FortBendNow.com

A couple of weeks ago I lamented in this space that the candidates for Congressional District 22 seemed unwilling to inform voters where they stand on issues Americans view as most important.

At the top of that list of issues, according to several recent national polls, is the war on Iraq. Reconfirming the importance of that issue is a Washington Post-ABC News poll released today.

“With debate under way in Washington about possible course changes in Iraq, Americans cite the war as the most important issue in determining their vote next month more often than any other issue,” a Post story on the poll says.

But by listening to the CD-22 candidates, you’d think no one in Fort Bend County has heard of Iraq.

The only mention of the war that I can recall by write-in Republican candidate Shelley Sekula-Gibbs is a one-sentence bullet-point she added to a recent speech, in which she said she supports President Bush in the war. But she called it the war on terror, not the war in Iraq, even though Iraq obviously was what she meant when she said the United States “can’t afford a program of removal.”

On her web site, you can’t find a word about the issue most often sited as the most important to Americans, either in her “platform” or “talking points.”

When I invited candidates two weeks ago to email me their platform on Iraq, one helpful reader noted that by applying advanced Google search techniques, one could find several references to Iraq on Democratic candidate Nick Lampson’s web site.

While it’s true there are mentions of the word “Iraq,” none of the references will give the voter an idea of where Lampson stands on the war.

Like Sekula-Gibbs, Lampson doesn’t mention Iraq in the navigation headings under “issues.” And none of the brief mentions Lampson makes of Iraq on his site answer the question where does he stand on the war now: Where does he think we are, where should we be and how do we get there?

The closest he comes (and it isn’t very close) is to say that he supported President Bush’s request for authorization for using force in Iraq. But that was before, Lampson said, he found out (like everyone else) that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Only Libertarian candidate Bob Smither took me up on my invitation, and emailed me a synopsis of his Iraq platform – which had been up on his web site, at the top of his “Issues” list, for some time.

“Future American activities in Iraq,” Smither says, “should be guided by these principles:

“First, the United States should be wary of foreign alliances and any plan for the future of Iraq that involves organizations such as the United Nations. A UN-led ‘peacekeeping’ effort would only expand centralized government in Iraq, all the while burdening the taxpayers of the United States with indefinite costs of sustaining and empowering the demonstrably corrupt UN bureaucracy.

“Second, the United States should not be involved in the practice of nation building or central direction. This means Congress must fulfill its constitutional duty under the war powers clause for all future action in Iraq, and in doing so establish finite time frames and constrained future expenditures.

“Third, we should affirm our commitment to the concept of private property rights regarding Iraq’s oil resources. This is the only true way to ensure long-term stability in Iraq. Oil is Iraq’s primary source of income and its main natural resource. Control of Iraqi oil has historically fallen into the hands of a corrupt and tyrannical government. Oil rights must be placed in the hands of the private citizens of Iraq and exchanged on the free market, not by the government and not through favors to foreign oil companies.

“The establishment of private ownership in Iraq’s oil sector would immediately give every Iraqi citizen a vested interest in the stability of his country, and would foster an economic boom as individuals would have the resources needed to start new private enterprises, and to make purchases from the new businesses.

“…Stability cannot be enforced in the long term by a U.S. military presence, but it can be sustained through the economic stability that is fostered by private property rights and the free market, thereby allowing the United States to withdraw.”

Smither’s Iraq plan may be the best one put forth by any candidate for CD-22. I can’t say so for certain because, while write-in Republican candidate Joe Reasbeck doesn’t appear to have an Iraq war statement on his web site, I’ve talked to him about it in person, and he has plenty to say. Perhaps he’ll share in a comment below.

Don’t We Know What’s Important To Us?
It’s a fact – Texans are different than other Americans. And maybe Iraq isn’t that important to us.

From the mailings I keep receiving (relentless as the ocean waves) it’s clear Sekula-Gibbs and Lampson think that Texans believe finding a way to seal off the 1,951-mile desert border with Mexico is the most crucial issue they face.

Thus far, however, I’ve been unable to get myself sufficiently worked up over Mexican border security. Not that I haven’t tried. It finally got to the point that I thought perhaps I was drifting out of the mainstream, so I reread the last month’s worth of mailings from front to back, grimaced in the mirror and tried to make myself a little bit angry over how much better my life surely would be if not for illegal immigrants snapping up law-abiding Americans’ jobs and such.

Instead, for some reason, my mind drifted back to this time when I was running a database applications company and learned a competitor of ours had lost a major account because their client sent its programming work overseas to a business operation in India. It turned out that the Indian programmers were willing to do the job for a whole lot less per hour than what Houston programmers expected to get paid.

It made me wonder if there’s any way to secure a virtual border. But I digress.

Surreal-est Spot of the Week
“They came here illegally in search of jobs,” this week’s most entertaining mailer says. “Liberal Shelley Sekula-Gibbs made it easier for them to find them.”

Yes, you read correctly. The authors of this mail piece called her “Liberal Shelley,” and ended with this slogan: “Shelley Sekula-Gibbs: Too soft on illegal immigration, too liberal for Texas.”

So, you might ask, what ultraconservative organization is paying big money for a glossy color mail piece accusing Sekula-Gibbs of being dangerously liberal?

Try the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Yup, their name’s down there in the small print after “Paid for by.”

Either it’s an unspeakably brilliant Zen political chess move, or it don’t make a damn bit of sense. Your call.

Dead Horse Flogging
It’s pretty much died down now, but we were treated to a voluminous panoply of commentary a few days ago in response to a letter to the editor by what I guess I’d call a Ron Paul non-supporter.

The fuse that author Larry Toenjes lit was a declaration that Congressman Paul is a Libertarian in GOP clothing, that 93% of Paul’s campaign contributions come from outside District 14, (where he is running against Democratic challenger Shane Sklar), and that he uses those contributions to run ads and billboards convincing District 14 voters that he should be re-elected. Only Toenjes believes Sklar should be elected instead.

I mention this because it struck me that the numerous participants in the above commentary confab might be interested in a recent posting on the blog Capitol Annex.

Author Vince Leibowitz reports that a Michigan dermatologist bought $150,000 in TV ads for Ron Paul on Houston’s local network stations.

Leibowitz notes such campaign spending is allowable under Federal Election Commission regulations if made by a third party on behalf of a candidate, without that candidate’s knowledge. (Presumably like the DCCC ad apparently created on behalf of Lampson calling Sekula-Gibbs liberal).

But then Leibowitz raises a question about whether the Michigan dermatologist really acted without Paul’s knowledge, noting that the ad was placed by a Maryland media consultant that’s done work for the congressman in the past.

And, Leibowitz wants to know, why is this Michigan doctor shelling out $150,000 in the first place, for some congressman’s campaign in South Texas?

Good questions, but I don’t have the answers. Maybe for some of the same reasons Bob Perry and his wife gave $160,000 to statewide GOP candidates in New Mexico – because they’re rich and they can afford to.

At the top of that list of issues, according to several recent national polls, is the war on Iraq. Reconfirming the importance of that issue is a Washington Post-ABC News poll released today.

“With debate under way in Washington about possible course changes in Iraq, Americans cite the war as the most important issue in determining their vote next month more often than any other issue,” a Post story on the poll says.

But by listening to the CD-22 candidates, you’d think no one in Fort Bend County has heard of Iraq.

The only mention of the war that I can recall by write-in Republican candidate Shelley Sekula-Gibbs is a one-sentence bullet-point she added to a recent speech, in which she said she supports President Bush in the war. But she called it the war on terror, not the war in Iraq, even though Iraq obviously was what she meant when she said the United States “can’t afford a program of removal.”

On her web site, you can’t find a word about the issue most often sited as the most important to Americans, either in her “platform” or “talking points.”