TDP Statement on SD-17, Chris Bell

A setback for Kirk Watson (1.00 / 3)

There's more to this story than lazy voters.

The Texas Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything. To win, our candidates must offer a compelling vision of change.

It is not enough to have an excellent field staff, to have a good media campaign, to have attractive/experienced/qualified candidates. It is also necessary to make a strong case for change.

The problem is that the democratic party attempts to win by shmoozing with the voters. That just isn't going to work in Texas.

The other problem is a presumptious attitude about minority support. Democrats cannot take minority votes for granted.

Al Edwards, a black democrat state representative, endorsed phantom democrat Stephanie Simmons in the SD17 primary. No one had even seen a photo of Stephanie Simmons and she is not even listed by the Texas State Bar in TexasBar.com as a Texas Attorney (allegedly a "Missouri City attorney). Yet, she got 21,000 votes in the primary (14%).

It's obvious that Simmons had the support of black voters, by virtue of the Al Edwards endorsement. And, it is also obvious that black voters felt resentment towards Chris Bell for running against a black democrat.

For example, a Chris Bell neighborhood walker was confronted with a sophisticated black voter who demanded to know why the party assumed he was a likely Chris Bell voter, just because he was an Obama voter.

In leading the State Senate victory committee, Kirk Watson totally gambled on the Obama vote. As we have seen with Jim Martin's U.S. Senate campaign in Georgia, the Obama voter just isn't there for white candidates. Also, it is interesting that Houston candidates with Jewish sounding names (Troutman, Mincberg) also failed to benefit from Obama voter surges last month.

This is not a matter of stupid uninformed voters. The significance of the Obama voters has simply been misunderstood. We cannot take these people for granted. We must remake the Texas democratic party to focus on the needs and desires of the Obama voter.

First, we should forget about running white candidates for anything. From now on, all candidates must be black. And, we must be prepared to support aggressive social justice advocacy. The Texas Prison System must be a chief focal point of reform efforts.  

We must give Obama voters a reason to believe in the Texas Democratic Party. Otherwise, we might as well close the doors.

Thanks in large part to the failed leadership of Kirk Watson, there is no hope favorable for redistricting in 2010-11. We need to build for 2020.

Put Al Edwards in charge next time.

---

by: ManOverBoard @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 15:39:15 PM UTC

You've got (0.00 / 0)

to be kidding me! Putting Al Edwards in charge would be like putting a wolf in charge of the chicken coop. Al Edwards stands for nothing except Al Edwards.

---

by: gregturet @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 16:35:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looking for clarification on part of your email... (5.00 / 1)

You mention that people with "Jewish" sounding names failed to benefit from the increased Obama vote.  If that IS the case, then I'd love to know your thoughts on it.  Personally, I feel the Jewish community has for a VERY long time been at the center of the battle to fight for minority rights.  They marched in the streets to protest segregation in the South and they have fought tirelessly for equal protection under the law.  I don't want to accuse you of anti-semitism, but certainly your post brings up the question of why is such an anti-Jewish bias present in African American voters?  

Finally, your comment that we should "forget about running white candidates for anything" and "all candidates must be black" absolutely MUST be satire; NO rational person could believe this.  In NO way does this remake the party to be the Obama party, Obama stands for looking BEYOND color and religious background and all of that other stuff to truly judge a man by the content of his character.  It's the fullfillment of the dream.  

The Democratic Party is the party of opportunity.  We're the party that can agree that all people, men and women; black, hispanic and white; Christian, Jewish and Islamic;gay, straight or other; rich, middle class or poor, ALL people deserve equal protection under our laws and basic fundamental rights.  We are NOT the party that advances solely special interest group and is willing to throw others under the bus to do so... that would be the REPUBLICAN party who fights solely for male, white, rich, straight fundamentalist Christian people.  My biggest fear after winning both chambers of congress and the Presidency is that we abandon our big tent and instead start fighting to just some special interests at the expense of all people... in essence becoming the Republican Party.  

---

by: David O. @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 19:41:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 0)

"Personally, I feel the Jewish community has for a VERY long time been at the center of the battle to fight for minority rights.  They marched in the streets to protest segregation in the South and they have fought tirelessly for equal protection under the law.  I don't want to accuse you of anti-semitism, but certainly your post brings up the question of why is such an anti-Jewish bias present in African American voters?"

One reason why may be the fact that not once but twice in Houston the Jewish community "fled" when African-Americans started "integrating" into their neighborhoods. First in Riverside Terrace, then in Fondren Southwest. Particularly in Northfield where property values dropped significantly as a result which affected not only the Jewish community which began to "fire sale" their homes but the African-American community which had bought homes before the "fire sale" began.  What happened in both Riverside Terrace and in Fondren Southwest sort of belies any real commitment to the principles behind "equal anything" other than "separate but equal" and "not in my neighborhood."

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:29:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are saying a lot of things (0.00 / 0)

I have a hard time believing.

Can you show or link to some data to support your claims.
I really think it's just that Democrats in Texas didn't feel involved since the primary.  Also that it was totally lame that Obama or Hillary couldn't come and speak to 10,000 Democrats at a convention.  But since I don't have data I freely acknowledge that I have no basis for my opinion.

---

by: not humble enough @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 22:07:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unbelievable.... (0.00 / 0)

"Al Edwards, a black democrat state representative, endorsed phantom democrat Stephanie Simmons in the SD17 primary. No one had even seen a photo of Stephanie Simmons and she is not even listed by the Texas State Bar in TexasBar.com as a Texas Attorney (allegedly a "Missouri City attorney). Yet, she got 21,000 votes in the primary (14%)."

I doubt seriously that the endorsement of Al Edwards resulted in the African-American community voting overwhelmingly for Stephanie Simmons, who is a licensed attorney but listed under a hyphenated name which I forget and am not inclined to go find, and if anything what probably rallied the African-American community was the lawsuit that Chris Bell filed to keep her off the ballot which the African-American community viewed as an attempt to keep an African-American candidate off the ballot rather than keep a candidate who probably did not belong on the ballot off the ballot. But that fact did not matter. The perception mattered.

The reality of all of this is that Chris Bell has consistently, whether intentional or not, insulted the African-American community. The worst of which was his comment that he was the "wrong color" after he lost to Al Edwards which implied that they voted for Al Edwards simply because he was an African-American. The African-American community is no longer an uneducated voter community. They simply did not like the positions of Chris Bell. Then or now. And they are not going to just "follow the leader" no matter who endorses a candidate. They have become a voter community that is quite educated and quite angry over years of the assumption by both parties that they are not.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:21:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fabulous satire. (0.00 / 0)

L'd MAO, beginning to end.  You need to get a job writing jokes for Letterman.

---

by: PDiddie @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 15:56:43 PM UTC

huh? (0.00 / 0)

Care to introduce me to the joke?

---

by: not humble enough @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 22:08:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was replying to MOB (2.00 / 1)

but hit the wrong reply button.

Pretty much everything in that post is a joke (or better be).

---

by: PDiddie @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 23:57:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The problem (0.00 / 0)

was not with the activists of Texas. the problem was with Chris's campaign and a strongly Republican district. There were too many chiefs and not enough indians in Chris's campaign, and the chiefs were clobbering each other. There was much duplication of efforts and no ads attacking Huffman. You cannot win in Texas without at least a little offense. I am quite saddened by the outcome of this race, but I am more saddened by Democrats returning to type by having a rather chaotic campaign. We have got to get it together in the next 2 years or we will be looking at 10 more years of Republican gerrymandered rule.

---

by: gregturet @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 16:43:53 PM UTC

<b>Too many chief's?</b> (1.00 / 1)

No. There may have been a lot of ineffectual Kirk Watson types standing around wringing their hands in despair. But, there were plenty of worker bees on the Chris Bell campaign.

Hindsight carping is easy. Before election day, any political analyst would have characterized this campaign as first rate. Nothing is ever perfect. It is a huge insult to the hard work that went into this campaign to blame the staff.

For example, around Bissonnet and Dairy Ashford, the yard sign campaign was incredible. Every street had Chris Bell yard signs. And, they were proudly displayed in the middle of householder yards, not just in over grown vacant lots. There were almost no Huffman signs in anyone's yards around there.

Despite the knee jerk reactions, this campaign did not fail for lack of field work, slick advertising, phone banking, candidate charm or any of the usual suspects. The technical campaign was excellent.

The problem was that there was no clarion call for change to excite the voters. For example, there should have been a call for prison reform.

Another problem was that the candidate was lilly white.

We cannot straddle the fence. We must become one thing or the other. If we want to project meaningful change, we must become a totally minority-centric party.

---

by: ManOverBoard @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 17:04:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No (2.00 / 1)

this is not hindsight at all. I was working on the campaign, and I would have characterized the campaign as being at loggerheads BEFORE election day. Prison reform, although a noble issue is NOT popular at all in Texas. To run a campaign around that issue would be political suicide. Also, a candidates color should have NOTHING to do with anything. That kind of identity politics should be sent to the "ash heap of history".

---

by: gregturet @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 18:08:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Noble issues are required. (1.00 / 1)

Otherwise, why should anyone bother to get out on a cold day in December to vote for Chris Bell or any other white boy?

A strong stance on prison reform is needed to create a foundation of legitimacy for the democratic party in Texas. We all know it's a scandal.

If we fail to raise reform issues for fears that "Bubba might not like it," we will never be any use to the idealistic Obama voter.

They want change -- not a kinder, gentler version of same old same old.  

---

by: ManOverBoard @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 18:22:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's see here now... (2.00 / 1)

"First, we should forget about running a white candidate for anything. From now on all candidates must be black."

"Another problem was that the candidate was lilly (sic) white."

"Otherwise, why should anyone bother to get out on a cold day in December to vote for Chris Bell or any other white boy?"

Judging from your quotes, you're either a really bad satirist or a virulent racist. Which is it?

---

by: davew @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 20:46:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

nice man (0.00 / 0)

little personal attacks never hurt anyone i guess.

but unless their funny i, as a BOR reader, am not interested.
tell me what he is wrong about and how that is so.

---

by: not humble enough @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 22:11:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, of course (0.00 / 0)

noble issues are required, but one's that have SOME popularity. How about we organize around the environment and alternative energy, these issues might have some traction. Oh, and by the way: Are you for real??!!  

---

by: gregturet @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 21:30:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What are you smoking? (0.00 / 0)

The implication that the African-American community will only vote for African-Americans is just so insulting to African-Americans I cannot even fathom anyone making the implication.  They have left the plantation and have no use for the "massah" any longer including their own "massahs" as someone pointed out to Sheila Jackson Lee finally.

They look at the positions of a candidate. They look at what the candidate might do or has already done for them. They look at who is supporting them and who is financing them. They will vote on that basis. And their doing so might serve as an example to everyone else.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:37:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tough Breaks For Bell (3.50 / 2)

Gets gerrymandered out of his Congressional seat, runs for governor against an unpopular incumbent only to have it turn into a four-way race, and loses a state senate seat due to a ghost candidate on the ballot.  

Bell's a good guy and not a bad candidate, and hopefully he'll run for something that he can win soon.  

---

by: Holdek @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 21:00:28 PM UTC

What can he possibly win? (2.00 / 4)

Bell has now lost four out of five major campaigns in only eight years.  The voters have spoken resoundingly about Bell, not once but many times.  It's time for him to find a job he likes and stick with it for a while.  If he thinks about running for something again, he should first consult a therapist - not once, but many times.  Chris Bell is the new Gene Kelly.

---

by: Dale Napier @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 21:17:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chris Bell has absolutely (4.00 / 2)

nothing in common with Gene Kelly, and shame on you for making the comparison. Chris Bell is a smart, hardworking, conscientious public servant who has always had the best interests of the public and the Democratic Party at heart. Gene Kelly doesn't even have the cojones to face the public or the party.

To equate the two is a grave disservice to Chris Bell and a grossly undeserved compliment to Gene Kelly.

---

by: davew @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 21:30:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

didn't like your comment above (0.00 / 0)

but you are absolutely right, Gene Kelly is turd.  

---

by: not humble enough @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 22:12:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]