Long time Ramparts readers will know that I am a big supporter of Donna Campbell in her first bid against the incumbent Lloyd D-d-doggett for US Congress, Texas CD 25. After a tremendous effort on her part she lost. Not to be deterred, on January 19, 2012 she participated in the Republican Men’s Club and San Antonio Tea Party sponsored debate as one of three GOP candidates, this time for State Senate, District 25. The others included incumbent Senator Jeff Wentworth and Texas Railroad Commissioner and Elizabeth Ames Jones.
A subsequent opinion by Jon Kaplan was sent to me by a friend, wherein I noted the following:
Jon’s Editorial Opinion:
[...] Dr. Campbell was passionate, articulate, and surprisingly knowledgeable of legislation considering her newness to elective politics. I believe she won the debate on substance and passion, and exceeded expectations. While I respect her tremendously and think she would do a good job in the position, I regard her as unelectable due to limited financial backing and political inexperience. She could be a spoiler who gives the election to Wentworth. I suspect there will be a runoff. If so, I believe Dr. Campbell will not be in the runoff. I will support Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones because she has the talent and commitment, and can give the Senate a more conservative voice and vote than Senator Wentworth has provided. I urge others to vote for her. My only regret is that Dr. Campbell is not running in a different race. I would happily vote for her.
Jon Kaplan is a long time supporter of the San Antonio Tea Party. He is speaking herein only for himself and not in behalf of the San Antonio Tea Party.
Editors note: San Antonio Tea Party does not support or endorse any candidate or political party. As he notes, Jon Kaplan’s comments are his own.
Folks, that’s a lot of caveats for just a few paragraphs. My friend’s flustered comment was:
How dare he say that a Tea Party Candidate like Donna Campbell can’t win because she doesn’t have $$$!!!! Is that how we should decide how to cast our votes? Pick the candidate that has the best chance of winning and vote for that person? What about morals, values, principals? What was he thinking?!?
Well, since you ask me I’ll tell you that he was thinking like a lawyer. What does that mean? 1) Money, 2) Money, 3) MONEEEEEY. This is how a lawyer’s mind is calibrated to perceive everyday existence. So logically speaking, he follows the old Chinese adage, “With money a dragon, without money a worm.” Or with money electable, without money Donna Campbell.
I won’t pretend that I don’t have anything against lawyers. Quite the contrary. As I have written elsewhere, I am convinced that lawyers are a large part of what is wrong with America right now. Did I mention they vote predominately Democratic and always Ruling Class establishment? Did I mention trial lawyers milk the penal system for all it’s worth? But I digress.
Say, what do you call 1,000 lawyers tied up at the bottom of the sea? Answer: A good start. Okay, I’ll knock it off now.
One commenter gave his opposing view thus:
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.
Another said this:
Can you imagine if every voter in Texas decided to cast their votes based on that strategy? I would hope that we the tea party/grassroots are doing our part to educate the populace about how important it is to vote our values! It is a shame this guy speaks for an aspect of the Tea Party.
From the looks of the caveats above I think the San Antonio Tea Party is trying to be as clear as possible that Kaplan DOES NOT speak for them. But the benefit of his telling us what he thinks is that each of us can discover what we think – and do not think.
Now if I were your Sifu (martial arts master) I would ask you, “Grasshopper, what did you learn from what you’ve just seen?”
You can make a difference. Be sure to visit:
http://donnacampbell.com/









{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
J.C. writes and says:
I have 4×8 street signs at my house available for immediate pickup or I can deliver them to you. Call me at 512-574-5744 . We need to show Jon Kaplan the lawyer friend of Elizabeth in San Antonio that Donna has the grass roots support for her election to the Texas Senate District 25.
According to Kaplan who I understand lives in the same neighborhood as Elizabeth Ames Jones:
…”Dr. Campbell was passionate, articulate, and surprisingly knowledgeable of legislation considering her newness to elective politics. I believe she won the debate on substance and passion, and exceeded expectations. While I respect her tremendously and think she would do a good job in the position, I regard her as unelectable due to limited financial backing and political inexperience”….” My only regret is that Dr. Campbell is not running in a different race. I would happily vote for her”…
Obviously Jon wasn’t paying attention when Donna entered the political arena in 2010 when she defeated her primary opponent and almost defeated Lloyd Doggett for the U.S. CD 25. Obviously Jon doesn’t know the local grass roots support Donna has in the Texas Senate District 25. Jon admits freely that Donna won the debate and that she knows the issues and exceeded his expectations, but he says she is unelectable because she doesn’t have the financial backing, WHAT?
I’m a bit perplexed on this one. While I don’t agree with his view, I can understand where Jon’s coming from…why take offense to what amounts to a different opinion?