2007 Revised STR LOGO

12/13/07 Newsletter

Citizen Journalism Focused on Liberty, Conservatism and Independent Thought

 

Newsletter: Candidate for Chief Justice of the 4th Court Emerges (Exclusive)

Report and Commentary by Joe Solis/South Texas Republicans

Ann and Paula Moore
 

Ann Comerio and Paula Moore/ Coalition for Texas Event
 

Ann Comerio would like to be the next Chief Justice of the 4th Court of Appeals.

"The Fourth Court of Appeals was created in 1893 out of territory taken from the First and Third courts of civil appeals. It has intermediate appellate jurisdiction of both civil and criminal cases appealed from lower courts in thirty-two counties of Texas; in civil cases where judgment rendered exceeds $100, exclusive of costs, and other civil proceedings as provided by law; and in criminal cases except in post-conviction writs of habeas corpus and where the death penalty has been imposed."

"The Fourth Court of Appeals is comprised of seven Justices who hear cases from thirty-two counties located in South Texas and the Texas Hill Country. The counties served by the Fourth Court of Appeals are:

Atascosa, Bandera, Bexar, Brooks, Dimmit, Duval, Edwards, Frio, Gillespie, Guadalupe, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney, La Salle, Mason, Maverick, McMullen, Medina, Menard, Real, Starr, Sutton, Uvalde, Val Verde, Webb, Wilson, Zapata, Zavala"  (Source: 4th Court of Appeals Web Site)

The position of Chief Justice will be an open seat next year.

Last Sunday, I had an opportunity to sit down with Republican candidate Ann Comerio for an exclusive one hour interview.  This special report and commentary was designed for you--the voter and activist.  This newsletter segment is not a comprehensive analysis or an official biographical report.  It is an introduction from my perspective on the ground.

Ann Comerio was born and raised in New Orleans where she witnessed the "abuse" of government power.  She "saw everything" down there and came to understand that "who you knew mattered" when it came to achieving progress in Louisiana.  Seeing this bothered Ann as she grew up.   Ann was a high school English teacher for 8 years prior to attending St. Mary's Law School in 1990.  She graduated from Tulane University with a degree in English.   After her career in education, she decided to become an attorney to "make a difference."

Her decision to run for the 4th Court of Appeals seems to be a quasi mission.  She made it clear to me:  I intend to bring "judicial restraint" to the court and push back any form of "judicial activism" that has been emerging recently.  Ann has practiced in front of the 4th Court of Appeals for over 15 years.  I asked who she thought was a justice who practiced her preferred form of leadership.  It was former Chief Justice Phil Hardberger.  He served on the 4th Court of Appeals before become Mayor of San Antonio.

Ann said the following of Democrat Phil Hardberger in my interview.  Justice Hardberger "read the law" and he "did not make the law" through the use of judicial activism.  He did his very best to do "the right thing" during his tenure. The former Chief Justice also stood out because he ruled "even when he did not" agree with the final decision.  Finally, Justice Hardberger was "extremely courteous" and cared about the "end result" of every case.


 

Ann and Young Republicans
 

Ann Comerio, Emily Gamble, Secretary of the Young Conservatives of Texas at UTSA, Laura Morales, Chairman of the Young Conservatives of Texas at UTSA, and Allen Otto, President of the College Republicans at Trinity University.
 

It is that "tenor" that Ann Comerio wants to bring to the 4th of the Appeals.  She wants a court that is "patient, dignified and courteous" to every member of this community.  After my interview, I got the impression that the court may not be as grounded as it should be. 

Could there be blatant inconsistencies on the court?  In other words, you can bring up one issue in case A and not in case B with a subtle backlash.  Maybe?  Are personal opinions and biases influencing case decisions in an undesirable manner? Maybe? Has the concept of simple courtesy at the court gone out the window?  Maybe?  I get the impression that a breeze of fresh air from the outside could help the court become a better one.

I asked what kind of judicial temperament she would have on the court.  The answers were always consistent:  my job is to "interpret the law" and to follow the "intent of the legislature" in the decision making process.  Her job is deal with the "ambiguities" that arise and to be sure they stay out of the "business of making law" in the process.  Why? That is the job of the legislature.

Her reply about her work ethic was refreshing.  Ann was proud of the fact that she is a workaholic when it comes to the law.  Why?  She wants to "see it all" and understand "how does this work" before making a decision.  It also involves "asking the right questions" and determining if something is "right or wrong."   And yes, this involves "throwing yourself into cases" because it is the right thing to do.  It is really all about serving the public as a professional. 

"You can count on her to do the right thing" is the answer Ann gave when I asked what people would say about her leadership manner if elected.  It is important to her that she "be worthy of the position" if given the opportunity and privilege to serve.  Let me close with some personal information about Ann.

She has been married for 30 years.  Her 9-year-old son was adopted from the Ukraine.  Anne's "passion" is to "take care of the orphans of the world." She is currently supporting the "building of a Christian church in South America."   Her community involvement includes raising money for her son's school. Her personal law practice involves defending nursing homes, doctors and other medical professionals. 

Anne has been a member of the Bible Study Fellowship for over 20 years.  She considers herself to be a "spiritual person" who "carries God in her heart."  Why?  "She [Anne] does not go there alone" is how she put it.  I asked her about her biggest disappointment in life and she made the following statement.  It was the knowledge that "you can't depend on man.  You must trust God." Wow.

When was the last time you heard a candidate be honest in that manner?

The following items impressed me after our first meeting last Sunday.

She will follow the law and do the right thing if elected.

 
She has a passion for law that motivates her to work long hours.

She wants to serve because she wants to make a difference.
 

She knows one very simple truth that has guided this country: "In God we Trust."

She is not alone in this uphill challenge.  Why?  She has help from above. 

It is now up to you on the ground as activists.

The voters of this district will now have one extra choice in November.  It could be argued that Ann is a fresh outside voice that is not owned by any group, entity or party.  Could she be the voice of the grassroots who want their government back? 
 

There is one thing that I know after meeting this lady.

This is a voice of reason, compassion, integrity and spirituality in action.

Would these qualities be good in our next Chief Justice of the 4th Court of Appeals?

They are good enough for me.

 

Democrat Candidate for the 4th Court of Appeals Chief Justice

Note from the editor: This information is from the 4th Court of Appeals web site.  This is being provided as a service of this newsletter.

Justice Catherine M. Stone
Place 2

Justice Catherine M. Stone was born in Biddeford, Maine on November 28, 1953. With the exception of two years spent in Meriden, Connecticut, she was raised and educated in Maine. She received her bachelor of arts degree, magna cum laude, in foreign affairs from Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts. She attended St. Mary's University School of Law, where she served on the law journal and the legal research board. She received her juris doctorate in 1982.

She served as a briefing attorney at the Fourth Court of Appeals for Justice James Baskin and Justice Pete Tijerina in 1982-1983. Justice Stone practiced trial and appellate law for eight years with the San Antonio law firm of Watkins, Mireles, Brock, and Barrientos, and continued her appellate practice in the Law Offices of Catherine M. Stone for three years prior to being appointed by Governor Ann Richards to fill a vacancy on the Fourth Court on March 24, 1994. Following her appointment, Justice Stone was elected in November, 1994 to serve a six year term on the court.

Justice Stone is board certified in civil appellate law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization (1987), and is an active member of various state and local bar associations. Justice Stone and her husband, Tom, live in Helotes with their three sons, Liam, Nathaniel, and Jacob.



 


 

Alamo City Republican Women Host Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst in San Antonio: 

Loretta Cormier will be singing Christmas carols starting at 10:30AM accompanied by Barry Brake on the piano. Loads of free door prizes.  
 

Invite a friend to this special event.

Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2007        11:00 Am

Location:    Oak Hills Country Club

RESERVATIONS ARE REQUIRED

 RSVP Contact: Barbara (210) 342-5482 OR Carolyn 493-6210 or Email to: ACRW.Reservations@gmail.com with your name, how many guests attending and a phone number.

Cost: $20 With  Reservations made by Noon on Friday December 14,2007.

$25 AT THE DOOR on December 18.

Make all checks payable to: ACRW/PAC.

. 


 
Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom, (www.TexasTURF.org)


 

Is this a Republican form of government or an "economocracy?"

by Terri Hall

Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom, (www.TexasTURF.org)

"The highway lobby is in firm control of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Sadly, without a court stepping in, it will NOT be responsive to the citizens of Texas," Commissioner Tommy Adkisson


MARKET STUDYON 281 SAYS: "US 281 has a negative net present market value" and a "tax subsidy" would be required to complete the project. So why are they tolling it?
_________________________________

MPO VOTED TO APPROVE 281 TOLL RATES & USE BOATLOAD OF TAX MONEY TO CONVERT IT TO A TOLL ROAD

SEE WHO VOTED TO RAISE YOUR TAXES

NON-COMPETE WILL PROHIBIT EXPANSION OF SURROUNDING FREE ROUTES!

These sorry excuses for elected representatives voted to limit ANY new roads or expansion of existing roads surrounding the the 281 tollway which undoubtedly includes, Stone Oak Pkwy, Bulverde Rd., Red Land Rd., and Blanco Rd. (up to a 4 mile area around the tollway by law, yep that counterfeit moratorium Perry rammed through allows it)! But we don't know the details and neither did the MPO before they voted on it.

 "We do not need toll roads. We need what has been promised, funded and denied," said one email from a citizen in the 281 corridor.

Hwy 281 needs overpasses, not a toll road. The ORIGINAL gas tax funded plan promoted in public hearings in 2001 included overpasses AND expanding the highway to 6 lanes, AND adding access roads to get to existing businesses. This plan as evidenced in the MPO's and TxDOT's own documents was supposed to be let in 2003, and TxDOT FAILED to install the promised fix, which has NOTHING to do with a lawsuit filed in late 2005.

The pricetag for the gas tax plan, $100 million in 2004 dollars. TxDOT has confirmed repeatedly in both news reports and in person that it has $100 million in gas taxes for 281. They have the money and failed to fix the road. Yet they continue to lie to the public saying their own plan is now insufficient or that the money isn't there (probably because Zachry couldn't milk the taxpayers for 4 times  as much money with the FREEway plan compared to a 20 lane toll road). So the blame for the situation on US 281 rests solely at TxDOT's feet. As Ms. McNeil so nicely stated, they have targeted where they think the money is, on the northside, and they want to extort money from commuters and make them buy back the road they've already bought and paid for.

That brings us to today. Let's adjust the cost of the original gas tax plan using the construction index to today's dollars, it's up to $170 million. Given the Texas Mobility Funds available, there is NO EXCUSE to spend $475 million to toll 281 when a $170 million gas tax plan would do the job. With FHWA stats showing the traffic growth has slowed in this corridor, the gas tax plan is indeed more than sufficient to fix the road and keep it a FREEway, though TxDOT will always claim otherwise, even though the gas tax plan is their own plan based on aggressive MPO growth patterns in the first place. The only thing that changed was TxDOT's leadership who is shoving toll roads down our throats and asking our politicians to follow them into your own political ruin.

COLLUSION TO GET TOLLS RAMMED THROUGH?

What started as a stealth email campaign by the highway lobby was hatched in a backroom at Valero, October 19, and meant to give the appearance of legitimate public opinion in favor of tolls when supporters should have come clean and stated where they work and that they have a financial interest in toll roads when corresponding. When a person has something to gain financially, they need to DISCLOSE IT when trying to influence the vote. A public official or RMA board member has to recuse him or herself from any votes or even the debate they have financial ties to what's being discussed.

The emails the MPO received in favor of tolls have to be considered on this basis. In contrast, what does count is the LEGAL RECORD at the 281 & 1604 NEPA public hearings with over 90% of the OFFICIAL public comment being opposed. There was no official, nor announced process for this MPO to collect public comments for this vote.

But in response to the SAMCO and Chamber-led email campaign, MPO Board members received over 1,200 emails opposed to tolls. Over 35 businesses including dozens of CPAs and Independent consultants wrote in opposition to tolls as well as active duty & retired military, healthcare workers, and public school teachers.

Then, I personally witnessed Sheila McNeil and 2 TxDOT employees, one that sits on the MPO, Clay Smith, enter that closed door meeting at Valero where the stated purpose was to win approval of the terms and funding for 281/1604 toll projects on December 3. Since Vic Boyer who is also an ex-officio member of this board, was also there, this starts sounding an awful lot like collusion to me.

SECRECY/FINANCIAL TERMS:

Despite a sham letter from David Casteel to a few of our elected officials, the meaningful financial guts of the 281 toll rates are still secret. It's tantamount to malfeasance to vote for 281's financial terms without knowing the terms of the non-compete agreement, what the impact of gas prices are on toll viability since other studies have shown toll roads are NOT viable once gas hits $3 a gallon, and what other factors can potentially affect toll rates if the assumptions used change! Essentially, the MPO made a FINAL decision to approve a "draft" document without reviewing a single Traffic and Revenue Study and without knowing CRITICAL financial terms and impacts.

What's most egregious is the study that has been done says that given the toll term assumptions made, "US 281 has a negative net present market value" and a "tax subsidy" would be required to complete the project. They repeatedly say these toll rates are based on the assumptions made but what happens if those assumptions don't become reality and we have an oil embargo, or development slows or traffic continues to stay flat and fails to grow at the rate both TxDOT and MPO demand models show?

There's a GOTCHA just around the corner in these "financial terms," and the taxpayers will be left holding the bag. Demand the gas tax plan NOW!
 


 

Romney for President by National Review

 

By the Editors

Copyright 2007
 


 

National REview cover
 

 

Many conservatives are finding it difficult to pick a presidential candidate. Each of the men running for the Republican nomination has strengths, and none has everything - all the traits, all the positions - we are looking for. Equally conservative analysts can reach, and have reached, different judgments in this matter. There are fine conservatives supporting each of these Republicans.

 

Our guiding principle has always been to select the most conservative viable candidate. In our judgment, that candidate is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Unlike some other candidates in the race, Romney is a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest. While he has not talked much about the importance of resisting ethnic balkanization - none of the major candidates has - he supports enforcing the immigration laws and opposes amnesty. Those are important steps in the right direction.

 

Uniting the conservative coalition is not enough to win a presidential election, but it is a prerequisite for building on that coalition. Rudolph Giuliani did extraordinary work as mayor of New York and was inspirational on 9/11. But he and Mike Huckabee would pull apart the coalition from opposite ends: Giuliani alienating the social conservatives, and Huckabee the economic (and foreign-policy) conservatives. A Republican party that abandoned either limited government or moral standards would be much diminished in the service it could give the country.

 

Two other major candidates would be able to keep the coalition together, but have drawbacks of their own. John McCain is not as conservative as Romney. He sponsored and still champions a campaign-finance law that impinged on fundamental rights of political speech; he voted against the Bush tax cuts; he supported this year's amnesty bill, although he now says he understands the need to control the border before doing anything else.

 

Despite all that and more, he is a hero with a record that is far more good than bad. He has been a strong and farsighted supporter of the Iraq War, and, in a trying political season for him, he has preserved and even enhanced his reputation for dignity and seriousness. There would be worse nominees for the GOP (see above). But McCain ran an ineffectual campaign for most of the year and is still paying for it.

 

Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has distinguished himself with serious proposals on Social Security, immigration, and defense. But Thompson has never run any large enterprise - and he has not run his campaign well, either. Conservatives were excited this spring to hear that he might enter the race, but have been disappointed by the reality. He has been fading in crucial early states. He has not yet passed the threshold test of establishing for voters that he truly wants to be president.

 

Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.

 

It is true that he has less foreign-policy experience than Thompson and (especially) McCain, but he has more executive experience than both. Since almost all of the candidates have the same foreign-policy principles, what matters most is which candidate has the skills to execute that vision.

 

Like any Republican, he would have an uphill climb next fall. But he would be able to offer a persuasive outsider's critique of Washington. His conservative accomplishments as governor showed that he can work with, and resist, a Demo­crat­ic legislature. He knows that not every feature of the health-care plan he enacted in Massachusetts should be replicated nationally, but he can also speak with more authority than any of the other Republican candidates about this pressing issue. He would also have credibility on the economy, given his success as a businessman and a manager of the Olympics.

 

Some conservatives question his sincerity. It is true that he has reversed some of his positions. But we should be careful not to overstate how much he has changed. In 1994, when he tried to unseat Ted Kennedy, he ran against higher taxes and government-run health care, and for school choice, a balanced budget amendment, welfare reform, and "tougher measures to stop illegal immigration." He was no Rockefeller Republican even then.

 

We believe that Romney is a natural ally of social conservatives. He speaks often about the toll of fatherlessness in this country. He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism. No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage. He was on the right side of both issues, and those battles seem to have made him see the stakes of a broad range of public-policy issues more clearly. He will work to put abortion on a path to extinction. Whatever the process by which he got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we're glad he is now on our side - and we trust him to stay there.

 

He still has some convincing to do with other conservatives. Romney has been plagued by the sense that his is a passionless, paint-by-the-numbers conservatism. If he is to win the nomination, he will have to show more of the kind of emotion and resolve he demonstrated in his College Station "Faith in America" speech.

 

For some people, Romney's Mormonism is still a barrier. But we are not electing a pastor. The notion that he will somehow be controlled by Salt Lake City or engaged in evangelism for his church is outlandish. He deserves to be judged on his considerable merits as a potential president. As he argued in his College Station speech, his faith informs his values, which he has demonstrated in both the private and public sectors. In none of these cases have any specific doctrines of his church affected the quality of his leadership. Romney is an exemplary family man and a patriot whose character matches the high office to which he aspires.

 

More than the other primary candidates, Romney has President Bush's virtues and avoids his flaws. His moral positions, and his instincts on taxes and foreign policy, are the same. But he is less inclined to federal activism, less tolerant of overspending, better able to defend conservative positions in debate, and more likely to demand performance from his subordinates. A winning combination, by our lights. In this most fluid and unpredictable Republican field, we vote for Mitt Romney.

           

           

 


 
"The Republicrat PLUS" (A Moderate Viewpoint)

This is a series by 3 anonymous political insiders in Bexar County and one in Webb County. The views of this section do not represent the views of South Texas Republicans PAC.
 

This week, I have no choice but to express my disbelief that District 8 City Councilwoman Diane Cibrian is floating her interest in running for Mayor of San Antonio in the very near future.  The gossip has been moving around in Democrat circles for about 2 weeks.  Jaime Castillo of the San Antonio Express-News beat us last weekend with this story.  The idea of this is silly.   Diane has no solid base of political support after a few months in office.  What is she thinking?
 

Outside of a small group of Valero energy executives, what makes Diane think there is a mad rush to get her elected to the position of Mayor.  What has she accomplished?  Why should she be on stage so soon?  This will all lead to one thing for Diane. The political knives will be coming out for her real soon. Why?  San Antonio voters and fellow politicians resent freshly elected officials who feel they have to "cut to the front of the line" to move ahead.  Diane has a tough time controlling her speaking style and tone. Now that impatience is showing up with political strategy. HOLD your cards close babe!!!

Diane has basically invited her enemies to plot against her now with even more passion and desire.  She should have kept her mouth shut.  Now folks are NOT going to want to help her.  Why? She has an agenda and it is not District 8.  It is pure ambition.  It is worst than crystal meth sold on the streets of this city.  I can see Mayor Phil NOT wanting to give her opportunities because he does not want to be accused of playing favorite with an unofficial candidate. Of course, Diane goes around saying that she will follow in his foot steps.  Mayor Phil knows this game all too well.  He is going to run away from that woman every time she comes close.  He has made it very clear over the past two years- I do not endorse.

The toll party has told the world in it's blog that Diane Cibrian is a target spot for their organization.  By voting for the MPO toll rate, she has effectively raised taxes after her promise not to raise them.  Diane postured at the MPO meeting and did a big song and dance. She actually tried to convince everyone that she was not voting for a tax increase but for a fee.

Interestingly, conventional political wisdom is that Democrats raise taxes and Republicans only raise fees. Diane claims to be a Democrat but between you and me, I wonder.
 

You do not screw with the toll road opponents. They will eat you alive. Expect to see former candidate Jacob Dell on the war path real soon. With the strong backing of the Anti-Toll opponents, Jacob may make his victorious comeback next term.  

Diane is a smart lady, but she should have kept her mouth shut on this one as well as the fiasco of the Gentlemen's Club. If you remember, she engaged in a shouting match on the Joe Pags talk show on WOAI and went off like some crazy woman. Stay tuned.  

This is what I am hearing about Southside politics:

Rumor is Congressman Ciro Rodriguez is ready to boot his political director Gina Castaneda. Seems this past weekend a reception she planned for him drew a less than stellar crowd. It was told to me that those in attendance were his staff and volunteers and a few friends. Ciro's current Republican opponent Quico Canseco has been block walking the district and making in roads with the voters.  Meanwhile in the Ciro camp, word is there is a lot of infighting between his congressional staff and Gina. Let's see how this plays out.

Gina is also the campaign manager of Sheriff Candidate, Larry Ricketts who has apparently flamed out early. He is usually a no-show at political events and appears to have no support. He has actually run for Sheriff as a Republican in the past. Not only does he have an identity crisis, he is a perennial candidate. His former campaign manager quit in a dispute over money and she went to work for his opponent, Andy Lopez. Political consultants Alice Guerra & JoAnn Ramon won't work for him either. 

Now we hear that Republican Sheriff candidate Chris Milam has drawn an opponent in the Republican primary. Dennis McKnight, a disgruntled former deputy who was on the short list to replace Sheriff Ralph Lopez during the recent controversy has jumped in. What is it about "no" he doesn't understand?
 

Now we currently have two Republicans and three Democrats. It will be a scramble to the finish line.

The Sheriff's race gives me a headache. That is all I can think of for now. Until next week, that is the moderate view, I Am the Republicrat.
 

That's the moderate view, I AM the Republicrat.
Thanks for reading the new edition of South Texas Republicans.  We welcome your comments, complaints and suggestions.  Joe Solis, Founder and Director  (SolisJoe@sbcglobal.net)