Republicans Eating Their Own Part 3: The YTC's side or Ted Kennedy's larger side

In our last outing, we learned who wasn’t a Republican and that moderation is bad. Today, we will discuss what does constitute a Republican and show the difference between Republican’s, Sharks, and those crazy, wacked-out liberals.

Shark Watch is making a point to agree with Vice Chairman Matt Griffing (I dislike when ignorant people have the same name as me) and clarify who their friends are. They start by showing the difference between Griffing and the liberal trial lawyers that are trying to support moderate Republican’s.

Griffing, who we certainly believe to be a genuine conservative Republican. Unlike mega plaintiffs' lawyers Fred Barron, Mark Lanier, John Eddie Williams, etc, we're sure Griffing has not given thousands to liberal Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards.

Wow, that really clarifies the striking policy difference! Thanks.

I am particularly glad to see that they draw the line in the sand between an Executive Director at the Poverty Center, a Senate Judiciary Committee member, one of the most popular Senators in the nation, and highly successful lawyers... and them. Of course, you would want to draw a very clear distinction between the Young Conservatives of Texas and these national leaders.

But why would you even write this so called press release? Griffing is kind enough to let us know the second he gets done with his little attack on progressive Democrats.

The theme of Griffing's release is defending State Reps. Bryan Hughes, Robert Talton, and Charlie Howard from the Shark Watch and insisting that they are true conservatives on a host of other issues. However, Griffing is shooting at a straw man - the Shark Watch report never questions these legislators' conservative bona fides on other issues. Quite the opposite, it expresses some alarm about their connections with this small cadre of primarily Democrat plaintiffs' lawyers precisely because these legislators have been such stalwart conservatives over the years.

Shark Watch has a purpose to this e-mail, to define the difference between their Republicans and the trial lawyers Republican’s. Their litmus appears to be based on House Bill (HB) 107 and HB 4 (which became prop 12 in 2003). These two tort reform bills make the difference, not HJR6, not this years education legislation, not a single bill or resolution from the 2005 session or the three specials after that.

Seems fair.

In the end this is about one thing, you are either with Shark Watch or with Ted Kennedy. At least they make it easy for me to pick my side.

Texas Shark Watch is not about genuine conservative Republican plaintiffs' lawyers like Mr. Griffing. This effort also does not primarily concern any legislator. What this is about is the hypocrisy of a handful of plaintiffs' lawyers who have become incredibly wealthy from abusive class action lawsuits and are now attempting to use their largesse to gain a foothold in the Republican Party, even while they continue to bankroll 80 percent of the Texas Democratic Party. Moreover, instead of admitting the obvious - that what they are after is to stop tort reform and roll back existing limits on lawsuits - they are hiding behind the smokescreen of family values.

In this spirit, we ask Mr. Griffing the following: 1) Does he agree or disagree that giving money to Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and John Edwards is a good way to advance the conservative cause? 2) Does he agree or disagree that Proposition 12 has increased the number of abortions by capping medical malpractice awards - the bogus argument made by Mark Lanier against the measure? We hope and trust Mr. Griffing's answers will indeed show that he is a conservative first and a plaintiffs' lawyer second.

Mr Griffing, where do you stand?