Category: Texas 17
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the Washington Post:

House Approves Bill Linking War Funds, Troop Withdrawals

"The House yesterday approved a war funding bill that directs President Bush to withdraw most troops from Iraq by the end of next year, escalating a feud between the White House and congressional Democrats over spending priorities in wartime.

"The measure...passed 218 to 203...."

The Senate is likely to torpedo the bill this week. In the event something miraculous happens and the measure passes the Upper Chamber, the President will quickly veto and the process will restart.

Again?

Republican Mike Pence offered a succinct summary to this increasingly tiresome charade:

"With unambiguous evidence of progress on the ground in Iraq, the Democrats in Congress have seemed to add denial to the agenda of retreat and defeat."

Fifteen Democrats with good sense and an extra integrity chromosome decided NOT to participate in this latest Nancy, John, and Rahm tea party. Unfortunately, my congressman (George Bush's congressman), Chet Edwards, was not one of the stout-hearted few.

You would think Chet could throw us a bone on a vote this meaningless.


This session has proved incredibly disappointing (perhaps humiliating is a better word) for Chet's erstwhile Republican backers.
Category: Texas 17
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I have given my Congressman, Chet Edwards, plenty of grief for abandoning his stalwart support for the President and the war to vote with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership on several crucial measures over the past few months (here and here). However, I am pleased to cheer his support for the recent FISA legislation, passed by the Senate last Friday and approved by the Lower Chamber on Sunday.

Explanations from the Congressman’s office concerning many of these critical votes have been spare, obligue, or nonexistent, so I am happy to quote from this press release at length:

“Given that Al Qaida friendly websites have recently threatened more terror attacks on American soil, I agreed with the President’s request to allow information about suspected terrorists to be gathered more quickly, so that we can prevent such attacks,” said Edwards, a member of the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

The update to the 1978 FISA law was expedited at the request of the White House and was purposely written to expire in six months to give Congress more time to write permanent legislation while granting the Bush Administration the ability to pursue pressing intelligence matters.

“This bill gives the President the flexibility he asked for in the short term, and with a 180 day sunset provision, it gives Congress and the Administration time to determine the most effective tools to prevent terrorist attacks while safeguarding the civil rights of all Americans,” said Edwards.

President Bush signed the bill into law Monday.


Full press release here.

Important Note: Edwards was one of only 41 Democrats to support the President’s request.

Well done, Congressman.

Roll Call here.

I have speculated previously that the Speaker and Democratic Leadership are likely exerting extreme pressure on Edwards to squeeze out these anti-war votes. I suspect that Congressman Edwards did not willingly reverse himself on these issues. I would like to know the back-story details, as I think this individual political journey likely tells a larger tale in microcosm.

As for this particular confrontation, Paul Kane of the Washington Post indicates Speaker Pelosi felt forced to take off the handcuffs on this vote (his analysis here).

What does all this really mean?

Only time will tell whether this engagement presages a return to a more regular pattern of voting for my Congressman and other center-right Democrats representing traditionally conservative districts. But with the palpable change of momentum in Iraq, even settling in on Capitol Hill, we may see a much less unified front on the part of the Democratic caucus.
Category: Texas 17
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From Reuters via the Washington Post :

House passes bill to withdraw troops from Iraq

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defying a White House veto threat, the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday approved legislation to bring combat troops out of Iraq by April 1, 2008.

"By a vote of 223-201, the Democratic-controlled House approved the legislation in the hope it will pressure the Senate to attach a similar mandatory troop withdrawal timetable to a military policy bill it is debating."

Abbreviated story here.

Texas 17 Representative Chet Edwards voted for the bill, which is not expected pass the Senate.

As of now, no comment or explanation from the Congressman: his website here.
Category: Texas 17
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The Waco Tribune-Herald, my home-town newspaper, has called Chet Edwards "one of Texas' most resilient Democrats." Edwards was the only one of six targeted Democratic incumbents in Texas to survive the much celebrated Tom Delay-orchestrated redistricting of 2003. He held off his Republican challenger in the tight race that followed in 2004, while the district went for President Bush with 69 percent of the vote. In 2006, Edwards whipped the GOP candidate by 18 points.

FYI: Edwards represents Texas 17, which includes the President's ranch in Crawford. This is Bush country (even now); and Representative Edwards is literally the President's congressman. He is also my congressman and the first Democrat for whom I can remember voting. And, like many of my fellow Republicans in Central Texas, I have voted for him consistently over the years.

How has a Democrat succeeded consistently in an increasingly, overwhelmingly Republican district?

1. He has a good (and justly earned) reputation in the community for working hard to service constituents, and he has skillfully distanced himself from the mainstream of his party on the issues that alienate many Central Texans. Back during the last campaign, when a Democratic House looked likely, Congressman Edwards wouldn't even admit that he was going to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker.

2. More importantly, Edwards has stayed on top of the tiger with conservative votes. Up until a few months ago, the President could hardly have asked for a more loyal congressman.

But that has changed. In January, he voted for the non-binding resolution "disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq." And, recently, he cast his vote to support the Democratic timetable to withdraw American troops by August of 2008.

Change of heart? If so, it has been a swift one. He gave no indication that he would break with his history of voting in support of the President on the war during the last election. These two votes are not at all in keeping with how I understood his position last November.

Change of heart? If so, it has been a peculiar one. Representative Edwards has not issued a full-throated explanation. His March 23 public statement emphasized his vote for "full funding" for the troops, the added "flexibility for the Commander-in-Chief," and his support for the plan put forward by "former President Bush’s Secretary of State Jim Baker." His statement did not mention the current President Bush by name, and it criticized Speaker Pelosi and anti-war hero John Murtha.

From the statement his office released on March 23 (in full here):

In February, Edwards spoke out publicly and led the opposition to proposals put forward by Congressman John Murtha and Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would have limited the president’s constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief. As a result of Edwards’ efforts, a waiver was included in the bill to allow the president the flexibility to manage the war and troop rotations.

“I was one of the first to speak out publicly on proposals I thought would overly restrict the Commander-in-Chief’s ability to manage troop rotations. The bill now fully funds the president’s troop surge in Iraq while refocusing our mission there to fighting terrorists, training Iraqi security forces and increasing efforts to fight the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.”


This is confusing at best. Maybe even outright disingenuous.

What happened?

I doubt Congressman Edwards is jumping off this cliff willingly. I would like to know how much pressure the Speaker and Democratic Leadership exerted on these votes.

The Congressman's rhetoric (which obfuscates the meaning of his vote) leads me to believe that he sees himself on very shaky ground with the Texas 17 voters.

It is possible that he was ill-served by his big margin of victory in the last election. He won by nearly 20 points in the last election. I can imagine that he is hard-pressed to make the case with Speaker Pelosi that he must buck leadership out of self-preservation.

My guess is that the next election in this district will be much more partisan than the last few. Edwards will not be able to run away from mainstream Democrats next time, as he is currently towing the party line in a big way.

Legendary UT football coach, Darrell Royal, famously advised: "You've got to dance with who brung you." I regret that Congressman Edwards is changing partners at this crucial juncture.
Category: Texas 17
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Texas 17 Representative Chet Edwards is a resilient Democrat in an increasingly overwhelmingly Republican district. The district, which includes the President's ranch in Crawford, went for Bush in 2004 with 69 percent of the vote. Edwards has stayed on top of the tiger with hard work and conservative votes.

To repeat what I said last Friday, Edwards is a center-right Democrat I admire, and one for whom I have consistently voted. Disappointingly, he voted for the House timetable last week. The next congressional election in Central Texas should be interesting.

Painfully aware of how precarious his position in Texas 17 with votes such as these, here is how he explained his actions in a recent press release. By the way, much of the release made it into the Waco Tribune (here), not merely as quotes, but also as content. It helps to have a friendly local paper.

The Title of the Press Release:

Edwards: Iraq Bill Supports U.S. Combat Troops & Veterans, and Tells Iraqi Politicians to Take More Responsibility for Nation’s Future

How his office characterized his vote:

"U.S. Representative Chet Edwards today supported House passage of the $124 billion emergency war funding bill that gives the president and military commanders the flexibility and funds they need to carry out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Huh?

"This bill fully funds our U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan..."

Correct, but...

"...and sends a message to Iraqi political leaders that it is time for them to take responsibility for their own nation’s future."

Is that the message?

"This bill does not authorize an immediate withdrawal."

Thank God for small favors.

"I voted against immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops and led the effort to give the Commander-in-Chief critical flexibility in managing troop rotations. I believe this is a reasonable, balanced approach that improves the chances for victory in Iraq.”

So, the President must be for this then, right?

"As recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group headed by former President Bush’s Secretary of State Jim Baker, Edwards supported provisions in the bill to refocus the U.S. military mission in Iraq and Afghanistan to prioritize fighting terrorism and the training of Iraqi security forces, and redeploy U.S. combat forces in Iraq by August 2008 to accomplish this goal."

So, again, the Bushes must be all for this then, right?

"In February, Edwards spoke out publicly and led the opposition to proposals put forward by Congressman John Murtha and Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would have limited the president’s constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief."

Wow, Murtha and Pelosi must be really mad at him right now. But why all the high-fives?

Analysis: As I say, I like Chet Edwards. But this vote (and his vote for the non-binding resolution "disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq") comes as a shock to me.

Back during the last campaign, Congressman Edwards wouldn't even admit that he was going to vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. He gave no indication that he would break with his history of voting in support of the President on the war. These two votes, notwithstanding his lame attempt to cast them as something they are not, are not at all in keeping with how I understood his position last November.

I am anxious to see how this plays out during the next election cycle.
Category: Texas 17
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Guest Blog

As I indicated earlier, the college atop the escarpment along the Bosque River in the heart of Texas added two "whiz kids" to its brain trust recently. One of whom, "Jerry Vorhees," whose field of expertise is International Relations, at my request, offered this insightful analysis of the US dilemma in re the Korean peninsula recently.

The other sensation, "Citlalli," who specializes in public policy, I have successfully prevailed upon to pen this analysis regarding the spirited Texas 17 race. Let's make her feel welcome. Hopefully, we can draw her into our conversation on a regular basis.


Edwards v. Taylor

With the most recent debate in Cleburne indicating that the incumbent Chet Edwards (D) and the challenger Van Taylor (R) are still letting the sparks fly, this race remains very competitive. However, Edwards, the incumbent in a Republican-strong district, has been able to stave off the political jabs and accusations of Taylor by focusing on the local issues such as the $16 million dollars he recently acquired in government contracts for L-3 or his attempts to save the Waco VA.

Further, the challenger has had only moderate success in contesting Chet Edwards on one issue, immigration. And even with that issue, Taylor has been weak. It is very difficult to say that a Democrat is soft on immigration when he votes against his own party in support of building a wall on the border and for an increased federal, state, and local presence on the border.

Which then begs the questions, what are the other issues?

» Read More

Category: Texas 17
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Texas 17 pits incumbent Chet Edwards (D) versus Van Taylor (R).

For some background on my take on this race, you might want to read my post from last spring. To briefly summarize: Chet Edwards is a resilient Democratic Congressman in an increasingly Republican district (even more GOP as a result of Tom Delay's celebrated redistricting plan). Edwards stays on top of the tiger with hard work and conservative votes. Van Taylor is the most attractive candidate Edwards has faced in years. He is a young, Harvard-educated, Marine veteran of Iraq and family man. His biggest problem is that his roots in Central Texas are very shallow.

Where are we right now? Congressman Edwards is the overwhelming winner in the "yard signs" race in Waco. Waco is the largest community in the district and part of the old "District 11," which Edwards represented for fourteen years. Waco is incredibly loyal to Edwards (or "Chet," as most folks say) and will go in a big way for the incumbent.

But the key for a Republican candidate in this district (see insert), which stretches from Waco up the I-35W corridor into the outskirts of Fort Worth and then south of Waco slides off the I-35 corridor southeast into "redder" communities, is winning big enough outside of Waco to make up for Chet's huge advantage in his old territory. While the old Texas 11 remains loyal, many of the voters of Texas 17 are much less familiar with Edwards and not especially sympathetic toward the national Democratic party.

In 2004, when the district went 69 percent for President Bush (who is registered to vote in McLennan County) Edwards eked out a victory over a lackluster opponent. It is likely that Republicans will not run nearly as strong anywhere in the area this time around with the President off the ballot. Presumably, if Edwards could hold off a Republican challenge last cycle, he should be in shape to win again in the midterm.

However, the conventional wisdom does not take into account how hard-charging Van Taylor seems to be. To repeat, he is an attractive candidate with national backing and plenty of money. Both campaigns have gone negative (anecdotally, I hear more complaints about Taylor than Edwards).

Taylor must overcome the "outsider" image. He is not from Waco. Mudslinging is one thing--but coming from someplace else to mudsling against "our Congressman" is harder to stomach. There is no good answer on that one. Shake a lot of hands, talk Central Texan as much as possible, tell the folks how much you love the place and cross your fingers.

Taylor must also overcome that Edwards votes with the President more than many Republicans do. It is almost impossible to find a wedge issue on Iraq, terrorism, gun control, support for the military, etc. Edwards has some vulnerability on abortion, but, even there, his position is hard to hit squarely. For voters to unseat Edwards, they will need to decide to send home an eight-term Congressman with a conservative voting record for someone about whom they know nearly nothing.

Why do I think it will be closer than the conventional wisdom suggests?

Van Taylor is trying very hard to "nationalize" this election. He is currently running a campaign ad that features John Kerry. Nationalizing the election may be poor strategy for Republicans around the country, but here, in Central Texas, especially in the more rural counties, anti-Kerry, anti-Ted Kennedy, anti-Democratic party sentiment is very powerful. Associating yourself with the Republican party and President Bush, and reminding your voters that your opponent answers to Nancy Pelosi, plays very well.

Most likely, Congressman Edwards will continue to represent Texas 17, but I am convinced that this is no cake-walk.
Category: Texas 17
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Texas 17 pits incumbent Chet Edwards (D) versus Van Taylor (R).

Congressman Edwards was among 18 House Democrats who joined the Republcan majority yesterday in passing the administration-backed "Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act," better known as the warrantless wiretapping bill (roll call).

Washington Post story in re the bill and the vote.
Category: Texas 17
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
McLennan Community College will host a debate between congressional candidates, incumbent Chet Edwards (D) and Van Taylor (R), on October 31 (more details to come).

The McLennan Community College Student Government Association will also host a "meet and greet" with Van Taylor on Monday afternoon, October 9th at 2:30 in the Library Rotunda.

Note: Congressman Edwards joined 34 House Democrats today in passing the administration-backed detainee interrogation bill (roll call).

13/03: Texas 17

Category: Texas 17
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Today's Waco Tribune-Herald offers some early handicapping in the US House race for President Bush's home district (Texas 17). As the article notes, Representative Chet Edwards (Democrat) barely held off the Republican challenger in 2004, while the district went for President Bush with 69 percent of the vote. The Trib calls Edwards "one of Texas' most resilient Democrats," which may be an understatement. Edwards was the only one of six targeted Democratic incumbents to survive the much celebrated redistricting of 2003.

Edwards has succeeded consistently in an increasingly, overwhelmingly Republican district. He has a good (and justly earned) reputation in the community for servicing constituents, and he has skillfully distanced himself from the mainstream of his party on the issues that alienate many Central Texans. As a capstone to the Trib story, Texas A&M political science professor, Henry Tucker, cast great doubt on Taylor's chances to unseat the formidable Edwards.

I agree that it will be extremely difficult to unseat Edwards because of his experience and popularity. And Van Taylor, as the article notes, has a big disadvantage: he has no Central Texas roots. However, while Chet Edwards is a good congressman and a good candidate, he has been extremely vulnerable for the last several election cycles, even before the redistricting.

In truth, the redistricting was gratuitous; the old Texas 11 was bound to go Republican eventually. The numbers were already in favor of the GOP and the gap was growing steadily. Tom Delay should have waited patiently for the ripe fruit to fall off the tree. Edwards ran especially strong in Waco in 2004 (against an unimpressive candidate from the Metroplex), in part because locals resented and reacted against outside forces rushing the natural progression of things.

Back to Van Taylor: having identified his main problem, Taylor is, nevertheless, a very attractive candidate. He is also a well-financed youthful war veteran (a Marine no less) with a young family. Chet Edwards for ten years has been blessed with a series of inept and not very photogenic or media savvy opponents. Not this cycle. Only time will tell how effective Taylor will be on the stump, but when you browse Van Taylor's website, you get a feeling that this particular contest will be a horse race.

So, as you are calculating the 2006 Congressional scorecard, you may want to mark Chet Edwards down as a Democratic incumbent with a serious challenge.