Press "Enter" to skip to content


In POLITICAL ACTION YOU CAN BELIEVE IN we reported what we believed to be true about why the Patriots PAC continued to push invalid voter guides to trusting voters leading up to this weeks primary election.

We now know that any plans held by Julie Turner and her Political Action Committee to engineer an election victory for the ineligible exiting Judge Michael Seiler in the hopes of negotiating a path to appointment for special interests has failed.

We extend congratulations to Judge Elect Patty Maginnis

One of the interesting aspects of the decisions of the Julie PAC to distribute erroneous voter guides is how it seems to fly in the face of previous claims and assertions made by Julie herself.

Readers should now be interested in a walk down memory lane, and although we think it will be amusing for some we say let the reader decide.

Editorial by Julie Turner, Tea Party flexes muscle at polls again March 12, 2014

“Many voters relied on the Texas Patriots PAC voter guide recommendations.”

“The trust placed in our Texas Patriots PAC voter guide is humbling and a responsibility we take very seriously. “


“We require candidates who share our values to put together a serious campaign with a reasonable chance of winning. No other conservative group or Tea Party in this area requires candidates to rise to this standard. And this requirement is key to the success of the Tea Party movement.”

Julie Turner  Harmon, Doyal argue over Tea Party groups’ vetting process May 20,2014

“We can’t support people who have no path to victory.”

Julie Turner  Guest Column, Texas GOP Vote Deception Enters House District 15 Race  Feb 28, 2014

(misleading voter guides contained) “a suggestion of impropriety that Republican Party Chairman Dr. Wally Wilkerson should certainly address.”

“We find it unbelievably irresponsible for Mr. Tough to continue distributing a guide that suggests to the voters the acceptability of a judge Mr. Tough knows is the wrong choice. How can we expect Mr. Tough to act differently in Austin?”

“Unlike so many other groups, our vetting is not a popularity contest, it is an unemotional effort to apply our long-established vetting criteria to each candidate in an effort to identify the one who best can move our country in the right direction.”

“So we mailed our Voter’s Guide to likely voters before voting started and put almost 40 pages of analysis on our website explaining and justifying our recommendations so that voters could educate themselves about the candidates.”

“We find it disgraceful when someone demonstrates the level of contempt for the voters shown by the MCGP “sample ballot”. Here, there is no effort to educate the voters or even justify the choices.”

And finally,

“Politics should raise awareness of important issues. Politics should not diminish the process, to put winning above the interests of the people you are running to serve.”



One Comment

  1. Mike Jackson Mike Jackson March 5, 2016

    Maybe Julie PAC can endorse a dead man for office next time. It would have the same result. They get to jam their appointed one into the spot after the election, be it Nelda “I am a pile of makeup” Blair or Phil Grant.

Leave a Reply to Mike Jackson Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.