Texas Environmental Democrats of Austin (TED-Austin) Endorsement Results

Spears v. Maxey (0.00 / 0)

One thing I forgot to mention was the Spears/Maxey firefight.  It appears that nothing was decided tonight.  Maxey won some, Spears won some.  I thought Maxey's speech/answers were impressive tonight, but Spears was also good.  

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:16:13 AM UTC

Hmmm (0.00 / 0)

Why would most people cast their ballots before Ray McMurrey even had a chance to speak?  Especially if you see that he's down there with Noriega, and Noriega didn't even bother to show up tonight?  Add to that the fact that Noriega is a former energy lobbyist, and that he works for an energy company now, AND that McMurrey gave a terrific answer to the environmental question, saying we need big federal incentives to get alternative energy companies on the grid, now.  The Texas Environmental Democrats are the first group that should be lining up behind Ray McMurrey, and I hope they'll reconsider their endorsement.

I'm also surprised at the Dan Grant endorsement by TED.  His answer to the environmental question was evasive, and frankly, his "I just want to get through whatever we can get through" attitude is what's killing Democrats in Congress right now.  I wish he would have talked more about one of the specific proposals mentioned to cut carbon emissions, instead of saying "they're all good."  Being a smooth talker goes a long way in politics, i guess.

I can't wait to vote for Brian Thompson (and against Dawnna Dukes).  She got the two most negative questions tonight, both people questioning her were obviously upset with her, and for good reason.  Everybody else who has a Craddick Democrat in their district needs vote that person out in the primary, especially if, like Dukes, that person won't commit to voting against Craddick next year.

---

by: Jeff Versteeg @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:35:07 AM UTC

endorsing before hearing (0.00 / 0)

Jeff, unfortunately this is a pretty common behavior at these endorsement meetings.  Many people do not stay the whole meeting and turn in their ballot as they leave. Others already know who they want and fill it in as soon as they receive the ballot.  We as an organization try to accommodate the schedules of our members to the greatest extent possible.  

Regarding the endorsements, there is no mechanism for our group to reconsider an endorsement, as endorsements are determined by vote of members, not by a consensus amongst the leadership.  Keep in mind that all of us have a wealth of reasons that we might vote for a particular candidate, including issue positions, candidate viability, signaling, etc.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 19:34:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Q&A (0.00 / 0)

I thought the low point of the evening was what appeared to be a previously rehearsed Q&A with Thompson about county land-use authority.  The answer he gave was serious inside baseball (and could well have come from another Travis County officeholder), and not precisely true.

Rep. Dukes, faced with a choice of voting for one Republican, or another Republican, in the speaker's race, voted for the one who put her on really good committees.  She was still able to vote her district, and against the leadership, on every important matter (this canard about the CHIP bill notwithstanding - the bill on the floor was the best deal that could be cut, and 90% of a loaf is better than no loaf at all).  

I worked for a member of the legislature who towed the progressive line 99% of the time.  That member was persistently criticized for not working with the leadership, and at times called ineffective for that reason. What is it we want, someone who goes to the back mic to complain a lot, and serves on the Rodeos and Circus Clowns committees?  Do we want to be right all the time, and righteous about it, but pass no bills (or, just as importantly but often overlooked, kill no bills)?  Or, do we want someone who plays the lousy hand they were dealt in a way that brings some influence while still retaining the ability to vote the district?

I cannot help but think this kind of intraparty purity test is part of the reason we Democrats haven't one a statewide race in eons.  I think our time, energy, and money would be better spent trying to protect the two Western Travis County house seats which are in danger than in fighting amongst ourselves.

---

by: JUICE @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 15:33:21 PM UTC

Disagree (0.00 / 0)

JUICE --

I don't think it's an intraparty purity test on Craddick -- it's an intraparty purity test on the issues. Craddick isn't a litmus test -- the issues are the litmus test.

As Colin Strother agreed with me at one point, it's up to the people in the district to decide where the candidate should stand on the issues.

I worked for Rep. Coleman in the session -- certainly someone who did not support Craddick and who is an outspoken critic. Whether or not people like his style, rhetoric, etc. is subjective. The objective truth is that he passed numerous good pieces of legislation for his district -- both in amendment and bill form -- as well as for the state. I could list numerous examples, but that's not the point. The point is that it is possible for some -- not for all, but for some -- to pass good legislation for the district and be an outspoken critic of Speaker Craddick.

Whether or not Rep. Dukes is good for her district is a question (in my mind) for her district, of which I am not a part of. My only relationship was inside the Capitol -- and in my experience, Rep. Dukes and her staff were great to work with.

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

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 16:03:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

agree, somewhat....with Phillip (0.00 / 0)

I don't think it is a purity test. I think the crash into the minority was sudden and violent. I think the same bipartisanship Laney afforded repubs has not been reciprocated on the same level. I think these conditions have created a level of frustration and anger.

I think that the anger is being focused on a handful of people with total disregard to the alternative that was on the table, or the folks that voted for Craddick---and even raised him money and/or contributed to Craddick.

Each member of the lege and each voter can make their own mind up, and will.

In the final analysis, the voters of the district will decide who has the experience, qualifications, vision and values to represent their family in the House.

We'll all move forward and get things focused on the real prize: a majority in November.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 17:23:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the real numbers (0.00 / 0)

JUICE - 90% is a bogus number

We can all agree that Dawnna joined 74 Republicans and 7 Craddick D's to vote against Rep. Coleman's amendment to fully fund CHIP.  That's a matter of public record and is not in dispute.

Your innaccurate claim that HB 109 provided "90% of a loaf" is completely inaccurate.

To this day, most of the kids cut form CHIP in 2003 HAVE NOT been restored to the CHIP program, even after HB 109 passed.  The bill didn't come close to restoring 90% of the cuts, that's why Mr. Coleman offered the amendment to restore ALL of the kids back to CHIP and fully fund the program at pre-2003 levels.  They were'nt quibling over 10%, he was fighting for an additional 100,000 kids who still don't have health care!

According to this HHSC document, http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/re... there were 507,259 kids in CHIP statewide in September of 2003.  Of those kids in CHIP, 12,635 were in Travis County.

According to this HHSC document,
http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/re... there are only 352,891 kids in CHIP in Texas as of January, 2008.  Of those kids, only 9,213 are in Travis County.

That's not even half a loaf, much less 90%.

No one worked harder on this issue than Philip, so please correct me if any of these stats are incorrect.

---

by: hobby101 @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 17:20:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Numbers. (0.00 / 0)

I asked someone who knows this subject well about these numbers.  Here, paraphased, is what they told me:

90% is correct.  The effects of HB 109 will be realized one year from implementation, which will be September of 2009.  The reason being is the largest increase of kids to be added back to the rolls is due to the change in re-enrollment from 6 months to 12 months.  At the end of FY 2009 there will be an increase of 145,539 kids statewide, and approximately 3,256 more kids in Travis County.  

Since the change from 6 months to 12 months has not been realized, January numbers are still an effect of the Republican cuts caused by HB 2292 (which Rep. Dukes voted against during the 2003 session) Rep. Dukes' fight on the House floor will add 3,256 Travis County kids to CHIP.

---

by: JUICE @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 22:14:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

numbers are wrong (0.00 / 0)

And your mindset is wrong as well.  We passed legislation that goes through 2009 and we're struggling to get to 2003 numbers.  Why are we looking back for a benchmark of where we need to be.  While thousands of kids have gone without insurance in the last 5 years, thousands more have been born.  This state is experiencing massive growth and yet Craddick and the Republican legislature have left us scrapping to hold up an infrastructure that is not stable enough to support 2003 levels, let alone current levels.

Your 90% number isn't close for 2003 levels, it's miles away from being near to 2009 levels.

(there's also still a defacto 6 month reenrollment built into the final version of the bill).

---

by: Joe @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 22:30:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here... (0.00 / 0)

Both you and Joe are right.

It's going to take a while for the full enrollment of HB 109 and the amendments to the budget passed by Rep. Coleman to go into effect. It takes HHSC and the people some time to implement changes.

Some of those changes are also going to be what should be an elimination of the "red tape rules" that provided barriers to enrollment. What HB 2292 did was do a few changes in statute (which HB 109 addressed), but ALSO asked HHSC to create rules that, in effect, created barriers to enrollment. That's why the "rules process" that governs CHIP went from being about 20 pages to 100 pages long (and I read the 100 pages of rules for HHSC -- there are some insane things in there). Rep. Coleman's amendments to the budget were meant to fix those changes, and they will -- but only slowly, in time.

Joe, however, is also right about two things. First of all, the 6-12 month is only for families between 100% and 185% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Those kids between 185 and 200% are still in a de-facto 6-month enrollment --- but first HHSC needs to come up with some sort of eligibility check system for those kids, which (like the changes that are coming from Rep. Coleman's amendment) should take some time.

The more important point that Joe is right on, though, -- and that I worked on in Rep. Coleman's office -- is that we're still acting as if getting to 2003 levels is OK. We should be above and beyond the 507 thousand kids we had in Sept. 03 -- or even the 529 thousand kids enrolled in May 2002. We should be at least as high as 660 thousand kids, if not more, for CHIP. There are states that are going up to 300% of the FPL. Texas has lost over $914 million in federal funds because we weren't enrolling as many kids as the federal government was expecting us to. That's a terrible, terrible legacy to have.

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

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 00:06:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You know, (0.00 / 0)

even here on the muddy Brazos River we can distinguish between mud and water.  Calling the Craddick vote a purity test is little like suggesting that a hand full of mud might be water.  

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:33:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is how tyrants stay in power (0.00 / 0)

by giving favors to people for their support.  Dukes has sold herself to the tyrant of the Texas legislature, Craddick, and in doing so supports a corrupt system that might give temporary benefits to herself through favorable appointments, but is very bad for the democratic process, the integrity of the system, and the state in general.

Allying yourself with the most radical faction of the Republican party and one of the most authoritarian speakers is not going to help get good legislation passed.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:33:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Noriega? (0.00 / 0)

It may prove to be true that McMurrey got in to the race too late, but if given a chance to be heard, his presence in the race will do at least two things:

1. He will give Democrats a chance to listen to a candidate speak about the issues in this election.

2. McMurrey will make Noriega a stronger candidate by being made to prove that he deserves the nomination.

As it stands, the Draft Noriega effect (well-intentioned and commendable as it is) will ultimately end up giving us a less prepared candidate if he is allowed to coast through the primary virtually unquestioned by the Democratic grassroots.

Jeff brings up a good point: how does an Environmental group endorse a candidate with ties to the Energy lobby without even hearing from his opponent first? Maybe Noriega would've gotten the endorsement anyway, but the assumption among most Democrats that Noriega is the man for the job could end up hurting us.

---

by: Brian Rhea @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 15:47:16 PM UTC

Because... (5.00 / 1)

even members of TED have to use electricity from the grid.

Seriously, the guy works for Centerpoint. It's a job, just like McMurrey's job with his charter school. Many public school teachers hate charter schools and would knee jerk against McMurrey over that. I don't think that's any more appropriate than asking that TED vote against a candidate simply because he works for a utility company.  

---

by: McBlogger @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 17:16:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay (0.00 / 0)

Then how about because he lacks an energy policy.

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:22:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What? (0.00 / 0)

Just because it's not up on the website yet?

---

by: McBlogger @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:41:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hugh, He Has a Secret Energy Plan (0.00 / 0)

    You and I are old enough to remember Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam war.  

   By the way, Dave McNeeley, the progressive columnist, has just published an article criticizing Noriega for refusing to debate.  Dave has a good following around the state.  He points out that Noriega's excuse for ducking Ray McMurrey -- "has he raised any money?" -- could be turned around and used against him by Sen. Cornyn in the fall.  

---

by: Buck Smith @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:15:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The web page (0.00 / 0)

would be the obvious place to put this.  The Noriega people told me in August that they just had not had time to get their platform up up yet but that would be happening any day now. Six months later and we still have not seen that day. Follow through is often a problem with politicians, especially those who are finaced by enterests different than those they are campaigning to.

---

by: Hugh Stearns @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:46:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm a Teacher and it's not a Charter School (0.00 / 0)

In a state that produces more greenhouse gases than #2 (California) and #3 (Pennsylvania) combined, endorsing a candidate who works for an energy company places him in a compromising position.

If nothing else, the fact that he will have to recuse himself from voting on energy policies that will effect CenterPoint guarantees that we are losing a Democratic vote in that regard.

Second, McMurrey teaches at a Gates Foundation Early College High School which cooperates with public school districts in ways that private charters do not. The school district that I teach for has also partnered with the Gates Foundation to create an Early College High School and we have seen incredible results.

Read about the initiative here:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org...

---

by: Brian Rhea @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 17:13:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Dukes Rationalization Obfuscation (0.00 / 0)

I was wondering how long it would take Duke's supporters to explain away her abandonment of her constituency on healthcare and education, among other things, under the guise of "half a loaf is better than none at all."  There's nothing wrong with compromise and coming across the aisle to get things done, but when those "compromises" result in consulting contracts for family members and campaign contributions from Republican donors, you've got to start to wonder.  Why is this woman funded by Republicans?

I wasn't at the TED meeting, but it's no surprise to me that all of those groups support the removal of Dukes.  I also have no idea what "JUICE" means by his "inside baseball" reference.  I wasn't there so perhaps I lack context.  The political landscape in Austin and across the nation is changing.  Democrats can do better than having someone in office who has chosen to allign herself with Craddick.

---

by: mikul101 @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 16:01:05 PM UTC

CD10 (0.00 / 0)

Dan seems to really be out working the Democratic groups and many of the folks that he will need in order to win the primary.  Apparently, the conventional wisdom is that the CD10 primary will be won in Austin.

But, I'm troubled that, as a prospective constituent and Yellow Dog, I have yet to receive an e-mail, letter, or call from Dan.  Endorsements are important, but it's also important to build a base of supporters and donors in the district.

CD10 is a tough but winnable district for a Dem.  But, we need to make sure that we don't set ourselves up by nominating someone in the primary who can't get the votes in suburban Houston and the intervening counties that will be needed to win in November.

---

by: Jeb @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 16:37:32 PM UTC

In 2006 (0.00 / 0)

McCaul won the NW Harris County precincts by over 29K votes, with over 176K total votes cast in CD10, with 140K of those from Travis and Harris Counties. Obviously, the counties in between are not major nuggets by any stretch, collectively the rurals gave McCaul a margin of nearly 10K (22.5K - 13K for Ankrum)
I think we can reasonably expect well over 200K to vote in the race this November, and I suspect many more Democratic votes can emerge in both Harris County and the rurals if our nominee works them hard. In '06, Ankrum won 3-2 in Travis. But even a 3-1 advantage there, assuming a proportionally larger turnout than '06, won't be enough to overcome McCaul's margins east of Travis. This thing will have to be won by working the entire stretch of 290 and converting some fence-sitters along the way.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 16:53:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sign up for email (5.00 / 1)

Dan's website has a link to sign up for his emails.  I don't know what kind of calls people usually receive.  I'm a precinct chair, so I get all sorts of mailers and phone calls and emails that the general population doesn't.  But, if you want to know more about his campaign, please call him and ask.  

I think he's done a great job along the entire stretch of the district in getting support from the activists, and getting those folks on board builds the base of supporters and donors throughout the district.  He reached out to me as a precinct chair and asked for my help in getting the word out.  He inspires me to do that-I have taken the time to talk to my friends about this race.

I think Dan is the one who will carry both population centers AND the rural counties in between, and I believe that he will defeat McCaul.

Disclosure: Former Political Director for Lee Leffingwell for Mayor of Austin ('09)

---

by: sccs @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 17:34:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dan reads BOR... (0.00 / 0)

But, I'm troubled that, as a prospective constituent and Yellow Dog, I have yet to receive an e-mail, letter, or call from Dan.  Endorsements are important, but it's also important to build a base of supporters and donors in the district.

I'm sure after seeing this, you'll hear from him.

"A time comes when silence is betrayal." Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: liberaldemdave @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 21:23:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lists (0.00 / 0)

If Dan was reading Ted Ankrum's donor lists, I would expect that I'd get a call or letter from him.  But, I haven't.

---

by: Jeb @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 19:44:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ted just endorsed Dan. (0.00 / 0)

Are you so powerful or prominent that you should expect (borderline demand) a personal call from Dan in order to support him?

If that's the case, there are thousands that could say the same about his primary opponent, who only tends to curry favor with those who will fawn over him.

"A time comes when silence is betrayal." Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: liberaldemdave @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 20:11:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Congratulations to all the candidates! (0.00 / 0)

I hope they will fight for our environment.

---

by: sonia @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 16:55:19 PM UTC

Scott Ozmun and Jim Coronado were two excellent endorsements. (0.00 / 0)

http://yanezhoustonjordanfortx...

---

by: Take Back the Texas Supreme Court @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 17:25:44 PM UTC

Link to full endorsement list (0.00 / 0)

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Blogs/News?oid=oid%3A582553

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 20:17:07 PM UTC

Austin Chonicle forgot to add the TED-A Rick Noriega endorsement (0.00 / 0)

I actually think it's just a typo.  They have AED which may be their way of saying Austin Environmental Democrats.  They mean TED of course.  

---

by: sonia @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 21:18:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Way to go, DAN! (0.00 / 0)

You're going to make one huckuva Congressman!

"A time comes when silence is betrayal." Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: liberaldemdave @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 21:20:54 PM UTC