In Texas, Lampson v. Olson was sort of "snakes on a plane crash into Biden-Palin debate"ish

Last night, I attended a debate between Nick Lampson, currently serving Congressional District 22 in the House of Representatives, and Pete Olson, who would like that job.

It was quite an event.

I forget how arrogant, and well, mouthy, Republicans can be in this district. Unfortunately, last night, that translated to disrespectful disruption of the debate.

I forget how traditionally traditional Republican politicians and candidates can be in this district. Unfortunately, that translated into Olson sounding like a boilerplate angry Rove-bot.

Or, perhaps that's fortunate, since I admit I hope Nick Lampson wins.

Lampson and I have our differences of opinion on more than a couple of topics, but at the end of the day, I do believe he's an effective leader who does sincerely do his best to represent the interests of his constituents.

That's so rare it's practically classic.

That is an entirely different thing from traditional, which has assumed such a negative connotation, thanks to Republican co-opting of the term, largely as a euphemism for something contrary to civil rights and liberties, or for something bigoted.

Because let's be honest: more than a couple of Republican policies and positions stem from classism or racism.

Olson appears to be no exception.

He's all about not letting "them" get a leg up on "us": keep "them" out of our country; don't give "them" any handouts, especially health care; keep "us" over there to keep "them" in line; and don't let "them" have the right to choice over their own bodies and most especially don't let "them" have any rights, such as to marriage.

He spends a lot of time differentiating "Democrats" from "Republicans," which must be really hard to do with Nick Lampson, who is the maverick John McCain wishes he was, if crossing the aisle and voting against party is how Webster's is defining maverick these days.

It also must be really hard to do if your health care plan sounds suspiciously like the insurance exchange Obama proposes, as Olson's plan does.

So what's a young, inexperienced aspiring Republican candidate to do?

Follow the Republican debate four-point plan.

The Republican debate four-point plan is:

1. Repetition, especially of word free-association in order to link unrelated ideas in allegedly blank canvas minds, and because everyone knows saying something over and over must make it true. Right. Right?

Olson example: broken promises. He said "Lampson broken promises" so often it started grating on my nerves, like, you know, when someone keeps saying "like, you know" in a conversation.

2. Say it like it's a bad thing, aka name or rename proposals and ideas in a manner that skews them as far from anything your base might like as possible.

Olson example: universal health care. He called Obama's health plan "universal health care." And then he said Lampson was on board with that. This kills two birds with one stone, by covering number two and number three (below).

3. Distort and make it up, if you must.

Olson example: In addition to the universal health care lie/distortion, he frequently misconstrued Lampson's record. My personal favorite was Olson's claim that Hutchison brought home the NASA money (Senator Hutchison works in the Senate, and can't bring forward a bill in the House, which is what Lampson did. In the House. Where he works.) The best might have been claiming that Lampson, Chairman of the Subcommittee for Energy and Environment (a subcommittee of Science and Technology, where Lampson is very active) (probably due to it being his vocation for so long, science that is), did nothing for science and had no energy plan. Because I disagree with him on this issue, I'm familiar with Lampson's energy plan. Olson? Must have been reading about someone other than Lampson.

4. Hurl insults.

Olson example: Although he didn't go all barracuda on Lampson, Olson freely took potshots, including saying a compliment Lampson had received was a joke.

Olson came across as a partisan, extremist hothead. He was emotional, did his best to encourage classism and racism, inflamed emotion in the room with extremism and distortions, and yet, offered no specifics or facts about himself and his plans, were he to be elected.

I doubt I would have voted for him ever anyway, but that performance last night locked in the myriad reasons why nobody should vote for this man.

So what happened in the debate?

Lampson seemed polished and knowledgeable. And I honestly say that without huge bias because I am often a Lampson critic. Lampson should be considered the "winner" but we'll see. The Olson supporters in the audience didn't seem to care about truth, much, but they do like hissing.

Yes, I said hissing, as in snake-like hissing. As in "boo hissing." Trapped in that room with that hissing, especially when Olson trotted out the completely out of place and unrelated to the topic but big-time Republican trigger words---such as ACORN, Pelosi, and handouts---I started to get a sort of snakes on a plane sensation. The skin on my neck crawled.

That's when it struck me, as I sat there listening and typing, gaging the audience's reactions, and watching Olson effuse dramatically as he blazed through the Republican checklist of "terms candidates must include in all public appearances,":

Pete Olson reminds me distinctly of Sarah Palin.

One should not mistake this as a compliment, coming from me.

Olson had a script---and it was a generic Republican nasty attack script, a sort of Mad Libs boilerplate template that any young Republican politician could use, just fill in your name and local details---and he stuck to it, coming across like an angry little boy spitting in defiance at the authority figure.

He was solid when going negative and sticking to that script, and I'll give him points for his tax credit for small businesses health insurance, but otherwise he was vague, and seemed to lack knowledge about how to accomplish his goals, which were also vague and soundbite-y (dare I repeat boilerplate again?), not to mention the blatant misconstruing of Lampson's record.

Additionally, Pete seemed to get confused about which city he was in (hi, Pete, this is what's called Clear Lake, not Washington DC), which part of Congress he was running for (Kay is in the SENATE, you are running for the HOUSE), lost his spot more than once, shuffled notes, and more or less kept hammering on the negative attacks of Lampson.

I think Olson spent more time talking about Lampson than Lampson did. Albeit negatively.

In fact, bottom line, Olson made no sense, whatsoever.

Lampson also is well-known in DC as Mr. Constituent Interest (and has been voted and graded as such), has hosted over 600 Town Halls, and even votes against his party in favor of what people here prefer, which is another way I know the theme of "liar who doesn't work for our region" was off-base.

In one breath Olson claimed Lampson didn't work for Clear Lake, and in the next he called him Mr. Big Spender who kept adding pork for Clear Lake into every bill.

Eat cake and...have it too? Huh?

I did my best to set aside my bias, and there is no way anyone could have thought Olson showed up Lampson.

Lampson remained calm, and came across knowledgeable and experienced. He handily repudiated each distortion, clearly and efficiently. He was prepared for the questions, and the attacks.

Olson should have known this; Lampson covers much of this on one of his website's main pages.

It was very Biden meets Palin.

I wonder if Olson was sad he couldn't work in maverick to his responses, or disappointed nobody asked him about his anti-choice and anti-gay agenda.

I know I was sad---or relieved---to see Olson revealed as such a weak candidate. I will be sad---or horrified---to see how many people vote for him in the election.

After all, he might be just as much a Republican as Lampson is (oops, wait, Lampson's a Democrat, right?) but he's only half the leader.

Note: The Libertarian candidate, John Wieder, was not in the debate. I don't know whether he was asked or declined.

A brief example timeline to illustrate how busy Lampson is on behalf of his strongly Republican constituency and just how blue this Blue Dog Oil-Patch Democrat is:

April 10, 2008 After his 2007 success with the Travel Abuse Prevention Act, Lampson lets his fiscally conservative and reformer flag fly free once again when he vows to crack down on abuse of government credit cards and joins the Government Credit Card Abuse prevention team, err, bipartisan coalition. Very Hall of Justice-y sounding.

April 28, 2008 Lampson and others (including my buddy John Culberson) write a letter urging Congress to provide $2 billion in funding for NASA.

July 24, 2008 Lampson is identified as a "oil-patch Democrat" due to his support of drilling.

July 30, 2008 The Hall of Justice bipartisan coalition is at it again, this time unveiling a compromise energy plan. Lampson et al, in their plan, opened the outer continental shelf and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling and presumably offers other ideas to decrease our oil dependence (or wait, just our foreign oil dependence?) beyond modernizing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Clearly, Lampson is not averse to bipartisan efforts, nor is he averse to hard work on important issues. Maybe someday he'll even come around to my way of thinking.

Suggested Additional Reading and Fact-Checking (you know you wanna):

Committee on Science and Technology (hint: start with the recent news on the left sidebar. hint 2: the NASA Reauthorization. hint 3: HR6063, list of cosponsors)

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment  (hint: look to the left sidebar and see who is the Chairman) (hint 2: read the posted article about research and development and easing energy concerns)

The Honorable Nick Lampson (hint: check the menu bar at the top and click on Constituent Services) (hint 2: note the proud display of Blue Dog Conservative Democrat badge) (hint 3: note his work for children protection)

Lampson opposes bailout

Lampson's campaign page (hint: note endorsements by Farm Bureau and Veterans of Foreign Wars PAC)

Project Vote Smarts ranks, grades and tracks Lampson

"But Mr. Blunt also noted in his comments at a press breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor that Democratic incumbent Nick Lampson has sided with the GOP on energy issues, noting that Mr. Olson will "have to work hard to be as reliable a vote for me as Nick Lampson is now" on energy issues." Source: Trail Blazers

Pete Olson for Congress (that's the House, Pete, not the Senate)

Probably nobody ever calls Julie Pippert a Blue Dog or Oil-Patch Democrat, but she happily shares her liberal and her liberal feminist agenda (you know us wimmins, always trying to help others and take care of the world, so nefarious that!) in her daily life, and also at Moms Speak Up and Using My Words.

Comments

[Lawyer Mama]

That sounds like fun, Jules. You know I'm not a big Thelma Drake fan (understatement of the year), but at least her fans don't hiss at the debates.

[ayn]

You're hilarious: "...more than a couple of Republican positions stem from classism or racism." Really? Did you ever stop to think how much the prism of your own bias is coloring your perception? I've got news for you--not all "Republicans" are what you think. The fundamental premise of a "Republican" is personal accountability. The failed welfare programs of the last 40 years have been detrimental to the advancement of African-Americans and poor people.

Nick Lampson is a decent guy (although I was surpised that he took some liberties with the truth at last night's debate.) I've voted for him before. I can't vote for him again. Why? "Straight ticket voter," you're probably imagining in your view of the world. Nope (have never straight ticket voted, and won't this time either), but...I cannot be part of empowering Nancy Pelosi. End of story. UNSEAT NANCY, VOTE FOR PETE.

[Max James]

I'm a cousin of Nick's and I remember when I was a little kid and he was the Tax Assessor for Jefferson County, working hard to take care of his constituents (and still had hair). Nick is conservative like most of our extended family and a hard worker like most. Pete Olson just strikes me as a hired gun or a carpetbagger. I know he worked for John Cornyn, but not what he did, I know he was a pilot, but not how he served, and I know his commercials wield a pretty sharp bite, but I don't know who's paying for them. He's like a bitter young version of John McCain without any of the saving graces.