Supporting Barbara Radnofsky

Agree with most all of this... (0.00 / 0)

But what's up with the bashing on the TDP? Soechting, by everything I've read, was all about Dean's 50-state strategy and running wherever and as much as we can. He even has come on BOR a few times to endorse candidates some folks say shouldn't even be running. Mark Warner praised Soechting at the breakfast a few weeks ago for understanding that Democrats need to go out and run in all areas of the state.

So...what TDP strategy are you bashing?

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

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:17:25 AM UTC

Not Soechting in particular (0.00 / 0)

But whomever is responsible over there for just stopping the recruitment talks that were going on up to a point last fall. If it was the chair, or his staff, or the new Executive Director, or if it was Matt Angle and the Trust folks.

But considering I can't tell you who was in charge of that (or in charge at any particular point) I can't define this any better than the "TDP" as an entity. Sorry if that is unclear to anyone, but if someone can really clarify it, please do post!

Soechting has indeed tried to bridge some of the old and new parts of the party. I am thankful for that because I know it has been and will continue to be difficult. It's not easy task. But the efforts he started need to be expanded by a couple of factors in that regard.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 07:32:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can you elaborate? (0.00 / 0)

I am not familiar with this "stopping the recruitment talks" you are referring to. But I'm interested to hear, particularly since you seem to be supposing possible blame on a few people who I know to be great democratic leaders. I assume you are not being intentionally cryptic and just assume we all know what you are talking about.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 14:45:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

perhaps i'm mistaken (0.00 / 0)

but i seem to remember that there was some resistance to the "run everywhere" strategy from the TDP.  i can't remember if it was specifically from the chairman, but i'm sure that it included the baron & budd people.

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

---

by: annatopia @ Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 16:22:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well... (3.00 / 1)

...we're still just assuming someone said something, which I think is silly, but I know what you're talking about. My main concern with the "run everywhere" strategy is where you get the money to do that. The "run everywhere" strategy seems similar to "buy every stock possible" when you don't have the money. Personally, I'd rather make some smart investments -- but that's because I don't have that much money.

And I say this as a supporter of the "run everywhere" strategy. I want to run in every race, at every level, because you never know what may happen. And I like what Maxey said in this other thread about how you start building infrastructures in rural areas.

But, we need to raise some serious cash in order to make that a successful strategy, which is part of what all of the TDP Chair candidates -- Maxey, Urbina-Jones, and Richie -- all plan on doing.

Of course, it would help if so many Democrats weren't giving so much frickin' money to Strayhorn. But that's a whole other post...

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

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 18:10:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i hear ya (0.00 / 0)

i wish i could find the links for the stuff i mentioned, but they are over a year old.  plus, i've reinstalled my computer and lost my bookmarks so many times.

anyway, i think you take a pragmatic view of the run everywhere strategy.  certainly we don't want to run just anybody (eugene kelley, *ahem*), but i am still of the opinion that we have to start giving all the voters a choice.  and that means trying to put a well educated, well spoken dem on the ballot in every race.

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

---

by: annatopia @ Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 18:55:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hate to say this... (0.00 / 0)

but I consider Barbara Radnofsky to be a "Republican Lite" and I'm not sure I will be voting for her if Rusty Tomlinson, the Green Party candidate is able to get on the ballot.  I consider myself to be a Democrat and will vote for almost every other Democrat on the ballot.  But I agree with an email that I received on the Progressive Action Alliance's (http://www.paa-tx.org) email discussion group.  This group grew out of the Houston Dennis Kucinich for president campaign and consists of Democrats, Greens and other progressives. 

Here is the email I received- I'm not saying I agree with his radical idea - but I might not vote for Barbara if the Green party candidate gets on the ballot - unless of course she starts to take some stands and answers some questions - the right way and not some mamby-pamby vague flip-flopping type of answers either:

I have major problems with Barbara Radnofsky.  Her stand on Iraq sounds just about like Bush's -- we should bring the troops home, someday, maybe, but fund whatever Bush wants to
do in the meantime.  Her Iraq policy is vague and devoid of any specifics I'd like to see, and I can't see how she'd be any different than Hutchinson on the Iraq occupation.

Skip down to the end of my note here to see my radical idea of what we might consider doing about the US Senate race in Texas.

Radnofsky has problems with lots of other issues of concern to progressives, too, besides the occupation.  Maybe that's why she didn't answer the questions on our candidate questionnaire.  Why does she expect Dems to vote for her?  Just because she has that magic "Democrat" label?  That's not enough for me and it certainly won't be enough for most independents.

Of course, her runoff opponent is a real loser, but Barb should take a lesson from the fact that she didn't win the primary without a runoff -- she's not giving anyone a reason to vote for her
except that she's not Hutchinson.  She has DINO written all over her, in my opinion.

If anyone has any doubts about her, look at her V&E web site at
http://www.velaw.com/lawyers/lawyer_detail.asp?H4AttyID=322086401
-- This is where she highlights some of her major successes as an attorney.  Too bad almost all of them are defending big corporations against consumer lawsuits.  I encourage all of you to go to that web page and print it out before someone
in her campaign wises up and leans on V&E to take it off-line.

And finally, just to give her the benefit of the doubt, go to her campaign web site
http://www.radnofsky.com/press/issues/issue_chart.pdf
, where she is undoubtedly putting forth the most positive image she can.  Her stand on almost every issue, though, looks incredibly vague and unconvincing.  And she doesn't even mention many big issues of national significance (such as the ones in our candidate questionnaire).  Remember that even Bush can call himself a compassionate person, and environmentalist, etc. but that
doesn't make him so.  I can't see how she is taking a stand on ANY of the issues on our candidate questionnaire (which again, she declined to answer -- one of her staff told us she was too busy before the primary, but said
that "the issues chart on the web site will answer most of your questions").  See http://www.paa-tx.org/node/1460 for our Congressional candidate questionnaire and see if she's taking a stand on ANY of these issues.

If Barb wants to win in November, she better learn soon that she needs to start talking specifics on issues of importance to Texans (not just progressives), like Iraq.  She's not going to beat Hutchinson by sounding just like her.  The neocons are going to vote for Hutchinson no matter what.  The others are going to see if Barb will stand up for the rights and interests of the rest of us, and do it in more than a patronizing, vague manner that is likely
to convince few and put most people to sleep.

If Barb doesn't come around, I don't see any chance of her winning in November and I won't be sorry if she loses.

Fortunately, though, there is a progressive running for US Senate in Texas, who has taken a very strong stand against the US occupation of Iraq -- Herschel "Rusty" Tomlinson.  See
http://www.txgreens.org/2006candidates/Tomlinson.pdf
for a short bio.  However, we won't get to vote for him unless the Green party gets enough signatures for their ballot access petition.

Tomlinson is one of the reasons I really, really want to help the Greens with their petition drive.  Maybe Tomlinson, with our help, can convince Barb Radnofsky that she needs to wake up
and find out what's happening in Iraq and say something about it, if she wants to have a chance of getting elected.  And if she doesn't, I'm planning to do all I can to help Tomlinson.

Here's my radical idea -- if Radnofsky won't pledge to work to get the US out of Iraq as soon as possible before the primary runoff, maybe we should all vote for Gene Kelly.  That would give
lots of people a reason to vote for
Tomlinson.  And Kelly's Iraq policy probably isn't any worse than Hutchinson's. Comments, anyone?

---

by: cannabisflower @ Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 16:33:36 PM UTC

"V&E" (1.00 / 1)

I suspect her association with V&E may work against her despite the fact the same association is there with Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Sherron Watkins testified last week in the Lay/Skilling trial that V&E lied to her with regard to an audit and its supposed investigation of the matter as brought to V&E by Ken Lay.

Their professional involvement with Enron is best summed up by the Batson Report which stated that Vinson & Elkins committed legal malpractice under the laws in the state of Texas.

The former managing partner of V&E, Harry Reasoner, has continued to proclaim "pride" in his firm's work for Enron.  Leaves a bad taste in people's mouths given the documented involvement of V&E in the matter. The current managing partner was called a liar on national television during the Enron hearings by a US Congressman.

Someone told me Joe Dilg sat there smiling. As if it didn't matter whether he was a liar or not.

Do we really want another "above the law" Senator representing us?

Hutchison or Radnofsky. You still have V&E with either. 

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 17:03:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

K-T (3.00 / 1)

Totally unqualified at determining Maria Alvarado's qualifications for Lt. Governor.

---

by: sandra1113 @ Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 16:55:39 PM UTC

you can't recruit seriously with nothing... (5.00 / 1)

...so if there were "recruitment talks" going on at TDP and even if they were successful, that wouldn't have stopped what happened when a Kelly or an Alvarado filed against our underfunded recruits. And given the demographics of the local runoffs, Ben Z. is in a tough statewide runoff race against a candidate with a Hispanic surname, and I'm a supporter who hope he wins.

But please K.T., it's wrong to just toss out names without knowlwdge and assume or suggest that any of those you mentioned "stopped" any TDP recruiting. Random frustration should not come out that way. Instead, why not welcome the fact that TDP has added some talented new staff who are working to develop better technology and expanded services all candidates can utilize? And that process only got started at the end of last year, so why not applaud fellow D's who are trying to the right thing?

That said, candidates like Radnovsky surely could have used more help sooner to run better low dollar strategic campaigns, seeking earned media and endorsements where high local turnout would yield the most votes instead of going wherever they were invited. And it's a shame that TDP's expanded email lists and enhanced resources are just coming on line now for candidates to use to communicate better with activists. But according to all the reports coming from TDP, those things are happening now, and better now than not at all.

All of us who share such similar goals don't need any more blame games.

---

by: getreal @ Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 18:38:32 PM UTC

Alvarado (4.00 / 2)

Yeah, I'm not sure about that. Why is Radnofsky qualified to be a US senator simply because she's a "bright" attorney, yet Alvarado is unqualified to be Lite Gov? She's a researcher and policy analyst. Granted, neither of them are the top candidates Democrats could have recruited for these races, but it seems like there is a bit of a double standard here.

It seems like the main difference in qualifications is that Radnofsky has some establishment Democrat support and Alvarado doesn't.

Maybe establishment Democrats should reconsider.

Alvarado has at least chosen to run an active campaign and has embraced the internet. She has a blog and a way to donate to her campaign online, neither of which are available on Ben Grant's web page. More importantly, she's proving her ability to win votes for the party in a way that neither Radnofsky or Grant has been able to do. Grant was a credible candidate 20 years ago.

Alvarado's chances are slim but no other candidate with as much energy has stepped up to the plate. The party has a capable, intelligent, Latina candidate who brings both modernity and diversity to the ticket. They should embrace her campaign rather than denigrating it by lumping her in with the likes of Gene Kelly.

---

by: janevieu @ Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 19:19:22 PM UTC

plus (5.00 / 1)

All that being said, everyone needs to work hard to ensure Barbara Radnofsky wins the primary, for all the reasons previously stated.

---

by: janevieu @ Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 19:21:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

both points well taken... (0.00 / 0)

Alvarado should not be lumped in with Kelly. And it's just fine to have more than one qualified candidate in a primary.

---

by: getreal @ Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 19:58:44 PM UTC

Alvarado is not Kelly (0.00 / 0)

This is a very true point. Kelly is indeed a joke candidate. Alvarado is not a joke candidate nor is Grant. But in terms of the office they are running for, one is a state office, the other federal.  And the state office is the most powerful in the state, and deals specifically with managing the Senate (as the Lt. Gov presides).

My arguement was that in terms of the requirement of the office, for your independent voter, I can honestly not find a credible arguement to convince that type of voter this fall that they should vote for Alvarado over Dewhurt, outside of the fact that she is not Dewhurst. At least with Grant, we can tie in the corruption/reform issue with his "Dirty 30" theme and since Grant has actually served in the texas legislature and took part in the 1974 Texas constitutional convention, I can offer a credible arguement.

I wish all the statewide candidates campaigned as much as Bell or Radnofsky or Van Os.  But we have the candidates that filed.  And between Grant and Alvarado on their credentials, Grant is the better choice.  I'm all for Hispanics on our ticket, make no bones about it, but I refuse to believe that we have to nominate Alvarado simply because of that characteristic as has been advocated (not on this post) but in past discussion.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:02:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No joke (3.00 / 3)

"[Alvarado, Kelly will make] Chris Bell's already challenging task to lead the ticket will become more and more difficult, hurting every campaign we care about down ballot."

You start off the post worrying about how we need to not hurt Bell and make his task (winning, I presume) easier.

I can't see how nominating Grant over Alvarado will do that. The fact is, Bell has a much better chance against Perry than either Alvarado or Grant do against Dewhurst. Frankly, it doesn't really matter too much how qualified either of them is to carry out the duties of Lt. governor, neither of them really has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. (For the record, I think you can make many credible arguments for electing either of them. Not being Dewhurst is a fine one, in my opinion. But there are many others. I'm sure you're better at coming up with them that I can. You could argue, for instance, that Alvarado's background as a health and social policy researcher would be a welcome change from a Lt. Gov. under whose watch thousands of kids were cut from CHIP.)

Credible arguments aside, we need to concentrate on who will help the ticket most.

Alvarado will help the ticket (and all downballot candidates) more by virtue of being Latina and a woman than Grant can by being a member of the Dirty Thirty thirty years ago.

Even if you what you say about making a "credible argument" in favor of Grant over Dewhurst is true, it doesn't really matter. It is fair to say that Alvarado will bring more votes to the Democrats than you will by convincing 30 "independent voters" you meet on the street (or online) that Grant will root out corruption. (And they'll likely be the only 30 that will ever hear about him, as I don't see donations pouring into Grant's campaingn, nor do i see much campaign organization, nor do i see much effort to reach out to people on the web, web site eternally "Under construction"). Even as someone who voted for Gammage, I'll readily concede that the Dirty Thirty theme didn't exactly  cause primary voters to take to the streets.

And if you still insist that the "Dirty Thirty" theme is necessary to convince the modern voter to boot the Republicans, you'll still have *another* silver-haired silver bullet from East Texas, old Fred Head running for comptroller, who hasn't even been bothered to put up a campaign web site.

The story might be different if Grant were indeed someone with money and name recognition who was running an energetic cammpaign. But he's not.

If you don't like the idea of nominating Alvarado because she's Hispanic, do it because she's the only Democrat who has cared enough about taking back this state to run an energetic campaign.

If you're voting on the basis of who is better qualified, and you come to the conclusion that Grant (or Alvarado) is it, fine. But if you're voting in a way that will helps Democrats (from Bell on down) to win, the choice should clearly be Alvarado.

---

by: janevieu @ Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:46:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not because she's Hispanic (0.00 / 0)

Kelly has been a joke; no doubt there.  What he does by even putting his name in the ballet is confuse the voter, some of which are voting for the first time and are lost to begin with.  Voting takes knowing more about a candidate than a name, race, age, sexual preference or previous employment; it takes courage.  Filling out a ballet takes more than the Homer Simpson, yeah that name sounds good, way of thinking. Vote for who would make the best voice for you; not who looks good in paper.

---

by: TxDM @ Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 02:55:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]