Meet The Candidate - Matt Mackowiak. Yep, it scares us, too! 
Matt Mackowiak is Bill Flores’ Campaign Manager. When you hear Bill Flores speak, see his campaign material or the campaign strategy played out, or experience a tactical response from him or the campaign relative to something Chet Edwards does – you are seeing Matt Mackowiak – NOT Bill Flores.
That is my firm belief: that you are NOT seeing Bill Flores. The Bill Flores who has been described to me by dozens of party leaders and supporters is not the one you see. The one you see is trying to win on national issues and losing on local issues. He’s taking statistically calculated positions that are not in congruence with the Conservatives and Republicans in this District – but mesh perfectly with the national party’s playbook.
The quarterback is Matt Mackowiak, who in essence works for the NRCC, whether they pay him or not, because his future clients will come from the NRCC. He is The Candidate for future jobs…gunning for something important in the 2012 election cycle.
The NRCC has a playbook for national politics that includes recruiting self-financing candidates so they can save money yet still control the outcome by providing that candidate with “support” in the form of “consultants” like Matt whom they say are top-notch.
The self-financed Bill Flores has never done this before. He is smart enough to let people who know what they are doing do it, which is probably one of the keys to his success in business. The Henry Ford rule in practice: I’m not the smartest guy in this industry…so I hire the smartest guy.
However, Matt is 28, has never run a campaign before, and has only cut his teeth in the field of public relations in Washington, better known as the field of “spin.” A field he perfected as Spokesperson for Kay Bailey Hutchison…most likely the connection that got him the position with Bill, who was an ardent supporter of her gubernatorial run.
Bill is a straight shooting Texan. So are Texas 17 citizens.
When American Writes says this campaign is run by Washington Insiders…that’s what we are talking about. The clues and the evidence are everywhere…so much so that to list them out would take forever…especially since we have exposed them on this blog for over half a year.
But Mackowiak touts his company as one that will help defuse public relations nightmares before they happen…which he obviously failed to do simply with the minimal questions we raised here from a few Google searches.
And Mackowiak advises Flores to lie about his voting record; rewrite his history about positions on Nuclear energy loans in this district; refuse to answer multiple constituent questions; be the only person in Texas who could be on the wrong side of the Big 12 Football Question; slander and libel his opponent by stating the opponent’s activities are illegal; getting in a tizzy when opponents raise questions about facts by claiming they are “going negative [See paragraph below];” refusing to take a stand on John Boehner [audio] – and Mackowiak does this for about $5,000 a month according to FEC filings!
Regarding “going negative,” which was a big hissy-fit on the Flores side; though we now know it was just a plan to wait until Mackowiak could grasp something that might seem negative so he could come out against Curnock with the illegitimate homestead illegal accusation:
Here’s the email Matt sent to all 12 county GOP chairs, as well as several other key folks in the District (I saw this from more than one source … someone from my neck of the woods blindly forwarded it on to others, without considering the implications). One of those people forwarded this to me. No doubt the Curnock Campaign got the same email forwarded to them… Matt’s email, as you can see, is dated March 15th.
Note that this is before we heard Bill contradict himself on who he voted for in 2008 … He had already lied about it in February but not yet made his second round of statements. At this point, immediately after the primary and heading into the runoff, Rob Curnock was getting asked by a lot of people if he had the George Soros information, and why he wasn’t using it. These people were really worried that Chet would destroy Bill with it. Rob talked to several of them about it, including yours truly, but he didn’t go out spreading rumors; if he did say anything in one-on-one conversations such as with me, no doubt he was simply responding to what others brought to him. And trust me, I tried to get him to say something worth reporting…and he wouldn’t. You will find nothing in the public record connecting Curnock with mentioning Soros and Flores…but Mackowiak, before the primary ballots are even dry, comes out attacking Rob to the County Chairs.
Note that Mackowiak is going negative WAY BEFORE anyone associated with Curnock, including Rob himself, mentioned anything worth calling negative…and Mackowiak had no fact to stand on when it was THIS BLOG raising the Soros question!
It’s been two weeks since I met with my confidant who told me that Matt Mackowiak has to go, and that he [my confidant] believes that intimates within Flores inner- and personal circle don’t like, trust, or think Matt is very helpful – and in fact believe he is a liability.
My confidant told me that he is not the only GOP Party Leader who thinks this.
More than one former candidate thinks this.
Multiple Curnock supporters think this.
Texas 17 citizens think this.
Note the conversation on Facebook recently, forwarded to me by another Flores supporter TODAY when I asked if they thought Matt was a liability:
Identifying information has been removed because we do not have permissions of the conversants to reveal who they are. Suffice to say I've never heard of the one who complains about Bill's "handlers," but I am told she's quite the Flores supporter.
Basically, all of Texas 17 thinks this, Matt.
Citizen: Ask yourself this:
Why is there no real grassroots support for Flores?
Because Matt doesn’t want it. He thinks that Washington has the answers, and knowing the right people will bring a victory because those people will influence the “little people”:
Remember, Matt is the Twit-In-Charge of the @flores4congress Twitter account. He’s the one tweeting…not Bill:
But you and I don’t care about the muckity mucks and what they think. We care about what affects us every day. That’s what is meant by all politics being local. Matt will be done and go back to Washington in November. You and I will be left here to live with his mess. Slash and burn for Mackowiak’s career…that’s all you, Bill, and I are.
Matt has spent some $80,000 on labor for his congressional campaign – nearly all of that on Washington “advisors”. He’s spent tens of thousands of more dollars on Political Consultants from Dallas and Virginia, advertising from New York, web services from the Grand Caymans, and even signage out of Houston and Huntsville.
Mackowiak asks Chet “where are the jobs” while Matt gives the jobs to people outside the District who are not qualified to speak for the district.
Why?
Because Matt needs a job after Flores loses.
And a political consultant can claim victory when his client wins, and can claim the client didn’t do what he says when the client loses.
Then he brings his contacts to the next candidate – contacts found and funded with the resources of the previous client…in this case Flores.
Flores has put over $600,000 of his own money into this campaign. Another $800,000 has come from individuals. The NRCC said he’d get a quarter million ($250,000) – they told this to Paul Rieger back during the primary who told me this in January– that whoever won the primary would get that $250,000 because they were interested in sending Chet Edwards packing.
So far they’ve spent $7,000 in the district. On network television.
Meanwhile, Matt places a media buy today for television ads…on local network television. The major markets, particularly Waco and Bryan/College Station, are student markets with kids just now coming to school. The networks have very limited play here – it’s all about Cable, baby! But does a Washington Insider know that?
No.
Does he care?
No.
He cares about where his next campaign is going to be.
As my confidant said, “It doesn’t matter to Matt if he’s here or in Davenport, Iowa.”
What else shows that Matt is losing this race for us while winning it for himself?
Every two years, every District 17 resident knows that Chet Edwards gets his signs out on the first day of August. You can set your watch by it. The first sign I saw popped up after dusk on the night of July 31, about six blocks from my house.
Matt’s signs didn’t even get to HQ until two weeks ago. They are just now starting to get out. Edwards has nearly a one month lead on Mackowiak…er, Flores. Why? Because Matt follows the national policy that signage out before 60 days is wasted or causes voter fatigue.
In Texas 17, all it does is give Chet Edwards a head start. He caught the college students and their parents moving in who won’t think again until they vote. Combine that with his familiarity and the consistency of the red and white signs, and Flores has an uphill battle for here on out just on sign placement. Just in Bryan alone, Edwards owns 29th Street, Texas Avenue, Carter Creek, South College and Coulter.
Need another Matt misstep?
How about this “moneybomb” that the Flores Campaign is running until Midnight tonight?
Money Bombs are the purview of Independent or Tea Party candidates, and have been all the rage this year. I’ve participated in them from Jaynee Germond in Oregon 4 to Jake Towne in Pennsylvania 15 to RJ Harris and Howard Houchen in Oklahoma. The common thread is that these things are planned and promoted on the Internet and social media for WEEKS before they are run, and they are run for ONE DAY.
When did Matt tell everyone about his money bomb?
Monday. And that’s when it started. To go until tonight.
Now, we know that Flores will reach the goal, because they do not have to report exactly when donations came in…so they can say $17,000 was reached any number of ways…even by Flores donating to himself.
It’s PR, not substance.
Just like it was all PR when Flores said he would pay for a Town Hall if Obama and Edwards would hold one…five days before Obama was to come to Austin. We all know POTUS couldn’t change a schedule easily, even if he wanted to.
Cheap PR from Matt Mackowiak again…something Texans do not fall for.
Just like it’s PR when Mackowiak has Flores challenge Edwards to give back the money Charlie Rangel’s PAC gave to Edwards’ campaign over the last dozen years…while ignoring the fact that George Soros gave Flores’ company millions – the same degree of separation. As soon as Flores asks Edwards about Rangel in a debate, Edwards will immediately respond with Soros.
Matt made that possible.
It’s all PR – and Texans, including Bill Flores, are above that. We actually think around here.
How else do we know Matt is winning while you, Flores, and I lose?
Money.
Matt sold you a bill of goods during the primary. He let you buy into the idea that “Bill Flores is the only person who can stand up against Chet Edwards’ money.” I heard Bill say it himself at one of the forums here in Bryan: “I’m the only candidate with the resources to match Chet’s expected spending.”
Guess what? Chet has $2,145,000 Cash On Hand compared to Bill’s $400,000. That’s a 5-to-1 ratio.
And you want Bill to foot the costs…another $1.7 Million, so you can get rid of Chet?
You Alphabet Kids are a bunch of selfish Second Handers. If Bill Flores decided to be a Socialist in Congress you would deserve it, because he suffered the cost of the election…you just wanted to ride on some rich guy’s coattails.
If you don’t support Bill Flores with your own money, you’re a leech. That’s why my check is going to him tomorrow. And his sign is out in front of my house. Now.
My Flores sign. In My yard. Got yours?
Not only does Bill have to win. Matt has to lose. Appropriately as a side benefit, Chet will be out of a job.
Bill: You need real District 17 advisors. Get rid of Matt.
If you don’t, you will lose.
If you do, I have it on VERY good authority that Curnock and his supporters will flock to you in droves.
If you don’t, all you will have for your time and money is a busted campaign, a bunch of wounded soldiers in the field, and the right to run for office when gerrymandering separates us from Waco in a couple of years – a right which will be offset by YOUR failure (not Matt’s…he’ll be working in Davenport!) to close this deal.
If you want to invest in your community and its citizens, get rid of the liability and focus on the assets. Dump Matt Mackowiak and your Washington “experts” and let people like Paul Rieger, Scott Kimble, Colin Witt, Dave McIntyre, Randy Hermes, and maybe even me help you win.
We’re from here. Let US win this for you. And for us.
[Editor's Note: This has been a work in progress for several weeks, and has received collaboration from many people from many parts of Texas 17 - all of whom are remaining un-acknowledged to keep Mackowiak guessing. Bill Flores knows who to confide in when asking around if this is true, and we know some of his family read this. Also, we are changing the "How Bill Flores Will Lose” tag to “How Matt Mackowiak Is Losing” to better describe the previous posts that commented upon the campaign.”
Kristofer Cowles has written 301 articles on this blog.
[...] County GOP Party Chair told me two months ago; when he and I discussed the miserable image Matt Mackowiak was giving Bill Flores. In fact, I had this discussion with him and seven other people within three days of each other, [...]
[...] again, The Candidate Matt Mackowiak was nowhere to be [...]
@One…
No harm no foul. No apologies needed. I understand wanting to be notified.
Consider the perspective of the reader, who doesn’t know anything about the people who commented (unless they could see the names and since I couldn’t I assumed nobody coul) so it’s a bunch of anonymous stuff to them.
A few months ago I had a comment submitted by someone who was quoted anonymously who outed themselves in their comment, which I did not post specifically because it was identifying information…a person VERY close to Bill Flores.
My purpose is to make sure there is information out there that is pertinent and the facebook conversation seemed quite prescient, while the people who said the stuff did not matter (in terms of who said it) – it could have been Marilyn Manson and William Shatner having the conversation and, since we specifically did not have their permission, we still would have redacted it.
The biggest thing is that I have learned to completely black out any identifying information…that way I’ll know people with better eyesight than me won’t see anything. I assumed it was redacted well with the blur because I received it from a well-sighted person. An assumption I won’t make again!
I think your comments on Flores, his handlers, and the campaign are spot on and show a general feeling we’ve talked about on the blog since December. I hopethe campaign gets it together soon…we have seven weeks left.
Thanks for participating! It’s all water under the bridge and, again, no offense or foul taken or intended. And don’t worry about the spelling…it’s probably pretty obvious I don’t!
Cheers!
And I do appreciate the fact that you completely blacked out the names as to there is no way at all to figure out by looking at the postings, unless you were part of the conversation, who it is.
Colin,
My intention was never to offend you or hurt your feelings. I simply was trying to figure out how my postings got on this blog. My apologies to you and i appreciate very much how you have kept up with my daughter’s medical condition, it does mean a great deal to me.
Regarding the topic. My only real complaint was that my comments (regardless if you could see my name) were used w/o my concent. I simply would rather just be notified not blind sided, which is why my comments came off as though i felt mistreated, misquoated, etc etc (i apoligize for my spelling errors, i seem to not be able to type today).
As for the quotes from facebook in the article. I stand by them, especially where I mention how impressed I was with Flores that he seems to be coming out of his shell. All politicians have “handlers” they can’t possibly always be worried about what they wear, what they say, and how they are portrayed during an election, now a days it takes a team of experts. I apologize for any misinterprtation on my part.
I have no idea who supplied the blogger with the information from my facebook page, however If they are reading I would hope they would see that I would appreciate a courtesy of asking me to use my comments (even with identifying information removed) before just submitting them to someone else. A courtesy notification, preferably before it’s posted. Make sense? Yes I know, I live in a dream world where people respect people’s privacy! Us Rural Texans….we still believe in that stuff!
I sincerly hope that we can all come together in November to unseat Chet Edwards and send a more conservative candidate to congress.
Reading through it again, I think it was the “has to be let out of his box” comment (and the rest of what that poster said) that seemed most relevant to this article. I know it was enlightening to me to read, because it brought out something that was forming in my mind but I hadn’t really put together until I read that comment.
And that was not a comment from the person whose thread this was, it was someone else.
The comment you mention about the box is what is prescient to this article, Colin.
Don’t sweat it Colin…there was nothing here that identified anyone from my POV – granted, a half-blind POV – but I have rectified it without comlaint about the derogatory approach towards me and the topic of who or how it was obtained or released is no longer and never was an issue. The topic of the post is the topic, and as much as I appreciate your heartfelt concern about your personal experience on the facebook discussion, it is irrelevant to the topic and though I will leave it up, anymore will be eliminated.
Consider it a forced return to the topic at hand, diverting the metaconversation to water under the bridge!
Cheers!
Wow, I saw the activity on this message and just went back looking for this on Facebook, took me a few minutes to remember where it was from. And I discovered that I have been unfriended by the person whose thread this was part of. As I recall, there were several people posting on that thread, and no one seemed upset about it.
This is a very nice person who I met during the primary, who I enjoyed reading Facebook updates from. I have prayed for this person’s child who has had medical difficulties. I saw this person’s update THIS MORNING about a new doctor’s report, and said a prayer of thanksgiving and encouragement on the spot. I have commented sparingly on this person’s posts, but have “liked” quite a few of them. This is a good person who is a true conservative. I think I am too.
I believe this graphic came from watching my Facebook comments … someone who saw that I had commented might well have clicked on that, and they would have seen the thread. If that’s the case, I’m very sorry if it offended anyone.
And now we are not Facebook friends because this person is offended by this message thread, believes their name was visible, and somehow blames me, I guess. That’s fine, I can handle it, but it’s sad that this has come between us. So if you’re seeing this, know that I will still pray for you and your child, and hope that whatever is going on here won’t stand in the way of Facebook friends.
The fact was “to the other blurred out person” The permission wasn’t asked by the other contributors to the conversation if it was alright to use their words. Other’s showed me this, and siad they knew who it was because they could read the names. If you don’t feel misrepresented that’s fine. I do. And we can disagree that is fine.
You are taking a conversation that started as something else compltely and changing it to be somethign against people when it was merely a comment saying that I was completely impressed that not only did Flores have the business apprerance he had a casual, personable apprerance and personality as well.
It’s just uncalled for to use people’s quotes you dont have permission to use in my opinion (not in my opinion) as well as make snarky comments at the bottom about what we said, when obviously you were not a part of the entire conversation that went further than the small conversation you were a part of!
You are more than welcome to elaborate and, as a participant (I am under the impression that this is the entire conversation and the words seem pretty clear that there’s an idea that Flores could do better without his Washington handlers), clarify any of the posts in the image. The discussion on this post is intended to do just that, and as long as the discussion relates to the actual topic as stated in the blog policies, anyone is welcome to participate in the discussion.
Thanks for chiming in! Hopefully our conversation will lead to a Flores victory!
I’m another of the people in the Facebook posts with a blurred out name. I can’t read mine or anyone else’s names, though I think I still remember who they all were (I’d have to go back and look … unless someone is busy deleting their posts right now).
I don’t think anyone is slandered or misrepresented in the discussion. Without revealing who I am or any of the other posters, you basically have:
Someone says Chet doesn’t want to talk to people, and Flores should.
Someone says that’s right, and Flores is the person to do it.
Someone says Flores is being overhandled and not answering things the way he really wants to (this is the part that ties in well with your article).
Someone agrees that at times he has looked over-rehearsed.
Someone says there was a candidate in the primaries who resisted being handled.
Someone says true.
Someone says there were 2 candidates in the primary who resisted being handled, and that listening is important for Flores to not look like an NRCC plant.
Someone says true.
Someone says very true, and Flores can do it, and he should start because Chet will ramp up soon.
I know one of the people in the discussion (have talked to this person several times, in the primary) and the other I don’t really know personally, though we have had exchanges of information before. Maybe just completely black out all of the names to make them happy. I can download the file and do that if you like …
I apreciate at least that, I would prefer you remove it.
The redacted image has been uploaded. You may have to relaod your browser to see the changes. Please let me know if I have missed something.
Okay, no sweat. I will black them out.
I have a feeling I know who it was and I have taken care of that problem.
Actually my facebook is not open to the general public i have it blocked to anyone who isn’t my friend for this very reason! I am pretty sure I am even unsearchable! So that takes care of the “general public theory”.
The informaiton that identifies all of us is the names you “blurred out!” At least black them out! Black out the locations of what/where we are talking about!
If you want to continue this post on, that is your right, It is just my wish that you be a bigger person and remove any question that you could read the names.
Yeah go ahead and inform that person I found out. If they want to talk to me about it, they know who I am and can figure out how to get in touch with me. Obviously they figured it was ok to screen shot my facebook!
I don’t care if you believe me or not. That does not change the truth. None of it had to be blurred out because of the public access to that conversation…your name, wherever it may be, is visible to the general public in the facebook conversation, so it’s a courtesy to even attempt to blur the information out.
I am blind in one eye, so I can’t see what you are talking about and went on good faith that the appropriate itemse were redacted.
You can reach me directly at blog [at] kristofercowles [dot] com and tell me exactly where the information that identifies you is, and I will redact it.
Then I will inform the person who sent me the file that they may want to let you know they sent it to me, in case they want to reverse your disbelief…though I doubt you would believe them, now.
Your call.
Somehow I don’t believe you. However my POINT was, Everyone who reads it clearly can read my name without me telling them it is my name.
I don’t appreciate you using my words without my permission, and then not using all of them twisting the context and what the actual converation was about!
Please remove the information, especially the names ( you can read all of them, unless you have really terrible eyesight!)
I don’t expect you to agree with my political position, I am a firm Texas Conservative, I just expect you to respect me as a person and not use information you did not have permission to use.
Well you didn’t do a good job of removing identifying information, I can clearly read my name!
Maybe you should have copied the entire conversation and you would have understood the conversation!
If you are going to use my quotes, and you don’t want to ask me, do a better job of blurring my name out!
The information was sent to me, in the form you see it, by another participant in the conversation. I did no edits extant to those I received.
Scott Kimble asked me to read this post. I see you have come around to my point of view. Thanks for the apology for the ridiculous statements you made about me.
I never have talked to Matt. I saw him as a political hack from the begining. All my Flores contact has been directly with Bill, or through his son Will. Several months ago, I took the time to get to know Bill Flores. Originally, when I was reading the crap Matt was spouting, I too believed Flores was a RINO and I said so. But, I know now that he is not a RINO. No matter how much less conservative he will be that Rob Curnock would have been, we can’t afford to keep Chet.
One thing I can guarantee is that Bill Flores will not vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. And, that is important. I firmly believe the Republicans will take back both the House and the Senate. But, if that doesn’t happen, we need to remove Nancy as Speaker. To do that, we have to get people to vote for Flores.
Again, even though it wasn’t an express apology to me, it was an apology to me none the less. Thanks for admitting I was right. It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong.
I hope everyone who reads this post understands that beating Chet is our number 1 goal. As Bill is the only competition this fall, he must act quickly to earn the votes and support of Conservative grass root voters in this district. The real Bill Flores needs to become our candidate NOW, which will not happen so long as Matt, the RNC and the NRCC are in control.
Looking back at what has transpired since December of last year and assuming that I am correct about the type of man the real Bill Flores is, this information fills in most of the gaps. However, why have the “leaders” of the Republican party in this district kept their mounths shut for so long? Had they done what they we elected them to do, Chet would have been forced to spend the money in his campaign war chest instead of continuing to use our tax money to campaign and to face the voters of this district in real debates and meetings instead of ones that he controls! One thought would be that they do not believe that Chet is going to loose and they did not want to make him mad!
If anyone has Bill’s ear, please get this message to him: STOP DEPENDING ON WASHINGTON TO DO A TEXAN’S JOB!! WE WANT NO WASHINGTON POLITICS/INFLUENCE IN TEXAS. DO THE RIGHT THING AND YOU WILL DEFEAT CHET-KEEP DOING WHAT YOU ARE AND WE GET 2 OR MORE YEARS OF THE SAME OLD THING.
One undeniable thing is that Matt absolutely crushed us in the primary runoff. Granted, a general election is a different thing. I did see the email you linked too, a few days after Matt sent it out. You are right that it was unfounded, and it made a lot of us pretty mad. I never really considered during the primary campaign that maybe Bill Flores wasn’t the source of this, maybe it was Matt all along.
Much to think about. I will try to write up a more substantive response soon.
Well, you certainly do know how to make a statement! Nice article, good research. I agree completely with the premise, but I need some time to gather my thoughts and reply more extensively. I’ll have something more substantive int he next day or two.
Let me ask you this … is 2 months out enough time to make a change and not be seen as faltering? That concerns me.
I think two months out is enough time…but Bill has to come out very adamant that we’re gonna do it the Texas way, not the Washington way. Telling Matt to take a hike also helps eliminate Matt from messing up other campaigns in the future elsewhere…which will happen if he’s allowed to continue in this position. And that will only leave us as a country in a worse position.
Incidentally, this Tweet came across my screen moments after posting. Ironic…
I posted your name at the end because I think Bill would benefit greatly from your experience and advice when Matt is gone. Hope you don’t mind the plug. An endorsement from me may be like Obama endorsing someone…I dunno!