies that lead to the Great Recession.
This year Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) introduced the Economic Freedom Act of 2010, which among other things would eliminate the tax on the capital gains of individuals and corporations; reduce the maximum corporate income tax rate to 12.5%; allow a permanent and unlimited expensing allowance for depreciable business assets; and reduce payroll tax rates for employers, employees, and self-employed individuals in 2010, permanently repeals the estate taxes. According to an analysis by the Center for American Progress, what this proposed legislation amounts to is a $10 trillion giveaway to corporations and placing a further burden on working and middle class Americans. For all of the Congressional Republicans talk about budget deficits, this legislation would add $7 trillion in deficits over the next ten years. When you consider Republican support for extending the Bush Administration 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the Republican economic agenda would add $10 trillion to the deficit. How does the legislation proposed to pay for these policies? By repealing TARP and using the remaining stimulus funds. However, that would only pay for about 5% of the cost of the legislation, which disproportionately benefits the wealthy. The average middle-class taxpayer would receive a tax cut of $467, compared to the average taxpayer in the richest 1% receives a tax cut of $157,500.
Then there is the Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2010, which was introduced this year by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI). While Congressman Jordan's legislation would simply disproportionately benefit the wealthiest of Americans and add trillions of dollars to the budget deficits, Congressman Ryan's legislation would also increase the tax burdens on the work and middle class and make significant cuts to the social safety net. Basically not only does Ryan want to dismantle the policies that kept the Great Recession from turning into the Great Depression, he wants to dismantle the policies that where created because of the Great Depression to protect the most vulnerable of Americans. According to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Roadmap would reduce by half the taxes of the richest 1% of Americans and the tax cuts would increase the further up the income ladder you climb. The richest 1/10 of 1% of Americans (whose incomes exceed $2.9 million a year) would receive an average tax cut of $1.7 million a year. How would these massive tax cuts be offset? By taxing working and middle class Americans. A new consumption tax on most goods and services, and this would shift the tax burdens so considerably from the upper class to the middle class that people with incomes over $1 million would face much lower effective tax rates than middle-income families would. When you consider that the Roadmap makes drastic changes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, discontinue the Children's Health Insurance Program, radically reduce federal spending, the picture becomes clear that Ryan's plan is a roadmap to the Gilded Age.
I have repeatedly drummed on the problems in public education here in Texas. Well, just to keep you up to date there are three other pieces that have come across my desk in the last 24 hours in reference to education. Taken together with liberaltexans reporting and the context out of our past, they paint a pretty scary picture for our future.
First there was a report out of New York on the long term impact of excellent early education, especially excellent teachers!
Economists have generally thought that the answer was not much. Great teachers and early childhood programs can have a big short-term effect. But the impact tends to fade. By junior high and high school, children who had excellent early schooling do little better on tests than similar children who did not - which raises the demoralizing question of how much of a difference schools and teachers can make.
There has always been one major caveat, however, to the research on the fade-out effect. It was based mainly on test scores, not on a broader set of measures, like a child's health or eventual earnings. As Raj Chetty, a Harvard economist, says: "We don't really care about test scores. We care about adult outcomes."
Early this year, Mr. Chetty and five other researchers set out to fill this void. They examined the life paths of almost 12,000 children who had been part of a well-known education experiment in Tennessee in the 1980s. The children are now about 30, well started on their adult lives.
[snip]
The Case for $320,000 Kindergarten Teachers Students who had learned much more in kindergarten were more likely to go to college than students with otherwise similar backgrounds. Students who learned more were also less likely to become single parents. As adults, they were more likely to be saving for retirement. Perhaps most striking, they were earning more.
All else equal, they were making about an extra $100 a year at age 27 for every percentile they had moved up the test-score distribution over the course of kindergarten. A student who went from average to the 60th percentile - a typical jump for a 5-year-old with a good teacher - could expect to make about $1,000 more a year at age 27 than a student who remained at the average. Over time, the effect seems to grow, too.
WASHINGTON, DC, April 10, 1865 (FNS)-The Civil War ended yesterday with the surrender of General Lee's Confederate Forces to Ulysses S. Grant, the Union Commander, at Appomattox.
Although most observers are generally happy with the surrender, many of President Obama's most loyal supporters are livid with the Commander-in-Chief because of the concessions he made in order to obtain the future support of the Southern Senators who will rejoin the body when the next Session begins.
At a media event this morning, Press Secretary Dick Timoneous expressed the President's hope that the formerly Confederate Members of Congress are looking forward to changing the political culture and steering the Nation in a better direction:
"It's time for the opposition to realize that what really matters is putting America first. The President is certain that by offering some concessions now, Southern Senators will look beyond their own parochial interests and do their part to move this process forward."
This week the Congress passed a $34 billion dollar extension of benefits to Americans who have been out of work for more than 26 weeks, and these benefits where passed along party lines with the Republicans in the Senate blocking the benefits for weeks. Congressional Republicans argued that the benefits should not be passed unless a corresponding amount of budget cuts could be made, however, another argument that Republicans have offered is that unemployment benefits themselves are a disincentive to find work. At a time when long term unemployment is high than at any time since the Great Depression, and there are five workers applying for every one job these arguments seem ludicrous. The unemployment benefits will help 2 million struggling Americans, and the extension of benefits will last through November.
The idea that unemployment benefits will unacceptably add to the deficit is a relatively weak argument, considering that the fall in consumer demand if unemployment benefits are not extending in the long run will add more to the deficit in lack of tax revenue. Also, it seems a bit disingenuous for Republicans to lecture anyone on deficits or government spending. According to analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, significant causes of our current deficits where due to the 2001 and 2003 Bush Administration tax cuts (which by the way Republicans are still arguing doing not need to be paid for with corresponding cuts in the budget). The other idea that unemployment benefits are a disincentive for people to find employment is another weak argument when you consider that there are not enough jobs for American workers. What these arguments are about is plain and simply politics.
Steve Benen over at the Washington Monthly Blog asks a very important question this morning, what do we do when an entire political party moves to Bizarro World?. I don't think there is an easy answer . I blogged last week about Who is Killing Our Democracy and argued that it was our elites, especially our politicans and the talking heads of the MSM.
But Steve's analysis brings home the fact that the political blame is not evenly divided. Republicans must bear the greater guilt. In discussing the multiple crisis we face, there is NO other reasonable conclusion. Therein lies the problem, the reasonable part. For to discuss our current situation reasonably, we must agree to be reasonable, to appeal to facts and not ideological presumptions. Sane people on all sides of the Liberal/Conservative/Moderate-Independent divide can do that. Not so Tea Baggers, Dittoheads, and rabid partisans of the left or right.
A recent article from the Boston Globe tells us How Facts Fail.
Brighton, Colorado (FNS)-Attorneys from the Republican Study Group (RSG) descended upon the 17th Judicial District courtroom of Judge John T Bryan today to present an amicus brief and associated oral arguments in order to prevent a settlement in a lawsuit related to an automobile accident in this Colorado city.
The intervening attorneys claim the settlement reached between the two parties to the accident is a "shakedown" because the plaintiff had not yet exhausted all possible legal remedies when the agreement was finalized, and because the agreement was executed in the presence of the plaintiff's brother, a well-known local attorney.
They hope Judge Bryan will decline to approve the settlement in today's hearing, and that he will order the parties to move forward to trial.
"What we have is government transferring property from one party, an admittedly unattractive one, to others, not based on preexisting laws but on decisions by one man, a car czar", said Crush Mimbaugh, attorney for the RSG, "and we are here today to protect all Americans from this legally sanctioned rape of an innocent driver."
The Office of Congressional Ethics has sent letters to several residents of the C Street Christian fellowship house informing them that there is no "probable cause" to believe legislators are getting improper gifts in the form of below-market rent, Roll Call reports.
The house has been the target of more than one allegation that the reported rent of $950 for a furnished room amounts to an unreported gift or income.
Roll Call reports:
Aides to Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) said Friday that each lawmaker received a letter from the OCE informing him that it closed the investigation.
As with all such declartions, I am sure there is a reasonable explanation. Except when there isn't. You have read all I can find on the justification for this decision. If you fail to see said justification, join the rest of us in the real world.
Moran [one of the involved residents]has said he believes the complaint is groundless, and he said at the Wichita event: "I do believe that there are those people that want to make certain that one's religious faith is not something that is mingled with their public service. ... My public service is clearly related to my beliefs as a Christian."
Ethics lawyer C. Simon Davidson, who is a contributing writer for Roll Call, said "the fundamental issue is, 'Did they receive a gift?' In order to determine whether they received a gift, you would need to determine whether they received disproportionately more than what they paid for." In short, did the Members pay a fair price for their lodging?
But Davidson pointed out, "The difficulty is that it is not clear that there is really a fair market value for this type of thing. It is such an unusual living arrangement," more akin to a rooming house than a normal hotel or apartment building.
Got it? It is SOOOOOO hard to figure out a fair market value for prime residential living in the DC area with all the amenities, and I do mean all the amenities.
You must give credit where credit is due, for sheer inventiveness the Republican dirty tricks machine never sleeps, never stops seeking new ways of tipping the scales in their favor. This time, it appears they may have bankrolled the Green petition drive to get on the ballot on November.
Green Party cochair says she's paying GOP attorney in petition case Green Party cochair Christine Morshedi of Houston says she hired a top Republican lawyer to represent her in the Democrats' lawsuit against the party. And she said she's paying him, not the GOP. Republican lawyer Andy Taylor was hired by Morshedi as the Democratic Party has begun issuing subpoenas to find out who bankrolled a petition drive to put the Green Party on the November ballot. A Republican operative who spearheaded the drive won't say and Green Party officials say they don't know. The signatures to get on the ballot were collected and paid for by outside groups and given to the Texas Green Party as an inkind contribution. The effort could help Republican Rick Perry in the event the Green Party candidate for governor draws votes from Democrat Bill White.
While the TRP should enjoy the benefit of the doubt , there is plenty of reason to doubt their innocence . Exhibit one is the voter caging University headed by the dean of cagers, Paul Bettencourt.
The campaign for TX-17 looks as though it will go a full twelve rounds, but Democratic Congressman Chet Edwards told Politico that he is ready for a fight.
"Every year the [RNC] predicts my demise. I'm lean and mean and have earned the support of Republicans and independents, as well as Democrats."
As Left of College Station reported last week, Edwards is facing a Republican opponent who recently won a divisive and expensive primary and runoff. While the Edwards campaign has been gearing up for reelection, the Flores campaign now has the challenge of transitioning from primary to general election campaign mode. While the district is predominately Republican it takes more for a candidate to win an election here than an R next to their name in the ballot box. Edwards has spent ten terms in Congress, and has faced well funded Republican opponents before. Like these previous campaigns the Flores campaign is attempting to paint Edwards as a liberal, and to connect him to President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
"Texans across the 12 counties of this district are chomping at the bit to vote out Chet Edwards and fire Nancy Pelosi, as evidence by more people voting in the March 2010 GOP primary than did for the GOP nominee in November 2006."
After a Republican primary that included five candidates and a runoff between two candidates that was very contentious, Congressman Chet Edwards reminded the Republican nominee Bill Flores this week that the general election campaign has begun. The day after the primary Edwards released a video in which he made the case for why the citizens of Congressional District 17 should reelect him, and he criticized Flores for being the choice of "Washington, D.C. insiders" and being a "Houston oil executive" who has never "once voted in our district." The Waco Tribune-Herald reports that the Flores campaign responded by calling Edwards a "career politician" and that he is "desperately attacking."
This campaign will be expensive. Flores dramatically outspent Curnock in the primary; while Curnock spent $175,000 in the primary Flores spent $750,000. However, now Flores faces one of the best funded Democrats in Texas, and also already spent a considerable amount of money in the primary (a significant amount of which was self-financed). The Tribune-Herald reported that the Edwards campaign announced that it raised $594,000 during the current reporting period, compared to the $29,000 that Flores raised during the same period. After depleting much of their finances the Flores campaign reported $60,000 cash on hand, while the Edwards campaign is sitting on $1.7 million cash on hand. Edwards is of the few Democrats in Congress that has been targeted by the Republican Party who has been able to raise more money than his opponent. However, Flores has already contributed nearly a half million dollars to his campaign, so it appears as if there is going to be a large amount of money that will be spent over the next 200 days.
A friend writes me in reaction to my telling him about this from a NYT poll , as discussed by digby over at Hullabaloo.
Teabag Nation The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.
They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as "very conservative" and President Obama as "very liberal."
And while most Republicans say they are "dissatisfied" with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as "angry."
[...]
Tea Party supporters' fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.
The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites - compared with 11 percent of the general public.
They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.
In the final week of the Republican primary runoff for Congressional District 17 between Rob Curnock and Bill Flores the campaign has taken a negative turn, and both candidates have displayed weaknesses that may lead to their defeat by Democratic incumbent Congressman Chet Edwards. While Flores has attempted to paint himself as the more mainstream and moderate of the candidates, during the primary Flores has increasing played more to ultra conservative base and less to the moderate independents that Edwards has been very successful at courting. Curnock has attempted to portray himself as a tested candidate who has shown the potential to compete in the general election, despite allegations to the contrary.
The Curnock campaign criticized Flores for misrepresenting his voting record. According to an article in the Waco Tribune-Herald, during a debate Flores said that he had voted for Curnock in the 2008 election, however, Flores voted in the Democratic primary and did not vote in the 2008 general election. The Curnock campaign released a radio advertisement earlier this week criticizing Flores for misrepresenting his record and for not voting in the 2008 general election.
It seems that many of those who are regular guests of this space are committed to a worldview based on some degree of reason and rationality.
That's a handy thing if the "Covert Alarm Locator Apparatus" in your Isaac Daniel® Compass Global 1000 GPS sneakers should happen to fail and you need to find your way back to where the rest of us are; sadly, not all voters are equipped with such a helpful worldview.
Luckily for them, there are lots of conservative "mouth organs" ready to fill the "information gap".
They send out lots of emails every day, spreading their Word, and as a public service I receive several of them; this to help keep track of just what's out there, exactly.
If you ever wondered why otherwise normal people believe some of the craziest things about "Obama's Secret Death Care And National Virgin Sacrifice Program", have a look at some of the things I get every single day, and it might all make a bit more sense.
Behind the anti-tax , anti-government worldview of our Republican cabal, there is a deeper philosophical vision. It is mean spirited, elitist and vindictive. I blogged aobut it before. Let me quote myself:
...to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way.... Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.
Behind the anti-tax , anti-government worldview of our Republican cabal, there is a deeper philosophical vision. It is mean spirited, elitist and vindictive. I blogged about it before. Let me quote myself:
...to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way.... Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.
If you think this way, how do you pay for government since some of it is still necessary? How do you find money for programs that the unenlightened masses/ non-elite, i.e. "losers" insist on having government pay for? There are several answers.
LANGUAGE WARNING: Today's story is uncharacteristically blunt, and from this moment forward we will be using lots of inappropriate language in making our points.
It is by now fairly well known that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's White House Chief of Staff, had a bit of a blow-up with liberals who were ready to start running ads against "blue dog" Democrats who were working very hard to shut down the health care reform effort.
Now we're not gonna get in the middle of that argument today; instead, since we're finally getting a chance to talk, I figured me and Rahm could get a few other things out of the way that have been on everyone's mind for the past year or so.
Claim: On cap and trade legislation Edwards could have "stood up in several committee sessions and said that we need to not let this get out of committee."
Check: The American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454), was passed by House of Representatives in June of 2009, and has yet to be voted on by the Senate. Before being voted on by the House, HR 2454 was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Education and Labor, Science and Technology, Transportation and Infrastructure, Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Ways and Means. Congressman Edwards service on the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs, and the House Committee on Budget. HR 2454 was not referred to any of the committees that Edwards is a member of, so it is doubtful that Edwards had any opportunity to object to the cap and trade legislation during a committee hearing.
Claim: He is the only candidate that believes that the United States should withdraw from the United Nations.
Check: According to the campaign literature, none of the other four candidates has made withdrawing the United States from the United Nations an issue. Is criticizing the United States' membership in the United Nations a successful political strategy? According to a recent Gallup poll, only 26% of Americans feel that the UN is doing a "good job" compared to the 65% that believe it is doing a "poor job." However, when asked if the United States should give up its membership in the United Nations only 13% believed that it should. Criticizing the UN might be good politics, but the United States leaving the UN is not a significant issue to most Americans.
Claim: Edwards voted to pull troops out of Iraq "in defeat."
Check: The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, included a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and was passed by Congress but vetoed by the President George W. Bush. The bill included a provision requiring troop redeployment to begin within 120 days of enactment of the legislation and be completed by April 1, 2008. Considering the inability of those who continued to support the war in Iraq to define "victory," the claim that Congressman Edwards voted to pull troops out of Iraq "in defeat" is a purely political claim.
Claim: Edwards voted to keep partial birth abortion legal.
Check: Congressman Edwards voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which prohibits the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion, a procedure that is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. This law was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart, when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the dissenting opinion that "the absence of a health exception burdens all women for whom it is relevant-women who, in the judgment of their doctors, require an intact D&E because other procedures would place their health at risk." The Edwards did vote to keep partial birth abortion legal is factual.
Claim: Edwards won reelection "barley by 4 ½ percent."
Check: Congressman Edwards defeated Curnock in the 2008 general election with 52.98% of the vote, and Curnock received 45.50% of the vote. In general the spread in which candidates are defeated is calculated by the determining the spread of the percentage, which in this case would be 7.48%. What Curnock is referring to is the 4.5% below 50% of the vote that he received. It should also be noted that Edwards received 19,011 more votes than Curnock who, in order to win, would have had to received 11,431 more votes than he received. The claim that Edwards won reelection by 4 ½ percent depends on the math, but the claim that Edwards barely won reelection is another purely political claim.
During elections an enormous amount of money is spent on campaigns, and the dollars spent have been increasing during both Presidential and midterm elections. During the Presidential election in 2000 $3,082,340,937 was spent by presidential candidates, senate and house candidates, political parties and independent interest groups trying to influence federal elections, and that number increased to $5,285,680,883 in 2008. During the last midterm election cycle, in 2006, candidates and others groups spent $2,852,658,140, and if the trend continues even more will be spent this year.
Local residents have donated over $118,000 to political candidates and campaign during the current election cycle, and over half of those donations originated from two different zip codes. The largest amount of donations came from south College Station, a total of $39,295 in political donations originated from the 77845 zip code. The second largest amount of donations came from eastern Bryan, at total of $23,741 originated from the 77802 zip code. Residents of College Station have donated $63,429 to political campaigns, while residents of Bryan have donated $54,835.
In local Brazos County campaigns County Commissioner Duane Peters, who is a Republican primary candidate for County Judge, has spent $12,451, the most out of any other candidate. Representative Fred Brown has spent the most out of local Texas legislature candidates, spending $9,404 during the current reporting period. In the local congressional district, Congressman Edwards has already spent more than all of the Republican candidates involved in the primary combined; all five Republican primary candidates have spent a total $268,481 during the current election cycle while Edwards has spent $308,832.
Twitter has become an indispensible part of politics and political campaigning; it is a simple yet effective way to convey an idea to many people at no cost. It has become one of the tools that many upstart and candidates are using during the primaries. Many established politicians use Twitter as a way to convey quick messages without sending or press release. How are candidates in the Brazos Valley using Twitter? I took a look at some of the candidates for Texas Congressional District 17 and found out who tweets, who doesn't, and who doesn't want me to follow them.
Congressman Chet Edwards, incumbent Democrat, does not advertise a Twitter account on his campaign web site, although Edwards does maintain a Facebook page that is regularly updated. However, Edwards has tended to be a low profile Congressman, and rarely appears in interviews on cable news and has focused most of his campaign on tradition means such as radio advertising and yard signs. While Edwards might be able to provide some interesting tweets it is doubtful that he would say anything overly partisan or controversial in 140 characters.
Republican primary candidate Rob Curnock, who tweets under the name rob4congress, has focused less on specific campaign issues and more on promoting partisan attacks from Congressman Mike Pence to political commentator Dick Morris. Recently Curnock did promote a list to his 229 followers of "10 reasons why 2010 will be a year to celebrate for Central Texans" that his campaign web site published. Curnock's number one reason was a "Consistent, common-sense conservative message of less government, lower taxes and more personal freedom," and that "this campaign is about ideas and message." Which is interesting because that means that the Curnock campaign in 2010 should be completely different that the Curnock campaign in 2008 when its focus was not on ideas but on negative campaigning and saying the words "liberal" and "Edwards" in the same sentence over and over again.
Last night was the deadline to file for the Democratic and Republican primaries, and both Democrat and Republican incumbents are facing challenges from both the left and the right. In Brazos County and throughout the rest of the Brazos Valley there are several notable candidates, and what takes place in March is going to greatly affect the complexion of the election in November.
The campaign for the Republican nomination for Congressional District 17 is much more crowded than it was last year. Last year's Republican nominee, Waco businessman Rob Curnock, is joined by fellow Waco businessman Chuck Wilson, College Station nurse Timothy Delasandro, Houston businessman Bill Flores, and Texas A&M security expert Dave McIntyre. The Republican primary will probably be between Curnock and McIntyre, however, Flores is well funded and will be able to spend more than the other candidates. Democratic Congressman Chet Edwards is going to have a financial advantage over whichever Republican emerges from the primary. How the Republican primary evolves is going to greatly affect the general election in November and whether or not a Republican candidate can serious challenge Edwards.
Texas State Senator Steve Ogden had announced his retirement and State Representative Dan Gattis appeared to be the front runner to receive the Republican nomination for the vacated Senate seat. However, after Gattis withdrew from the campaign for personal reasons Ogden decided to run for reelection and facing a primary challenge from Ben Bius. Ogden will be campaigning as his experience as a State Senator, but the budget and the economy are going to be central issues in the campaign.
Texas State Representative Fred Brown is facing a primary challenge form three candidates; former Brazos County Tax Collector Buddy Winn, former candidate for Brazos County District Attorney Rick Davis, and Blinn College professor Blanche Brick. During the 2008 election Left of College Station reported on the almost unopposed Republican, who only faced a Libertarian opponent in the general election. However, during the primary Brown will face a longtime Brazos County public office holder in Winn, and candidate that will pull no punches during the campaign in Davis. Brown's record as a legislator will be the focus of the primary debate, including the dubious distinction as being named by Texas Monthly as being a piece of furniture.
