B/CS Tea Party Candidate Recommendations for selected contested races

(See a Sample Ballot [PDF] and other election info at brazosvotes.org. Election May 29; early voting going on now.)

Please see our update to the State Rep District 14 race, below.

We’ve tried to look beyond the personalities and to seek candidates who are:

  • guided more by principle than by pragmatism, or “whatever works”
  • guided more by constitutional ambition than by personal ambition
  • not afraid to go beyond calling themselves “Conservative” but to also associate themselves with the principled stands of the Tea Party Movement.

Please note that there is not a single candidate listed below with whom we agree 100%. Each winning candidate will require constant oversight by vigilant constituents.


  1. In this primary, vote your conscience and align yourself with Tea Party values.

  2. In the general election, even though many of us believe there have been candidates that better align themselves with Constitutional principles, we foresee recommending a vote for Mitt Romney as a vote against the incumbent Barack Obama (see First Put Out the Fire from 2009).

U.S. Senator

Ted Cruz

The best single vote you can make for the good of the country. Please be prepared to vote for Ted Cruz in the surely-upcoming runoff July 31 as well.

U.S. Rep. District 17

Bill Flores

We have disagreed on some decisions. We support him as a candidate.

Railroad Commissioner Unexpired Term

Greg Parker

The principled stand he’s taken against so-called man-made climate change, and the constitutional ambition he exhibited in the Q&A session at our April meeting, lead us to recommend him.

Justice, Supreme Court, Place 2

Don Willett

Member, SBOE District 8

Barbara Cargill

We heard from both candidates directly at our May meeting. We strongly recommend Barbara Cargill.

State Senator District 5

Ben Bius

Ben Bius is committed to defend personal liberty and property rights.

State Representative District 12

Timothy Delassandro

The personal liberty and property rights candidate.

State Representative District 14

Hal Hawkins

UPDATE 5-17-12: We’ve had a lot of feedback on this race, and need to clarify the main reason for this recommendation.

First, some reminders of Texas Speaker of the House Joe “Texas TEA Party Public Enemy Number 1” Straus. (More links from our article today).

The incumbent, John Raney, has received a large contribution from “…the Texas House Leadership Fund, which (the) House Speaker runs. The funds help House Republicans fighting to retain their seats…” That quote is from the Lubbock Avalanche Journal (fifth paragraph down), describing a 2010 race. It adds, referring to that race, “that Straus and his leadership team are doing whatever they can to help their embattled colleague.”

It seems the same thing is happening in this race, though of course here the incumbent is in no danger of losing (incumbent funding, challenger funding). We do know one of our Board has heard the incumbent say that he’ll have no problem working with Straus. By the way, Empower Texans just posted 12 reasons to oust Straus.

We strongly encourage principled conservatives to vote for the challenger in this race.

Chief Justice 10th Court of Appeals District

Tom Gray

Endorsed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. A frequent contributor at our meetings.

District Attorney 85th Judicial District

Ray Thomas

A difficult choice with more than one strong candidate.

School Choice


Repealing Obamacare


Public Prayer


Balanced Budget

This is a misguided idea. We recommend NO.

A balanced budget amendment gives the government permission to spend beyond what it (Constitutionally) now has. Details–please read. Plus, it just treats the symptons.



Please note: if you see errors or omissions, or would like to discuss, please leave a comment below or email at contact@bcsteaparty.com.


  1. I think there is a misprint up there. Hal Hawkins over John Raney due to “Constitutional ambition over personal ambition”?

    There is nobody more personally ambitious, except for Barack Obama, in this entire slate of candidates than Hal Hawkins. The very fact that he waited until after the special election to throw his hat in the ring stinks of personal ambition….let alone his disregard for the extra costs he caused everyone involved because of his ill-conceived candidacy.

    When leaders of the local GOP tell me they let Hal run as a Republican so he doesn’t run as a Democrat (his charisma and excitement are hypnotizing), that should also be telling of his ambition.

    A vote for Hal is COMPLETELY against the principles of the Tea Party. Personal ambition holds no place in John Raney’s willingness to serve.

    I am disappointed to see this, especially for the reason given. It does not make sense at all.

    • 1. What facts support your assertion “There is nobody more personally ambitious, except for Barack Obama, in this entire slate of candidates than Hal Hawkins.”?

      2. How can your “fact” of motive or intent be true unless Hal himself told you of his intent or motive? Or have you had extensive and far ranging conversations with Hal that allow you to have special insight into his inner soul?

      3. Since you don’t know the intent or motive of Hal’s candidacy, it is simply your own uneducated opinion that his candidacy is ill-conceived.

      4. Can you provide a list of how Hal’s campaign platform is “COMPLETELY against the principles of the Tea Party”?

      Here is a list of John Raney’s positions that we found indicative of a lack of appreciation of Tea Party principles.

      a) A willingness to work with Joe Straus – exhibits a willingness to submit his constitutional authority derived from the will of the people/constituents to become instead a vassal to a powerful overlord with alliances of which we the people are not privy. That is personal ambition rather than constitutional ambition which gives each elected official the authority to protect the life, liberty, and private property of all citizens.

      b) Taxing the internet as means to protect the brick and mortar store – If the Tea Party doesn’t mean Taxed Enough Already….personal ambition as well as a lack of appreciation the conservative principle that government legislation should be non-excludable and non-rival. Punitive taxes are not a part of conservative economics. Likewise, taxing the future in order to protect the status quo is also not conservative economics. Instead we know that taxing the future stifles growth, which in turn stifles revenue.

      c) Increasing methods of collecting revenue – Again TEA – Taxed Enough Already — we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a SPENDING PROBLEM.

      In making all these recommendations, please know that it is adherence to these principles that remained paramount.

      We simply offer recommendations and then encourage each individual to vote their own conscience.

  2. It is a fact that Hal waited until after the special election to throw his hat in the ring. This is a matter of temporal existence…one followed the other. I make no claim to factually represent his motive, only that it looks (“stinks”) like personal ambition.

    I cannot have a conversation with you, Nancy, if you are going to label me as “uneducated” in my opinions after asking what my basis is and then not allowing me to answer before calling me uneducated. If I cannot have political discourse with you without name-calling or aspersions being cast, then we cannot agree to fair debate where each one is afforded the opportunity to express their opinion and be open to learning from the other.

    I am sorry you resorted to that tactic. I understand Hal means a lot to you. I had hoped that our long relationship would allow us to discuss and disagree without such attacks.

  3. I am not in the habit of accepting revisionism, regardless of the source or intent. I have moved my concerns to a forum where I know the conversation will be open and unedited. And undeleted.


    • Moderator says:

      Kristofer, sorry about this misunderstanding. So readers know, as comment moderator (and, full disclosure, I am Nancy’s husband) I wanted to suggest some changes to Nancy’s reply from 3:40pm yesterday and I didn’t want Kristofer’s subsequent response to no longer appear connected. I temporarily removed them both and emailed Kristofer’s back to him, asking him if it would be okay for him to resubmit his response.

      But we don’t want anyone thinking we’re hiding or revising history, so I’ve simply reposted the two original comments. Thanks for everyone’s understanding on this.

Speak Your Mind


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.