I hereby challenge the Insiders to a public debate

I would like to see a debate. (3.33 / 3)

But who are these "insiders" we should be debating?

I'm just a local activist in a largely overlooked region (not overlooked by David Van Os -- to his credit -- though overlooked by some), but I would think that the party's nominee for the statewide office of attorney general would be pretty far inside (as compared to most party members like me).

In previous elections, I could see where if someone said that the candidates were picked in some smoky backroom, I would have said "Tony Sanchez? What exactly were they smoking in that backroom?"

But this election cycle, I would have thought that a ticket which included Barbara Radnofsky, Chris Bell, David Van Os, Hank Gilbert, Fred Head, Bill Moody, and VaLinda Hathcox would have completely immunized everyone from any belief that this was a roster picked in some smoky backroom.  I met every one of these great candidates, and they were each clearly representative of the people's choice.  Not a one of these candidates was "backdoored" into the nomination by some secret insiders' cabal.

What are the names of the members of the "small groups of Insiders" who "secretly handpick which Democratic Nominees who won the Democratic Primaries are worthy of Texas Democratic Party support and which aren't"?

From my limited perspective, it doesn't appear that there was much "handpicking" among statewide candidates; it seems as if the whole statewide ticket was equally ignored.

Was Democratic Party money (as distinct from the money of individual donors or individual organizations) lavished on some statewide candidates but withheld from others?  If so, I'm 100% in agreement that this must be looked into.

If, on the other hand, the allocation of money was a series of decisions among private donors and private groups, then I'm not as confident that this is a debate with a right side and a wrong side.  For example, when Tom Craddick retained the speakership through the betrayal of 15 Democrats, I set up an account to put aside a little money every paycheck to support primary opponents for those candidates. I will definitely be directing my funds to those primary races (but not exclusively those races) and some of that earmarked money will not, as a consequence, go to some other candidates who might be very good candidates.  There needs to be room for an individual to express her hopes and visions for the future of the Party through her selection of which candidates to reward with her campaign contributions. I don't want all funds to go to all candidates across the state because I'll be damned if a nickel of mine goes to the likes of Patrick Rose or Aaron Pena. Likewise, I don't know how the Party makes "objective" decisions to support the great candidates (like David Van Os) but not to support the objectively lame candidates (like Gene Kelly) but I certainly don't want any of my money wasted on a Gene Kelly type candidacy. 

I think it would be good to know how the Party funds David Van Os without wasting money on Gene Kelly because one person's David Van Os might just be another person's Gene Kelly (not that those two have ANYTHING in common).

You say "A great and noble system is being treated as private property for sale and purchase. We all know this."  I want to know more about this.  If party money is being spent in a manner that is flat contrary to the desire of those party officials elected to represent our interests within the party, then that is wrong.  Is that what you're saying is happening?

---

by: SouthTexasDemocrat @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 20:58:53 PM UTC

I propose (1.00 / 1)

That the "insiders" and David Van Os fight it on the ice. I'll provide it up here in Cambridge in a couple days and serve as host.

I respect David.. but shock troops? The TDP isn't the SS. I'd like to see that in a TEC report though.

Texas Democratic Party -  $125,090.00 - Shock Troops

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 00:44:49 AM UTC

You owe me a new monitor. (2.00 / 2)

Diet Coke and  an LCD screen are unmixy things...

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

---

by: boadicea @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:45:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dostephen, honey. (3.00 / 1)

Lighten up.

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

---

by: boadicea @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 19:34:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Targeting (3.33 / 3)

Bravo Mr. Van Os!

As one of those who ran for office in Texas I readily concur!

Tim Barnwell

---

by: timfromtexas @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 02:36:03 AM UTC

Huh? (3.00 / 2)

What do you mean by "targeting"?  To me, it means a candidate figuring out who his/her voters are and then communicating with them.  What's wrong with that?

---

by: Orizaba 212 @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 03:12:35 AM UTC

Agreed.... (3.50 / 2)

And I know it may be a large pill to swallow, but money and special interests run our society...from little league to politics.  "Targeting" has become a vital part of the campaign process that tests our leadership skills.

---

by: Sam Jones @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 03:26:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Targeting (5.00 / 2)

By targeting. I think he means the practice of the party identifying campaigns that they feel are close races and winable. They then put money into those specific races to try and win them. If they feel a campaign isn't winable, they don't spend any money on it. Personally, it seems like a pretty common sense practice to me. When you consider the fact that funds are limited, it makes even more sense to target races in this way. I'm sure David will disagree with me.

---

by: Lhorn1 @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:19:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually (5.00 / 1)

That is what the national party was doing and why we were losing until Howard Dean introduced the 50 state stategy.  Seems like there is room for party building even in Texas.

---

by: bb1 @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 18:40:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Out of curiosity (0.00 / 0)

where was Howard Dean and his 50 state strategy in Texas in 06?

I'm serious here by the way, I never saw any sign of the 50 state strategy, that I keep hearing so much about, around here.

(sorry in advance for the punctuation)

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 22:02:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amen. Apparently, there was "targeting" within the 50 state strategy (5.00 / 1)

or did Barbara Radnofsky's campaign get an infusion of money that I never heard about?

---

by: SouthTexasDemocrat @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 22:41:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Money and staff (5.00 / 2)

were sent to the TDP.

The 50 state strategy is about building infrastructure.

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

---

by: boadicea @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 23:13:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fine (5.00 / 1)

but it is up to TDP to do something with it, after all their whining about not getting help from the national party (which they did not deserve anyway).  Other states, such as Arkansas, succeeded without much national support.

---

by: v2aggie2 @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:28:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The DNC pays for the salaries of at least 4 field coordinators (5.00 / 2)

That work out of the TDP offices.  And for that Dean effort, I am happy to send money to the DNC once again.

---

by: sonia @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 23:18:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good to know, (0.00 / 0)

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 23:56:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But TDP needs to help itself as well (0.00 / 0)

---

by: v2aggie2 @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:29:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, (0.00 / 0)

TDP especially needs to help itself.
This is a large state; it should need far less assistance than smaller states

---

by: v2aggie2 @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:47:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

?!! (1.00 / 1)

I was considering just ignoring you, then this.

A larger state, in which the majority of Democrats are not wealthy needs less help?

How ignorant, the bigger the state, the more races, the more money being poured in by Repbulicns to secure the party and thus future electoral votes, the bigget the challenge.

I usually try not to be personal, but what a stupid poorly thought out statement.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:57:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It takes one to know one (0.00 / 0)

I have seen many many personal attacks from you on this blog.  I was the brunt of some of them during the TDP chair debate.  I guess that is how you usually get the last word.  How many more statewide races does Texas have than any other state?  What a stupid poorly thought out statement.

---

by: bb1 @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 18:40:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

on personal attacks (0.00 / 0)

I said usually, though some individuals do tend to bring out the worst in me, i'll admit that.

I stand by my statement however, I believe I make very few personal attacks, my comments are all on record, so I challenge you to find 10 in my entire comment history that could be considered personal attacks.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 18:52:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok, I took the challenge upon myself (0.00 / 0)

I mean it when I say I really don't like personal attacks and generally do make a real effort to stay away from them.
Your name didn't ring any bells for me, as I though it would if we had a bad exchange in the past.
My comments for the time during and surrounding the chair race seem to stretch from about comment 103 to 111. Of those, I actually only found one that you were involved in and a while I disagreed with you, it was most certainly not a personal attack. If your interested it was comment number 110.
If you've got a way to back that comment up, I'd love to see it, because I've looked, and I just can't find it.

However, assuming it's true, let me apologize. I think we can converse and disagree in this forum without it degrading to personal assaults.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 19:25:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ignorant? (0.00 / 0)

"A larger state, in which the majority of Democrats are not wealthy needs less help?"

_______________

Gee, I didn't know that Democrats in other states were more wealthy than Texas Democrats.  I'm pretty sure that on average, their wealth is probably about the same.

So, please quit with the "helpless" theme.
States with less going for them than Texas have done more from the Democratic standpoint.  We kicked ass in Arkansas this year.  And I don't think Arkansas has a plethora of wealthy Democrat.

I have never associated Texas with begging for handouts.  Apparently, you and TDP differ on this.

---

by: v2aggie2 @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 06:39:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jesus Christ (5.00 / 1)

We're working on 2008 in my neck of the woods. We cannot afford to keep fighting with those who alienate themselves with divisive words, disparaging remarks and disrespect for our Party leadership. I invite everyone to leave 2006 in the past and get to work on 2008. Pick a campaign or a candidate or a cause (I like the Too Close To Craddick PAC and Annie's List) and help them win ONE. YEAR. FROM. NOW. To quote June Carter Cash, time's a-wastin...

---

by: Tejana @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:08:22 AM UTC

The 2006-2008 Connection (5.00 / 3)

Please don't tell me that we can safely leave what happened in 2006 in the past. When I read comments like Tejana's above, I wonder if anyone other than David Van Os appreciates the danger of allowing the TDP to continue as it did in 2006. The invitation to "pick a candidate or cause" seems like some older relative telling me to let bygones be bygones.

This is about STATE-WIDE races, people. State-wide. We were blown out state-wide in 2006. We perceive a Texas that desperately needs help--education policy and funding, healthcare, and toll roads are easy issues for all types of Texans to rally around. We have a Senate race in 2008. A senate race against an ethically-reprehensible candidate. How many Texans do you think would have voted for John Tester if we'd had a Senate race going on this year and he was the DEMOCRATIC candidate? I'd bet the majority--as long as he was known STATE-WIDE.

Does anyone honestly think that the TDP, the "Insiders," the big money that went to Grandma instead of Chris Bell, would allow a John Tester to emerge in Texas today? I think not. In fact, I think that's their worst nightmare. They want to CONTROL what happens. They want a John Sharp, because he's just like them. And he will lose. State-wide. Period.

---

by: prematurely grey @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 14:26:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes! (0.00 / 0)

Someone gets it!

---

by: Sam Jones @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 14:56:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Connections based on faulty premises don't connect squat. (0.00 / 0)

Of course we got blown out on state candidates.  We live in a state with a nominal DPI in the 30's.  We maybe pushed it up to 40 in this last election.  And none of the statewide candidates bothered to raise enough money to actually run a statewide race, though Bell started getting close there at the end (and BAR too, IIRC).  I'm pretty impressed with our having won the entirety of the city of Dallas and 5 seats in the House against a deeply entrenched majority.

"How many Texans do you think would have voted for John Tester if we'd had a Senate race going on this year and he was the DEMOCRATIC candidate?"

Depends.  If John Tester raised the paltry $150,000 his ethics committee filings show Van Os (who I cite simply since he wrote the diatribe) raised since Jan. 1?  I'd guess about 40%.  If he'd raised as much as he did in Montana, and got the endorsement of a popular governor like he did in Montana, and his race got national play, etc. etc.?  Maybe better.

And how on *earth* can you equate the TDP with the "big money that went to Grandma?"  Really?  I would LOVE to see how you draw that connection -- because I can't imagine the two being much farther apart from each other and still have both being in the Democratic party.

The Texas Blue: http://www.thetexasblue.com

---

by: George Nassar @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 14:15:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My faulty premises--a self-analysis (5.00 / 3)

1) "Of course we got blown out on state candidates." People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I'm not so sure your premises stand any more strongly than mine do.

While I agree that "the deck" is more than stacked against us, do you really believe that there is no way we can win statewide because of past DPI? Man, that is a serious problem. Please elaborate.

2) I'm not so sure "bothered" is the best choice of verb here. Perhaps "could have possibly raised" would be more accurate. I didn't realize that their failure to raise big money was *entirely* due to their own laziness or failings.

3) I'm completely impressed by the House pickups and the Dallas results. Does that mean I should give up on the state-wide race for senate in 2008? I don't think so.

4) Comparing David Van Os to John Tester--OK, David is the originator of this discussion, so I can see why you bring him in. Does that mean this discussion is limited to thinking about or bashing him as a candidate? Seems short-sighted to me.

5)Your "ifs": well, I'm pretty sure that if we had a intelligent, handsome, articulate and manly-to-the-point-of-macho BIG Texan running for Senate against Cornyn, there'd be a little national media coverage. As for the governor's endorsement, well, that seems like a stretch, but you did say "a popular governor," so maybe we're in better shape than it looks like in finding and fielding our Texas Tester, our Webb. Man, we own the cowboy archetype, don't we? Can't we take advantage of it for once?

6) "And how on *earth* can you equate the TDP with the "big money that went to Grandma?" Well, this is the $64,000 Question. Who gave what to whom when at whose direction? I refer you to the Ice Storm 2007 Marathon Bull Session courtesy of SmartyPants that I've just caught up on now that the internets are back to working at my house, the one where everybody fights about Russ Tidwell and even Charles Soechting weighs in.

The jury's not in, but it's definitely out on just what is happening money-wise in Texas Democratic politics, which *should* be the business of the TDP.
http://burntorangere...

---

by: prematurely grey @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 19:54:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hopefully helpful answers (0.00 / 0)

1) "...there is no way we can win statewide because of past DPI?"

Sorry if I was unclear.  My first and second sentences addressed the same point.  In other words, we didn't win because 1) we have a DPI against us, so we have to fight to beat the spread, and 2) the statewide candidates did not raise sufficient money to run a campaign that could beat the spread, and without funds, the sad truth is they lost before they started.

2) "Bothered" was intentional.  Perhaps I unfairly judge some -- I tend to mainly address my concerns with regards to the one complaining loudest, that being DVO.  While some of the other candidates may not have the experience that DVO had (he's run twice before this bid), DVO should by know know (as he's been told) that to run a statewide campaign, your campaign needs a finance director, preferably with some experience, that knows how to coordinate statewide fundraising to pull in money from big-ticket donors.  It's true, though -- I may be blanket judging the statewides unfairly.

3) Of course not.  Nor should we have "given up" on the statewide races in '06 -- and we didn't.  The bigger question is, exactly what does that mean?  What effect does that have?  If we're talking about our hope for the statewides, I think most Democrats were always hopeful.  But for some "politics wonk" types, that hope was tempered with the knowledge that they have not raised enough money to pay the "entry fee" to a statewide race.

4)  No, it's not -- which is why you have six points, and not just #4 ;-).  There are always a number of things to discuss.  But what you call "bashing," the discussion about the quality of campaign that Van Os ran, and his purposes for putting the blame on the state party, has important ramifications and has just as much a right to be on the table as all the others.

5) Sure!  That would be nice.  :-)  But we're also fortunate in that Cornyn is not nearly as popular as the nearly-untouchable KBH, who draws a number of moderate Democrats -- I have great respect for BOR for running a very difficult race, where she knew full well she was very much an underdog.  Cornyn is not popular, and we have some strong Democrats in Texas which can draw a lot of popular support (and fundraising!)  I'm very excited about 2008.

6) Yeah, that's something. :-)  I really enjoyed reading that when it first came out -- lots of interesting points.  I don't have a firm opinion on Tidwell either way just yet -- he has a very long history in Democratic politics -- but back to the point: this whole angle depends on the assumption that Russ Tidwell is somehow "holding the reins" of the TDP.  And that is not only most definitely not proven, but I think from what I've gotten so far that it's not even particularly likely.  IMHO, of course; I have little view of the inner workings of the TDP (just like most people that end up commenting on it ), and I can only base my opinion on what I've seen and heard.

The Texas Blue: http://www.thetexasblue.com

---

by: George Nassar @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 22:47:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Way to go, Tejana! (1.00 / 3)

I'm working on 2008. We can only hope certain people will slither away.

---

by: citizen @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 17:51:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fight 'em on the open oceans (0.00 / 0)

Didn't the ice melt due to global warming?

---

by: John McClelland @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 13:59:57 PM UTC

First of All (0.00 / 0)

Targeting-Not a euphemism and Not a secret.

Most Democrats DO know about the "secret" of targeting, most don't feel betrayed by it.

Most Democrats live on budgets and understand the necessity of resource partitioning aka. Targeting.


Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 14:39:46 PM UTC

Real Classy David (3.80 / 5)

I am an ordinary person.  Part of the general populace.  A citizen.  A democrat who has found a kernel of hope after Nov. 06.  And a reader of BOR who is bored with the "blame the insiders" rants.  I'm sorry you lost, didn't get a donation, didn't get invited to something, whatever... but the crybaby act isn't going to get you anywhere.  Not with this voter. 

If your passion is publicly trashing people who were on your side - and voted for you - then perhaps the people who didn't vote for you knew something you didn't.

You want to throw down on "the insiders?"  Why aren't you writing insightful diaries about the AG/office?  Why don't you tell us what and how you would do things differently? Why something is or isn't constitutional?  Why aren't you out there preaching on the evils of HB 626?

That's how you can save democracy.

---

by: tired of weakness @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 14:41:21 PM UTC

Right on! (3.00 / 4)

Van Os' diatribe is fine for a neighborhood activist, but disgraceful for someone aspiring to public office.  It completely validates my decision not to vote for him.

The "dirty little secret" he talks about?  Everyone who knows anything about politics has known this secret not for years, not for decades, but for millennia.  Small groups of people running the show are par for the course in any political organization, regardless of its political pretenses.  That's life.  Get over it, David, or at least go into therapy.

---

by: Wanderer @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 15:41:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Par for the course? (2.75 / 4)

The Texas Democratic Party is anything but par for the course. Not on par with anything else I have ever seen. The shenanigans of Boyd Richie alone during the convention was enough for me to hold my nose and not send in a check. Gay-baiting is not my idea of leadership. Under any circumstance. And I don't believe for one minute he didn't send out his little minions to spread the word that the majority of Democrats in Texas wouldn't support a gay man as party chair.

Looks to me like the majority of Democrats don't support the party period. Boyd Richie is one of many reasons why. Or should that be the latest reason why? 

David has expressed what a lot of people have wanted to. That the TDP does little if anything for anyone except a chosen few. They choose, we lose. It's that simple.

I'll take it one step further. I think the reason why they decide not to pull out all the bells and whistles for some candidates is not because they don't think the candidates can win, but rather because some of the insiders get a better deal with the Republican incumbents. 

I think you're the one who needs to get over it.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 18:36:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They choose we lose? (3.00 / 1)

I don't understand this "we lose" buisness.

We didn't lose in 06, we Won! We Gained seats in the legislature, if anything short of a sweep is considered a loss, then I give up, and everyone else may as well too.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 20:04:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We did get swept dumbass (0.00 / 0)

We got crushed in everyone of the statewide offices. I'm sorry I won't play along with the feel-good bs. Only the tiny fraction of Texans who live in the state house districts we picked up have anything to celebrate. The rest of us got screwed.
And as for giving up. Go right ahead that's what the party bosses did in 2006.

My comments reflect my own personal opinion and not those of any client or colleague, current, former or future.

---

by: Texas Nate @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 04:45:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Swept?? (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, picking up 6 new TX House seats and 2 US House seats, how could anyone think we won anything??? I guess the "party bosses" gave up this year. 

Sorry Nate, but all Democrats in Texas won this year.  If you are too naive (being nice here) to realize that, maybe you should move to New York. Then you can celebrate and feel like you accomplished something worthwhile when all the D's win. 

As for me, I will stay right here in Texas and fight tooth and nail to take my State back.

---

by: tarrantdeejay @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 05:25:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, it was a success (0.00 / 0)

And what did the party bosses have to do with that.  They abandoned Chris Bell in a winnable race.  And that was after Bell endorsed Boyd Richie, naively believing that this would be enough for TDP to get off its ass.

Silly Chris

---

by: v2aggie2 @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:24:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Boyd, is that you? (5.00 / 1)

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 05:01:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nose bleed section (3.50 / 4)

I'm a newcomer to hardball politics and the blogs, but so far all I've seen from David is promoting David. 

When I see David's name on something I mentally prepare myself for grandstanding.  All I've seen is that David is a better than average speaker, but certainly not in the big leagues, with a persecution complex.

You cannot debate a man who will not face the reality that people do not want their hard earned money going to support Fred Head or Gene Kelly.  It would be like debating a brick wall.

I'm certainly not a political expert, but I think David needs to move on and begin raising money for whatever he will run for next time. 

---

by: Galveston Gale @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 18:53:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Candidates bear the responsibility of getting themselves elected. (5.00 / 2)

I am tired of hearing from candidates that SOMEONE ELSE did not do enough their race.  The fact is, no one owes a candidate anything.  If you want support, you have to earn it. I would never give to an organization that apportioned out all their efforts equally among all candidates.  Doing that is insane. 

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate everyone who put their name on the D side of the ballot.  The fact is not all races are equal. Some districts are better than others and some candidates are definately better than others. 

The candidates who are able to garner major support are those who set themselves apart by running a professional campaign.  It is up to the CANDIDATE, not anyone else, to secure enough up front momentum (cash, publicity, support) to leverage the additional support needed to win.

David was never going to get his desired support until he could demonstrate how this race would be different from the others he ran (1998-39.98% and 2004 - 40.76%).  Unfortunately he did not do it.

David speaks of "shock troops" who are out there to "character assassinate"...

I am sure the truth is shocking, and even hurtful.  The fact is, David did not demonstrate he had the ability to win his race.  Thus, the "insiders" chose to concentrate (target) their influence with those who did.  I am grateful for that decision and for the 6 new House members we have as a result of their wisdom and efforts. 

I don't mean to be hateful, just realistic.  In fact, I hope the "insiders" make the same "mistake" again in 2008 (aka: targeting winnable races). Doing so may bring six additional Democrats to the House bringing us even at 75/75.  We may even have a chance of controlling the house (if we can control the Craddick D's).

I say we repeat this "mistake" cycle after cycle until Democrats are in the majority again.  Call me crazy, but picking up 6 seats and not loosing any doesn't seem much like loosing to me.

---

by: tarrantdeejay @ Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 23:48:30 PM UTC

Do you have any thoughts on state-wide elections and the TDP? (4.00 / 2)

Not only about who, what or why in 2006--about laying the groundwork for attracting, grooming, and supporting viable STATE-WIDE candidates in 2008 and 2010. As far as targeting is concerned, let's talk about it openly. Who was targeted? Who wasn't? Why?

The personal attacks on David are difficult. Clearly, some people disagree with his opinion of the TDP. Some people seem to think this is about being a sore loser. I think we need to consider this question:

Did the TDP target ANY of the state-wide races?

It sure didn't feel like they did. Did the TDP make the decision to only target Texas House and Senate seats?

Even if you think that was a good decision, given the pick ups, what are the ramifications of having a state party that either so disagrees with its candidates or so disdains the candidates or has so little to give that it can't run effective state-wide races? That's what we have to talk about--how can we run successful state-wide races in the future.

I'm still enough of an optimist to believe that we can.

---

by: prematurely grey @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 05:37:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Speaking as an "outsider" (5.00 / 1)

here, so I can't say for certain. But, I believe you are right, I don't think any of the statewides were targeted (anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

I think they did target primarily state legislature and a few U.S. congressional races.

Why you ask? Well, in my opinion, because those were the seats that were most likely winnable and would have the added bonus of having the greatest overall effect on Texas both in terms of having the power to make real change in law, not the least of which is the upcoming re-districting.

Let's look at it this way for a moment. I live in a U.S. House dist. that is for all intents and purposes absolutely un-winnable for a Democrat. Like many districts, it was drawn with the sole purpose of removing a Democratic incumbent and it is ridiculous from any perspective other than ousting Dem's. From that perspective it is genius.

The only way for Texas to have a prayer of regaining U.S. house seats after 2010 is to make absolutely certain that we have enough power in the legislature to prevent this kind of map from getting through a second time.

Otherwise, both we in Texas and the country at large are liable to be paying an extremely high price for another decade. None of us can stand that, the "insiders" who I believe really do have the Party and the State at hart can't allow it. Preparing ourselves in terms of numbers for the next redistricting battle should and must be priority ONE for Democrats.

The only way to begin to prepare for that battle is to build our army, starting with the state Leg, continuing afterward with the state Senate.

We would be better off if we don't have to try and depend on the courts to correct these issues after the fact.

We all talk about how in a republican area, you have to start taking that area back from the bottom. You don't start with state races, you start with city, then county, then state races. You have to build your pyramid from the bottom, I believe that is another argument in favor of focusing on the state leg. during our rebuilding efforts.

Finally, think of it this way, there are a great deal of Democrats in this state, there are probably slightly more Republicans. These Democrats and Republicans are not equally distributed throughout the state. Therefore, an equally distributed effort would be ineffective. That is essentially what is required to "support" statewide candidates in the way it has been suggested. GOTV efforts should focus on areas that are already Dem. and have low turnout, or at least have been trending Dem. We as a Party are not where we need to be to start convincing people who have been voting Rep. for 15-20-30 years to start voting Dem. We have a lot to prove before we can start asking that, one way to start proving ourselves as a party is to start making positive changes in the legislature, the place where Texas government is the most powerful.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 14:05:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We're all in this together (5.00 / 3)

I too live in one of those redrawn districts. I used to have a Democratic Congressman and now I have a Republican one. I agree 100% that we must do everything we can to win back the Lege so the 2010 redistricting reflects something like reality.

That being said, does that mean that we abandon the 2008 Senate race? That's where I'm at. That's what I'm obsessed with. Cornyn is horrible. It is embarassing to have him represent this state.

61% of Texans voted against Perry and he's our governor. I do not believe we can allow Cornyn the same ride.

So, how do we do both? How do we win back the Lege *and* defeat Cornyn? Or is it your belief that we sacrifice the 2008 Senate race here and now?

Here's what I find most interesting and provocative in your comment:

"We as a Party are not where we need to be to start convincing people who have been voting Rep. for 15-20-30 years to start voting Dem. We have a lot to prove before we can start asking that, one way to start proving ourselves as a party is to start making positive changes in the legislature, the place where Texas government is the most powerful."

You seem to believe that the path to success is to work ONLY from the bottom. I don't think it's either/or--run great candidates in EVERY race. Run HARD in every race. I say we'll never "prove" ourselves as a party if we don't start having some balls as well as some patience.

When is it time to start convincing these people to vote for us? What do we have to do to "prove" ourselves? Can we afford not to try no matter what? Can Texas afford it?

---

by: prematurely grey @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 20:11:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

we should be running strong candidates in every race. Unfortunately, our bench isn't that deep. It would be great if it was.

And I was talking about the targeting in 06, not 08. 08 is a different year and a different race, I frankly can't imagine that the TDP is not recruiting a strong candidate to run against Cornyn or that that race is not targeted. By my logic, targeting a race against KBH would have been a terrible idea, she's way too popular. Targeting a race against Cornyn, different story. He's way to unpopular not to target. That's why it's called targeting, you do it election by election, race by race.

I know people get tired of this  mantra, but it really is about resources, it would be great if we could go into every single race, loaded for bear, unfortunately, shot gun shells cost money. We have to choose well stocked hunting grounds and vulnerable prey.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 22:14:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The TDP and Strong Candidates (5.00 / 2)

Is it true our bench "just isn't that deep" or have the wrong coaches been focused on the wrong plays? Are potential starters being encouraged, or do they just stay in the private sector because they don't want to play a losing game?

Here's where I get very nervous. Do you have the faith in the TDP to allow it to identify, groom, and "present" the best candidates for office, state-wide or regional?

That's what I'm worried about most. We believe the state party should do this job. However, I'm not completely convinced that the TDP is totally up to it. No, that's not fair. I am worried that the "powers that be" behind the TDP have a really bad influence on this. (My argument here is titled "Tony Sanchez.")

We, the few, the proud, the netroots, should be doing our own version of talking about candidates, funding, strategy, at the same time. We have to work in parallel, not simply in response. One of the big stories of 2006 nationally was the "emergence" of netroots candidates. It sounds quite vague and semi-miraculous, doesn't it? But it wasn't. It was the result of tons of work, much of which began with conversations just like this one.

---

by: prematurely grey @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 00:59:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a legitimate question (5.00 / 1)

I'm not sure I have faith that the TDP will necessarily identify the best candidates for office, I do however have faith that they will do the best they can do and that their interests really are in winning races and therefore recruit the best candidates to run that they can and target the races where they believe they can have the greatest positive impact.

We're all human, nobody can assure any of us that they will Always make the best choice. I do however believe it is a job that has to be done and we have to allow that job to be done. It is of course our responsibility to make changes at the state level if we feel they are derelict or incompetent. However, we need to be realistic in our expectations and not make these accusations based solely on our personal opinions about the decisions they make.

I absolutely agree, we should certainly be raising money, and promoting candidates, we have an unmatched forum for that. We of course have to take on the responsibility of extending that outside the netroots in order to be effective. Remember, the majority of voters do not blog.

As to your first question about our bench being shallow, yes unfortunately I think so. This is how I make that assertion. I am fairly well plugged in when it comes to politics both statewide and nationally. I as most of us here I expect, serve as something of a political maven for my group of friends and acquaintances.
  When we have people running for statewide office who i've never or barely ever heard of, and who my less political, but still actively voting friends have never heard of, that suggests to me a shallow bench. A candidate for statewide office needs to have some level of name recognition even before they become a candidate.
Pete Laney is a good example. If you say Pete Laney to an average guy on the street, they may not be able to tell you exactly who he is, but they will likely recognize the name. Say the name Barbra Radnofsky and they will likely just stare at you.
The Republicans in Texas currently have a number of well known (often well liked) candidates to choose from. Now, it's a bit of a vicious circle since the reason they are well known is that they already hold a high office, but that's the power of incumbency and it's difficult to overcome. Someone running for statewide office should ideally be a high profile Democrat and unfortunately we are currently very low on high profile Dems. That's why we have to start building, from the bottom up. The Republicans didn't take the state over starting with statewides and we won't take it back that way either. Unfortunately this is a case of slow and steady wins the race, and patience is a necessity. A strong house that can withstand assault requires a solid base. We're still in the foundation lying phase.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 13:31:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Slow but steady wins the race but come on... (0.00 / 0)

...shouldn't we be able to take a very good shot at Cornyn? Do we really have no potential candidates. Do we really have to wait at least another six years to run a successful Senate campaign?

Hmmm...

This is where the devil on my shoulder starts whispering, "Chris Bell for Senate 2008."
Name recognition, check.
State-wide political apparatus, check.
Previous Washington experience without being an insider, check.
Ability to rake in the big bucks, check.
Tall, check.

Hmmm...

---

by: prematurely grey @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 15:42:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I knew that one comment would be singled out (0.00 / 0)

Look, accepting that you are hoeing a long long row is not the same as saying it's ok to drag your feet. I'm not sure why that comment is allways interpreted that way.
As far as Cornyn goes, you're determined to try and tie that comment to his upcoming race as well as a lack of targeting of the KBH race to Cornyns race.
I never suggested we ignore that race in the above or any other comment. In fact I had this to say the, the last time you asked me that question.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 18:20:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is one thing to not "target" statewide races (5.00 / 1)

choices have to be made.

It is another thing to act like these races don't exist.

---

by: v2aggie2 @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:58:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Second verse, same as the first (5.00 / 1)

A common allegation, never defended with proof.  Why not be the first?

The Texas Blue: http://www.thetexasblue.com

---

by: George Nassar @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 07:26:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Proof of nothing? (0.00 / 0)

If you aren't even bothering to mention statewide races, isn't that proof enough?

If the races are, at best, buried in the TDP website, isn't that proof enough?

I think that Chris Bell was the only candidate ever mentioned in a TDP e-mail.  Yes, Barbara Ann Radnofsky was endorsed via TDP e-mails in the runoff against Gene Kelly (what courage!), but nothing else before or after.

And TDP actually refused to let some candidates speak at the Convention, just because of the chair race.  Isn't that proof enough?

---

by: v2aggie2 @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 06:31:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe (5.00 / 1)

but in general, what is the purpose of TDP?

Statewide, we never have coordinated campaigns.  In Arkansas, where I worked in 2004, that is how they do it.  And they swept all statewide races in 2006.

Our candidates are left to fend for themselves.  Also, has the state party ever bothered with candidate recruitment.

We have the 50th best state Democratic Party.  Can anyone name a worse one?  We are the 2nd largest state, but we have a state party that acts helpless

---

by: v2aggie2 @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:15:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

funny story... (0.00 / 0)

We have the 50th best state Democratic Party.  Can anyone name a worse one?  We are the 2nd largest state, but we have a state party that acts helpless

So this farmer calls up Guinness and says, "hey, you guys should come down and list me.  I have the smallest horse in the world."  So Guinness sends a representative down to the farmer, who walks him to the horse.  As the rep starts pulling out measuring tape and the like, to measure the horse, he asks, "so how did you come to find out you had the smallest horse in the world?"  Farmer says, in a how-could-you-miss-that tone, "well, just look at 'im!"

Rep stands up and walks away.

The Texas Blue: http://www.thetexasblue.com

---

by: George Nassar @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:36:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Texans reject Van Os (2.71 / 7)

They already have a state government filled with extremists.  They don't want another, even if he is at the other extreme.

---

by: Orizaba 212 @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 02:44:38 AM UTC

Maybe (5.00 / 1)

Even if David is over the top and only out for himself that doesn't change the fact that he is basically correct.  The question is are we going to continue a losing stategy or start building a state-wide party for the long term.

---

by: bb1 @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 18:45:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

begging the question (0.00 / 0)

If he were correct, that would be true.  But seeing as there's lots of reason to think '06 was a *winning* strategy, for all but the statewides that didn't get an experienced fundraiser to raise the kind of mad cash needed to run a statewide, that "fact" is called to question.

The Texas Blue: http://www.thetexasblue.com

---

by: George Nassar @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 22:29:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Follow the money (0.00 / 0)

Here's what I want to know: did any of the state-wide candidates have the kind of fundraiser you're talking about? I'd like to know your thoughts.

Do we call candidates "strong" based on their ability to raise money? Or do we raise more money when we have stong candidates?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

---

by: prematurely grey @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:15:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

indeed. (0.00 / 0)

Yes -- eventually.  Chris Bell started raising some real significant funds there near the end of his campaign.

Looking more over a historical perspective, I don't know who Ann Richards' fundraiser was, but she raised about $8 million the first time she ran, and $13 million the second time, in a time where campaigns were cheaper than they are now.  I do know that a number of her staff are still around the Texas political arena, but I don't know enough of that history to know who they are or what they're up to.

And yes -- we call the candidates "strong" based on their ability to raise money.  We probably also raise more money when we have a field of strong candidates -- that does not change what makes a strong candidate.

The Texas Blue: http://www.thetexasblue.com

---

by: George Nassar @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:36:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No one in any state (0.00 / 0)

is going to be able to "get an experienced fundraiser to raise the kind of mad cash needed to run a statewide" without intensive help of the state party.  Would you mortgage your house to run based on what the TDP has done in the past?

---

by: bb1 @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 18:46:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can David or Anyone tell me (0.00 / 0)

Just exactally which races were secretly targeted by the TDP?

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:05:17 AM UTC

It's no secret (0.00 / 0)

It was the 5 House races we picked up in November.

---

by: Tejana @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:17:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did TDP have anything to do with that? (5.00 / 1)

or was it just a case of strong candidates in the right areas

---

by: v2aggie2 @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:20:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know it's not a secret (0.00 / 0)

But I wanted someone to come out and say it.

Now let's see if I have this right, they targeted a total of 5 legislative races, and we won ALL 5?
Yea, this targeting thing has got to go.

Of course, in reality I have been under the impression that they may have been tageting a couple of U.S. House races, at least one of which we lost. True?
It really doesn't matter because 6 out of 7 aint bad in anybody's book. But in the interest of transparency I am wondering if these 5 races where in fact the only ones targeted.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 15:46:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There were other ones that were close (5.00 / 1)

that if a little more attn had been paid could have also flipped.

Not just the statewide races-where I do think Bell and Gilbert had the best chances-but races like Katy Hubener's.

I just do not want to repeat the missteps of 2006 in 2008.  No more laying back. We need to lean forward.

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

---

by: boadicea @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 16:52:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For that matter, did TDP target any statewide races? (5.00 / 1)

Looking at the website and their website, they seemed to very reluctant to mention that we even had statewide candidates.

Pathetic

---

by: v2aggie2 @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 05:18:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]