Dan Patrick’s Background Check Blunder Will Haunt Him for Years to Come

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

For some reason, politicians seem to think that compromising on core principles to placate their political opposition or the media will buy them votes and/or praise and good will in the press. It’s a fool’s errand that literally never works and only serves to demoralize their base of supporters.

You’d think that an experienced veteran of some brutal political battles like Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick would have absorbed that lesson by now. You’d be wrong.

Patrick has apparently made the political calculation that preemptively conceding ground to gun control advocates will somehow benefit him or Texas Republicans. All his push has done is bring down a sh!tstorm of opprobrium on his head and given his political opponents the kind of opening they’d never have had otherwise.

Coming out in support of “universal” background checks in the Lone Star State was an epic own goal by the Lieutenant Governor that Patrick will be trying to live down for years to come.

C.J. Grisham, the founder of Open Carry Texas and a lead enforcer of that stridency, believes that Patrick is playing a dangerous political game of placation. “I think he wants to be seen as somebody who did something, not somebody who solved anything,” he said. “There should be no more middle ground [on guns]. Any time we talk about middle ground, we lose.” Texas is turning purple, he said, because Republican leaders have abandoned their base by failing to push for constitutional carry, in which any Texan can carry a gun without a permit. Patrick’s push for expanded background checks would only accelerate that trend in 2020. “It’s not that we’re going to start voting for Democrats; it’s that we’re going to stop voting,” Grisham said.

– Justin Miller in Will Dan Patrick’s Bare-Minimum Effort for Gun Control Go Anywhere?

comments

  1. avatar WI Patriot says:

    There are many a “politician” who will rue the day they opened their mouths on the subject of gun control, for it IS the will of the people who control their destinies…

    1. avatar JPD says:

      Only if the people get off the couch and do something. Complacency is a killer.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        “There should be no more middle ground [on guns]. Any time we talk about middle ground, we lose.”

        ****
        Absolutely. No compromise.

      2. avatar enuf says:

        I’ve little tolerance for the lazy. No harm on the truly incapable, the mentally declined, but for most non-voters I seriously want to train your dog or your cat to piss in your shoes………

        We should have a punitive tax on not-voters, and share the money with people who do vote. Make a big production each tax season of sharing the money taken from non- voters. Have video on YouTube and talk shows and news shows of voters enjoying the money from the non-voters.

        “I bought this new big screen TV with my saved Good Voter Bonus checks! Thank you non-voter idiots, I love your money!”

        “I bought this beautiful new handgun with my saved Good Voter Bonus checks! Thank you non-voter idiots, I love your money!”

        “I spent a wild weekend in Vegas getting wasted and having sex with hookers with my saved Good Voter Bonus checks! Thank you non-voter idiots, I love your money!”

        While those are a hoot, my all time favorite is the anonymous owner of a dog groomer service who gets lists of non-voters from the IRS. When one comes in to get a dog groomed, they covertly train that dog to pee into shoes.

        Yup, It’s a combined government-business conspiracy alright. Next time your dog messes in your Nike’s, stop and think about your voting record!!!

        1. avatar Starkwood says:

          Would much rather have them voting than taking their money. Just sayin’. Fact is, conservatives would never lose if the 20 million Christians who stayed home in 2018 were to have voted. That is truly our only hope for 2020.

        2. avatar Dan W says:

          More idiots voting is the last thing we need. Huge restrictions on who can vote would be the way to go. The founders picked who was allowed to vote for a reason.

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “We should have a punitive tax on not-voters, and share the money with people who do vote.”

          That invites vindictive votes that blow up the system.

          Just NO…

        4. avatar rt66paul says:

          I have to disagree. Uninformed voters are much worse than single issue voters. There is a huge segment of society who do not vote and probably never should.

        5. avatar Frank says:

          one problem with non-voter tax ( I like it personally)
          I have a sneaking suspicion that non-voters are most of the people who pay little or no taxes so….

        6. avatar Sevencrow says:

          No. Voting is a right, not an obligation. I pay enough taxes for stupid shit I don’t want, without paying money to some asshole just because he voted for Beto or some other socialist dickhead.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Politician’s are particularly vulnerable to making seriously bad decisions during moral panics—which movements like gun-control work very hard at creating. They are accustomed to basing their political survival on their ability to surf along just ahead of public opinion. But when they see a movement like gun-control attempting to shift public opinion they become fearful that they might lose the wave and become irrelevant. And becoming irrelevant is a politician’s deadly fear. Combine that with their typical get-elected-at-any-cost cynicism and they’ll easily start making dumb political decisions that they really shouldn’t make and, under other circumstances, would never make. By trying to straddle gun-control issues and 2nd Amendment issues Dan achieved the unenviable accomplishment of pissing off his conservative 2nd Amendment supporting base and signalling that he can be bought to the gun-control progressives who already think he’s a feckless political whore. For a politician, trying to find a middle ground in a moral-panic is always, always a losing proposition. Dan who?

  2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘For some reason, politicians seem to think…’

    I think you mean, ‘For some reason, REPUBLICAN politicians…’

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      RINO…FIFY

  3. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

    I am a one issue voter going forward and since about 2007. I do not vote for any Democrat. I do not vote for any Republican who is not a vocal supporter of the 2nd Amendment and all that goes with it. If a politician ever votes to suppress the 2nd Amendment rights of any citizen, he/she has lost my vote forever. I realize I am only one vote but that is the only way I have to get what I want. I also do not support or buy from any business that has shown disdain for my 2nd Amendment rights such as The Dick’s, Walmart, Levi’s, Nike and many others. If those are the only places I can get an item, I will do without or find a substitute. Likewise, I do not buy anything made in China. I prefer to purchase made in USA and i’m willing to pay more for it if the quality is there.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Agreed. I feel the same way.

    2. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

      It’s a matter of principle to stick to your convictions. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve told my wife not to buy this or that because it’s made in China. As for voting, I totally agree. It can be one issue, the only issue that gets your vote. I applaud you on standing your ground!

    3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I’m a two-issue voter. I’m pro-2A and pro-life. If a candidate “supports” gun rights but also leans toward abortion (murder of the most innocent among us), then I can’t believe anything else he/she says about protecting life.

    4. avatar Xaun Loc says:

      @PATRON49IFT, I hope you realize that every time you think you are not voting, you are actually voting for a Democrat.

      Some elections may not have anyone you want to vote FOR, but I guarantee that every election has someone you need to vote AGAINST.

      The time for absolutism is during the primary.

      1. avatar Starkwood says:

        Absolutely and totally a TRUE STATEMENT. Silence = Consent.

    5. L. Neil Smith wrote some years ago that a candidate’s 2A stance is all he needs to know when deciding how to vote. Works for me.

    6. avatar George from Alaska says:

      You’ve said it all and you wouid have my vote.

    7. avatar Jeff says:

      Being a “one issue” voter is not necessarily a bad thing, provided thought has been put into what that means. For me, I, too, am a one-issue voter when it comes to 2A issues. However, my reasoning is not JUST guns. From my perspective, those (states, citizens and politicians) who support the 2nd Amendment are actually speaking volumes of what they/we truly believe in.

      2nd Amendment advocates almost universally supports important attributes such as individuality, the true concept of freedom, love of country/patriotism, independence and self-accountability. And honestly, these are issues that are far more important to our society than just our ability to own a gun!

      And if we compare it to the other side, those who are against gun ownership and who would like to see the 2A repealed tend to support just the opposite attributes: Disdain for our country’s history, government oversight of large portions of our lives, typically blame others or the “unfairness” of the system for their problems, etc.

      Bottom line: It’s critical to realize that support of the 2A is far more important than just being able own a gun!! And to me, that makes it worth being a “one issue” voter!

  4. avatar Rusty - Die Ruthie Die - Chains says:

    There is no more motivated voter than the 2nd Amendment absolutist. I haven’t missed a primary or general election in decades, but that has left me holding my nose to vote for a McCain or Romney. Why is it that 90 percent of Republican politicians are so spineless?

    1. avatar A Voter says:

      You hit the nail on the head. The Republicans are always looking to compromise while Democrats circle their wagons and stick to their crazy beliefs, no matter what. Ultimately the Democrats win.

      1. avatar Ed Scjrade says:

        Dan Patrick wants to run for governor. He thinks that straddling the fence will get him elected and it may work. If the RINO party selects him to run, then the options will be him or a democrat socialist. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. George Washington said do not establish a political party system. They didn’t listen and we have a mess. The party selects the ones that they will back and freezes out the others. Limited, faux democracy.

        1. avatar LKB says:

          There is a recent event in Texas politics that hopefully will be repeated.

          In 2012, the Texas Lt. Gov. was David Dewhurst — your typical establishment GOP squish who had worked his way up the ranks. When Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson announced her retirement, he was annointed by the Texas GOP establishment and was considered to be a lock for the nomination (and thus the US Senate).

          But something happened — a real conservative stepped up and told the party to shove it. Despite coming from out of nowhere and being outspent by something like 5-1, he nevertheless wiped the floor with Dewhurst.

          That was, of course, now-Sen. Ted Cruz.

          Patrick is cut from the same cloth as Dewhurst — a career politician who is a relative lightweight, and who blows with the wind: conservative when the wind blows that way, but perfectly willing to sell us out when it suits him.

          Were we to get a real conservative with some energy (and money-raising abilities), I think Patrick is certainly beatable in the primary.

          Who might that be?

          How about Col. (and former Congressman) Allen West? He’s been in Texas for the past several years; his pro-2A credentials are impeccable; and perhaps not coincidentally he is now running for the chairmanship of the Texas GOP.

    2. avatar Dude says:

      Because the McCains and Romneys are always seeking the adulation of the left wing media. Their egos are more important than your issues.

      1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        While that may be true, ultimately I think the GOP goes along because the Dems are all about increasing the scope and power of government at the expense of individuals. That benefits DC critters of both parties. It’s why, over time, Congress just isn’t going to limit it’s own income or power (though some talk a good game, and a few even seem to mean it).

        1. avatar Dude says:

          That’s very true. They benefit from the status quo and an ever expanding government. This is one reason why so many republicans hate Trump. He made his fortune in the private sector first, so naturally he’s different. He also hurt their feewings when he called out the RINOs for continuing their failed policies.

  5. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Texas would be wise to rid themselves of the spineless RINO now rather than latter.

    1. avatar GomeznSA says:

      Yep – and he needs to take bonnen (aka joe straus junior and probably several others) with him

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    This boy would be a hero in ILLinois. Go along to get along scum. Keep your powder dry…

  7. avatar Ken says:

    Grisham is delusional about why Texas going purple. It’s not about guns, it’s the flood of refugees from blue states and third world nations voting Democrat.

  8. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    A vote not cast for the Conservative IS a vote for the Democrat… Simple math says that if there are 10 eligible voters split evenly between left and right and all 5 leftist voters cast their ballot, but only 4 votes are cast for the right because some self important intellectual got butt hurt over something that is not going to happen anyway UNLESS the democrats get control of everything, but what the hell at least you can say “Hell yeah I guess I showed them”….

    1. avatar VicRattlehead says:

      100% correct.
      So long as the 2 party system persists a vote withheld is a vote for the other side.
      It just sucks having to choose between a spineless weasel and a traitorous dog every time.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        This is true, but could you imagine the chaos that would persist every two years if there were 10 or 12 individuals running for every seat in the house and a third of the Senate and then toss in a couple dozen Presidential candidates every second election cycle.. There is no way you could possibly give each individual the attention needed to make an informed decision… Iraq has a population of about 43,000,000 with nearly 7000 candidates from dozens of political factions running for 329 seats in parliament… that’s about 21 candidates per seat.. Two party system sucks? Perhaps, although there are half a dozen fringe parties (Green party, Commies, Dem Socialists etc) but they lack the funding to achieve national relevance and I fear the alternative free for all would be even worse… I don’t think it’s actually the system but more a complacent (if not outright lazy) electorate that has allowed a select group of power driven legislators (many of whom run unopposed in districts where the other party simply concedes) to remain in office long enough to subvert the system to their benefit.. If you were responsible for writing the rules and regulations that govern your job wouldn’t it be a wonderful life for you but it would probably really suck for every one else… No elected official should EVER die of old age while still actively serving in a legislative body.. I think they should be required to leave office when they require print so large that they can only fit five words to a page…

        1. avatar Wes says:

          In the case of many candidates, just set a percentage of the vote it takes to win, if in the first election nobody gets it, then have a runoff with only the 2 getting the most votes able to participate.

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          “In the case of many candidates, just set a percentage of the vote it takes to win,” Damn, why didn’t I think of that… Probably because in a country that will litigate whether or not it is Tuesday (which it actually is) the runoff will be delayed by every dick that lost by a handful of votes and recounts will be the norm instead of the exception. Voting will have to be moved back to July or early Aug in order to be able to seat the House and Senate in January and if only ten percent wind up being decided by the courts it will tie up the system for months in every state, not only will the work of the people continue to be neglected as it is now but the justice system will also be deflected.. I have another idea, how about doing away with all of the financial perks that go with the job, no more “retirement” for what was meant to be a part time job, how about performance based pay to be set by the employers (that would be us) how about the ability to recall federal and state legislators to make them answer to “We The People”, no more travel all over the world on our dime, enforce the “must live in your district rule”, get the “dark money” out of politics, shut down the PACs that don’t answer to anyone, restrict campaign donations to residents and businesses in the state they are representing (this presidential election alone could see a total of more than three billion dollars…. absurd) there was a total of nearly 7 billion spent on ALL federal elections in 2016 with 1 billion total for POTUS, 2020 will see that nearly double. Why does a candidate spend up to a hundred million dollars (Hillary dropped well over 500 mil for a 300 thousand a year job for 4 years) for a one hundred seventy five thousand dollar a year job that is only guaranteed for two or six years and why do so many come in from humble beginnings (Bernie) and find themselves suddenly “self MADE millionaires” (Bernie)?… We have term limits, it’s called biannual National elections, if you want to change the status quo get off your ass and help find a suitable candidate to “primary” your current loser politician and then vote the dick out.. We’ve had three one term representatives in six years in my district we might have finally got one that works… Quit bitching about the system and start using it the way it was “intended” to work “For The People”….

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Well then I guess if you don’t want my vote to “go” to a democrat you should find better republicans to put on the ballot (I vote, but often third party so I assume you believe the same thing about it somehow magically going to a dem).

      1. avatar anonymous4goodreason says:

        Hannibal,
        Magically? Do you understand simple math? Damn, please don’t help us defend gun rights. You clearly do not have the IQ for it.

      2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        And as a “Not a Texan” it is not MY job to go out and find a suitable candidate for YOU to vote for.. And IF you describe yourself as a pro 2A Conservative AND you choose to either not vote or throw your vote to a third party candidate that has absolutely NO chance of winning there is nothing magical at all, it’s simple math a non-vote for one candidate cannot cancel out a cast vote for the other guy (1-0=1)…. Maybe some day I will become mature enough to understand the (logic?) of your thinking, but I seriously doubt it…..

  9. avatar Barnbwt says:

    Damn yankees….

  10. avatar Gary Lankford says:

    RINO Texas Speaker of the House Dennis Bonnen announced today that he will NOT seek reelection.

    https://www.lsgr.live/post/breaking-bonnen-will-not-seek-reelection?postId=5daefe57c3b4590017053d9c

    His exit follows some shady shenanigans, this last session, to block the bill to establish Constitutional Carry in Texas, followed by his attempt to influence blocking reelection of several Texas Republicans to the House.

    Good news for Texas!

    1. avatar LKB says:

      That is indeed good news. Bonnen was just Joe Strauss 2.0, and Strauss was a classic RINO corruptocrat.

      Now the GOP caucus in the Texas House needs to grow a pair, follow the official Texas GOP platform, and have the GOP caucus select the next Speaker (with members of the caucus required to vote for the party’s selected candidate, on pain of loss of campaign support and/or expulsion) — rather than continuing to allow more RINOs like Strauss & Bonnen to be elected by getting a handful of RINO votes plus all the votes from the Dems (to whom they would then give plum committee chairmanships).

  11. avatar Xaun Loc says:

    Grisham may mean well, but he is a fool! Not voting is never the answer. Encouraging gun rights supporters to not vote is the single stupidest thing any so-called advocate could possibly do.

    If you don’t like the Republican incumbents, fine — recruit and support a challenger for the primary. It is the Republican PRIMARY elections where gun owners absolutely must make their feelings known.

    When it comes to the general election, even a RINO is better than any Demoncrat. If you want to get rid of the RINOs, the time to do that is in the primary!

  12. avatar Gene Ralno says:

    I’ll never vote for this ignorant blowhard again. I usually vote a straight ticket but in his case I’ll make the necessary adjustment.

  13. avatar Old Joe says:

    Does anyone really know how votes are counted?…in each state or even county? That needs to be shored up beyond any possible compromise before voting even happens.

  14. avatar Alan says:

    However much his “blunder” might embarrass him, other factors are a whole lot more important, as with how much might his foot in mouthitis might cost law abiding, gun owning people in Texas. Of course, one assumes that the gentleman can be run out of office come next election, and one hopes that the damage he may have done can and will be fixed, though one does wonder regarding at what cost.

  15. avatar Ogre says:

    Not a Texan, but to me LtGov Grisham seems to be another self-centered snake of a politician. Just like every other politician I ever heard of. His own interests are evidently what motivates him, and by his statements he has ceased to be of any utility to his anti-gun control constituents, so his replacement might be in order.

  16. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Grisham, not voting is as bad if not worse than voting for Democrats! A dipsh!t Republican in office is far better than a dipsh!t Democrat!!!!

  17. avatar Nanashi says:

    Abbot told the legislator they should “consider” infringing on gun rights. Majority Leader has kept constitutional carry away from Texans for years. The Texas state legislature as a whole is corrupt and needs a tossing out.

  18. avatar Aleric says:

    The SAME tactics the GOP used in the 80s and 90s that lost them election after election.

  19. avatar txradioguy says:

    “C.J. Grisham, the founder of Open Carry Texas and a lead enforcer of that stridency,”

    Now that’s a self serving attention whore’s name who I haven’t heard in quite some time.

    He’s one of thsoe guys who does open carry and Constitutional Carry a great disservice with his stunts and arrests.

  20. avatar Amir says:

    I’ll never vote for this ignorant blowhard again. I usually vote a straight ticket but in his case I’ll make the necessary adjustment.
    نیوراک

  21. avatar Cam says:

    What can you really expect? He is a carpetbagger from Maryland who changed his name from Dannie Scott Goeb.

  22. avatar Roger says:

    I worked with this slimeball back in the 1990s. Patrick talks fast an is so full of brown it penetrated through to me everytime. Full of it and himself. How people got duped to elect him to a position such as this shows how foolish voters can be.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email