More than a year ago, pundits an analysts across the country predicted that Chet Edwards (D-Waco) would have a tremendous fight on his hands to be able to hold on to the congressional district that includes President Bush’s Crawford ranch.

And, while Edwards has no cake walk in such a Republican district, it is clear he is not facing the fight most people feared in 2005.

Edwards, a seasoned Congressman who votes his district, faces Van Taylor, aka Nicholas Van Campen Taylor, a former aide to a Dallas Republican Congressman, Harvard graduate, and ex-Marine whose family is connected to Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick and has a personal fortune from, among other things, Exxon stock.
For a normal Democratic candidate in a normal election year, this would be a tough race for Edwards who just two years ago defeated Arlene Wholgemuth and became the only Democratic Congressmen to survive Tom DeLay’s mid-decade redistricting.

However, Edwards is no typical Democratic candidate.  More conservative than many Congressional Democrats, Edwards is credited by his constituants as one who is in-touch with his district and votes its conscience (which is fairly conservative) while not totally surrendering his Democratic ideals.

One major signal for Republican opponent Taylor that things weren’t going his way was that Edwards snagged a number of major endorsements from groups that usually side with Republicans: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, Texas Farm Bureau AGFUND, Texas Association of Businesses and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.  Edwards has also snagged the endorsements of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and Waco Tribune-Herald, neither of which had much good to say about Edwards.

The Final Analysis: Edwards will win this district by a fairly comfortable margin. The district is one with toll road issues and Taylor will not be the beneficiary of full-strength straight ticket Republican voting as some Republicans will doubtless defect to Strayhorn. In addition, Edwards has support from many Republicans who view Taylor as an outsider out for mere political gain.

Edwards should be able to pull 55-56 percent of the vote in this district.

This is good and bad. It’s good because, at the very least, Edwards won’t get last minute negatives from Taylor for having the support of the DCCC.  It’s also good because it appears everyone believes Edwards is in no danger.
It’s bad news because the DCCC underestimates the power of Republican millionaires like Texas’ own Bob Perry to pour tons of cash even into races that aren’t destined to win.

So, what will happen? It’ll be much harder for Taylor and other Republicans to tie Edwards to D.C. Liberals—a favorite that is reasonably effective in this close of a district. Of course, a few Republicans who are upset about the NRCC’s pull out may end up pouring in a few thou more. And, of course, there is always the option for Taylor to sell some Exxon stock and self-fund.

The big thing, however, is that the DCCC should seriously consider keeping this money in Texas. There are several races that would benefit from an infusion of a third of what was planned for Edwards in terms of third-party media buys. Sklar, Courage, Harrell and Ankrum come immediately to mind.

This is good and bad. It’s good because, at the very least, Edwards won’t get last minute negatives from Taylor for having the support of the DCCC.  It’s also good because it appears everyone believes Edwards is in no danger.
It’s bad news because the DCCC underestimates the power of Republican millionaires like Texas’ own Bob Perry to pour tons of cash even into races that aren’t destined to win.

So, what will happen? It’ll be much harder for Taylor and other Republicans to tie Edwards to D.C. Liberals—a favorite that is reasonably effective in this close of a district. Of course, a few Republicans who are upset about the NRCC’s pull out may end up pouring in a few thou more. And, of course, there is always the option for Taylor to sell some Exxon stock and self-fund.

The big thing, however, is that the DCCC should seriously consider keeping this money in Texas. There are several races that would benefit from an infusion of a third of what was planned for Edwards in terms of third-party media buys. Sklar, Courage, Harrell and Ankrum come immediately to mind.

It’s posts like the one he did yesterday on the ‘intern’ non-scandal that Right of Texas has tried to ignite that show that Nate’s got mad blogging ’skillz.’ Check out what he had to say about the non-scandal:

I really don’t think its that big a deal, though. So, a guy who claims to be an atheist volunteered on a campaign and also has a personal blog where he posted a picture of himself and a desecrated flag. It’s not illegal to desecrate a flag. It’s not illegal to volunteer for a campaign. All it shows someone with really poor taste and no appreciation for real art. Edwards has co-sponsored numerous flag-burning and flag-desecration amendments, so its not like he supports this kind of thing.

I’ll draw an analogy. On my Myspace profile, I have a picture of me and Wes Clark from this summer’s convention. Even worse, I’m also wearing a Chet Edwards sticker, and I just realized its also the very same t-shirt I have on right now. One of my Top 8 friends is Sasha Grey, hardcore porn star. Does that mean Wes Clark supports harcore pornographers, or that Chet is a fan of her movies? Of course not, and you’d have to be an idiot to draw that conclusion. Same thing with Mueller and Edwards; just because an intern does something on his own time doesn’t mean he has the consent and support of the entire campaign.

The real question is why would an atheist go to the world’s largest Baptist University? One of the copy desk women last night posited that he was a “non-practicing atheist” which would be an even bigger story than what he did to a flag.

Leave it to Nate to muse on athiests at Baylor. Chet Edwards campaign, meanwhile, sent this email to Right of Texas (which I haven’t seen posted on their blog yet, either):

Right of Texas:

I check your blog from time to time and I know you spend a lot of time following the race in TX-17.  I also realize you do not support Congressman Edwards and differ with him on certain issues, and I respect that.

I am concerned, however, about recent information that has been posted on your blog that is completely inaccurate.  The individual you have pictured is not and has never been an intern of this campaign, period.

The photo of the individual with the desecrated American flag and offensive t-shirt is revolting and in direct conflict with the values of Chet Edwards and our campaign.

He has volunteered sporadically, and given his actions, he has been told that he is not welcomed in our campaign again.

Chet’s position on the desecration of the flag is clear and unambiguous:  he has repeatedly co-sponsored and voted for a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits the desecration of the American flag and has been honored by the American Legion for doing so.  Furthermore, anyone who would desecrate the American flag would not be welcomed in our campaign at all.

I hope this clears up any confusion on this matter.  Please let me know if you have any questions.

But, it seems the information was correct: The NRCC has cancelled its $1.5 million plus ad buy in CD 17 following a poll showing Taylor very, very unlikely to win, leaving Nicolas Van Campen Taylor twisting away in the wind without any serious support to speak of from the national party establishment. The NRCC is likely diverting its resources to campaigns where they have more of a chance in an election cycle where the control of the House is likely to turn on a hand full of races.
So, unless Taylor, who had only $102,495 cash on hand as of June 30, plunges $3 or $4 million of his own Exxon fortune into the race, he’s pretty much toast.

August 24, 2006: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) both announce their endorsement of Edwards for re-election. The endorsements represent a blow to the Van Taylor campaign since both nonpartisan organizations generally endorse Republicans, including Edwards’ 2004 opponent, Arlene Wohlgemuth. The Texas Business Association’s political action committee, BACPAC, also announces its endorsement of Edwards.

September 1, 2006: The Texas Farm Bureau Friends of Agriculture Fund (AGFUND) endorses Edwards. Considered a conservative organization, the TFB AGFUND endorsement is highly sought after and is another sign of the momentum and strong local support behind Edwards’ campaign.

September 29, 2006: The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) refuses to endorse Taylor over Edwards, despite having endorsed Edwards’ opponents in the last three elections.  The NRA-PVF also awards Edwards a “B” grade for his strong support of the Second Amendment.

October 6, 2006: The Fort Worth Star Telegram endorses Edwards, writing that, “Chet Edwards brings experience, understanding and the closest thing to statesmanship one can find in Washington these days….From championing investments in the nation’s military infrastructure to voicing concerns about healthcare for veterans, Edwards has been a constant advocate for the country’s military personnel.”

October 9, 2006: The Veterans of Foreign Wars’ Political Action Committee endorses Edwards during a district-wide tour to launch Edwards’ “Vets for Chet” group. Vets for Chet includes more than 500 veterans in the 17th District. Three Former Fort Hood and III Corps Commanders and the former State Commanders of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and the Disabled American Veterans also endorse Edwards.

October 11, 2006: The Dallas Morning News endorses Edwards, highlighting his “steady, pro-defense record and years of dependable service to constituents” and noting that his “senior position on the House Appropriations Committee gives him muscle in the fight for Waco’s threatened VA center.” The paper also notes that Taylor is a “rookie who’s long on cash and slash-and-burn campaigning but short on answers” and raises concerns about Taylor’s credibility.

October 12, 2006: The Edwards campaign reports that he has a commanding 21-point lead in the race according to a poll of 400 likely voters conducted October 9-10 by the respected Washington, DC polling firm of Bennett, Petts and Blumenthal.  The poll shows Edwards leading Taylor 54% - 33% and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9%.

October 15, 2006: The Waco Tribune-Herald becomes the third major newspaper serving the district to endorse Edwards over Taylor, saying the election decision was “easy” given Edwards’ record of effective service for the district. The editorial board also points out “Taylor’s campaign has been characterized by attacks that twist the truth into pretzel form.”

October 15, 2006: The Taylor campaign posts a weak October quarterly FEC report, showing just $102,495 cash-on-hand after having raised just $223,147 during the quarter and being propped up by a $100,000 loan by Taylor to his campaign. Edwards’ campaign shows strong momentum with $1,144,692 cash-on-hand after raising $632,935 during the quarter. The Edwards campaign has raised over $2.7 million through September 30th of this year, an increase of over $600,000 at this same point in the last campaign cycle.

October 16, 2005: The National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) cancels its planned television ad buy in support of Taylor, worth more than $1.5 million in the DFW media market.

Republicans are making another run, in what some say could be one of the costliest congressional races this year, at the House district represented by veteran Democrat Chet Edwards.

Some do, in fact, say this could be one of the costliest Congressional races this year. The unwritten part, however, is that rumor has it that the NRCC bank isn’t going to be broken for Van Taylor, unless it’s his own bank that he breaks.

I like this as well:

Now the GOP says it has the right candidate in Taylor to go up against Edwards, who last year was listed by a Washington newspaper as one of the most vulnerable congressional Democrats.

Taylor, who said he puts about 1,000 miles on his truck each week campaigning throughout the district, has picked up endorsements from groups such as the Free Enterprise Fund, the Texas Eagle Forum, the Texas Home School Coalition and Young Conservatives of Texas.

The GOP is going to say that because they can’t come out in public and say, “hey, this guy isn’t as good as he thought he was; come on, he couldn’t even handle an appearance on Hardball!”

And, to quote John Nance Garner again, those endorsements don’t add up to a warm pitcher of piss; most Republicans running in a general election will grab those up if they have a pulse.

It also doesn’t bode well for Taylor that a few of those endorsements that go to Republicans with a little more than a pulse (namely, candidates with a degree of clout), have gone to Edwards:

Edwards’ staff said Taylor lacks roots in the district. And Edwards has picked up support from groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which supported Wohlgemuth in 2004. He has also picked up endorsements from the Texas Farm Bureau and Texas Association of Businesses PAC.

We all know about the Farm Bureau in 2004. That TAB isn’t backing a Republican candidate is such a shock that I’m sure people who have heard it literally wet themselves.

Leave it, however, to Cal Jillson to make sense of it all for us. Even he says (in not so many words) that Van is toast (especially after his milquetoast performance on Hardball):

“2006 is not a good Republican year,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University. “The president is 15 points lower in his popularity rating, and the war and the domestic policy are both undercutting Republicans. It’s quite possible the Democrats will take back the U.S. House.”

Oh! And then Tinsley finally vindicates what I’ve been saying all along:

Both candidates are raising a lot of money for the race. So far, Edwards has raised about $2.1 million and Taylor about $1.7 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

It remains to be seen whether national Republicans, who say the district is one of their top 10 priorities, will put their money where their mouth is.

The National Republican Congressional Committee last month reserved more than $40 million in TV advertising time this fall, mostly for seats already held by the GOP. Republican officials say they plan to spend at least $1 million in an effort to unseat Edwards.

“Texas 17 is one of the very most competitive congressional races in the country,” said Jonathan Collegio, press secretary for the NRCC. “It’s a district President Bush won by 40 percent in the last election.

Finally, damn it, FINALLY someone in the MSM has picked up on what I’ve been saying all along: this race isn’t getting the NRCC cash!!!

BTW, anyone who is interested, note that nothing is said about any actual TV buys in the district—just that promised $1 million. For a few bucks (thanks to federal regulations), you can hop on down to your local TV station (and cable company that sells “local” ads for stations like the History Channel, MTV, CNN, etc.) in the district and ask them to provide you with a list of all the ad buys made by the NRCC and Taylor. It would seem somewhat strange, especially when it is expected that Perry and Strayhorn will be buying enough TV time to clog the market for downballot candidates, that the NRCC wouldn’t have already placed a buy on at least some TV ads.

[SOMEONE in this district, PLEASE get these records...I'm just dying to know...]

It’s a sure sign things are not going well for you if you are a Republican running for U.S. Congress:

Democrat Congressman Chet Edwards received two big endorsements Thursday from organizations that, in the past, have supported his challengers.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business owners endorsed the District 17 incumbent, whose area includes the suburbs of Fort Worth south to Brazos County. Both groups endorsed his republican opponent Arlene Wohlgemuth in 2004.

Being business groups, both do tend to endorse Republicans. However, it seems they’ve finally realized that Chet Edwards represents his district and mainstream values in Congress and flipped over to the blue side.

However, when the reaction on day one is a disaster, you know it’s going to be worse on day two.

Paul Hackett, who Taylor appeared with on Harball, had more choice words for Taylor on the Young Turks radio show. Via Truth Serum:

Van Taylor is nothing more than an apologist for a failed administration…the liar in chief and his chuckle head friends, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Van Taylor…he couldn’t find his ass with a compass and a map. He is an absolute… It is pathetic. What I wanted to say to Van Taylor, you still have enough time to be on the right side of history instead of being just another ?? puking sound bite regurgitating numb nut.

Woah.  Harsh words from a fellow Iraq war vet.

Van Taylor (R-West), who is running against Congressman Chet Edwards (D-Waco) to represent a congressional district that includes President Bush’s Crawford ranch, seemed to have trouble with questions about why America is in Iraq and al Quaeda.

Here are some great snippits from the transcript:

MATTHEWS: Let me start with you, Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much for joining us. Do you think we are right to be in Iraq?
VAN TAYLOR (R-TX), CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: We need to stay in Iraq until we get the job done there. We have got to defeat al Qaeda terrorists that are trying to take over the country of Iraq and use it as a launching pad to conduct terrorist attacks in the region and possibly even on the United States.
MATTHEWS: And where did al Qaeda come from?
TAYLOR: Al Qaeda is an amorphous organization.
MATTHEWS: No no, the people that are fighting it that you say are threatening us in Iraq, where did they come
from?
TAYLOR: Al Qaeda made a conscious, tactical decision to do battle with the United States in Iraq and we have responded and fought them there. We need to fight them there because if we don`t fight them there, we are going to fight them here at home.
MATTHEWS: So they came in since we went in?
TAYLOR: There is no question. I mean, they made a decision in the summer of 2003 to come into Iraq and launch an attack against the United States forces.
MATTHEWS: So there wouldn`t have been an al Qaeda component of the size there is — there wouldn`t have been
that threat if we hadn`t gone in in the first place.
TAYLOR: Well al Qaeda could choose to do battle with us somewhere else, possibly in Europe or even in the
United States. So clearly fighting in Iraq meant that they didn`t fight us somewhere else.
MATTHEWS: So the people that are killing 3,000 people a month in Iraq are al Qaeda, you are saying? All the
deaths we are seeing on television is caused by al Qaeda? That’s against all the reporting we are getting. That`s why I’m raising this sir. I don`t get any reporting saying those people are being getting killed by al Qaeda — 3,000, 100 people a day are getting in that war between the Shia and the Sunni and I just wonder why you keep bringing in al Qaeda, which is by every estimate of every military man, is an isolated five percent maybe of the action over there.
TAYLOR: We need to be in Iraq because of al Qaeda and we cannot leave Iraq until al Qaeda is eradicated from
that country.
MATTHEWS: Well those are talking points. Where do they fit into the fact that 3,000 a month are being killed over there? Who is killing those people that we are watching on television every night. Is that al Qaeda doing that?
TAYLOR: Al Qaeda is trying to foment a civil war in Iraq and we need to stop them from doing that. We need to
make sure that Iraq is a stable democracy.
MATTHEWS: OK, what percentage being killed over there are being killed by al Qaeda, as you say? Every day on
the headlines? Who is doing all the killing?
TAYLOR: You are asking two different questions.
MATTHEWS: No, I`m asking one question, sir. What is the role of al Qaeda? You brought it up. What`s the role of
al Qaeda in Iraq? I`m just asking.
TAYLOR: Al Qaeda is trying to foment an insurgency in Iraq. We have got to secure our country against terrorists
and they are attacking us right now, U.S. forces are risking their lives fighting al Qaeda terrorists that seek to destroy
our country and our way of life. We have got to do whatever it takes to finish the job in Iraq and make sure that we give
a secure country to our children.

Still more, some of the best, in fact:

MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you the question. Mr. Taylor, the president of the United States held a press conference yesterday and he was asked what role did Iraq play on the al Qaeda attack on us on 9/11? He said nothing, no role. You say something different it sounds like.
TAYLOR: Today, in Iraq al Qaeda …
MATTHEWS: No, he said they had nothing — he said — no, he said they had nothing — do you agree with that,
with the president that they had nothing to do with the attack of 9/11?
TAYLOR: They had no direct involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
MATTHEWS: Well, what do you mean no direct? Answer the question. The president said no connection. What
connection do you draw?
TAYLOR: As far as I know, I do not believe they have any direct involvement with the attack on 9/11. I agree with
the president.
MATTHEWS: So why did we attack Iraq then? Why did we attack Iraq then?
TAYLOR: Regardless of why we may have started fighting, and I served as a marine …
MATTHEWS: I`m asking the question, why did we attack Iraq? Why did we go into Iraq?
TAYLOR: That`s not the question that we need answered.
MATTHEWS: It`s mine.
TAYLOR: It`s what do we do now?

MATTHEWS: What`s wrong with me asking the question? We are in a war. Pearl Harbor started World War II.
TAYLOR: That`s a question you can ask …
MATTHEWS: What start it? Why did we go into Iraq?
TAYLOR: That is a question you can ask historians, but today we need to send people to Washington who
understand the war on terror. There is not a single member of the United States Congress that has served in the war on
terror, and there are only two dozen combat veterans. I will be the very first. We need to send people like me in
Washington.
[...]

MATTHEWS: Well, give us that answer. Full answer now, take all your time. We have 90 seconds, please, go
ahead, Mr. Taylor.
TAYLOR: We need to grind down this insurgency, we need to destroy al Qaeda, wherever they may be.
HACKETT: Soundbite.

I also found it amusing how Chris Matthews dismissed Taylor when he tried to throw in his website soundbite:

MATTHEWS: Thank you down in Texas, you are racing against the incumbent Chet Edwards, right? And Paul
Hackett, you are not running for the Senate, OK?
HACKETT: Absolutely not. I`m running Hackett Law Offices. If you need a good lawyer, call me.
MATTHEWS: OK, thank you, sir. Coming up …
TAYLOR: And if you want to support a Iraq veteran running for Congress vantaylor.com.
MATTHEWS: I think we heard that. Thank you, sir, for joining us.

The video is also quite amusing. You can check it out here (wmv, quicktime).

Mayor Russell Willsey of West, the city Taylor lives in, says he “wouldn’t know [Taylor] if [he] saw him,” and that he has not met the wealthy, Exxon-stock-owning millionaire.

Now, if you are going to run for congress, don’t you usually go out and make an effort to meet the mayors of the towns in your district?
From the Waco Tribune Herald:

Residents who see Taylor as a businessman who moved to West to start a family are more likely to support his bid than those who view him as a Dallas transplant who relocated to the 17th Congressional District solely to challenge Edwards.

Jim Kolacek, owner of the West Playdium swimming pool, falls into the first camp, saying Taylor could bring new attention to town and give “Old Chet a run for his money.”

Local veteran leader Jim Garrett represents the other side.

“There’s a little resentment that nobody talks about, that this guy came down for political purposes and he probably doesn’t give two hoots about the local inhabitants,” Garrett said. “While they admire him for what he’s done for his country, they understand . . . he doesn’t really have any roots in this area.”

And more:

Van who?

But the challenge facing Taylor is obvious at the Ole Czech Bakery, where 8 o’clock coffee drinkers recently spoke up in support of Edwards.

“I think Chet’s been doing an awfully good job and we ought to keep him,” said Alpons Urbanovsky, a World War II veteran.

Edwards’ dominated Wohlgemuth in the 2004 election in McLennan County. He took 64 percent of the vote and won every precinct. That helped him survive Republican-led redistricting with 51 percent of the vote across a 12-county district.

Moving to McLennan County gave Taylor an opportunity to claim the same turf. But Taylor said political calculations had nothing to do with the move.

A seventh-generation Texan, Taylor has stronger ties elsewhere to run for Congress. His last home in Dallas is still on the market, and he is a native Midland, but Taylor said no one asked him to run there.

Uh, who did ask you to run, Van? Was it Tom Craddick? After all, he and your daddy are both directors of Mexco Energy, in which you own stock.
Yet more entertainment:

Taylor says some in West question his involvement in the community because most of his time in West is family time.

“That’s a criticism you can say about anyone,” Taylor says, “Ask people again in 10 years.”

You mean when they’ll be saying, “isn’t that guy that ran for Congress againt Chet back in ‘06? Yeah, he sure got his ass beat, didn’t he!”

In ten years, people still ain’t gonna know who you are.

GOP nominee Van Taylor commanded a Marine platoon on the border for a month in 1997 in a drug-fighting mission and made that experience a centerpiece of his primary campaign. But during that campaign, he did not say how long he served.

…

He said the secrecy of the mission requires he not disclose where he served.

That’s according to the Waco Tribune-Hearald.

While I don’t proclaim to be familiar with the ins-and-outs of military regulations requiring him not to say where he served, I do find it odd he’s been specific about the roughly 100 days he spent in Iraq, but not about his time on the border. From Taylor’s campaign website:

Van then volunteered for duty with the Marine Corps’ C Company, 4th Reconnaissance Battalion and was activated to fight in Iraq where he fought with the 2nd Force Reconnaissance Company. As a Captain, Van led missions behind enemy lines for the 4500 Marine Task Force Tarawa, including the leadership of the Task Force’s first platoon to enter Iraq before the start of the main invasion.

During the war to liberate Iraq, Van’s platoon encountered, and defeated, several Fedayeen ambushes, participated in the operation to rescue American P.O.W. Jessica Lynch and rescued 31 wounded men-under-fire during a counter attack by several thousand Iraqi soldiers. Van was awarded the Navy Commendation Medal with “V” for Valor, the Combat Action Ribbon, and the Presidential Unit Citation.

Obviously, that’s fairly explicit. Granted, it’s not “down-to-the-whites-of-their-eyes/how-many-men-I-killed” detail, it’s fairly specific for a war that’s still going on. Why, then, if he is willing to be so specific about his exploits in the Middle East, will he nothing about the time he served with the Guard on the border? That question asked, let me say that I don’t doubt Taylor was on the border.
I believe the reason Taylor won’t discuss his service on the border is because of events that occured on the border involving National Guardsman in 1997, which is when he spent his month on the border.
The name Esequiel Hernandez Jr., probably means nothing whatsoever to the average person. But, to those familar with the activities of the National Guard on the U.S.-Mexico border, it’s a very important name and one that made news again recently in the wake of discussions about sending guardsman back to the border.

When Hernandez died, he became the first civilian killed by U.S. troops since the incident at Kent State University in 1970.

This particular incident clearly cast a pall on the 1997 National Guard border activities of which Taylor was a part because of the age of Hernandez and other factors related to what happened. All accounts of the incident are fairly similar. The Pecos Enterprise offered this account a year later following what were new developments in the case in 1998:

U.S. Marine Cpl. Clemente Banuelos shot the Redford, Tx. high school sophomore May 20,1997, while the marine was on a federal drug interdiction operation and Hernandez was
tending his family’s goat herd.

According to officials at the justice department, there was “insufficient evidence” to prosecute Banuelos under federal criminal civil rights law. The federal investigation followed a grand jury trial held last August in Marfa in which the jurors decided not to bring criminal charges against Banuelos in the affair.

In a public statement released Feb. 27, justice department officials said that “the department concluded that there was insufficient evidence to rebut Corporal Banuelos’ claim that he shot Mr. Hernandez because he thought that Mr. Hernandez was about to shoot another Marine.”

Military officials said that Hernandez fired twice at the Marines with an ancient .22-caliber rifle and was poised for a third shot when Banuelos shot and killed the goat-herd[er].

However, civil charges which seek compensation for the Hernandez family out of the tragedy are still pending and U.S. Congressman Lamar Smith has initiated a new inquiry into the matter. Many questions, apparently, have been left unanswered despite the justice department’s shut-down of the investigation.

The federal government did end up paying the Hernandez family $1.9 million in compensation.

Keep in mind, Taylor wasn’t part of this particular incident. Though a deputy sheriff with the same surname is mentioned, Van (Nicholas Van Campen) Taylor’s name appears nowhere in news coverage related to the incident nor is it recognizable on cursory review of the report of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration and claims Oversight’s investigation (report, appendix here, here, and here) of the Death of Esequiel Hernandez, Jr. led by Texas Congressman Lamar Smith (R-San Antonio), which was published in 1998.

Clearly, though Taylor’s campaign doesn’t want anyone casting too close an eye on his border service and realizing it was during a time period (or at least the year) when the Guard was subject to tremendous bad publicity for the Esequiel Hernandez shooting.

One other option is that, because of the Hernandez incident, Taylor and others may well be under some requirement not to disclose specifics related to their duties. However, I believe it is more likely that they’re keeping mum about to avoid anyone making a corelation between Taylor’s service and the year in which the Guard got so much bad publicity.

Given that the Guard being sent to the border is again a major issue, you can bet Taylor’s camp doesn’t want anyone to start looking at anything that happened anywere or to anyone during the year in which he spent a month on the border. That goes double for it being discussed in a period where newspapers are editorializing about the Guard being sent to the border and specifically mentioning the tragic shooting from 1997.

On another Van Taylor note, you’ll recall earlier that we broke the story that Taylor’s father and House Speaker Tom Craddick are both major shareholders in Mexco Energy Corporation (a company in which Van Taylor also holds stock).

I ran across this resolution (HCR 216) passed by Craddick in the ‘05 Regular Session quite by accident.  In this resolution, Craddick priases his fellow stockholder for his service in Iraq. While the service of American troops in Iraq is certianly commendable (and resolution worthy), given that Taylor’s residence is stated as Dallas in the resolution, it makes one wonder that, if it were not for the business connection, Craddick probably wouldn’t have been the one to carry this HCR.

Of further interesting note from HCR 216, we note mention of McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm that has represented Enron and employed the likes of Bobby Jindal, Jeff Skilling of Enron fame, and (on the left), Chelsea Clinton.

GOP nominee Van Taylor commanded a Marine platoon on the border for a month in 1997 in a drug-fighting mission and made that experience a centerpiece of his primary campaign. But during that campaign, he did not say how long he served.

“I think a lot of voters are going to be surprised that after hearing Mr. Taylor tout his strong experience on border control issues that he only spent one month on the border nine years ago,” said Edwards, D-Waco.

That’s pretty bad when it comes to truth-in-advertising. However, this snippit from the article nearly made me lose bladder control I laughed so hard:

Taylor said Edwards’ criticism constitutes a “personal attack” and that his experience is sorely needed in Washington, D.C.

“If every member of Congress had the experience on the border I have,” Taylor said in an interview this week, “they never would have let it get this out of control.”

If you’ve picked yourself off the floor, daubed the tears from your eyes and made a special bathroom run if necessary, you’ve realized just how stupid that very statement makes Van Taylor sound. Every campaign, there are things that a Republican candidate says that are so dumb you just pray they end up in a TV commercial or mailout, and that’s one of them.

Think about it: What Van Taylor is really saying, is this:

We need more people in Congress who have experience in a particular problem area that is years old and outdated.

Saying that Taylor’s expecience is truly relevant is about like saying someone who was a police officer for six months in 1964 has all the knowledge and information necessary to lead the war on drugs today. It just makes no sense.

More humor:

At one place where Taylor was stationed, he observed only three strands of barbed wire separating the United States and Mexico.

“That won’t keep the bull out of the heifer pasture,” Taylor said.

He said the secrecy of the mission requires he not disclose where he served.

Was that because he was really in a bar in Tijuana or something? I’m sure that, after nine years, he could probably get a waiver from the national guard or something. Maybe it’s time to start a movement to actually get Van Taylor to disclose his full military record.

All of this, however, brings up a very important point: how much more of this can Van Taylor’s campaign take before it becomes more of a joke than it already is? There have already been several other similar scandals, and now they’re thrown one that could be as bad as the fact that he’s so heavily tied to oil companies?

Taylor can pour as much of his personal fortune as he wants into his campaign, but he’ll never be able to buy enough good publicity for himself—or bad publicity for himself—to offset the load that has already been dumped on him.

And, it’s not even Labor Day! If this kind of stuff is being thrown out as issues now, what worse things are hiding in the opposition research on him that won’t be thrown out until the final days of the election?

His Cheney fund-raiser was a flop. I’m already hearing from folks on the ground in the district that he’s having trouble recruiting volunteers and that the GOP base is not at all excited about his campaign since he’s less well-known than the Dragon Lady was last time. Plus, since it was only a two-person primary, a larger percentage of the GOP electorate is still pissed at him. All and all, things are not looking good for his campaign at all.

It turns out, however, that Taylor is, in fact, a real-life blue blood Oil Barron.

We’ve mentioned this before, but it wasn’t until former Texas Congressman Martin Frost revealed his real name over at Fox News today that we realized just how blue his blood runs.

His real name? Nicholas Van Campen Taylor. Not exactly a local-boy-sounding name.

Think “Nicholas Van Campen Taylor” is a mouthfull? He’s got a sister named Christie Hardin Van Vraanken Taylor. Now, until I saw that “Van” in her name, too, I thought maybe “Van” was a family given name and not part of another surname. But, I’m guessing “Van Campen” and “Van Vraanken” are two aged blue blood pedigree names.

Van Campen is evidently Dutch or German, and Van Vraanken has to be Dutch.  (Nothing bad about that, but those names sound like people with lots of bling)
On a more interesting note, though, it turns out that Mr. Nicholas Van Campen Taylor (doubting he’s putting it on the ballot that way) is listed on some SEC documents that, surprise, surprise, connect his daddy to none other than Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick.

Turns out there is an outfit called Mexco Energy Corporation that lists Nicholas Van Campen Taylor as a shareholder along with his sister and his dad.

And, guess what? Daddy, Nicholas C. Taylor, who owned over a million shares in the company, served on the board with none other than Speaker Thomas R. Craddick!

Here’s what the documents have to say about our esteemed Speaker, who holds (or held) a paltry $5,000 shares:

THOMAS R.  CRADDICK,  54, was elected to the Board of Directors of the Company  on March 2,  1998 and is a member of the  Compensation  Committee. Since 1968 to the present,  Mr. Craddick has served as State Representative for the State of Texas.  Throughout  his tenure of the past 15  sessions of the Legislature, Representative  Craddick has served on various committees and  conferences,  most recently  serving on the Legislative  Budget Board, Legislative Audit Committee,  the State Affairs Committee and the Revenue & Public Education Funding, Select Committee,  along with serving as Chairman of the House  Ways and  Means  Committee  and  Chairman  of the  Republican Legislative Caucus. For more than the past five years Mr. Craddick has been Sales Representative  for  Mustang  Mud,  Inc.,  as well as the  owner  of Craddick Properties and Owner and President of Craddick, Inc. both of which invest in oil and gas properties and real estate.

The Compensation Committee, huh?

And we wonder about no windfall profits tax and no gas tax relief? Hell, the Speaker of the Texas House serving on the board of an oil company with the daddy of a congressional candidate who earned somewhere between 100,000 and a million bucks from Exxon. Texas Republican Politics at its finest!

(Oh, and just remember two things: (1) you heard about the Craddick Connection here first and (2) did somebody say blogs do nothing original?

An Internet fundraising effort by the popular Republican-leaning Web site RedState.com steered 183 contributions and $10,000 to Taylor from readers like Sierra across the country this week.

…

Taylor welcomed the help. He trailed incumbent U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, by a large margin in fundraising reports filed shortly after Taylor’s expensive Republican primary victory March 7 and is trying to recharge for the general election in November.

“I’m not an incumbent; I can’t go to Washington and raise huge amounts of (political action committee) money. It is going to require grass-roots activists here in Central Texas and, honestly, around the country to contribute,” said Taylor, 33.

Edwards posted about $1.3 million and Taylor reported about $200,000 in filings with the Federal Election Commission as of March 31.

Interesting food for thought.

In financial disclosure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, Taylor noted he held somewhere between $5  million and $25 million of stock in the company which yesterday reported $8.4 billion in first-quarter earnings amid record high gasoline prices.
From Edwards’ Press Release:

“Since voters are hurting every time they fill up their car or truck, they deserve to know how much Van Taylor is making as a result of ExxonMobil’s record-breaking profits and high gas prices.”

From The Waco Tribune-Herald:

Taylor, who owns between $5 million and $25 million in the company’s stock, said his knowledge of the industry is needed in Congress.

“My life experiences speak to the challenges we face, and the high energy prices are a serious challenge, and it can only help to send people to Washington who understand it from the ground up,” he said.

Taylor grew up in the oil industry haven of Midland, interned for a geophysical company and has worked in oil investments for years.

He reported his stocks to the U.S. House of Representatives and declined to be more specific about his holdings after Edwards’ comments Thursday.

“I’ve revealed everything I’m required to by law,” Taylor said. “I’ve done that fully, totally and completely.”

Just because you’ve complied with the law doesn’t mean that you’ve told voters the whole truth, or everything they need to know. A $20 million “gap” doesn’t really narrow things down, does it?

More Trib:

The ExxonMobil stocks are the largest of 104 investments Taylor reported that have a minimum value of $15,000. Taken at their lowest values, his assets are worth more than $15 million.

Edwards’ holdings are worth between $44,000 and $268,000, according to his last report.

Hum…wonder who’s more in touch with the average voter: the millionaire or Chet Edwards?