Observers: TX-Gov Isn't Out of the Question

Martin Frost (3.00 / 1)

says this, too, in his piece:

Schieffer must still defeat liberal gadfly Kinky Friedman in the Democratic primary. A victory by Friedman in the Democratic primary could make even Perry look good to Texas voters.

My thought last week was that even Kinky would look good to Texas voters after seeing Perry's performance.

And that thought occurred to me right after I heard a very reasonable interview on local Am radio which showed Kinky to be thoughtful and serious. However, I just don't believe he can overcome the perception that he's primarily an "entertainer." The issues are just so serious right now.

I still have my doubts about Tom Schieffer. After seeing so many Texans registering as Democrats and then showing up at their local precinct conventions last March (2008)...anyone who voted for George W. Bush "twice" for president (as he says he did!) and then not regretting it.

Schieffer said that he voted for Bush twice for governor and twice for president but that he told Bush that he would not drop his allegiance to the Democratic Party. He said he voted for Democrat Barack Obama in last year's presidential election.

Asked if he regretted supporting Bush, Schieffer said "no." emphasis mine

How can you have "allegiance" to the Democratic Party and then vote for a conservative Republican for President of the United States ~ Twice?  How does that work?

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 09:45:39 AM CDT

People are sick and tired of being embarassed... (0.00 / 0)

Perry is done and believe it or not there are a lot of Republicans that do not like Hutchison.  Right Wing-nuts think she is too liberal and Republican and Democratic Centrists believe she has too much Republican voting history behind her that she can't overcome.  Hutchison has a very poor Senate history as she really has nothing to show for her many years as a Texas Senator.

Democrats have to put up a viable Candidate and just blast the airwaves with this person.  Get his name and face everywhere.  No Kinky is not even in the ballpark. People want someone other than the usual to vote for that has the interest of the people of Texas and not the corporations.  Especially small business owners.  I don't know that Schieffer is it, but we have to get someone out there pretty quick.  Bill White could get the nominatiion easily, unfortunately he's running for the Senate.

---

by: krwheaton @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 10:24:50 AM CDT

Schieffer is clearly the Washington outsiders/Austin insiders' choice for Governor (0.00 / 0)

Backed by Martin Frost, hence Matt Angle, hence, the TDP insiders, Schieffer takes us back to the hey-day of Tony Sanchez and the "Dream Team":

Let's see we already have a black President, let's get a Jewish AG candidate, now all we need to do is muscle Leticia Van de Putte into running for Light Governor as the designated Hispanic, and ... voila!

("Inclusive" racial sterotyping and patronage are the politically correct forms of racial stereotyping and patronage that do not go over well with voters under 60.)

Racial balance, demographic projections, that's political wisdom and science! Why, with a Democratic Congress and a bi-partisan House, there is plenty of Big Money available from the concession-tenders in Austin and Washington.

"Everybody knows" the rotten Democrats can outraise the rotten Republicans this year by relying on an already revived and fabulously "compensated" financial sector, for instance, not to mention public/private "utilities", the financial services "industry", mercenary trial lawyers, and so on ... How can we lose, if we raise a bigger pile of big money right out of the chute?

(Ask John Edwards or Hillary Clinton, early favorites of the TDP and "inevitable" nominees of the DSCC/DCCC. Look at what happens to Nick Lampson and Chris Bell when the GOP exposes their big-donor list to public view.)

Run a few more well-groomed candidates in hand-picked House Districts, concede the Senate and the rest of the statewide offices, talk about, oh, something arcane that we know nothing and do nothing about, "high homeowner's insurance rates", say, as well as, of course, "values", "diversity", or something else equally nebulous, and ...

Assume Hutchison will run against Perry and lose; then ...

Assume GOP turnout will not rise at all and Democratic participation will not fall too far.

Sounds Like a Plan!

Yes, Normaltaktik, maybe, but not really a strategy.

Assumptions about the GOP are a dangerous predicate for any strategy and probably just wrong in this case.

Selecting candidates in order to raise money from bi-partisan concession-tenders so as to support particular consultants is ... a predictable methodology, not really a strategy. It has been done over and over since 1994 and has failed repeatedly. The GOP handily and decisively defeated us in this state up until 2004 by counting on assumptions about our stodgy party that were more reliable than our assumptions about their "crazy" party.

More than even a full slate of actually exciting, even inspiring, statewide candidates with a compellingly dramatic platform, (not Ed Martin's cringing-liberal laundry-list), what we need coming out of the Democratic Primary Elections and Conventions is an Obama-grade party that is self-governing, self-sustaining, and operationally more proficient than the former Speaker's Claque that is still hold-up in Austin, waiting for the good, 'ol days to return.

Here's a clue: Strategy has three planes and three levels. It is iterative and adaptative. So, Democrats do not have a strategy or more than just a prayer in 2010 unless and until our party leaderscan fill in all nine boxes in ... "The Grid"

                  Physical        Mental        Moral
Tactical
Operational
Strategic

At best, the geniuses behind our recent defeats and rather partial, easily reversable, McClellan-like, "victories" have filled-in one or two of the boxes above the same way for about two decades now ... with pitiful results.

That is understandable, given our economic geography: cheap land, cheap labor, cheap credit. They are why we are a "balanced" state but not a "solid blue" state like California. Still, those fundamentals are changing. If Democrats dump our cornpone, parochial party establishment, we can become a "battleground" state with, obviously, a real strategy.

---

by: JRBehrman @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:22:26 AM CDT

Would someone please explain... (3.00 / 1)

Would someone please explain to me how Texas "Lean's Republican" when State Rep. Rick Noreiga lost to the "unpopular" Senator John Cornyn by a respectable 12 percentage points?  Furthermore, with the extremely popular President Barrack Obama on the ballot, Obama lost to Senator John McCain by a more respectable 10 percentage points?  Former Congressman Frost also presupposes that the same amount of people will get out and vote during the mid-term elections.  As we are aware, Repulican's get out the vote at a much higher rate then Democrats, historically.  If Obama is not at the top of the ticket, I do not see many of the people who came out and voted for him returning to the polls during a non-presidential year.  The excitement that he brought to the table will not be at the same level with Tom Schieffer, a man who has spent the last eight years working for a Republican White House.

---

by: TexasReb @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:29:11 AM CDT

If you will look at the map (0.00 / 0)

in the link, you will see that Nebraska is the "only" solid Republican state right now.

FiveThirtyEight is an excellent Web site that digs down into the stats since you are asking for someone to "please explain." Nate Silver is the proprietor.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 12:52:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Going GOP-lite (3.00 / 1)

only gets us closer than 10 points, if that. We won't win with it because it doesn't motivate enough Democrats to get out and vote.

This party is an archipelago with the bridges washed out. Our islands need to be reconnected and bound together by common purpose and message discipline, and we can't run candidates who spend more time trying to make people forget the D next to their name than they spend advocating progressive policy with better outcomes.

To the point: we run Schieffer, KBH wins her primary, and we have a snoozer where KBH cruises. Bank on it.

if we run Leticia, we have real Democrat, who walks it like she talks it and lives like a leader, who will excite Democrats and make it harder for KBH to pull Democratic women off the reservation and could saddle the RPT with Perry whether they like it or not. The presumption that Schieffer is viable is wishful thinking, imo, and emanating almost entirely from those who have spent more time in boardrooms than on the streets of Laredo.

We have a chance to change the Texas political landscape for the next generation, and failures like Frost and Angle want to spend our money trying to resurrect Lloyd Bentsen - as though that ship didn't sail back in 1998.

No sale.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 13:16:53 PM CDT

Palabra (0.00 / 0)

word

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 13:23:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lloyd Bentsen (0.00 / 0)

Are you comparing Lloyd Bentsen to Tom Schieffer?  

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 16:18:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes. (0.00 / 0)

Yes, I am.

In that Tom seems to be their idea of a return to the Lloyd Bentsen-type of Big Bizness 'Democrat', and that's what will sell to all these imaginary moderate Republicans who are sick of Perry or something.

One of the things Schieffer said that really clued me in to this whole tired line of thinking: "Winning the Governor's office is a game-changer for Democrats in Texas".

I think he (and the Martin Frosts who presided over our party's disintegration) have it backwards - not that it should come as a surprise to anyone paying attention:

If we change the game, we can win the Governor's office...and a whole lot more.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 17:03:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Surely (0.00 / 0)

there must be a different comparison you can make since your comparison is insulting to Senator Bentsen's memory. He served in a totally different time and for a very long time. Did Tom Schieffer mention Lloyd Bentsen? I also don't appreciate the statement that Martin Frost (or the Martin Frosts) presided over our party's disintegration. I really don't think he deserves that rap based on anything you've stated.

I blame the Republican Party's evil and disgusting political strategy for much of what happened to Democrats and Texas Democrats. I think the "Martin Frosts" were trying to navigate it all as best they could and in the end they lost. Why should we continue to beat them up? Are we that insecure?

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 18:08:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

Even after seeing time and time again that running Republican lite doesn't work, you see the same characters pushing the same GOP-lite candidates.

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 16:34:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who's Next? (0.00 / 0)

Schieffer and W.  Schieffer and W.  Say it five times and remember it! Of course, Schieffer would probably caucus with the Democrats, adding one more to the 59 if he would run for USS.  

Say what you like about Lloyd Bentsen, but he kept winning and he didn't need a self-destructive opponent like Claytie Williams to do it. His "secret" seems to have been that he had realistic expectations of the state party--nothing--and did every thing for his campaigns on his own, for the most part. He also never made the error of mistaking Austin for Texas, as we often do here in Happy Village.

---

by: texun @ Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 18:04:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]