I'm I misding something here, or should he be running on the democrat ticket?
-
-
I guess I’m missing the problem? -
-
-
^Four*
Preserving the Alamo and pushing to keep the word" heroic" in text books describing Alamo defenders? Sounds pretty good to me.
Though I may agree that they need to slow down to ensure nothing is damaged. That seemed to be the argument of those opposed.
“Many questions about the expense and feasibility of removing and relocating such a massive and beautiful monument without damaging it have not been addressed,”Comment
-
$450 million master plan. Using outside groups and non-profits.......one of which ol' George P sits on the board. Follow the money!
Has the makings of a land grab.
But hes a big government republican and a bush.....so hes doing this for the good of Texans, I'm sure.Last edited by Traildust; 10-22-2018, 06:37 AM.Comment
-
One of the fellows on that Cenotaph is kinfolks of mine, and from what I've read about the project I can't see a problem.. just don't bust it when you move it... be a pretty park when they done...Comment
-
Seems like a super weird thing to take issue with.Comment
-
The problem is there is no need to do what they want to do. The cenotaph doesn't need to be moved in the first place.
Just keep an eye on it if the Alamo means anything to you. What these people are wanting is more room, less Alamo grounds.
Should have left the DRT in charge of it in the first place.Comment
-
Id rather repair and return it to its original appearance ( as much as possible ) than turn it into a pretty park.Originally posted by Mike Javi Cooper View PostComment
-
Why is that? Seems super weird to not want to preserve a Texas landmark in lieu of re-imaging it. And the un-neccasary $450 makeover cost passed on to taxpayers.....which it will be.Originally posted by BitBackShot View PostComment
-
I think he was in charge of Texas Veterans Land Board among other things.
I did a loan through them and it was not a good experience.
I ran a national mortgage platform at one time in my career and if we had run it like Texas Vet, we would probably not have made it. Typical government mind set with the employees. it ain't my job and pass the buck. If I had not been persistent, I would have lost the patience of my sellers.Comment
-
I see nothing wrong with it, that area needs to be improved.Comment
-
I don't know, the Alamo has always been more symbolic to me. The Alamo you're wanting preserved isn't even in similar condition as it existed when the fight occurred. It wouldn't even be recognizable as the same building.Originally posted by Traildust View Post
It's clearly a land grab, but I don't really have an issue with it if it goes through the appropriate channels.Comment
-
Here's an email that Jerry Patterson sent to me (and many others).
Dear Ray,
The fact that all four of Commissioner Bush’s past primary opponents from the 2018 and 2014 Republican primaries—Jerry Patterson, Rick Range, Davey Edwards, and David Watts—refuse to vote for him in the general election should get the attention of Republican voters. Rick Range and I have endorsed his Democratic opponent, oil & gas attorney Miguel Suazo.
We are concerned about Bush’s management of the Alamo. Bush oversees the Alamo with nonprofit entities that are exempt from public scrutiny. Shouldn’t the public have the right to know how the $450 million of planned expenditures will be spent? Bush is negotiating an agreement with the City of San Antonio with an initial draft provision to allow the city to “monitor compliance” of the Alamo with UNESCO world heritage site requirements— requirements that currently don’t exist. He precipitated a disastrous lawsuit with the Daughters of the Republic of Texas—which he lost on all counts—and was required by the court to pay the DRT’s legal fees—$200,000 of our tax money. He has already signed an agreement with the City of San Antonio that would remove the Cenotaph—a memorial to the Texians and Tejanos who died there defending liberty—from the Alamo grounds. That’s a direct violation of the plank passed at this year’s Texas Republican Party Convention mandating that the Cenotaph not be moved. I might also add that In September 2017, the State Republican Executive Committee effectively censured and condemned Bush’s management of the Alamo by a vote of 57-1.
A recent poll of over 1000 voters had Bush at 41 percent, Suazo at 36 percent, Libertarian Matt Piña at 13 percent and undecided at 10 percent. The only person who can beat Bush is the Democrat. There is no runoff in general elections; the candidate with the most votes wins. Those of you who are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate are wasting your vote. Matt Piña needs 28 percent to catch Bush, and Suazo only needs 5 percent.
So what is Miguel Suazo’s position on the Alamo? Please view the recent News 8 Austin TV interview and hear from the candidate himself.
If you’re concerned about voting for a Democrat because of issues other than the Alamo, keep in mind being Texas Land Commissioner has nothing to do with any of the core issues associated with the National Democratic Party. Instead, you’ll find addressed in Suazo’s platform the responsibilities of the Texas General Land Office and specifically, the Alamo. Suazo’s Alamo plan is closer to the Texas Republican party platform than Bush’s actions to date.
I understand that the recent confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh and the Democratic lies, juvenile antics, and out-of-control asinine protests make voting for a Democrat difficult, but this is about the Alamo. We have one chance remaining to do the right thing. This November 6th please vote for Miguel Suazo for Texas Land Commissioner.
Semper Fi and God Bless Texas!
Former Texas Senator, former Texas Land Commissioner
LtCol USMCR retComment
Comment