TDP = FUBAR

Very well put! (5.00 / 3)

I'm glad that I'm not the only one upset about this.  I'll definitely be calling the party office on Monday morning!!!!

Hank

---

by: hank @ Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 18:03:45 PM UTC

Who specifically do we call? (4.00 / 2)

I am so outraged that I need to go medicate myself for the rest of the day.  It is NO WONDER Republicans keep winning!

ASIDE: It was wonderful to here your speech and to meet you.

---

by: TXsharon @ Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 18:10:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Other candidates who did not get to speak (5.00 / 3)

Dale Henry
Railroad Commissioner
Dale Henry
3578 Hwy 183 South
Lampasas, TX 76550
(512) 564-1448

Who cares about the RR Commissioner?  He only has power over oil companies, drilling, transportation and something as insignificant as water.  Why would Texans care about those things?  Who needs to hear what he has to say?

(Dale came to a Wise County Democrats meeting and spoke.  He has some good ideas for Texas.  Too bad he didn't get to share those.)

Justice, Texas Supreme Court, Pl. 2
William E. "Bill" Moody
285 Puesta Del Sol
El Paso, TX 79912
(915) 546-2101

Somebody remind me again how it was that Republicans got a stronghold in Texas.  Could it have been by taking over the Judicial and Executive branches?  Who cares about a Texas Supreme Court judge?

Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals
J.R. Molina
1301 North Houston St.
Fort Worth, TX 76106
(817) 624-4700

Somebody remind me again how it was that Republicans got a stronghold in Texas.  Could it have been by taking over the Judicial and Executive branches?  Who cares about a Texas Supreme Court judge?

---

by: TXsharon @ Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 18:47:17 PM UTC

Incorrect (3.00 / 1)

All three of these candidates spoke. You just didn't stick around long enough to see them.

To my knowledge, other than Valinda, there's only one person who was on the schedule but didn't get a chance to speak: Rep. Senfronia Thompson. (And it's possible that she spoke just before the tribute to Speaker Laney - I left for lunch for about an hour, and I'm not sure)

---

by: paulrobeson @ Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 23:03:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

actually (5.00 / 1)

thompson spoke on saturday.

Fudd's first law of opposition: Push something hard enough and it will fall over.

---

by: annatopia @ Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 23:29:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep. (3.00 / 1)

Like I said, I was out to lunch.

Which, now that I think about it, is how I'm often described these days.

---

by: paulrobeson @ Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 23:41:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

a 2 rating? (0.00 / 0)

That's what I get for trying to bring a little levity to the debate? Somebody needs to chill out.

---

by: paulrobeson @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 22:52:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

a 2 isn't bad (3.00 / 1)

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 01:06:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In and of itself, no (0.00 / 0)

but when the same person is handing out 5's left and right to poorly thought out and overly aggressive posts in the same thread, it's a different story. It's all about perspective.

---

by: paulrobeson @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:03:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ahhh (5.00 / 1)

poorly thought out and overly aggressive posts in the same thread, it's a different story.

Your lens might need cleaning.

---

by: TXsharon @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:10:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Couple of scratches (0.00 / 0)

but other than that, it seems pretty clear.

---

by: paulrobeson @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:17:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It has to do with agreement and disagreement (0.00 / 0)

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 19:01:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hey paul, at the time i could only rate a 1,2,3 (5.00 / 1)

and 2 was for 'good', so sorry if it came across like i was knocking ya, i was actually hoping to say i agree, that your comment was 'good.'

there does seem to be some misunderstanding/disagreement with the stated (probably legal) goals of the convention. so they should be changed but for now they arent yet.

it IS unfortunate that the goals are essentially internal business, and i thought you did a 'good' job of pointing that out and holding your responses, even when misdirected bursts came your way.

i am pleased to announce i can now rate higher, so watch out peoples!

mario

-my comments at BOR are mine, and do not represent anything official from LFT.

---

by: mariochampion @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 14:20:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mario (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the kind reply. Actually, though, I wasn't talking about you.

I appreciate the positive feedback.

---

by: paulrobeson @ Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 04:36:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Moody (4.00 / 2)

I do know that Moody spoke, and was introduced by Bob Gammage on Saturday after the TDP chair vote.

After the TDP Chair vote the floor literally cleared out to maybe 10% of those there, with delegates from both candidates strongholds leaving the floor.

This is my first comment since being back from the convention, I'll hopefully have a couple of round ups in the next day.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 23:34:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was back in the arena to hear Bill Moody (4.00 / 2)

I heard Bob Slagle finally say: "I think we have another candidate." I think that was after the judicial candidates were presented but am not certain. Dale Henry told me yesterday that it was 6 p.m. when he was introduced. So I figure that they called Valinda late in the convention after 5 and before 7 p.m..  I got home at 8:30 and only live 30 minutes away.

I had decided that Dale was probably gone too and left before he spoke. But he gave me a capsule of his speech over the telephone.  He is an incredibly nice, pleasnt human being.

Giving the State Wide Nominees of the Democratic Party slots on the program after the convention late afternoon on Saturday is virtually slating them to address about 10% of the delegation and facing a dark hall of predominately empty seats. Everyone who has experience with Democratic State Conventions understands exactly what that slot on the schedule means. It also communicates to the delegates and the media that the party doesn't value that candidate enough to PUSH them to the public and party activists. It is a kiss of death for most campaigns. In this case, it was an unnecessary decision, it was self-serving on the part of Boyd Ritchie and Rueben Hernandez and Bob Slagle, (and many Maxey supporters who supported it), and it was counterproductive to the MAIN PURPOSE for the very existence of the Texas Democratic Party!

Valinda and Dale are not damaged nearly as much as the PARTY ITSELF. Dale is an incredible nice guy and he lets things like this roll off of him. VaLinda is very upset and I don't blame her. Everyone who was glad to hear Hank Gilbert but thinks this schedule snafu was o.k. needs to take this one last point in:  If Fred Head had taken his full 10 minutes to speak instead of 9, he'd have run to 1:00 instead of 12:59. As it was he stopped at 12:59. If he'd run until 1 p.m. they would not have introduced Hank Gilbert until after the State Party races. Reading this blog, you can tell that many folks who heard Hank came to realize how strong a candidate he is in this party. If they had gone home first, they probably wouldn't have had opportunity to learn what those of us close to him already know! 

Boyd Ritchie and Reuben Hernandez did not stand behind the committments they made to the candidates Friday regarding them all being allowed to address the conventon one after another beginning at noon. 

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 13:14:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was going by Hank Gilbert's post (5.00 / 1)

Since I have already spoken with and questioned Dale at our monthly meeting, I left for a short while and returned to discover that Valinda, one of the candidates I particularly wanted to hear, was not allowed to speak. 

The fact that she was the only one makes it even worse.  With all the time that was wasted, surely 10 minutes more wouldn't have hurt anything!

Thanks, now I'm madder than ever!

---

by: TXsharon @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 00:22:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They spoke after the majority of the delegates had left the hall (5.00 / 1)

Those in charge of the schedule knew that the hall would be empty.  They pushed the Land Commissioner and Rail Road Commissioner Candidate to 6 p.m. She'd become so disgusted that she left the building.  It's a shame because at least we could have heard her speech on video. However, I don't blame her. These candidates were left in limbo by the convention planners until we started blogging about the fact that they still didn't know when they were scheduled to speak and couldn't plan any side meetings on anything until the party communicated with them. Then Friday afternoon, I think in response to the heat that began generating to Boyd Ritchie and Rueben Hernandez, they finally called the candidates and told them that they had moved them up to the noon slot. Boyd Ritchie himself told me that there were 8 statewide candidates who had to be scheduled to speak in that slot because the US Senatorial Candidate and Governor candidates would speak earlier.  Boyd said each candidate would be given ten minutes. This is not heresay. Boyd Ritchie told me this himself over the telephone and I'll take an oath to it if challenged!  My math says 8 x 10 equals 80 minutes and I have yet in my lifetime to encounter an hour with 80 minutes in it. THEY KNEW UP FRONT THAT THE THE NOMINEES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR PUBLIC OFFICE WOULD REQUIRE AT LEAST UNTIL 1:20 to allow all of them to speak one after another starting at noon YET THEY INFORMED THE CANDIDATES THAT THEY WOULD BE CUT OFF AT 1 and the others would have to wait until after the election of state party officers. That meant, and everyone talking about it with half a brain knew exactly what it meant, that the candidates who were shuffled to the last of the convention would address a nearly empty arena.

The STATE CHAIR race was more important to BOYD RITCHIE and those inside the party HQ office who thought they'd probably have a more likely time if he were electd than if a change candidate were elected.

This was not right.  Yes some of us heard the judicial candidate. Many others were unable to. Folks, some folks had to leave because the only flights back that day were late afternoon. Some had to ride with others and the driver controlled when they left. Others had health problems and could't continue to hold out because of exhaustion. There are many reasons why delegates can't stay into the night on Saturday at the convention other than not caring enough. There also was little communication to the delegation about what was going on and when the candidates would speak. Some of us had other rsponsiblities occuring in other parts of the convention hall which had to be attended to. I hobbled back and forth between the arena and the exhibit hall numerous times Saturday afternoon attempting to hear the last state wide candidates.

I voted for Bob Slagle to conduct the meeting because I knew nothing about the other candidate. Howevr, I truly hope someone else is elected permanent chair of the convention next year! He didn't even know the names of some of the candidates. It's time for him to retire from the job!

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:47:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i am outraged (5.00 / 2)

this was unacceptable.  sharon, when you find out who to call please let me know.

Fudd's first law of opposition: Push something hard enough and it will fall over.

---

by: annatopia @ Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 19:05:47 PM UTC

YOU CONTACT SDEC MEMBERS and BOYD RITCHIE (4.00 / 2)

Voice your discontent with everyone who persuaded you to back these candidates if you did. I have already spoken with my SDEC committee man and he agrees with me.  However, it will take the entire SDEC (or at least a strong part of it) to move to change the schedule and priorities for the next convention. Reuben Hernandez and Boyd Ritchie controlled the schedule. Bob Slagle presided over it.

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:49:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not to be snarky, but... (3.25 / 4)

While I do find it disappointing that Ms. Hathcox was unable to address the full arena, I disagree with much of this post.

You may not care who the party chair is, but many delegates obviously did. And I think you should join them in that feeling. Whether our candidates win in November or not, the party chair will be one of the premire voices among Texas Democrats. Based on Saturday's election, it will be Boyd Richie's job to effectively wave the banner, build up an infrastructure, and raise funds. That's pretty important. And, although you may not believe it now, you'd probably hate it even more if choosing the chair was totally left up to party insiders.

You thought that too much time was wasted on electing the chair? Well, say hello to democracy. There's a reason that Congress sometimes work until the wee hours of the morning. Finding concensus is often a slow process, and it's meant to be that way.

In terms of choosing between showcasing candidates and building a platform, I would argue that candidates are less important than the party platform. The Democratic Party is the entity, and the candidates are just an extension. Or rather, the platform is the message, the candidates are just the messengers. While it would be great to hear each and every one of them speak and learn about their backgrounds and see their husbands and wives and kids, the truth is that we shouldn't need to. If they are true Democrats, then we already know what they stand for and why we should vote for them.

Also, the party rules state the following:

The purpose of the State Convention shall be to elect a State Chair, First Vice Chair, Vice Chair for Finance, Secretary and Treasurer; to elect the 62 members of the SDEC from their respective senatorial districts; to adopt a platform which embodies the basic principles of the Democratic Party and which sets forth its positions on current issues of statewide significance for the November General Election; to announce the nominations for Governor and other state offices; and to attend to any other appropriate business.

If you believe that the convention should serve as more of a showcase for candidates, perhaps you might consider getting the rules changed to do so. I hear that there's a committee for that...

---

by: paulrobeson @ Sun Jun 11, 2006 at 23:39:27 PM UTC

Not to be snarky BUT (3.67 / 3)

Whether our candidates win in November or not, the party chair will be one of the premire voices among Texas Democrats.

I'm not even going to try to imagine what might happen in Texas if our candidates don't win!  There is NOTHING more important right now than getting control of our government back!

Based on Saturday's election, it will be Boyd Richie's job to effectively wave the banner, build up an infrastructure, and raise funds. That's pretty important

I sure as hell hope he does a better job than what is happening now!  Right now there is NO infrastructure unless you are at the very top of the ticket.  That is why I no longer give money to the TDP!

I would argue that candidates are less important than the party platform.  Or rather, the platform is the message, the candidates are just the messengers.

 

Jesus Man!  I can't wait to see how well a bunch of Republicans carry out OUR message!

Without elected Democrats, the platform is just a piece of paper because there ARE NO MESSENGERS to give the message.

Maybe it would be a good idea to have a separate time to elect the party chair.  It might be REALLY nice if they could streamline the process.

There is no reason that this issue can't be solved to the satisfaction of all.  I believe that we are smart enough to elect chairs, conduct business and showcase candidates. 

---

by: TXsharon @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 00:18:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It seems to me that (2.67 / 3)

Your anger is misdirected.

You say that the election of the party chair is not important business, but then you complain about the lack of party infrastructure - something that falls under the purview of the chair.

You say that you don't give money to the party because they don't distribute it to enough candidates. But you ignore the fact that they can't give large amounts of money to each of the candidates, because they have no donor base. They put the money where they hope it will do the most good.

And I think that you misunderstood Hank Gilbert's post. It doesn't sound like a decision was made to keep Valinda from speaking. It just sounds like she couldn't stick around long enough to do so. Every other scheduled speaker took the stage.

Perhaps the question you should be asking is why 90% of the delegates, apparently including yourself, chose to leave a convention before it had adjourned. Travis County, for instance, had maybe 15 delegates remain til the end - and that's a generous estimation. It seems that the very business that you deem unimportant was the main reason for the presence of a great many people.

Certainly, there should be a way to schedule the convention to focus attention on all the statewide candidates and conduct party affairs. And it looks like the best way to do that would be to have a contested party chair vote as the very last piece of business.

Also, the candidates spent two days in a convention center full of good Democrats. There were ample opportunities for them to address the delegates, though certainly in smaller numbers than in the full arena. But the possibilities were there, and you even posted that you experienced some. Valinda briefly addressed the SD 14 Caucus. I was at a workshop that was interrupted by speeches from Hank Gilbert and Barbara Ann Radnofsky. They all had booths in the exhibit hall. If people wanted to learn about these candidates, they possessed that ability. 

You can quibble with the schedule or the process, but the convention accomplished just about all its goals.

---

by: paulrobeson @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:27:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not misdirected (3.67 / 3)

especially in light of this post by Larry Stallings

Do you have any idea how great the sacrifices our candidates make EVERY day!  They are putting themselves on the line for US!  There is NOTHING more important!

You say that you don't give money to the party because they don't distribute it to enough candidates. But you ignore the fact that they can't give large amounts of money to each of the candidates, because they have no donor base. They put the money where they hope it will do the most good.

And I wonder why it is that they have no donor base?  (rhetorical question)  It's kind of like that platform comment up thread.

Also, the candidates spent two days in a convention center full of good Democrats. There were ample opportunities for them to address the delegates.

NO!  There weren't!  It is very noisy in there which is why in my post you referenced I said that I was looking forward to hearing the speeches--BECAUSE I COULDN'T HEAR THEM.  You know what it's like in there, especially when you are working.  There is little time to talk to a candidate without constant interruptions.  Trust that I tried.

If TDP can't contribute to the down ticket candidates, it could make up for that by not treating them as stepchildren at the convention.

FYI, I am not a delegate.  I am a registered Democrat who is volunteering to help candidates get elected.  Had I been a delegate, I would have made every effort to stay until the bitter end. Please refer to my other post about streamlining the process etc.

I am not saying that there was not important business to conduct.  Do not manipulate my words!  Still, they should not have stopped the candidates speeches.

Certainly, there should be a way to schedule the convention to focus attention on all the statewide candidates and conduct party affairs. And it looks like the best way to do that would be to have a contested party chair vote as the very last piece of business.

That sounds like a good start.  Very dead last.

---

by: TXsharon @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:55:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Once again (2.50 / 2)

I think that your jabs lack accuracy.

I know exactly the types of sacrifices that candidates make every day. But the message of the party comes before individual candidates. Obviously, you feel the same way, because in this diary you talk repeatedly about how much time you spent on getting signatures for the impeachment resolution. That would be one minor issue, which has nothing in particular to do with getting individual candidates elected.

Yes, it's disappointing that candidates such as Larry Stallings got the push upon the arrival of Party Chair candidates. But why do they put sex and violence in the movies? Because that's what sells.

As I said before, most of the delegates felt no great need to stay after the chair was elected. And, no disrespect intended, Valinda Hathcox apparently felt that she had more important matters to attend to, rather than stay until 5pm and address hundreds of Democrats. Once again, she was the only scheduled speaker who didn't eventually take the stage.

You couldn't HEAR THE CANDIDATES in the exhibit hall? That sucks, but it's a minor problem that could be easily remedied next time by providing small amplifiers to the candidates. It doesn't mean that the whole machinery of the party or process of the convention is broken.

And once again, you perpetuate the vicious fundraising circle. You don't give money to the state party. The state party uses their limited funds to push the races with a higher profile. Then you say that you aren't going to give money because you don't like how they spend it.

You said in this diary that you hadn't really known what a Land Commissioner does. Not surprising, because most voters don't know, and don't care. But they know what a governor does, and what a senator does. So those stick out in their mind. And those are the races that get funded more.

I worked in restaurants for ten years. I always thought that one of the most important jobs in any restaurant was that of the dishwasher. Yet the dishwasher is the least paid worker in the joint. It's not glamorous and it sucks, but that's just the way it is.

And now, two quick points:

FYI, I am not a delegate.  I am a registered Democrat who is volunteering to help candidates get elected.  Had I been a delegate, I would have made every effort to stay until the bitter end.

I don't know what this means. I thought we were all at the convention to help candidates get elected.

And judging from these comments:

I don’t care about who the party chair is!  What difference can it possibly make to an organization that is so completely out of touch with what is important

What difference does it make who is in charge of our party if we waste so much time electing that person that most of the delegates give up and have to go home before they get to critical business?

What difference does the wording in our platform make if we don’t get candidates elected to carry out the platform?

How I am manipulating your words when I say that you call the business of the party unimportant?

The problems that you cite are annoying and disappointing. But a sign of a FUBAR party? I don't think so.

---

by: paulrobeson @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:22:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I got signatures while I was working in (4.00 / 2)

candidates' booths as people came by.

HOWEVER, this diary is not about what I did or didn't do so stop deflecting!

THIS IS ABOUT CANDIDATES WHO WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO THE FULL AUDITORIUM.  THEY WERE TREATED LIKE STEPCHILDREN.

Your comments proove that the party thinking is stuck and needs to change.  If people don't know what a certain position can do for them then you educated them.  One way to do that is by letting the candidate tell them herself.

You are just proving my point:  TDP highlights the top of the ticket and ignores the rest!  WRONG!  WRONG!  WRONG!

---

by: TXsharon @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:38:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You keep running all around the problem (4.00 / 2)

giving the candidates amplifiers so they can stump in the hall is a good idea.

HOWEVER, it does not address the point of this journal which is:

Someone made a VERY BAD decision when they did not allow the candidates to speak!

That is the issue and there are plenty of people who are pissed about it!

---

by: TXsharon @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:43:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, please. (2.67 / 3)

I'm not running around the problem and I'm not deflecting. In fact, I've addressed all of your points head on.

I understand that people are upset about this, and they should be. But, as I've already shown, the rules of the party dictate that a party chair will be chosen at the convention. They DO NOT dictate that the convention be used as a showcase for the candidates. If you don't like it, help to get the rules changed.

You said that the main reason that you attended the convention was to hear all of the candidates speak. And that's great, but it may not have been the main reason for the majority of the body. And obviously it wasn't, or else they'd have stuck around longer.

And if they had put off the voting for State Chair until the end, can you imagine the response among the blogs? There would be post after post, diary after diary, about how the vote was rigged for one of the candidates. Oh, they knew that most of candidate x's supporters would have to leave, so they put it off to give candidate y a safe majority!!!!!That would have been disastrous, and utterly divisive at a time that calls for true unity.

I agree with you in terms of the importance placed on the party chair race. It represented far too much of the focus for this convention. But it was an election! Imagine that, people getting fired up about an election! Not to mention, it was the first time in twenty or thirty years since they'd had one of these at the convention. If there were mistakes made in terms of timing, it was more a matter of unfamiliarity than intended disrespect.

Plus, it's a shared responsibility. Delegates weren't forced to leave after the vote. They could have stuck around, but they chose not to. It was a Saturday, for crying out loud. It's not like everybody had to be back at work on Sunday. Heck, I stuck around til the end, and still managed to drive to Dallas to see The Twilight Singers play.

The truth is, you should be mad about all of the people that left early. Because it's reflective of what's REALLY wrong with the party and the state of democracy in America: people get fired up for their own little personal battles, and then check out. They're not in it for the long haul, and they don't stay until the job is truly done.

---

by: paulrobeson @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 13:11:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Paul, we thought we were there to help candidates get elected too! (5.00 / 1)

The party business is important. However when we make it the main thing, we defeat the purpose of having a party.

When we are so out of touch with our goals and objectives that a number of people argue that merely because it is not spelled out in the rules that we HEAR OUR STATE WIDE CANDIDATES SPEECHES at convention that it is not the business of the convention to SHOWCASE these nominess and to schedule their speeches at a time when most delegates are on the floor.. well somehow many of us get them impression (from words we hear and read -- some coming from you) that it is not a priority of the party to help these candidates get elected.

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no reason for the party to exist, for the rules to exist, for party officers to be elected and hold office unless WE FIELD, SUPPORT and HELP our CANDIDATES WIN ELECTIONS AGAINST REPUBLICANS. If we cannot find a way to do the necessary housekeeping party business and showcase our candidates at the same time... then we'd just as well hang it all up and take up basket weaving or go fishin!

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:37:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

VaLinda was deceived by the organizers of the convention (0.00 / 0)

She spent her time and money to come to the Convention because they told her she'd be allowed to address the delegation. That means SPEAKING TO THE DELEGATION -- not being scheduled to address an empty house. She turned down invitations to three other large events for that weekend. She paid for hotel and travel expenses. In fact, she ended up having to pay for an extra day (Saturday night) because they kept them waiting so long to see if they were going to let them speak after they interrupted the speeches for the chair election.

She finally decided that it wasn't worth staying there to talk to an empty house. They had jacked her around so much that she was so frustrated that she was in tears. When they finally called her to the podium she was not composed enough to do justice to her message. 

We know that some folks are our opponents. As Democrats we understand that the REPUBLICAN are our enemies and will do every dirty, underhanded thing possible to keep us from getting elected. Candidates learn to be prepared for that. However, until they confront it personally, few Democratic Candidates comprehend that many people in the TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY OFFICE and SDEC aren't really friends of the candidates either. It's only after folks like Hank and David and Fred and VaLinda and Maria Luisa hear the stupid Bozo Mentality do nothing, win nothing, support nothing words coming out of the mouths of the people who are supposed to be the "leaders" among Democratic circles in Texas that they learn that folks in TDP HQ are not necessarily friends to Democratic Candidates. In fact, in view of actions taken by folks like Bob Slagle, Boyd Ritchie, and Reuben Hernandez in Fort Worth Saturday afternoon, some might argue that policies they deploy benefit Republicans more than our Democratic challenger.

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 15:24:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Primary Purpose of the Convention (3.00 / 2)

Is to elect the leadership of the party and prepare the platform, the very work you are deriding in your post. While the convention does provide a convenient forum for candidates to speak to assembled Democrats, that's a benefit of the convention, not the purpose of it.

There are certain things that, legally and structurally, the Democratic Party can only do in convention: elect party leadership, approve the party platform, elect delegates to the National Convention.

Some delegates can only stay until the typical 6:00 or so end of the convention. You would prefer that they and their constituents be disenfranchised of the very votes they have travelled to the convention to cast?

---

by: R. Kirk McPike @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 16:30:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, I guess we need to make some changes (5.00 / 1)

then.  Don't we?

---

by: TXsharon @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 20:26:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Assuming that is ALL IT IS ABOUT is BOZO mentality (0.00 / 0)

It is ASSUMED that those things are done in ORDER to enable the party to field, support, and get good Democrats elected to public office. Those things are written into the rules because they used to be considered the "un sexy" thing and the candidates used to be considered the stars of the convention. Things are so turned around in this state that it has become necessary to CODIFY where the barn is in order for folks to realize you have to find the barn in order to paint the barn door.

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:32:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Paul, you distort what people say and make assumptions (3.00 / 1)

You assume that people left because they don't care. No breaks are given for lunch or supper. By 6 p.m. most delegates have missed 3 meals! Many are diabetic or have special health needs. Many are people such as me who have spinal cord injuries and can't sit very long. However, I was there until 8:30 -- only had stepped out of the arena when Dale Henry spoke.

Sharon's anger is not misdirected. It is an arrow going straight to the heart of the problem.

Our point is that the PRIORITIES and the METHODS by which we govern ourselves as a party needs to be REEXAMINIED. We know that we are not successful at our major MISSION and reason for existing - winning elections against Republicans. We are conducting Conventions the same old way and that had evolved to more emphasis on party elections and less favorable time slots devoted to introducing the nominees to the delegates. The QUESTION is not about not electing party officers. Ofcouse we elect party officers. However, how we do it, when we do it, and how long we devote to it and how appropriate it is to spend significant sums of money on such campaigns when our PARTY's NOMINEES for public office are grossly underfunded.

I'd prefer to see those who choose to run for party offices campaign for office by showing  up THIS ELECTION cycle and making significant contributons toward getting our nominees elected (and that is not a call for them to merely write a check to buy a slot.) But if they are going to write big campaign checks, I think it should be to nominees who will run against Republicans instead of to state party candidates. They need to show us they are COMMITTED RIGHT NOW TO THE CANDIDATES WE HAVE RIGHT NOW by focusing their energy on these candidates races. That will show us who is actually a leader and who is actually effective.  If you tell me all the things you did in the past and intend to do, I need to also see WHAT YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW!

VaLinda was never told exactly when she'd address the delegation. She was still in the Exhibit Hall about 5 p.m. She was, however, contacted by Reuben Hernandez and/or Boyd Ritchie on Friday and told she'd speak during the 12 noon hour and that they would introduce the 8 remaining state wide candidates one after another beginning at 12 noon.


Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 20:22:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong. (0.00 / 0)

I have not distorted a single comment in this discussion. I have been very meticulous in pointing out the items that I've responded to.

Regarding why people left the convention, I certainly understand health issues and hunger issues and exhaustion issues. But three-quarters of the convention attendance? The truth is that most people left after the voting because that was the most important part to them. And you know that it was their priority, because they didn't leave until the voting was completed. Party chair elected, and they were able to leave, however regrettably. Personally, I went and grabbed a slice of pizza a couple of blocks away. But I came back.

You can be disgusted with the way the timing was handled. You can argue that the party rules are archaic, detrimental, and need to be fixed. And you can trumpet your outrage at the perceived selfishness of our new party chair.

There are ways to address these issues, and I'm sure that you will try, and hopefully succeed. (It's my great desire that next time they schedule a lunch break.) But, the truth is, the Covention accomplished the goals as set down by the party and its members.

There is a learning process going on all across the board. Remember, it was the first contested chair race in over twenty years. How do you balance the will and needs of the candidates against the will and needs of a couple of thousand rabid delegates wanting to elect their party chair? Should somebody have suddenly told General Wesley Clark, "I'm sorry General, but can you come back tomorrow?" Should the delegates have been told that we'd be voting on the chair at 8pm on Saturday evening, in which case, the race would have been decided by a couple of hundred people?

The convention was adjourned, and debate of resolutions halted, due to a lack of a quorum. We almost didn't get the platform passed due to the lack of a quorum. But we should be expected to elect our party officers under the same situation?

From what I've heard, this convention turned out much better than most in the recent past. We found out what worked, and what didn't work. People will make recommendations, and their suggestions will be addressed. Time to move on.

---

by: paulrobeson @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 23:42:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What worked better this time? (4.00 / 2)

I'm serious here. Because the stories I was hearing did not sound like an event that was under any kind of control.

I'm only hearing anecdotal evidence, granted.  But it would be most helpful to have some anecdotes regarding what went better than previous years.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 23:51:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This was my first one. (0.00 / 0)

But I've been told that, especially in 2000 and 2002, they were completely disorganized. And that previous attendance levels were beyond pitiful.

At the very least, the presence of an increased number of passionate Democrats was a huge step in the right direction.

---

by: paulrobeson @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 00:00:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, I can certainly agree that's a positive sign (0.00 / 0)

but you still need to be effective when you have them all in the same place.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 00:03:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

NO, They should have told those who invited the woman from NM (0.00 / 0)

to take a hike! We should tell those who scheduled several videos and three key note speakers on Friday while banning our slate from the podium that they need a REALITY CHECK. And that is exactly what we are doing on this blog. And that is exactly what I intend to do and will urge every person who will listen to do until we get it through EVERYBODY'S THICK SKULLS that this is counterproductive to our MISSION as a PARTY. 

Thumping the rules which say PART of what the purpose of the convention is help for is the TOTAL MISSION OF THE PARTY and all the BUSINESS OF THE CONVENTION doesn't cut it. GETTING THE CANDIDATES ELECTED IS THE BUSINESS OF THE PARTY AND OF THE CONVENTION.  Electing officers and conducting other party business is only PART OF THE BUSINESS of the convention. The failure to manage the schedule to meet all the priorities is FAILING TO CONDUCT the BUSINESS OF THE PARTY. So that rule you keep thumpin' won't hold enough weight in this argument.  There are literal truths and explicit truths. You lose on the EXPLICIT TRUTH.  Explicit truths are things that are so evident that few folks would think they'd have to be spelled out. However, when BOZO MENTALITY takes over, even the most obvious gets lost and then we have to start regulating the obvious. Regulations are rarely perfect. For example, we have traffic lights to control traffic and that causes levels of inefficiency when we sit and wait for a light when there is no on-coming traffic. The only reason that law makes sense is that folks refused to recognize that people have a right to take turns and be reasonable. In the Texas Democratic Party reasonable boundaries and fair play was thrown out of the window, organizers mislead the candidates and those of us who contacted them regarding the schedule. They have created an uproar and it may result in eventual rule changes because they refuse to recognize and balance priorities for the good of all.

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 15:39:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Keeping to the compromise schedule would have helped (0.00 / 0)

Paul, you wrote:"Certainly, there should be a way to schedule the convention to focus attention on all the statewide candidates and conduct party affairs. And it looks like the best way to do that would be to have a contested party chair vote as the very last piece of business."

The compromise schedule would have completed the last three state wide candidates by 1:30 (30 minutes later than the beginning of the Chair Race Speeches). It would have only pushed the chair election back 30 minutes. They could have introduced the Judicial candidate in between the chair race and the run-off for the chair race. Unfortunately that would have still left the house candidate introduction to the last. However, that could have been handled better if they'd have ditched the irrelevant speakers on Friday night, given us the Key Note and some of the statewides other than just Chris Bell. It wouldn't be that big a deal to start an half hour earlier and end each session a half hour later. That in itself would allow time for more of the statewide candidates to speak on Friday night and let them move the others up earlier. 

There are ways to do this and they have not looked hard enough for them.  They won't look for them either as long as you and Phillip reinforce their stance that this is the best they can do.

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 19:07:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sharon you highlighted the quotes which reflect "Bozo mentality" (5.00 / 1)

It is especially frustrating to hear decent people citing broken party rules as reasons to continue doing the same old stupid things. I know it's not nice to refer to folks as having bozo mentality but it's come to the point that we will all live with the likes of GEORGE W. BUSH and company while some frustrated Democrats wave tne banner that party officers will be around even if the candidates win.

The CANDIDATES CARRY THE PLATFORM, not the platform carrying the candidates.

We don't have a connection between RESOLUTIONS and PLATFORM but frequently think that when we sweat over resolutions they'll make it into the platform. Maybe but in reality, rarely! Some think that they are powerful and getting up in the world when they get elected to a party office. In reality we only get up in the world when we get our Democratic Candidate elected to public office and they work their butts off to give every citizen of Texas a fair shot in this lopsided world.

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 20:08:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oops. I meant even if the candidates don't win! (3.00 / 1)

About the connection between platform and resolutions: The candidates state where they stand during the primary. They win based on the positions they communicate to the voters. Then the State Convention comes along and sometimes those on the platform committee differ with our nominees' positions. Sometimes the platform commitee differs with the resolutions which come from the Senatorial committee.

The platform is important but it does not have a greater impact than HAVING PEOPLE ELECTED FROM OUR PARTY WHO SHARE OUR VALUES AND WORK TO MAKE POSITIVE CHANGES FOR THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS reflecting Democratic values.

There are years that the platform reflects those values. There are other years when they miss the boat somewhat so to speak. However there is a thread that runs through history showing what is basic "Democratic Thinking."  We may miss it one year but usually we get back on track in a few years on one issue and probably drift away on another.

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 20:28:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bozo Mentality (5.00 / 1)

Like this?

Democrats' statewide slate: A dream deferred?

Top races lack the big names they had in '02 but not the enthusiasm

09:20 AM CDT on Sunday, June 11, 2006

By GROMER JEFFERS JR. / The Dallas Morning News

FORT WORTH – David Van Os is a long-shot candidate for attorney general, but he takes an aggressive approach toward his campaign.

"Fight them till hell freezes over, and then fight them on the ice," Mr. Van Os said as he greeted delegates at the Texas Democrats' convention in Fort Worth.

It could take just such an ice storm for Mr. Van Os and other Democratic candidates for statewide office to win in November. Other than the gubernatorial candidate, the slate is a collection of political newcomers and one candidate who served in the Legislature during the 1970s. They face well-known Republicans, many of them incumbents, who will be flush with campaign cash.

But for many delegates at the convention, the largely unknown statewide ticket represents the opportunity to rebuild the party rather than a chance to beat a slate of better-known and well-financed incumbent Republicans.

This year's convention is in contrast to 2002, when delegates cheered a "dream team" of well-funded and widely known candidates who were expected to usher in a Democratic revival.

The dream of an instant revival has been deferred, with top party strategists focusing on local and statehouse races instead of the more costly and daunting statewide contests.

The Bozo Mentality exposed!

How tragic!  Now every swing and moderate voter who reads that story will think "WTF?  Why vote at all?  I'll just stay home."

Moronic! 

---

by: TXsharon @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 02:17:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How can we expect the media to think REALISTICALLY of the candidates (0.00 / 0)

when the State Party continues hiding them in the closet, demeaning them with insulting digs and forever reminding them that aren't supported as they should be by the old time power leaders of the party?  Even the younger generations, such as some on this list, parrot the quips of the traditional "leaders" of the party who have led us into years and years of steady decline?

The media knows what the TDP values by the way we 1. fund 2. present 3. when we present them 4. stupid remarks that come out of Democrats mouths.

In the primary every editorial "endorsement" I read for Democratic candidate had a disclaimer about how impossible it would for them to win, impossible to defeat the opponent.  The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board didn't even realize that the Judical Branch is one of the three branches of government and stated that one candidate who has been continually in elected office for 30 years had "been out of goverment for years" when he'd been a judge for the past 20!  We have to value the candidates. If we don't, no one will. If the media knows that the party discounts them, they'll write about them or ignore them altogether, as though they are inconsequential.

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 19:16:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Boyd Ritchie didn't show enough balls to put the priorities in order (3.25 / 4)

Boyd hasn't waved many banners yet except to go to senatorial conventions campaigning against a dead dancer. His speech at Convention only mentioned one STATE WIDE NOMINEE by name.

If we don't win elections against Republicans there is absolutely no reason to have a state party, a state party staff, or a state chair.

They only exist to help us win against Republicans. There are ways to conduct races for STATE PARTY OFFICES and make WINNING AGAINST REPUBLICANS this election cycle our Main Business. As a former member of "the media" I delpore the lack of coverage party conventions get these days. However, knowing that most people in Texas don't know or care who are officers in the party, and the TDC showcases those races and  gives the REAL RACES that people all over Texas should know and care about the back seat, I don't blame them for giving minimal coverage to State Party Conventions.

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:55:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A RULE CHANGE IS IN ORDER SINCE THOSE IN CHARGE MISS THE BARN (4.00 / 2)

There are some things that are so fundamental to most people that they don't even write them into documents. With political parties it is WINNING ELECTIONS. I doubt that most of the other state conventions focus the best slots on the floor to state party nominatons and refuse to allocate 80 minutes of prime time to the candidates! They know that if the candidates don't win, the state party fails in  its mission.  So they don't WRITE IN WHEN THE CANDIDATES MUST SPEAK. However, when folks become stupid and begin missing the main point of the mission, folks have to start making rules to make sure things get put into order. That is why folks need to express their dismay at the way the schedule was handled this Convention to their SDEC members. Between conventions the SDEC is the governing body of the Texas Democratic Party. Also, in reality, the CHAIR is only an unpaid person who presides over the SDEC. The SDEC is the body that votes.

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 13:22:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Faith you make so much sense (4.00 / 2)

it's all just common sense.  I don't see why is has to be so hard.

---

by: TXsharon @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 13:38:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

YOU DON"T NEED TO YELL (2.00 / 3)

They have rules so that people don't spend all their time and energy debating minute details. There is a process and an order to things. I find Robert's Rules of Order extremely tedious, but they exist for a reason. You may argue with the way that a schedule is handled, but disagreeing with the allotment of time is different than proclaiming the whole party is FUBAR based on that allotment.

Should more time have been devoted to the candidates? Yes. But should three-quarters of the delegates have left after the race? No.

Leading up to the convention, post after post was devoted to the party chair race. Less time was devoted to the candidates for other offices. I personally can't remember any post about Valinda Hathcox prior to the convention. And how many mailings did we get from Maxey and Richie? Leading up to this weekend, all of the focus was on the party chair race. So I find it disingenuous for people to complain about the actual convention reflecting that.

(Although I will note that both TXSharon and FaithM have been very good about pushing some of th candidates.)

Also, as seen in this post by David Van Os, all of the candidates were originally supposed to speak later on Saturday afternoon. So the fact that half of them got to speak before the vote was a change for the better.

And the truth is, they're called down-ballot races for a reason. Don't get me wrong, David and Hank Gilbert are, in my opinion, the two strongest candidates on this ticket. But not everybody gets to be the star.

The purpose of the Academy Awards is to hand out Oscars. You can quibble that too much time is spent on the musical numbers and tributes, and not enough time is spent on the design categories. But it's a technicality, and it doesn't show that the Academy itself is broken.

---

by: paulrobeson @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 15:50:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

SUPPOSED TO... not quite... (0.00 / 0)

They had not firmed up the schedule the week before. When we pressed, they had them TENATIVELY scheduled later and we raised the issue.

We pressed for Friday night. They agreed to present them one after another at beginning at noon on Saturday. That was the FIRST FIRM schedule.  That was the first schedule they ACTUALLY COMMUNICATED to the candidates. They left them in limbo until Friday before the convention.

Oh, about the new staff having to throw the convention together on short notice.. that is not quite how it was. Sure the Chair quit. But Reuben Hernandez, Executive Director, and the rest of the staff have been in place working on the convention for the duration.  Only Boyd Ritchie came to his office new.  Also, the SDEC has major responsibility for oversight of major party endeavors. The buck also rests with them.

In between the Convention, the power of the party and responsibility for running the Democratic Party does not rest in the staff and chair -- IT RESTS with the SDEC with duties assigned and delegated to the staff.

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 19:21:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

this really is horrible (4.33 / 3)

VaLinda is a good candidate, I heard her speak in Austin a couple weeks ago. Whoever made this decision should apologize

---

by: David Mauro @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:06:38 AM UTC

They won't. (5.00 / 1)

She got upset and didn't stick around until 6 when Dale Henry spoke. When Reuben and Boyd were explaining to the candidates that they'd be cut-off at 1, and it was obvious that the convention chair wasn't going to budge, she got upset and said: "Oh, all right then!"  I suspect anyone present could tell that she wasn't really saying that it was OK but that, coupled with her absence five hours later when they finally called her, sealed it.

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:59:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was surprised to see HOW VERY QUALIFIED SHE IS (5.00 / 1)

It's this late in the election cycle, but I just got around to reading her VaLinda's website. Here's what it says:

Firsts for VaLinda Hathcox

Ms.Hathcox was the first-woman elected-prosecutor as Hopkins County Attorney. She was also the first woman to hold the position of Director of Governmental Relations and Programs with the Texas Attorney General, the State Bar of Texas and the Texas Association of Counties. She was the first woman president of Austin Young Lawyers. VaLinda was a Founding Mother of the Women and the Law Section of the State Bar and served as its president.

VaLinda was a charter member of the Hopkins County Democratic Women, Travis County Democratic Women and Texas Democratic Women. She has served as a voting delegate to the county and state Democratic Convention from both Travis and Hopkins County.

Current Civic Activities

Ms. Hathcox is currently president of the Hopkins County Community Chest and has served on its Board of Directors for 10 years. She was chosen for Leadership Sulphur Springs in 2000. She was the recipient of the 2005 Martin Luther King Political Award for Hopkins County bestowed by the East Caney Missionary Baptist Church.

VaLinda and her family are members of the First Baptist Church in Sulphur Springs. She was baptized in this church on September 30, 1956. While living in Austin, she was an active member of Hyde Park Baptist Church.

VaLinda has served as president of the Bluebonnet Garden Club and is a member of the Lone Star Heritage Quilt Guild. As Hopkins County Attorney, she participated in the restoration grant for the historic county courthouse and has recently become involved in the Downtown Revitalization Alliance. She is an AARP and VITA volunteer for income tax preparation for the elderly and low income.

Ms. Hathcox and her participating organizations have received numerous awards including recognition from the Boy Scouts of America for sponsoring an Explorer Law and Law Enforcement Post.

As a University of Texas and Texas A&M Commerce graduate, she donates money to student scholarship funds. VaLinda was named an ETSU Ambassador and served on the Alumni Association Board.

Recent Civic Activities

AARP Volunteer Income Tax Assistance

Bluebonnet Garden Club, past president

Downtown Revitalization Alliance

First Baptist Church, baptized 09/30/1956

Hopkins County Attorney, elected

Hopkins County Community Chest, president

Leadership Sulphur Springs 2000

Lone Star Heritage Quilt Guild

Martin Luther King 2005 Political Award

More on VaLinda Hathcox

VaLinda Hathcox won the Democratic Primary for Texas Land Commissioner. VaLinda began her public service career as Governor Dolph Briscoe’s intern in the planning division of the General Land Office under Land Commissioner Bob Armstrong.

VaLinda rewrote Texas’ mineral leases to include geothermal resources and other alternative energy resources. She also assisted with the legal planning for the environmental clean-up known as the Superfund, which capped abandoned oil and gas wells.

VaLinda Hathcox is seeking the Office of Land Commissioner because many of the programs began over 35 years ago have not been developed or completed, especially in the area of alternative energy resources. She also is concerned that the Open Beaches Act is being eroded to the detriment of our natural beach protection of State lands.

Recently at a forum in Austin, VaLinda asked where the money from Texas oil and gas leases has gone? With the high prices being paid at the pump, there should be money to meet or address the school funding crises. Texas is the Land. And the current land commissioner is not serving the interests of Texan citizens and especially its school children.

Upon receiving her Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from the University of Texas Law School, VaLinda was hired by Bob Bullock, who was then the newly-elected Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. She served as an administrative tax examiner and judge for five years.

When she and her husband divorced, VaLinda worked for a year with the Dallas law firm of Golden, Potts, Boeckman and Wilson, which was instrumental in obtaining tax refunds after the repeal of the unconstitutional Texas admissions tax.

VaLinda returned to Austin as Director of Programs for the State Bar of Texas. In handling the State Bar’s legislative package, VaLinda guided the successful repeal of the Texas Inheritance Tax.

From the State Bar, Ms. Hathcox was asked by Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox to be a Special Assistant Attorney General and director of governmental relations. She did the footwork in successfully ushering the child support program from the State’s public welfare office to the Office of the Attorney General.

The executive director Texas Association of Counties recruited VaLinda from the Office of Attorney General to serve as director of governmental affairs and attorney for the quasi-governmental county association. VaLinda pushed to get the first “mandates” law introduced requiring the State to provide the money, if the State mandated the counties to provide the service. Also, legislation was passed giving counties limited ordinance authority to clean up the colonias in South Texas.

VaLinda also worked with the large and small counties to reach a compromise to get legislation passed authorizing the initial Indigent Health Care Act to equalize the tax burden in carrying out the constitutionally mandated obligation to provide for the poor.

In 1992, VaLinda returned to Northeast Texas to assist her mother, when her father had a disabling accident. In 1996, she filed to run for Hopkins County Attorney. She won a three candidate Democratic primary without the necessity of a run-off and she had no opposition in the general election. Two weeks after the Democratic primary, her father died.

As Hopkins County Attorney, VaLinda prosecuted over 4000 misdemeanors to guilty pleas with the need for only 10 full trials; thus saving the county thousands of dollars in court costs and collecting nearly a million dollars in hot checks, fees and fines. She set up an education program for anger management and budget abuse.

As an attorney, VaLinda has been active in many legal associations and is admitted to practice before the Texas Supreme Court and the U.S. Tax Court. VaLinda is currently president and has served on the Board of the Hopkins County Community Chest for 10 years. For three years, she has volunteered as an AARP tax preparer for low income and senior citizens in Hopkins County.

Last year, she was the recipient of the MLK Political Award. She was selected for Leadership Hopkins County and has served as a judge for the Hopkins County Stew Contest. She is a charter member of Hopkins County Democratic Women. She helped coordinate the antique quilts and the boutique for the Lone Star Quilting Guild. She is a past president and active in the Bluebonnet Garden Club.

She earned her B.A. with High Honors in English/French and Education and her M.A. in Political Science from Texas A&M Commerce. She taught at ETSU, Austin Community College and did her student teaching at Lake Highlands High School in the Richardson School System. Her sister Symantha Murray teaches at Sherman High School in Grayson County. Not being able to have children, VaLinda dotes on her five nephews, two nieces and one great-nephew.

VaLinda resides in Wood and Hopkins counties with her family on Hathcox Farms and the Big H Ranch. Dairy farmers, until the death of her father, Bill Jack Hathcox, in 1996, her mother Margie Dale Hathcox, VaLinda and her two brothers, B.J. and K.D. run the family stocker operation, which includes a herd of Texas Longhorns and Bison/Buffalos.
Firsts for VaLinda Hathcox

Ms.Hathcox was the first-woman elected-prosecutor as Hopkins County Attorney. She was also the first woman to hold the position of Director of Governmental Relations and Programs with the Texas Attorney General, the State Bar of Texas and the Texas Association of Counties. She was the first woman president of Austin Young Lawyers. VaLinda was a Founding Mother of the Women and the Law Section of the State Bar and served as its president.

VaLinda was a charter member of the Hopkins County Democratic Women, Travis County Democratic Women and Texas Democratic Women. She has served as a voting delegate to the county and state Democratic Convention from both Travis and Hopkins County.

Current Civic Activities

Ms. Hathcox is currently president of the Hopkins County Community Chest and has served on its Board of Directors for 10 years. She was chosen for Leadership Sulphur Springs in 2000. She was the recipient of the 2005 Martin Luther King Political Award for Hopkins County bestowed by the East Caney Missionary Baptist Church.

VaLinda and her family are members of the First Baptist Church in Sulphur Springs. She was baptized in this church on September 30, 1956. While living in Austin, she was an active member of Hyde Park Baptist Church.

VaLinda has served as president of the Bluebonnet Garden Club and is a member of the Lone Star Heritage Quilt Guild. As Hopkins County Attorney, she participated in the restoration grant for the historic county courthouse and has recently become involved in the Downtown Revitalization Alliance. She is an AARP and VITA volunteer for income tax preparation for the elderly and low income.

Ms. Hathcox and her participating organizations have received numerous awards including recognition from the Boy Scouts of America for sponsoring an Explorer Law and Law Enforcement Post.

As a University of Texas and Texas A&M Commerce graduate, she donates money to student scholarship funds. VaLinda was named an ETSU Ambassador and served on the Alumni Association Board.

Recent Civic Activities

AARP Volunteer Income Tax Assistance

Bluebonnet Garden Club, past president

Downtown Revitalization Alliance

First Baptist Church, baptized 09/30/1956

Hopkins County Attorney, elected

Hopkins County Community Chest, president

Leadership Sulphur Springs 2000

Lone Star Heritage Quilt Guild

Martin Luther King 2005 Political Award

More on VaLinda Hathcox

VaLinda Hathcox won the Democratic Primary for Texas Land Commissioner. VaLinda began her public service career as Governor Dolph Briscoe’s intern in the planning division of the General Land Office under Land Commissioner Bob Armstrong.

VaLinda rewrote Texas’ mineral leases to include geothermal resources and other alternative energy resources. She also assisted with the legal planning for the environmental clean-up known as the Superfund, which capped abandoned oil and gas wells.

VaLinda Hathcox is seeking the Office of Land Commissioner because many of the programs began over 35 years ago have not been developed or completed, especially in the area of alternative energy resources. She also is concerned that the Open Beaches Act is being eroded to the detriment of our natural beach protection of State lands.

Recently at a forum in Austin, VaLinda asked where the money from Texas oil and gas leases has gone? With the high prices being paid at the pump, there should be money to meet or address the school funding crises. Texas is the Land. And the current land commissioner is not serving the interests of Texan citizens and especially its school children.

Upon receiving her Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from the University of Texas Law School, VaLinda was hired by Bob Bullock, who was then the newly-elected Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. She served as an administrative tax examiner and judge for five years.

When she and her husband divorced, VaLinda worked for a year with the Dallas law firm of Golden, Potts, Boeckman and Wilson, which was instrumental in obtaining tax refunds after the repeal of the unconstitutional Texas admissions tax.

VaLinda returned to Austin as Director of Programs for the State Bar of Texas. In handling the State Bar’s legislative package, VaLinda guided the successful repeal of the Texas Inheritance Tax.

From the State Bar, Ms. Hathcox was asked by Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox to be a Special Assistant Attorney General and director of governmental relations. She did the footwork in successfully ushering the child support program from the State’s public welfare office to the Office of the Attorney General.

The executive director Texas Association of Counties recruited VaLinda from the Office of Attorney General to serve as director of governmental affairs and attorney for the quasi-governmental county association. VaLinda pushed to get the first “mandates” law introduced requiring the State to provide the money, if the State mandated the counties to provide the service. Also, legislation was passed giving counties limited ordinance authority to clean up the colonias in South Texas.

VaLinda also worked with the large and small counties to reach a compromise to get legislation passed authorizing the initial Indigent Health Care Act to equalize the tax burden in carrying out the constitutionally mandated obligation to provide for the poor.

In 1992, VaLinda returned to Northeast Texas to assist her mother, when her father had a disabling accident. In 1996, she filed to run for Hopkins County Attorney. She won a three candidate Democratic primary without the necessity of a run-off and she had no opposition in the general election. Two weeks after the Democratic primary, her father died.

As Hopkins County Attorney, VaLinda prosecuted over 4000 misdemeanors to guilty pleas with the need for only 10 full trials; thus saving the county thousands of dollars in court costs and collecting nearly a million dollars in hot checks, fees and fines. She set up an education program for anger management and budget abuse.

As an attorney, VaLinda has been active in many legal associations and is admitted to practice before the Texas Supreme Court and the U.S. Tax Court. VaLinda is currently president and has served on the Board of the Hopkins County Community Chest for 10 years. For three years, she has volunteered as an AARP tax preparer for low income and senior citizens in Hopkins County.

Last year, she was the recipient of the MLK Political Award. She was selected for Leadership Hopkins County and has served as a judge for the Hopkins County Stew Contest. She is a charter member of Hopkins County Democratic Women. She helped coordinate the antique quilts and the boutique for the Lone Star Quilting Guild. She is a past president and active in the Bluebonnet Garden Club.

She earned her B.A. with High Honors in English/French and Education and her M.A. in Political Science from Texas A&M Commerce. She taught at ETSU, Austin Community College and did her student teaching at Lake Highlands High School in the Richardson School System. Her sister Symantha Murray teaches at Sherman High School in Grayson County. Not being able to have children, VaLinda dotes on her five nephews, two nieces and one great-nephew.

VaLinda resides in Wood and Hopkins counties with her family on Hathcox Farms and the Big H Ranch. Dairy farmers, until the death of her father, Bill Jack Hathcox, in 1996, her mother Margie Dale Hathcox, VaLinda and her two brothers, B.J. and K.D. run the family stocker operation, which includes a herd of Texas Longhorns and Bison/Buffalos.

VaLinda Hathcox
1201 Mockingbird Lane
Sulphur Springs, Texas 75482
903-885-3369 valindahathcox@bluebonnet.net
PUBLIC SERVICE
Hopkins County Attorney (Democrat) 1996-2001
Constitutionally elected official
Criminal prosecutor and county attorney
Prosecuted, requiring only 10 full trials, approximately 4,500 misdemeanor cases, collecting nearly a million dollars in fines and hot check restitution; implemented pretrial diversion courses in anger and budget management for check writers and simple assault family violence cases; worked with health care providers in substance abuse treatment as conditions or alternatives to prosecution..
Texas Association of Counties 1984-1986
Director of Governmental Affairs and Staff Attorney
Monitored over 900 bills affecting county interests; worked for the successful passage of the Indigent Health Care Act; obtained county ordinance authority to address colonias; worked with Legislative Council on the preparation of the Local Government Code; worked on Texas Rural Water Task Force suggesting the Adopt-a-Beach program; served on the administrative advisory board of the Texas Department of Health in implementing the County Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Attorney General of Texas (Jim Mattox) 1983-1984
Special Assistant Attorney General of Texas
Director of Legislative Resources and Training
Supervised all aspects of the Texas legislature affecting the Office of the Attorney General and AG client agencies, including 474 bills directly affecting the duties of the Office of Attorney General; guided to passage the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act and the transfer of the Child Support Program from the Department of Public Services to the AG’s office; drafted and testified for a state RICO law; implemented “whistle blower” law and prepared worker’s compensation benefits brochure for state employees.
State Bar of Texas 1980-1983
Director of Programs for Governmental Relations
Coordinated and implemented the governmental affairs program of the State Bar in the public interest; successfully herded 27 of 29 bills through the Legislature including the repeal of the Texas Inheritance Act and the passage of the Texas Trust Act and the Intellectual Property Act amendments; implemented public education program distributing over 20,000 publications on legal topics.
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (Bob Bullock) 1975-1979
Administrative Tax Judge (Hearings Examiner I, II and III)
Presented or presided over thousands of tax hearings; implemented taxpayer education program; spoke throughout the state educating groups on tax matters; drafted fiscal notes for legislation.
Governor’s Public Service Internship (Dolph Briscoe) 1974-1975
Chosen as an intern while a student at the University of Texas Law School.
General Land Office -- Planning Division (Bob Armstong)
Rewrote the State’s mineral leases to include geothermal resources. Worked with the initial Superfund project in plugging abandoned wells and environmental clean-up.
ADMITTED to Practice: Supreme Court of Texas, U.S. Tax Court, U.S. District Ct.-Northern Dist.
EDUCATION:
University of Texas School of Law Doctor of Jurisprudence 1975
Research Papers: “How to Drill for Oil in the North Sea: A Legal Checklist”
And “Taxation of Oil and Gas Interests”
Texas A&M -- Commerce (East Texas State University) Master of Arts in Political Science 1971
Thesis: “Modern French Political Theory: An Epistemological
Study of Pascal, Camus & Bergson”
Bachelor of Arts with High Honors In English/French & Education Certification 1969
Thesis: “A Comparative Study of the Short Stories of Guy de Maupassant
and John Barry Benefield”

Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:48:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Later this afternoon... (5.00 / 1)

I'll have the first of my 40/40 featuring VaLinda Hathcox. I've had the interview for a few months, but timing hasn't been the best. Also, as I said in another comment:

That we had about a dozen House elected officials, and 35 House candidates, that all stayed until after the Chair's race. And all they really got was to be introduced. Also, there was a very moving tribute to Speaker Pete Laney that also didn't come until after the Chair's race, and I'm sure everyone at the convention should have seen that as well...

My point being...B/c I may not have made that clear, that there's just not enough time to do everything, unless the folks attending the convention are committed to staying later Saturday. While I agree that it's a shame so many speakers didn't get to speak to a full convention, neither did some other very deserving people, so I hope that some of our statewides don't feel like they were picked on. As someone who was running around constantly, from 9:30am to 12:00 midnight on Thursday, 8am to 10pm on Friday, and 8am to 9pm on Saturday, I wish there was more time to do a lot of things...but there just wasn't. At some point, there needs to be a commitment from the delegates in attendance to want to stay around.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 16:31:47 PM UTC

There has to be a COMMITTMENT FROM THE LEADERSHIP (0.00 / 0)

to get their heads out of their butts and stop abusing the candidates.

This is not the first time TDP HQ has kept these candidates in limbo, failed to communicate to them in timely order, and failed to live up to commitments they made. The day after the Primary, the candidates were told to come to Austin for a press conference.  VaLinda got a telephone call after 10 p.m. the night before the scheduled press conference telling her it had been cancelled. She was pulling up to her hotel in Austin! They knew earlier that it was cancelled and contacted some of the candidates but not all of them.

They failed to tell the candidates until Friday before Convention when they would be scheduled to speak. They left them in limbo. VaLinda sent numerous e-mails and got several replies; She had several other invitations to speak at large gatherings that weekend. However, you'd think that the Democratic Convention would be your best shot at getting news coverage and addressing the largest gathering of Democrats in Texas. It should be. But it wasn't.

A PARTY SHOULD CARE ABOUT THE CANDIDATES. They should want them to succeed. They should try to avoid upsetting them unduly right before they address the convention. This year they sprung things on each and every candidate just prior to their stepping on the stage. Even after waiting hours to get his ten minutes before the Convention, Dale Henry was told: "Keep it short. Don't go over 5 minutes!" when he was going on stage after 6 p.m.  That is not fair. They tell them to prepare a 10 minute speech and make them wait 6 hours to give it to an empty auditorium and still tell them to "Keep it short!" and Instruct them to cut it in half while they are walking up the steps to the platform.

This should be the last Convention that Bob Slagle chairs. He needs to retire. Boyd Ritchie needs a major attitude adjustment and he needs to learn to keep his word. Rosa needs to be more thoughtful of candidates when she sees that they are being mistreated. Everyone who participated in this travesty and who supported those who did this deserves to be reprimanded. Those of us who were unaware of what was occurring until it was too late MUST CONTINUE FIGHTING FOR CONSTRUCTIVE CHANGES. We must support these candidates. They are our hope. Party Rules don't matter if we don't have good candidates. Offices don't matter unless they translate into winning elections in November.

It's time to retire folks who can't apply good old Texas Horse Sense to the dilemmas we encounter. Yes we have to be flexible. This was not being flexible. It was being stupid.


Faith Chatham

---

by: faithm @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 15:56:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]