Republican Men’s Club and San Antonio Tea Party sponsored debate
Posted: Monday, January 23rd, 2012 at 7:13 am
By: SATP
Background on the Candidates
Jeff Wentworth:
Senator Jeff Wentworth is serving his seventh term in the Texas Senate where he was president pro tem in 2004 -2005 and where he was inaugurated as Governor of Texas for a Day on November 20, 2004. Senator Wentworth, a fourth generation Texan, was first elected to the Texas Senate in 1992 after serving nearly five years in the Texas House of Representatives. He represents the nearly one million people of District 25, which consists of Comal, Hays, Kendall and Guadalupe Counties as well as north Bexar County and south Travis County. He is chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Open Government, and serves on the Select Committee on Redistricting; Higher Education; Administration; Transportation and Homeland Security; and Intergovernmental Relations Committees. He also serves on the Board of Directors of the Natural Resources Foundation of Texas, the Board of Directors of the Austin Community College Center for Public Policy and Political Studies. Jeff’s public service prior to the Texas Legislature includes one year as a university system regent, six years as a county commissioner, two years as a city attorney, three years as a Congressional assistant, and three years’ active duty as a United States Army counterintelligence officer.
Elizabeth Ames Jones:
A sixth generation Texan born in San Antonio in 1956, Elizabeth Ames Jones was elected to the Texas House in 2000. She challenged an entrenched establishment incumbent in the Republican primary and was elected in 2-1 landslide to represent District 121, Northeast Side of Bexar County. Jones was re-elected in 2002 and 2004. During her 2nd term, Jones was elected the first woman to a leadership position in the House Republican Caucus. She was Chair of Budget and Oversight subcommittee of the Energy Resources Committee and as a member of the Appropriations Committee, she was on the front lines of crafting a budget that cut state spending for the first time since WWI without raising taxes when Texas was faced with a $10 Billion budget shortfall. She also served on the Select School Finance Committee, Local and Consent Calendars and was awarded the “Fighter for Free Enterprise” designation by the Texas Association of Business. As Republican Caucus Vice Chairman, Elizabeth was on the front lines of ensuring passage of what Forbes magazine called Texas’s “Ten Gallon Tort Reform” legislation to put the brakes on frivolous lawsuits. Because of her conservative credentials and energy expertise, Gov. Perry appointed her to an unexpired term on the Railroad Commission of Texas, the state’s energy oversight agency in February 2005. Jones was elected to a 6 year term the following year and is only the second woman elected to the energy oversight agency in 120 years. She is currently serving her second stint as Chairman of the Railroad Commission. Elizabeth is a staunch defender of our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and she knows how to use them. A 1978 graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, a Daughter of the American Revolution (DAR), Elizabeth and has been married to Will Jones, a New Braunfels native for 28 years. They have a grown son and daughter.
| Her major accomplishments have been: | |
|
……….*
|
Spearheaded the Texas Cord Blood Bank, housed at the South Texas Blood and Tissue center in San Antonio to collect umbilical cord blood donated after the birth of a healthy baby. Cord blood can be used to save lives as treatment for various forms of leukemia and other life threatening diseases |
| ……….* |
Testified to Congress two different times in 2011 on energy issues. |
| ……….* | Presented to the Advisory panel to Energy Secretary Chu on hydraulic fracturing used to produce American’s energy. * |
| ……….* | Overseen the growth and management of the Eagle Ford Shale and has ensured protection of groundwater through common sense rulemaking. |
| ……….* | Recognized as “Woman of the Land “ 2010 by Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation for her sound conservation policy. |
| ……….* | Former Board of Trustees , Sunshine Cottage School for Deaf Children. |
| ……….* | Former Board member of Bexar County Communities in Schools |
Donna Campbell:
Donna was born Sept. 17, 1954 in San Diego while her father was in the Navy. The family soon after moved to Oklahoma, where her father continued his public service as a highway patrol trooper and her mother worked in factories before earning her GED and becoming a registered nurse. No stranger to hard work, Donna began working at the age of 13, worked through high school and put herself through college. After earning her undergraduate degree in Oklahoma, Donna went to Texas Women’s University in Dallas and received her MS in nursing. She graduated with her M.D. from Texas Tech and completed her residency in ophthalmology at the University of Texas, Houston. She is double “boarded” (certified) in ophthalmology and emergency medicine. Dr. Campbell is emergency department medical director for Columbus Community Hospital, and periodically serves the emergency departments of other hospitals in Texas. Donna Campbell is a woman of faith who has volunteered her medical knowledge with a Christian eye ministry, performing surgeries in Africa to bring sight back to hundreds. Donna and her husband, Stan, have four beautiful daughters and live in New Braunfels.
| Dr. Campbell is a member of: | ||
| ……….* | The Texas Medical Association | |
| ……….* | The American Academy of Physician Specialists | |
| ……….* | The National Rifle Association | |
| ……….* | Mothers Against Drunk Driving | |
Senator Wentworth opened his remarks attacking Railroad Commissioner, Elizabeth Ames Jones, through her husband, Will, an Austin attorney, whom he accused of being an unregistered, paid lobbyist, and creating a conflict of interest that would cause permit applicants to the Railroad Commission to be intimidated because Will’s wife was chairman. He attacked Jones’s residency as not being in the 25th District, since she has a home in Austin.
Commissioner Jones countered that her husband was not a paid lobbyist and not required to register as such. (See below for my interview of her after the debate on this subject.) Jones cited Constitutional lawyers who said that she met the requirements of living within the District.
Dr. Donna Campbell said she is against Obamacare, is pro life, and a conservative.
Senator Wentworth identified himself as conservative, anti Obamacare, and “not pro abortion” but supporting a woman’s right to choose. He says he prefers adoption over abortion. On other issues, Wentworth is in favor of term limits, a line item veto, and the right of nullification if 2/3 of the states disagree with a federal law.
Commissioner Jones favors block grants and state compacts to let states control medical costs. She favors term limits at the ballot box.
The three candidates were asked about gambling as a revenue producer for Texas. Wentworth favors local choice. Jones favors job creation to generate revenue, not gambling. Campbell is against gambling based on constitutionality, unreliability, and the risk of union influence.
Regarding toll roads, Senator Wentworth says he wants to reduce congestion without toll roads. He claims credit for killing the trans Texas corridor. Commissioner Jones stated that the gasoline tax should not be “peeled off” for other uses besides roads. Campbell is against toll roads and regards toll roads created on existing right of way constitute double taxation. She went on to say that if a toll road is authorized, it should be built and operated by a domestic contractor.
Regarding illegal immigration, Wentworth attacked Jones for favoring a tax subsidy to illegal immigrants in education. Jones countered that The Supreme Court requires public education K-12 be provided to all. She says that the federal government should be living up to its obligation to secure the border so that Texas does not have to pay the price for Washington’s failure also enforcing the immigration laws on the books. She does not favor giving illegal immigrants subsidies and she admonished Wentworth for being in the legislature for so long and doing nothing to curb the existing in-state tuition benefit that in 2001 generally had no restrictions regarding residency of Texas school children when they were accepted at a Texas university. She said the in-state tuition fee schedule needs reforming as it gives too many groups the tuition break that should be reserved for Texans. .
Campbell agrees about no subsidies to people here illegally and wants to secure the border.
Asked what is the most corrupt or dysfunctional state agency, Senator Wentworth said redistricting was dysfunctional and should be handled by appointed representatives of the Parties. He said TxDot was the most dysfunctional agency. He does not favor election of the TxDot director.
Commissioner Jones believes that redistricting is an inherently partisan process and the outcome represents the will of the voters through their elected Representatives in the Legislature. She disclosed that California’s appointed redistricting board has a high level of legal challenges as well and that appointing a board to draw the lines is no less complicated but there would be no accountability. She thinks that school financing through property taxation is the most dysfunctional aspect of our state tax code. She says we need property tax appraisal reform. Regarding electing the TxDOT Chairman, she recognized the concerns but was not convinced would solve the problems. She feels we can control the Transportation Commission within the Legislative process and with their funding and must hold our elected Governor- who appoints the TXDOT Commissioners -and members of the Legislature accountable.
Dr. Campbell favors auditing TxDot, rebuilding TxDot , and electing the director.
In conclusion, all were asked why they felt they were the best candidate for State Senator. Wentworth claimed endorsement of himself by the NRA. He cited his seniority and committee chairmanship as valuable to retain. Commissioner Jones favors zero based budgeting and voted for tort reform. She said she is running for a cause, not an office. Dr. Campbell presented herself as a conservative candidate with fresh ideas and not a “career” politician.
For more perspectives, other San Antonio Tea Party supporters in attendance were George Rodriguez, Sharon Hall, Steve Baysinger, and Bruce Ballio. It is a good thing when Tea Party representation at events like this debate signify to the parties, candidates, and the general public that we are watching and voting.
I welcome and invite your comments.





Thanks to all for their comments. Clearly, those media outlets that refer to the tea party movement as a monolithic bloc on issues and candidates are proved wrong by this dialogue. In truth, we value people exercising their First Amendment rights.
I would like to respond to some of the other comments. Steve, you take exception to my comments as representing the SATP. I thought I was clear that I do not. In a blog like this one, should we not be able to say whatever we believe as an individual? Must we be politically correct? If we have been in leadership positions as you, I, and others have been, must we be constrained from expressing our opinions? I understand that “perception can be everything”, so I am conscious of trying to be accurate, articulate, and considerate in my public remarks. If I have failed in this, I do apologize if I have offended.
WifiGuy, you raise good points about “electability”. Should we vote our conscience despite the possibility that we throw an election to a candidate we oppose? This question has been discussed at some length in the media with regard the Presidential election. I agree with “Anybody But Obama” as the principal criteria in that race. That “unelectable” Ron Paul or Donald Trump might run as a third party candidate and thereby throw the election to Obama is a real consideration for me.
In no way do I compare Senator Wentworth to Obama. I simply oppose his re election. He has two opponents, Dr. Campbell and Commissioner Jones, either of whom I would prefer. If there is a runoff, I will vote for the candidate who opposes Sen. Wentworth.
Am I guilty of thinking like a lawyer? Am I off base by considering the practicality/electability criteria as I have? In 2010, I worked in behalf of District 20 candidate, Clayton Trotter, who ran against Cong. Gonzales because Gonzales needed to be challeged. I knew the odds of winning were long. There were some who advocated not opposing Gonzales at all because his race was unwinnable and a challenge to him would adversely affect the down ballot conservative candidates. I did not buy that argument. I could have worked in District 23 for Quico, whom I also supported and was more electable, but Trotter was a good man and needed my help more. In his race, there was not, in my opinion, a better conservative candidate who was more electable. Had there been, I suspected Trotter would not have run.
We will have similar questions about the 2012 District 21 primary race between incumbent Lamar Smith, and challenger, Sheriff Mack.
I invite your comments on how we in the Tea Party should approach or activism (as individuals) in the 2012 races. First and foremost, I hope we all agree that we must be active.
Thanks for listening.
Jon
As a Tea Party Supporter who has mostly paid attention to the national scene, I was eager to learn more about State and Local election processes. I figured this debate would be a great start. As Jon Kaplan recapped so well I was surprised that the debate was so fiery right out of the gate. In my opinion the immediate attack by Senator Wentworth towards Commissioner Jones husband was uncalled for and totally turned me off of considering him for re-election. His political speak throughout the debate proved him to be the career politician he is. I consider myself a strict constitutionalist and believe that our elected positions should be held by humble citizens.
Commissioner Jones did very well in the debate and is conservative on most issues but again for some reason the polished politician unnerved me a bit. Her stance on gambling conflicts with my conservative views. Just because it creates jobs doesn’t mean it should be considered. Gambling is a direct conflict with the faith of most folks that call themselves conservatives and we know all of the negatives that will follow in a community that embraces gambling. The clear winner in my opinion was Dr. Campbell and I’ll be glad to cast my vote for her because of several things. She speaks clearly and in plain English, no political double speak that can be later interpreted to mean something else. She shares many of the same values I do as a married person raising a family and is concerned with the direction this Country, State and City is headed. I went away believing I could trust her with the many decisions and votes she will have to make on my behalf. On a side note, I’m getting really frustrated with the word “electability”. I’ve heard it used often lately on radio and tv shows, and even in Mr. Kaplan’s comments. Every person eligible to be a nominee is “electable”. Other than being a citizen and the required minimum age I’ve never seen a “minimum qualifications requirement” posted on any ballot. It is up to every voter to determine who they want to represent their values in San Antonio, Austin, or Washington D.C. My gut feeling in the Republican primary is towards Rick Santorum and over and over again I am subjected to the word “electability” and I see many voters being swayed by this falsity that is purposefully injected to create doubt in a voters mind.
As a proud Tea Party member I refuse to look at someone’s law degree or political pedigree and believe they will care one iota about what my values are. I’d rather choose a garbage man who shared my values to represent me and my family over a Harvard grad seeking his or her political aspirations.
Mr. Kaplan,
I take great umbrage in your mentioning my name in your editor’s “note” below. You know, as well as I, that the San Antonio Tea Party (SATP) does not endorse candidates–period. In your “Opinion” (below), you hide behind a weak qualifier of “Jon Kaplan’s comments are his own.” This is false and disingenuous as you are, by your close ties to the SATP (past and current), a member of that non-partisan organization. As such, you speak for them by association even if you are not formally commissioned to do so. You have, therefore, violated the 501(C3) rules governing such organizations as the SATP and have damaged its reputation.
In one stoke of the pen, you have nullified the mission of the San Antonio Tea Party as being a fair and non-bias political forum for all candidates. You have damaged the SATP’s reputation as a leader in the Texas grassroots community. You owe an apology not only to Dr. Campbell, but Sen. Wentworth and Commissioner Ames-Jones as well.
You should be ashamed.
Steve Baysinger
San Antonio, Texas
25 Jan 2012
Mr. Baysinger,
Perhaps the error was mine. Mr. Kaplan first submitted his message in the ‘comments’ section below the article about the debate. I took his message from the comments section and posted it as an article (with red-letter disclaimers) for two reasons:
1. I thought his observations were very good,
2. I have a policy and history of not approving long comments, so as not to overwhelm the ‘comments’ section; several have ‘cut & pasted’ articles from other sources rather than directing original comments to SATP.
Mr. Kaplan’s original post, as a comment, is perfectly valid on our site. Comments are almost always approved if they are within bounds of common decency. Many of those who comment, support their favorite candidate, party or policy. Not only do they have that right, I encourage all to do so.
I believe his comment turned article is also within the bounds of 501(C4) restrictions.
Steve, please accept my apology to both you and Jon Kaplan, indeed also to Senator Wentworth, Commissioner Ames-Jones and Dr. Campbell, if my reformatting of his observations (and his personal opinions) led to you taking umbrage. SATP values your friendship and support. I look forward to working with you as a “Citizen Lobbyist” again in the next Texas Legislative session. I hope all our SanAntonioTeaParty.us readers will plan to do so as well.
I edited and moved Mr. Kaplan’s opinions from the article reporting on the debate back to the original article where they are posted as ‘comments.’
Thank you for your interest and comments.
Don Krebs
VP of Online Communication
SATP
Jon, thanks for your superb recap/analysis of the debate!