The Texas CD-2 GOP congressional primary is an interesting race this year. To begin with, you seldom have a single challenger to an incumbent, in the incumbent’s party primary. When there is a challenger to an incumbent in his party’s primary, it’s usually because the challenger sees a lot of perceived dissatisfaction with the incumbent, within his own party. So what does it say when you have three challengers to an incumbent in his own party primary?
Well, that’s what we have in CD-2. Moreover, all three appear to be far to the right of Crenshaw. That’s not to say that they are off-the-chart radicals. It just means that since Crenshaw is so moderate, it’s not difficult to be to the right of him.
The three conservative challengers are (in alphabetic order) Jameson Ellis, Martin Etwop, and Milam Langella. I have met and spoken at length with all three of them. I’ll try to describe each of them in a phrase. Martin Etwop is clearly the most Christian man in the race, being a missionary, who grew up under socialism and who wants to stop it from coming here. Jameson Ellis is a take-no-prisoners conservative, who conservative hard-liners will really like and the Establishment will hate. Milam Langella is a 100% service disabled veteran, who appears to be a strong conservative, but is somewhat more nuanced than Ellis.
Frankly, they are all such fine conservative candidates that I am having trouble deciding which one to vote for. Issues aside, in a runoff debate, I think Langella would be able to keep Crenshaw from using his all-too-common “disabled vet” ploy, to avoid questions he doesn’t want to answer, since Langella, being a 100% disabled vet, would throw it back in Crenshaw’s face, in spades. Even so, my general impression, after speaking with all three of them, is that in a runoff debate against Crenshaw, either Ellis or Etwop would be slightly better overall debaters, than would Langella. But they are all three far more committed conservatives than Crenshaw.
In CD-2, there are a lot of conservatives who are not just dissatisfied with Rep. Dan Crenshaw, but we are totally fed up with him. Not only has the guy turned out to be an Establishment lackey, but he has become increasingly insulting and condescending to his constituents, who ask him potentially embarrassing questions.
I’ll get on to political issues in a moment. But first, I want to talk about Crenshaw’s attitude and total disrespect for the constituents for whom he works – an attitude which should not be acceptable for any candidate, for any position, at any level of government, for either party… OK. Maybe the democrats might put up with such disrespect of their constituents. But Republicans should not accept Crenshaw’s open contempt for constituents, who ask him tough questions.
I have seen him, on multiple occasions, being disrespectful of constituents, who asked him potentially embarrassing questions. But what I saw the other day was not only beyond being acceptable for a GOP congressman, it was beyond belief that any elected official, even a Democrat, would act that way. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee is one of my favorite Democrats to ridicule. But I have never seen her be as disrespectful to her constituents, as was Crenshaw to one of his.
A teenage girl, who was participating in her first ever election, politely asked Crenshaw to clarify his recent statement, in which he referred to Jesus as a “hero archetype”. Let me be clear. This young girl did not accuse Crenshaw of anything. She did not berate him. She did not in any way form her question as a challenge or phrase it to make him look bad. She was not trying to set a rhetorical trap for him. All she did was meekly ask him to clarify his previous statement. In fact, it was phrased almost as if she might have even been trying to give him a softball version of the question that everyone knew had to be coming.
But Crenshaw flew off into a rage, shouting, “Don’t question my faith! Don’t question my faith!” He seriously embarrassed the young girl, when he should have taken the opportunity to use that question as a teaching moment for a new voter. His rant went on for some time, even though many in the audience were booing him. But it didn’t end there.
Later, when an older gentleman managed to say that, as a voter, it was his duty to question everything about candidates, the look that Crenshaw gave the old guy had several people nearby thinking that he was about to get violent. After a moment, Crenshaw just shouted his well practiced litany again, “Don’t question my faith!” and walked off.
As Crenshaw left, one person nearby said to nobody in particular, “Maybe we should be questioning your PTSD,” which drew sad nods and mumbles of acknowledgement from the few people who heard it. In my long life, I have never seen any candidate treat any constituent the way Crenshaw treated those two voters. It was embarrassing, not only to the two constituents, who were the targets of his attacks, but to all the voters present, who had to watch that display of arrogance and condescension.
If I knew nothing else about Crenshaw, his display of arrogance and condescension for his constituents would be more than enough to make me want to vote against him. Regardless of his politics, he is definitely NOT the TYPE of person we should want representing us in Congress.
But the old guy was right. As voters, it is incumbent upon all of us to question everything about every candidate, including questions of faith. Then, if there are questions that a candidate doesn’t want to answer, we have the answer in the candidate’s silence on the issue.
Crenshaw doesn’t want his faith questioned. So, we have our answer.
But let’s get on to the political issues.
Although Crenshaw votes with conservatives more often than not, most conservatives want a congressman who votes conservative ALL of the time. In Crenshaw’s case, the times he has voted with the Establishment and against conservatives, were on issues critical to conservatives. Crenshaw has called for Red Flag Laws and actually voted for a Red Flag Law. If you are not familiar with the term, “Red Flag Laws,” they are laws that attempt to bypass due process and allow guns to be confiscated from ordinary people, for no better reason that a specified public official thinks that the person could, possibly, under the right circumstance, become a danger to themselves or others. Read this tweet from Crenshaw.
The solutions aren’t obvious, even if we pretend they are. But we must try. Let’s start with the TAPS Act. Maybe also implement state “red flag” laws, or gun violence restraining orders. Stop them before they can hurt someone.https://t.co/2G2pZSWaF1
— Rep. Dan Crenshaw (@RepDanCrenshaw) August 4, 2019
Not only has Crenshaw actively supported Red Flag Laws, but when challenged on his support of Red Flag Laws, he doubled down on his support of Red Flag Laws, calling his own conservative constituents, who opposed his anti-gun agenda, “emotionally triggered.” That’s right. If you oppose Crenshaw’s Red Flag agenda, they he considers you “emotionally triggered.”
He went on to say that ” ‘Red Flag Law’ is a general concept. There can be good ones and there can be bad ones.”
That is Crenshaw’s own words! He actually said on video, looking straight at the camera, that there can be good Red Flag Laws. This wasn’t some video, where someone surprised him and he had to respond without time to compose his words. This is his own video! Most of that video concerns him making excuses for Red Flag Laws and talking about how Red Flag Laws could be made acceptable. You can find the whole video on Youtube. But if, like me, you’re a conservative, then the following eight seconds is all you need to hear.
This Establishment RINO wants us to believe the impossible! He wants us to believe that there can be such a thing as a “Good Red Flag Law”!!!
Such a thing as a “Good Red Flag Law” is not remotely within the realm of possibility!
On the other hand, if you think that there can be a good and constitutional way to take a gun from an otherwise law-abiding citizen, for something that he might, possibly do, then maybe Dan Crenshaw is your guy.
Just remember that there are already many laws on the books all across the country, that bans convicted felons, those with a Dishonorable Discharge, and those under certain types of restraining orders, from carrying or, under certain circumstances, even owning a gun.
Let me repeat, those laws are already in place.
Red Flag Laws are aimed at you and me – not criminals.
For example, an anti-2nd Amendment teacher could find out that little Tommy’s father owns a gun, so she starts asking Tommy questions about his family, looking for cause to report Tommy’s father. A few weeks later, she learns that Tommy’s father’s pipeline contract job just ended. So, she reports Tommy’s father, under the Red Flag Law. As a teacher, she would probably be considered to be a person of “standing”, so her report would be all that would be required. She reports that Tommy’s father just lost his job and is probably distraught about it. She says that she fears for Tommy and his mother. The next thing you know, there is a knock on the door of Tommy’s home and the police are there to confiscate any guns that may be in the house and Tommy’s father has no recourse except to file suit. It wouldn’t matter that the job loss was nothing but the normal end of a contract job, which happens several times a year in the pipeline industry. It’s a case of “guilty, until proven innocent.”
“Guilty, until proven innocent” is what Crenshaw supports.
There can be no such thing as a “Good Red Flag Law”!
But Dan Crenshaw thinks there can be such a thing… Well, let me correct that statement. That’s what he wants you to think.
And if some or even all of his constituents don’t think like him, then he calls those who disagree with him, “emotionally triggered” and then uses that identification as his own personal “Red Flag”, to justify ignoring those constituents.
As a side note, it occurs to me that, should Crenshaw’s “good” Red Flag Law be enacted, his anger issues would actually make him a target for Red Flag gun confiscation. That would be perfect karma. Think about it…
But, moving on, Crenshaw was also one of 79 RINOs, who voted FOR a bill to strengthen existing state vaccine databases. Some conservatives go further, claiming that it would create a new vaccine database. But I can find nothing in the bill that would do that. So don’t be confused by claims from either side that it has to do with new databases. The point is that Crenshaw followed Establishment orders and voted “Yes,” while real conservatives voted “No.”
Crenshaw is not even close to being the conservative he wants us to believe he is.
Some other left-wing and/or big-government bills for which he has voted:
- For the so-called COVID relief bill and $1.4 trillion special interest spending,
- For the National Defense Authorization Act, without Section 230 reforms,
- For reducing accountability in Congress by defining federal pay as mandatory spending,
- For a $19 billion spending bill without funding for the border crisis, which conservatives demanded be part of the bill,
- For the so-called ‘gag and vote for it’ small-business-killing coronavirus emergency legislation,
- For a $555 billion Christmas minibus spending spree.
So, while Crenshaw has voted with conservatives more than two-thirds of the time, it has mostly been at times when the rest of the Establishment voted with conservatives and when he voted against conservatives, it has mostly been on issues that are very important to conservatives, but when the Establishment voted against conservatives.
Dan Crenshaw is only a conservative when it is convenient to be conservative and when it helps advance his credentials within the GOP Establishment and super PACs.
As many people reading this may already know, I am a big supporter of the FAIRtax. I’ve even written books in support of the FAIRtax. So it should come as no surprise that I talked FAIRtax with all three of the conservatives in the race.
All three conservatives in the race have all signed the FAIRtax Candidate Pledge and show a very good understanding of it. On the other hand, Crenshaw has been in Congress for two sessions, from a district that has many FAIRtax supporters, and he has yet to sign on as a co-sponsor to The FAIRtax (H.R.25).
This is just one more indication that Crenshaw is owned by the Establishment. They don’t want the FAIRtax, since it would take away their ability to play favorites with the tax code, in exchange for super PAC donations.
There is one more thing to consider. Despite the massive evidence to the contrary – evidence that has yet to be investigated – Crenshaw does NOT believe that the 2020 election was stolen, does NOT want that overwhelming evidence to actually be investigated, and he is very vocal in saying so.
So, what is my endorsement in the CD-2 race?
The answer is as simple as “A-B-C”.
There will almost certainly be a runoff in this race and there are three excellent conservatives in the race. I keep going between them and can’t seem to settle on one. I will say this. Martin Etwop is one of the most genuinely nice people I have ever met. Normally, being nice could be a handicap for a congressman. But I think Martin’s experience, growing up under socialism, gives him a perspective-based determination that more than makes up for his being too nice. I only mention this, because I don’t want anyone thinking that Martin is too nice to be a congressman. If there is one candidate who I believe will be most tenacious, it would be Jameson Ellis. When taking to him, I saw someone who was been awakened by Trump and who has become driven to return this nation to the Constitution. But don’t write off Milam Langella. After all, if Langella makes the runoff and Crenshaw tries to play his disabled vet card, as he often tends to do, when he has tough questions that he doesn’t want to answer, disabled vet Langella will toss it back in his face, in spades. You can see my quandary. They are all far more dedicated conservatives than Dan Crenshaw.
The important point is that conservatives must have a horse in the runoff race. Otherwise we lose. Since all three conservative candidates are great, we just have to keep Crenshaw below 50% in the primary, to force a runoff, where any one of the conservatives will win in a walk.
So my recommendation really is as simple as “A-B-C”.
This is not about support for any particular candidate. I don’t work for any of the conservative candidates. The first time I met any of them was when I interviewed them. All three of Crenshaw’s challengers are fine and honorable conservatives, who will respect their constituents and not throw hissy fits, like Crenshaw, when constituents ask tough questions. I asked tough questions and they all answered those questions with grace and politeness. They are all solid, dependable conservatives, who will take orders only from the voters of CD-2. Some time in the next few days, I may release a more specific recommendation. But, at this time, my recommendation for CD-2 voters is “A-B-C”.
Anybody But Crenshaw.
We, the voters of CD-2 should all be proud to have any one of the three conservative challengers, as our representative in Congress. I urge you to vote for one of these three conservatives in the CD-2 race (listed in alphabetic order). Click on the names to learn more.