Until Rick Casey of the Chron pointed it out in his scathing editorial.
While the Republicans are busy eating their young, the Dems are being suckered into the promoting gambling legislation. The Republican leadership is setting you up to take the fall on gambling as a way to balance the budget and bail them out of the sicko situation the state has fallen into under their control, without any of them getting dirty in the process.
Come next election cycle, you'll be bragging about how it wasn't you who voted for the biggest backdoor tax bill in history (except you, Al Edwards...you we've already got a strategy for you next election cycle)
And now it's time for the breakdown:
So, Dems...D'oh! Ready to defend being a 'degenerate' and 'morally bankrupt' in the next election cycle? In case you're wondering here's what the Repubs will say about you:
Sylvester Turner turned his back on everyday Texans last Session by introducing casino gambling to the State. His plan would have put casinos and increased crime right in your neighborhood. Turner says he's for the poor Texans but gambling is a tax on the poor Texans he claims to support: wasting their paychecks and feeding unhealthy addictions. Is this the kind of 'support' you want in Austin?
(This political statement was authorized for PinkDome for use in future Republican campaigns)
Hey Dems! See! We can help out the Republicans just as much as you can. How cool is that. Idiot!
So why is it that it's Repulbicans speaking out against gambling and not Democrats. Gambling hurts the people who Democrats are supposed to be looking out for. Could it be all the gambling cash that's getting tossed around the capitol? Could it be that Democrats are going to get blamed for gambling? If you don't believe it, just wait and see. It's called forward thinking. look into it.
RSS
A constitutional gambling amendment voted-for by Craddick, allowed through by Dewhurst, signed by Perry, and voted for by at least half of the Rs in each house? And all the while, Rs are going to beat Sylvester Turner, with that, in a district where he hasn't been opposed in a general for over 12 years? Um, no. MAYBE your theory could apply to a statewide race, or perhaps an up-for-grabs seat...