Casey responds to Van Arsdale

22 Responses to Casey responds to Van Arsdale

1. ttyler5 says:

   August 5, 2005 at 4:11 pm

   Yeah, that’s Rick Casey’s ( and the Houston Chron’s) fantasy world, alright, as a lecture on ethics of any kind from the Chron or, especially, Rick Casey, is just completely absurd.

   While Casey is usually the Chron’s hatchet man, today he is the Time Warner hatchet man.

   “Fantasy” indeed. This sounds like something he cooked up after talking to Time Warner officials.

   Casey thoroughly and very maliciously distorted the exchange between a local state rep and Time Warner — which company proved in this year’s leg session that it is one of the most anti-consumer, anti-taxpayer special interests in Texas — and of all things Casey then used his distortions to lecture the rest of us on the ethics of lobbying.

   Time Warner’s and the TML’s opposition to the statewide franchise in SB21 is one the worst examples we’ve seen of a gang of anti-consumer and anti-taxpayer special interest groups coming together to kill off innovation, reform and economic growth.

   TML opposed the bill — and as well opposed the best interests of consumers and people who need jobs — because the little gangs of parasites who run our mayor’s offices and city councils would not be allowed, under the statewide franchise, to strangle the growth of a new market by exacting their individual tribute as the new industry made it’s way down the proverbial Rhine.

   And Time Warner opposed the bill because, regardless of the spin they put on it, they simply flat-out do not want anyone competing with them.

   Both Time Warner and the TML gave the old middle finger to Texas consumers and taxpayers, and today Rick Casey joined them by attempting to misdirect the public’s attention away from the misdeeds of Time Warner and the TML over SB21.
2. Charles Hixon says:

   August 5, 2005 at 5:16 pm

   Attacking the messenger?

   Van Arsdale initiated this chain of events. The buck stops there.
3. ttyler5 says:

   August 5, 2005 at 5:48 pm

   Charles H, Rick Casey is no “messenger.”

   As I noted above, he’s the store front hatchet man, the Chron’s own Frank Nitti .
4. Charles Hixon says:

   August 5, 2005 at 6:07 pm

   If Van Arsdale would keep his ____ in his ____, then Casey would have had nothing to say. Van Arsdale is painting targets on himself and Casey just has the bow.
5. ttyler5 says:

   August 5, 2005 at 7:30 pm

   Charles H., I understand your meaning, but I disagree that it applies here.

   What Casey has done in this case is his specialty: twisting the facts to show just the opposite of what they really show, and turning that distortion into an absurd lecture on political ethics.

   Van Arsdale did the right thing in reporting Time Warner to the DA, and if he is painting a target on himself by doing the right thing, then what does that tell you about the bowman?
6. kevin whited says:

   August 5, 2005 at 7:43 pm

   Rick Casey has seen the correspondence

   Did you confirm that with Casey, or did you just assume it to be the case?

   I don’t see anything in his column to suggest he didn’t rely on R.G. Ratcliffe and/or other reporting for his column.
7. Charles Kuffner says:

   August 5, 2005 at 9:49 pm

   He appears to have quoted from it whereas Ratcliffe did not, so yes, I am assuming that he’s seen it. Why do you think differently?
8. Charles Hixon says:

   August 5, 2005 at 10:33 pm

   ttyler5:

   My WHOLE point is van Arsdale asked for a campaign contribution from a PAC with a philosophy apparently divergent from his own and the PAC responded with a bomb. The bomb being a message slightly more diplomatic than: “go away you freekin’ jerk”.

   This would be like W asking for a campaign contribution from bin Laden and bin Laden delivering a load out of a B52.

   Van Arsdale is only whining to the DA because van Arsdale didn’t have time to be insulted before he headed for the bunkers.
9. ttyler5 says:

   August 5, 2005 at 10:36 pm

   “Rick Casey has seen the correspondence…”

   I assumed from Casey’s article, Kevin, as he appears in one section for example to be quoting from van Arsdale’s fundraising letter, and of course twisting and distorting van Arsdale’s meaning.

   Casey of course conveniently skipped over important facts in his “musings”.

   van Arsdale, for example, voted against the Time warner position on SB21 twice, not just once, and the last time in the house he was joined by 134 other members in supporting sb21 and voting against the Time Warner position.

   Does anyone really beleive after a vote of 135-8 against the Time Warner position, that van Arsdale was attempting to approach Time warner about paying him a contribution to switch his vote?

   This is what Casey is claiming in his “fantasy.”

   Yeah, right! And that will make it 134-9 against, instead of 134-8 against!! Let’s pay Corbin, that will really help us!!! :^D :^D :^D :^D :^D Rick Casey is such a disreputable hatchet man and hack!

   Query: Kevin, where would anyone at the Chron have got these letters, except perhaps from Time Warner or one of their operatives? Can you think of another explanation? Let’s hear it.
10. Charles Kuffner says:

    August 5, 2005 at 11:25 pm

    Kevin, where would anyone at the Chron have got these letters, except perhaps from Time Warner or one of their operatives?

    Um, from Van Arsdale himself? Here’s what Casey wrote:

    “Van Arsdale faxed his Time Warner correspondence to reporters and to prosecutors in Harris and Travis counties.”

    Which once again says pretty clearly to me that Casey has seen these letters.
11. Charles Hixon says:

    August 5, 2005 at 11:33 pm

    ttyler5, If van Arsdale didn’t ask for funds from a PAC with a philosophy divergent from his own then your buddy Casey would be off doing something else right now.
12. ttyler5 says:

    August 6, 2005 at 12:36 am

    Kuff: “Van Arsdale faxed … ” Yeah, that’s right, I saw that in Casey’s article, I did not remember it, above. I still would like to know, however, if anyone on the Chron editorial board has stock in Time Warner, is married to a Time Warner exec, if Casey has anything in this area to disclose, etc etc. The Chron is famous for this kind of stuff, and it’s time for subscribers like myself to demand full disclosure.

    Mr. Hixon: “My WHOLE point is van Arsdale asked for a campaign contribution from a PAC with a philosophy apparently divergent from …”

    Yeah, I realize that, Charles, I know what you mean. But the margin of defeat for Time Warner in the House vote on SB21 really complicates that whole idea. I mean, 135 members voted against TWC on this and only 8 for, and that means practically nobody in the leg, apparently, shares TWC’s philosophy at least on this issue. So what should TWC do, tell 135 members of the Texas House, dems and reps alike, to eat dog food and drop dead? I don’t think that would be wise. Are they gonna write notes like that to every member who asks to be on their pac list? In fact, how many others have applied to the TWC pac?

    Anyway, Mr. Hixon, we are on somewhat different topics, you were making your point about van Arsdale’s letter but Rick Casey’s article is really my whole point.

    While I don’t think TWC was offering a back-handed bribe (and for the same reasons that Casey’s reversal of that scenario in his article is wrong, if you lose 135-8 you are in no position to get anywhere by bribing anyone and nobody is going to ask you for one), I know durn well that van Arsdale wasn’t looking for one, and that if he felt like this was a questionable response from TWC he was right to take it to the DA.

    Rick Casey had no grounds to write what he wrote about van Arsdale. But of course when has that ever stopped Rick Casey?
13. Charles Hixon says:

    August 6, 2005 at 11:08 am

    Anyway, Mr. Hixon, we are on somewhat different topics, you were making your point about van Arsdale’s letter but Rick Casey’s article is really my whole point.

    ttyler5, It was you who shooed me over to this thread while I was talking about a “somewhat different topic”.

    But the margin of defeat … really complicates that whole idea.

    ttyler5, It sounds simple to me: van Arsdale’s indiscriminate requests for contributions have damaged his credibility in the community, among his peers, and, based on your reaction, the Republican Party faithful.

    I know durn well that van Arsdale wasn’t looking for one, and that if he felt like this was a questionable response from TWC he was right to take it to the DA.

    ttyler5: Van Arsdale was looking for a contribution and is asking for trouble from the DA simply by taking it to their Report the “Crime” but Don’t Investigate the “Crime” Department that doesn’t exist. Is van Arsdale smart enough to understand that a crime isn’t committed until he accepts the money? No he isn’t that smart. So I’ll bet ya the DA is setting up a sting on van Arsdale as you are reading this – and you can also bet that Casey will be on top of it.

    You have sole discretion over what you choose to read from the Chronic, not over what the Chronic chooses to write about a public official. Attacking the messenger lends credibility to the message.
14. Don't Mess w/ Pink says:

    August 6, 2005 at 3:41 pm

    Looks to me like Van Arsdale or his lege or campaign staff reads your blog, Kuff.
15. ttyler5 says:

    August 6, 2005 at 4:34 pm

    Charles H, good morning, and thanks for your reply! :^D

    1) “ttyler5, It was you who shooed me over to this thread while I was talking about a “somewhat different topic”.

    …and then later…

    “You have sole discretion over what you choose to read from the Chronic, not over what the Chronic chooses to write about a public official. Attacking the messenger lends credibility to the message.”

    Hmmmmmm ….. that’s an interesting juxtaposition above … :^D :^D Apparently, I have sole discretion, but you don’t …? :^D :^D :^D But I am glad you came over, anyway!

    And again, Rick Casey and the Houston Chronic are not “messengers,” their political “news” and editorial operations are well-recognized through-out Texas as agenda-peddlers and character assassins.

    2) “ttyler5, It sounds simple to me: van Arsdale’s indiscriminate requests for contributions have damaged his credibility in the community, among his peers, and, based on your reaction, the Republican Party faithful. ”

    :^D :^D :^D :^D :^D …. Charles, get that democratic wax out of your ears!

    Firstly, on the so-called “indiscriminate requests”, again the margin of defeat for TWC in the house decisively rebukes that claim by Casey and TWC, (BTW the correct vote on final passage of SB21 was 134-6, I misread the Tex Online vote record because I did not have my reading glasses on! :^D ), Time Warner PAC can’t possibly apply such a policy, it would have nobody to talk to.

    Like I said above, what are they gonna do, tell 134 members of the house to eat dog food and drop dead? Not on your life !! Casey’s argument on this is as phony as a $3 dollar bill, and what’s more, he knows it.

    Van Arsdale has been attacked and maligned on this by a writer and a journal the news and editorial departments of which have absolutely no respect, no credibility, no standing and no authority — including even the slightest hint of ethical authority — with the community, with Van Arsdale’s peers, with the great majority of Texas voters, and especially with the vast majority of voters in Van Arsdale’s house district.

    He has been snubbed by a special interest that worked overtime in the leg trying to screw the consumers, the taxpayers and the people who will be able to get a job in the new market created by SB21, which snub is now at the DA’s office, and which is now also related in yet-unknown ways to the appearance of the Rick Casey article in a journal known for its political shennanagins and lack of disclosure.

    Which part of, ” This issue would be a complete disaster for any democrat who tries to use it against Van Arsdale in an election…” have you missed here? :^D

    In fact, my original intention in commenting here was to illustrate to Kuff what a bad issue this would be for a dem candidate to try to use, but the Chron just makes me ( and a few million other Texans) so disgusted I got away from my original intent here…

    3) “ttyler5: Van Arsdale was looking for a contribution and is asking for trouble from the DA simply by taking it to their Report the “Crime” but Don’t Investigate the “Crime” Department that doesn’t exist. Is van Arsdale smart enough to understand that a crime isn’t committed until he accepts the money? No he isn’t that smart. So I’ll bet ya the DA is setting up a sting on van Arsdale as you are reading this – and you can also bet that Casey will be on top of it.”

    :^D :^D :^D … c’mon Charles, quit kidding!

    As I’m sure you are perfectly aware, it is quite illegal to even attempt to bribe a Texas public official. Further, public officials in Texas are under a legal obligation to report anything they perceive as questionable in this regard to the authorities.

    However, I have enjoyed the exchange, thanks for taking time to talk with me!

    If Kuff got my message, that this is not a good issue and that Chronicle involvement is the kiss of death, then I have actually somehow managed to get across what I started out to say!

    Regards,

    ttyler5
16. Charles Hixon says:

    August 6, 2005 at 7:17 pm

    yawn

    OK ttyler5, you said: As I’m sure you are perfectly aware, it is quite illegal to even attempt to bribe a Texas public official. Further, public officials in Texas are under a legal obligation to report anything they perceive as questionable in this regard to the authorities.

    But reporting an attempted bribe with a request to not investigate it? What? Are you reporting an incident or not? Is van Arsdale telling the DA how to do its job? Does van Arsdale have something to hide? This warrants an investigation!

    Anyway, the Chronic seemed to already have your response covered: Van Arsdale, a conservative who opposes frivolous lawsuits, seems to be blazing his own trail in the field of frivolous complaints. and Much more suspect is Van Arsdale’s soliciting money from a PAC with a prime interest in a bill before the Legislature.
17. Dont Mess w/ Pink says:

    August 6, 2005 at 8:19 pm

    I’m pretty sure Kuff got the message. I’m also pretty sure it isn’t what you intended. Sometimes free speech bacfires like that.
18. ttyler5 says:

    August 6, 2005 at 10:05 pm

    Dontmessw/pink: You mean as it has on Rick Casey?

    But Pink, Go ahead! Take the Chron’s and Rick Casey’s position on this! Side with the TWC PAC on SB21! Explainn to the public why the PAC won’t donate to 134 state reps who did their job and voted for the public interest rather than with TWC and the TML.

    Then go right ahead, and just try to get elected … :^D

    Charles H.: :^D Charles, the Chron has **nothing** “covered” !!! The Chronic has no respectability, credibility or standing with the community on such an issue. The first question people will think of when they know the Chron is involved is, ” Oh God, the Chron and Rick Casey, what are they twisting and distorting today?”

    Oh well, you are right! Yawn … talk to you guys later,

    Regards,
    ttyler5
19. Charles Hixon says:

    August 7, 2005 at 11:27 am

    ttyler 5: I thought this was a thread about van Arsdale.
20. ttyler5 says:

    August 7, 2005 at 7:12 pm

    Charles H.: And I thought it was thread about SB-21, TWC and the TML lobby, Rick Casey and the Chronicle! :^D :^D :^D
21. Charles Hixon says:

    August 8, 2005 at 9:53 am

    ttyler5: You mean it’s on everything EXCEPT van Arsdale?
22. ttyler5 says:

    August 10, 2005 at 12:00 pm

    Charles H: Well, goodness, I mean, good lord man, :^D :^D, look at the competition he’s got for attention in this matter— the state and national cable industry lobby, the Texas Municipal League, the Houston Chronicle and whatever undisclosed special interest they are serving in the debate over the telecom bill, the debate over muniwifi, the debate over a statewide franchise, the legal authorization to begin two new multi-billion dollar industries, the lowering of long distance access fees —
    but all we are supposed to pay attention to is a minor tiff between a cable ceo and lone state rep from the suburbs? Sounds like the Houston Chronicle’s approach to the news —

    I got an email from the cable lobby Monday and sent a copy of it to OfftheKuff, see comments section above at Kuff’s post, ” Gallegos to Craddick…”

    They were trying to defeat the telecom reform bill by telling people to call their legislators and demand that the leg “put education first” and ignore the other bills on the agenda for the session — no mention of course that the telecom reform bill is one of the bills the leg would be ignoring to death.

    And where is Rick Casey’s article on such a thoroughly deceitful and dishonest attempt by the cable lobby to mislead the public? Will we hear from the Chron’s professor of political ethics on this one as well?

    Or is he still off somewhere honing his new art of “smear by fantasy” —

Comments are closed.