Everybody knows Dan Crenshaw.
That’s because Crenshaw sports a trademark eye patch covering his glass eye proudly etched with the Navy SEAL Trident that he’ll gladly show. That glass eye reveals his never-quit, think-outside-the-box attitude that is the hallmark of his campaign.
“I’ve become pretty recognizable,” said the Republican candidate running for retiring Congressman Ted Poe’s 2nd Congressional seat. “I love going to ice houses, restaurants, other events and just walking around talking to people. I don’t have to introduce myself quite as much as I did before.”
- Says Navy SEAL skills Says Navy SEAL skills prepared him for role -
After graduating from Tufts University minoring in physics, Crenshaw earned his Naval officer commission and accomplished what he considers his most significant accomplishment, serving his country as a SEAL, the Navy’s primary operations force. He deployed to Iraq twice and then to Afghanistan where he lost his right eye to an IED blast.
What he learned as a SEAL, Crenshaw believes has prepared him to represent the 2nd Congressional District.
“I have led some of the best men to ever serve in combat and the stakes can never be higher than bearing the responsibility of leadership in combat,” Crenshaw said. “The decisions I made there had a very real outcome for my men and the civilian population we were working to protect. That leadership, in the toughest of situations, has prepared me to lead in the most difficult of situations.”
One difficult situation Crenshaw will face if elected is the concern Lake Houston residents have about future flooding.
“Flood mitigation has been a focus of my campaign because I consider flooding to be a major threat to our congressional district,” said Crenshaw. “I will fight to get the critical dredging we need and the addition of more tainter gates on the Lake Houston dam.”
“Who better to kick down the door of the Army Corps of Engineers than a Navy SEAL?” he said.
In addition to flooding, Crenshaw identified three top priorities: taxes and spending, economic growth, and illegal immigration.
“We must get spending under control for the sake of future generations,” he said. “We must tamp down on regulations which stifle opportunity, job creation and growth and innovation, and we must secure the border, enforcing existing law and dealing humanely with those who are here and coming here.”
Crenshaw’s father was a petroleum engineer, so he grew up all over the world – Colombia, Egypt and Scotland, he said, “… and none of that compares to playing soccer in Katy and going to see the Astros play in the Dome. Houston has always been home.”
His role model is his mother – a nutritionist in the Katy school district who fought breast cancer for five years and passed away when he was 10. Before she died, she told young Dan he would soar to great heights.
“I’m also blessed to have Tara, my wife, by my side as I campaign,” Crenshaw said. “She’s a friend, an adviser, a confidant; not to mention she has great instincts.”
Crenshaw said he’s ready to go to Washington to lead the fight for pro-growth economic policies, common sense and Texas values.
“I’m your man,” he said, “prepared and ready to lead. I won’t need on-the-job training.”
To learn more about the campaign, visit .
hoabinhre asked Crenshaw about five controversial topics. His unedited responses are:
NAFTA: NAFTA has been largely beneficial to the U.S. economy. Free trade is a good thing, not only for us, but for our trading partners. By creating more opportunities in Mexico, specifically in the maquiladoras, we keep Mexicans from feeling the need to flee their country for ours and lowering costs for consumers. While some oppose NAFTA on the grounds that it has taken U.S. manufacturing jobs, the biggest culprit for the decline has been China and technological change. In fact, NAFTA, with its cross-border supply chains, allowed the U.S. to lower costs, increase productivity and remain competitive with China in auto manufacturing.
Funding a Wall: When it comes to securing the country, no cost is too high. The wall is projected by the DHS to cost $21.6 billion. Senate Democrats, no proponents of the wall, reported the cost to be $70 billion. According to CNBC, in 2017 Americans spent more than $7 billion on Fourth of July cookouts and fireworks. For Christmas 2016, Americans were projected to spend more than $1 trillion. While I am against unnecessary spending, protecting our great nation at its border and points of entry is vital to our national security. Protecting our people is one of the few jobs of the federal government.
#MeToo Movement: The #MeToo movement is not a partisan one, it is a moral and ethical one. It is immoral and unethical for any man, especially a man in a position of power, to take advantage of that power to prey on anyone. This is not a problem isolated in Hollywood, but sadly present in the U.S. Congress. Here in Texas we had a Congressman, Blake Farenthold, who resigned from Congress because of allegations of gender discrimination, sexual harassment and hostile work environment. His resignation and the resulting special election, and the Office of Compliance’s settlement with the victim, cost taxpayers more than $85,000 to pay for his predatory behavior. This is unacceptable. I am glad some of the predators who have victimized women and men are being named and will face justice for their immoral and unethical acts.
Medicare for All: Medicare for all is not realistic, it’s a talking point designed to gain votes by bribing taxpayers with their own money, according to the Mercatus Center at George Washington University, $32 trillion of their own money over the next 10 years. The system does not need to be expanded; it needs to be reformed if it is to remain solvent. We need more competition in the medical insurance market so it is more competitive and therefore more affordable. We need to detach medical insurance from employment, and we need to expand the ability for individuals to contribute to Health Savings Accounts. Government is not the solution here, it is the problem.
The Bullet Train to Dallas: I am for the concept, but I am not sold on the execution. I am wary of the use of the takings clause to force landowners to part with their land. I am concerned about rural property owners whose land will be split with a high speed rail and the resulting decrease in property value. I like the idea of another option to go between Houston and Dallas but think it could be done more effectively and not at the sake of Texas landowners.