Burnt Orange Report

Now you know it's a bad idea

By Nathan Nance

In case you were sitting on the fence about whether privatization was a good thing or not, the news is that Tom DeLay is on board and his speech was the turning point in this weekend's meeting of Congressional Republicans.

According to The Daily DeLay, he actually said that the GOP has a "moral obligation" to promote privatization. I know, I can taste the vomit, too.

Democrats, of course, have a moral obligation to protect the American people from sleazeballs like Tom DeLay and their money-grubbing schemes.

Also from this weekend's meeting, a 104-page playbook on how to sell privatization to the American people.

The congressional Republicans' confidential plan was developed with the advice of pollsters, marketing experts and communication consultants, and was provided to The Washington Post by a Republican official. The blueprint urges lawmakers to promote the "personalization" of Social Security, suggesting ownership and control, rather than "privatization," which "connotes the total corporate takeover of Social Security." Democratic strategists said they intend to continue fighting the Republican plan by branding it privatization, and assert that depiction is already set in people's minds.

Interesting stuff, to say the least. You can go here to download a PDF copy of said playbook.

All this in anticipation of the campaign that starts as soon as the State of the Union is given to convince people that this really bad economic policy is actually a good one. We had better be ready.

Should I Run For SG President?

By Andrew Dobbs

All right, its that time of year again- SG elections are upon us. Filing begins today and as it stands two serious campaigns are underway- Jessica Rice with VP candidate Colby Can't-Remember-Her-Last-Name heading up one ticket and Omar Ochoa and Elizabeth Brummett heading up the other. It is a different campaign than the last two years- this year there are two "insider" campaigns and no largely "outsider" campaign such as the ill-fated Reprezent (which I ran on) last year and Envision the year before (which I helped defeat as a part of the victorious Students First campaign). Both presidential candidates are Democrats and I know that Brummett is a Republican and from my talks with Colby I suspect that she is as well.

One of these campaigns will win, and I'm okay with that. I like Jessica and Omar, I like Colby and have a great deal of respect for Elizabeth (she beat me last year in the election for 2 Year At Large Representative With One Year Remaining). Still, there are issues that can't be raised by a campaign that has a serious chance at winning and one of the biggest issues of them all (in my not-so-humble opinion), whether the ticket system is the best way to elect our representatives, can't be addressed by people running on tickets. Furthermore, while I like all of the candidates and think that anyone could be better than Brent "Please Don't Hurt Me" Chaney, I still don't see the junkyard dog spirit we need in a leader to take on the administration and the legislature if we wan't real change to occur. The SG should be a 2 Ton Gorilla around campus and in the Capitol, but it isn't because we tend to elect polite, well-dressed, popular lightweights to a job someone with an instinct for the jugular should be serving in. So while the odds would be against me, I feel that I have to stand up and be heard.

The obstacles are many. First is the fact that such a campaign would cost at least a little bit of money- signs, buttons, fliers, perhaps some t-shirts and a website. I don't have a lot of money right now and neither does my family. I could probably raise some, but I have a hard time asking for money from someone when I know I probably wouldn't win. Second is the time factor. I am taking 15 hours and working 25-30 hours a week in between everything else. I could cut back on my work hours and skip some class during the days and focus on speakers' circuit at night, but I people need to hear my message and such a set up isn't quite conducive to that. I have a lot more experience with generating media attention than my prospective opponents, so perhaps that will make up for the lack of time I can spend. Thirdly, there is the volunteer issue. At this late date, most of the people who would volunteer for a campaign have been picked up by one of the two major campaigns. Most of my friends are very busy people with large classloads and jobs. It would be a largely individual exercise on my part, which is fine- I almost prefer it that way- but the stress would be shouldered solely by me. Finally, there is the issue of friendships. I like Jessica Rice a lot and Omar has always been very friendly to me. I like many people on their respective campaigns, including several that are very close friends of mine. I wouldn't want to strain our friendships, and I could keep that from happening by running an issues-based campaign, but I am something of a polarizing figure in this community and I am afraid that the pressure to attack me or for me to attack them would create problems.

But it isn't all cons, there are some serious pros to the effort. Because of the lack of any outside alternative and only two tickets, right now the race would likely not go to a runoff. But with an independent alternative that could get 10% or more (my goal for the campaign), it would likely drive the race to a runoff. I could then play kingmaker and get some of my issues addressed. Moreover, before that I could use my endorsement to help sway the elections of representative and VP races- thus ensuring an assembly committed to the same things I am. My presence in the race could be enough to "win" without having to get 50% plus 1. Even if neither of these occurred, just speaking out could get people talking and in a year or so there could be a big push to change the way things are run. And finally, there is a small chance (very small) that I could actually win and get to do it all. So those keep me interested.

What issues am I talking about? First would be the ticket system. Interestingly enough, SG didn't have "tickets" in their elections before the late 90s. Before then every race was an independent student running against other independent students. But in the late 90s someone realized that if each candidate raised the maximum allowed donations and pooled them together under a single heading, they could get more publicity for everyone and have a better chance at winning. The system is not based on "platform" or ideology, but money. As a result, all the campaigns say the same things and nobody goes out on a limb to say something principled. Its always "more buses" and "get a student on the Board of Regents" but never any talk of tactics or anything serious in nature. Furthermore, because you want people with a broad base of support in the class of people who tend to vote and who can raise serious money. That means sweet little sorority girls and clean cut spirit group guys that have neither an agenda nor a fire for the job at hand get elected, leaving us with a weak and unfocused assembly. They can't fight for students because they aren't fighters.

Second would be the way we deal with the legislature. Right now we are in a great position to get tuition deregulation rolled back. The Republicans need to pass school finance if they want to be reelected, and they don't have the money for it right now. Without a payroll tax, they have very few options for the process outside of gambling. Gambling requires a constitutional amendment- 100 votes. There are only 87 Republicans, and many of those- perhaps a majority- will vote against gambling. There are maybe 5-10 Democrats that will side with them no matter what, and perhaps 15-20 who won't side with them because gambling is unpopular in their districts. This means at least 3 and perhaps as many as 45 Democrats will be needed to get their agenda through the lege. Democrats aren't going to give their votes away for free though. CHIP restoration is already happening, so it can't be used as a bargaining chip. The SG needs some tough people who know politics to pressure Dems to make tuition re-regulation a chief part of their agenda and to pressure the GOP leadership into realizing that tuition dereg is just another issue Kay Bailey and Carole Strayhorn are going to use against them. I think I can do that.

Thirdly, we need to get tough with some other institutions. The administration needs someone who can get in their face and who can rally students against them if need be. Slum lords who are gouging students need someone who can get tough with them. Agencies that are gobbling up student fees without proving their value to all students (and that they aren't simply promoting their political ideology with other people's money) need to be talked tough to. Education is too expensive right now because the SG has let so many different people, administrators, professors, politicians, landlords, bureaucrats, and on and on slap students around. We need leadership that is going to slap back, and I think I can provide that.

But I need to know what you all think. Many of you are a part of the University community and others are familiar with it. I know what some of you (chrisken) will say, but many others I don't. Should I run? Is it worth the sacrifice? Are my issues worth hearing? I want to hear what you have to say, and I will make my mind up by tomorrow evening.

Thanks a lot everybody, let's get to work!

Wonkette has arrived in Texas

By Byron LaMasters

Washington D.C. has its online gossip queen, and with all the wackiness of the Texas legislature, it makes sense that Austin should have one as well. I had my chance a year ago, but I passed on taking it up full-time.

So, for those of you with the burning desire to know the answer to such questions as which state representative is knowledgeable in the art of feng shui, or which state representative has smeared Vaseline on her official photo, then check out Pink Dome.

Poor Losers, Poorer Losers and The POOREST Loser

By Byron LaMasters

Meet Talmadge Heflin [Houston Chronicle Editorial]

Via Greg and Kuff.

How The GOP Will Win in 2008

By Andrew Dobbs

I've started thinking a lot about the 2008 Presidential election on the GOP side. It is an interesting set up because without a sitting President or Vice President seeking the job (for the first time since 1952), a lot of opportunities present themselves. If there is an open primary anything can happen, including the nomination of someone less than stellar. But if Bush selects a successor things will be much smoother and the party could stay united behind a single standard-bearer. Either path is a possibility, but which is more likely? The answer lies not in President Bush, but in Karl Rove.

Karl Rove isn't content with having a two-term President in George W. Bush and a solid GOP majority in Congress. He and his colleagues in the GOP are seeking a permanent super majority- a set up wherein the GOP is the unquestioned majority ruling party for a generation or more. He seeks the eventual disintegration or at least marginalization of the Democratic Party. To do this, he must first create a united and competent GOP and simultaneously kick the slats out of the Democratic Party. To the end of the former, he will want Bush to name a successor and to the end of the latter he will want it to be someone who can take away serious demographic support from the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has a majority in only a handful of demographics. The cornerstone of our survival are the overwhelming majorities we recieve in the minority community, particularly African Americans. If only white people voted we would lose every national and statewide election (with a small number of exceptions), if only racial minorities voted there would be no Republican Party to speak of. We also see a majority in college educated professionals, but much of that stems from our relative majority among women. If only men voted we would lose almost every election, if only women voted we would win almost every election. Other groups- academics, union members, gays, etc.- give us strong majorities, but their numbers are small enough and concentrated enough that they matter only on a local and occasionally state level, rarely on a national scale. All of this is to say that with a significant reduction in the level of minority support for the Democratic Party and an even greater reduction in the level of female support for the Democratic Party, we would be toast.

And if you think Karl Rove doesn't realize this you are a fool. He is going to get Bush to pick a successor to keep the Party united, and he wants one that can undermine the Democratic Party's base. A minority female who is well-qualified to be President. Someone who Bush has promoted up the ranks, with a national profile and intense loyalty to the Rove/Bush axis of power. Who could it be?

Could it be Dr. Condoleezza Rice?

I came up with this scenario not to long ago and only one thing has changed- I suspected that Cheney would resign as VP for health or family reasons and Bush would replace him with Rice, but now I doubt that that will happen. The reason being that such a move would require a second confirmation hearing for Secretary Rice, in both the House and the Senate. Democrats are likely to ask tough questions that could hurt her in a Republican Primary. I suspect she'll just resign as Secretary of State and Bush will stand next to her as she announces her candidacy for President.

Some of the questions that will be asked one way or another which could hurt her are:

"Madame Secretary, in 1999 newspapers reported that you are in favor of a woman's right to choose. Is this true, and if so, how do you think this will affect your standing with religious voters in the GOP primaries?"

"Dr. Rice, in 2003 you came out in favor of race-based affirmative action. How will this affect your standings in the GOP primaries?"

"Secretary Rice, in 2004 New York magazine reported that you accidently called President Bush your husband at a dinner party. While no one seriously suspects any kind of improper relationship, it does raise the question as to why you have never married. Is there anyone in your life romantically?"

To be fair, I think that the last question is beyond the pale, but it does not mean it won't be asked. An intensely right-wing religious nut a la Roy Moore or Rick Santorum (if he is reelected in 2006, which is looking increasingly unlikely) could use her pro-choice, pro-affirmative action stances and mix them with a whisper campaign about Rice's sexuality to cause her trouble in Iowa and New Hampshire. Still, she would be likely to run away with the GOP nomination and even if she only gets 35-40% of the Black vote and just a bare majority of the woman vote, she would beat the living daylights out of virtually every Democrat. She is likely to do quite a bit better in both of those categories.

So what to do? If a right winger were to beat her out in the primaries it would split the party down the middle and would taint the GOP as a party of racist misogynists to those who don't already believe that. We could win walking away. But the whole scenario is unlikely- Rice will have the backing of Bush and the smart money will be on her side. Any other campaign would have a hell of a time just keeping up with the well-funded behemoth Rice '08 would likely be.

More likely would be that a combination of factors could give the Democrats a fighting chance. Things are looking up in Iraq and the elections were a big success. Success in the political realm is likely to dampen the resolve of the insurgency and with continued success in military training, Iraq is not very far away from being self-reliant and free. But if something were to happen to change the fortunes- say a nationalist government is elected that asks the US to leave and either Bush does and a civil war erupts with an Islamofascist government ending up the victors or Bush doesn't and the insurgency becomes a much broader-based revolutionary uprising- Rice would likely have to carry that burden on her shoulders for the duration of the campaign. Also, a religious conserative is likely to run in the primaries against her and is almost certain to lose. But a Roy Moore type (who is leading in the early polls for governor of Alabama in 2006) could easily form a right wing third party to join forces with some of the independent organizations and movements already in place and strip away enough of Rice's GOP support to throw some Southern and Midwestern states to the Democrats. Finally, and this is not something I am suggesting but simply a phenomenon that is likely, Democrats could nominate a Southern male- Mark Warner, Phil Bredesen, John Edwards- for President who will pick up some of the racist/misogynist voters who would never vote for an African-American or a woman. Sadly, those people exist and are all throughout the GOP. A mixture of the three, with an empahsis on the second two, is likely. If Roy Moore raises questions about Rice's religious right credentials and then forms a third party movement to challenge her from the Right, that could strip several points from her and lose her several states, particularly if Southern voters are more comfortable with the Democratic candidate. Still, for every Southern white who votes third party or for a Democrat they don't particularly agree with, there will be an African American or female Democratic voter that will switch sides to see a Black woman in the White House. So Rice is likely to be in good shape.

It will be a tough battle if what I suspect happens. It will be tough because a part of me will be excited to see a woman, an African American woman, a person born in an age when her parents couldn't vote or sit at a lunch counter, a person who was likely told throughout her youth that unless she was a nurse, a teacher or a mother she would be of no use to society, a person who is undeniably intelligent and qualified become President. And it will be tough because we will likely be drawing dead against her. But perhaps I am wrong about all of this, I hope that I am.

Full ASDC Endorses Dean

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Just in from MyDD

The Chairs and Vice Chairs rejected the recommendation of the Executive Committee to back Fowler. They then did a roll-call vote, which Dean won:

The ASDC ballot

Dean 56
Fowler 21
Frost 5
Roemer 3
Rosenberg 3
Webb 3
Leyland 0
Abstain 5

That's 58% for Dean on the first ballot among the 96 ASDC Chairs and Vice Chairs that voted (Hotline)... I have class now, so debate and such later.

Update: [Byron] Webb drops out, endorses Dean. [MyDD]

Back to the Future

By Jim Dallas

The ACS blog has a thorough post on Dr. Thomas Woods' "politically incorrect" (which is to say revisionist, at best) history of America.

Some times I have to thank the blog gods for timely coincidences; in this case, I must be thankful for Amitai Etzioni's post this week on collective guilt:

Etzioni, the grand old man of communitarianism, writes:

Communal responsibility is based on the fact that we are born into a community and share its history, memories, identity, achievements, and failures. We are not simply individual human beings, who can retreat behind a Rawlsian "veil of ignorance," secure in our universal rights and historical innocence. We are also members of specific families and communities. We cannot help but share their burdens, just as we share in their treasures; their responsibilities as well as their privileges. Thus, an American inherits both the proud memory of the Boston Tea Party and the agony of slavery; both the marvelous work of the Framers of the Constitution and the slaughter of Native Americans; the vigilant protection of freedom--from Greece to Korea--and the killing of innocent children, women, and other civilians in My Lai. The memory of slavery is particularly telling. Abolished some 134 years ago, before the ancestors of most contemporary Americans had even immigrated, slavery is still part of the American past; we cannot erase or ignore it. Most important, our aggrieved past commands us all to act, not merely the sons and daughters of plantation owners. We are all co-responsible for that which our community has perpetrated and condoned, for both past sins of commission and omission.

It needs to be stressed that Etzioni (who is Jewish) explicitly notes that he is not arguing in favor of "blood guilt." What's he's arguing is that, just as our children (as well as new immigrants) inherit our national debt in perpetuity, or our environmental catastrophes, so to do they inherit moral obligations, by virtue of being members of a collectivity, regardless of their race or religion.

Dealing with these obligations requires some maturity; Etzioni has some suggestions about that:

● First, it cautions not to look for easy scapegoats. While not denying, or diminishing their importance, one can never blame select power elites ("the Nazis did it, not the Germans"), objective conditions ("it happened because of runaway inflation, massive unemployment"), or even third parties ("Hitler was caused by the humiliating armistice imposed on Germany at the end of World War I") for the dark moments in one's communal past. I am not suggesting that external forces and objective conditions do not play a role in a nation's history; but they do not exempt one from sharing the responsibility for one's community and its course of action.

● Second, remember the past. Each generation of parents is obligated to recount the formative events of the past to its children. In the United States, we still mourn the circumstances, savagery, and massive bloodshed of the Civil War. Without drawing any parallels, it is a credit to Germany that as a community–albeit not every single German–it has learned to do the same concerning the history of the Nazi era.

And yet neo-Confederates and their sympathizers are ignoring both of these points, seeking out scapegoats and obfuscating our rememberance of the past.

Were it true that slavery was (as Woods apparently claims) not a cruel institution; were it true that the legacy of racism was not a stain on our history; were it true that America didn't have a history that involved the killing of labor organizers, were it true that our nation hadn't a history of imperialist aggression - were all these things true, perhaps history wouldn't be such a painful thing to read. All glory, and no shame, the way it ought to be.

I would hope, though, that we'd be big enough such that we'd engage history head on, instead of tuning out what we don't want to hear.

Fill in the blanks

By Jim Dallas

Here's the source if you need a little help.

U.S. Encouraged by ____ Vote :
Officials Cite ____ Turnout Despite ____ Terror

United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in ____ election despite a ____ terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

Jeff Ortiz For City Council (of Nederland that is)

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

The youngest candidate for a city council in Texas at the age of 22 announced his bid today, for the city of Nederland. He's been building up to this for a while, so go check out his website, he's got some new press stories over there.

Texas DNC Member David Holmes Responds

By Byron LaMasters

I emailed Texas DNC member David Holmes earlier this week to write a guest post on BOR in order to personally address two questions that have come up here on BOR and on other blogs. First, I wanted his opinion on the poll commissioned by Democracy for Texas of 2004 Texas State Convention delegates, and second I asked him to respond to accusations that there is a “disconnect” between the activists in Texas and the Texas DNC members. Here is his response:

I have been following the DNC Chair race discussions on this and other blogs very closely over the last couple of months and I have a few comments regarding the race and specifically comments made on this site.

I just started my second term on the DNC. During the first four year term, the only way to find out what was going in with DNC politics and activities outside of what they sent the members in press releases was to stay in touch with other DNC members. Blogs have changed that dramatically and have already made the party and candidates more transparent and responsive.

I have very little criticism of anything on this site – I read it as frequently as I can and appreciate seeing various people’s views and opinions. As a whole, the writers are very articulate, informed and accurate, including Karl-Thomas with whom I’m about to take issue on two matters: Texas DNC members’ connection to the grassroots and the now famous DFA survey of Texas Convention Delegates.

[Take the jump for the rest...]

I’ll discuss the non-poll first. To be accurate, a poll must be conducted by certain standards, almost none of which were followed in this poll. First, the poll was sent by an organization that many recipients recognized as biased toward one of the candidates. Second, the respondents were self-selecting rather than random, destroying any accurate reflection that might have been derived from the Delegates as a whole.

I am friends with the Dean supporters who conducted the survey and we have discussed the survey. They insist - and I believe them - that they thought Dean might come in second among Texas Conventioneers when they sent it out. But the “poll” actually means very little.

They did not publish these numbers with the results, but of the emails they sent out, 14% responded. That is not a bad return, but there is no way to rationally determine the degree to which those respondents represent the whole. It could mean, for instance that the other 86% did not like or know any of the candidates enough to vote for them – and Dean would obviously be the most well known of the candidates.

Regarding Texas DNC members and their connectedness to the “netroots” or grassroots: Not all of the DNC members who represent Texas are very connected to the netroots of the Party – in fact a number of them have probably never heard the term or read a blog.

It disappoints me, though, when I see people – particularly those as well informed as Karl-Thomas – conclude that to disagree with a portion of one of the many constituencies that make up the Democratic Party means that Texas’ DNC members are out of touch or non-responsive to their constituent’s desires.

I am probably more connected to the netroots and young people in the party than any of the other members in Texas. The DNC members chosen by the Black Caucus are probably more in touch with the members of that caucus than I am. The results of a play-poll do not have any bearing on who is in touch with what. I wanted to comment on those items and let everyone know that I have started a Yahoo Group with the purpose of maintaining a dialogue between Texas Democrats and their DNC members. On the new Group, you will find contact information for DNC members, web links to the DNC chair candidates, and informal polls.

I look forward to continuing the discussion…

David Holmes
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Texasdnc/

Abstinence Programs: An Exercise in Futility?

By Byron LaMasters

The first evaluation of abstinence-only programs used by the state of Texas shows that high school students have become more sexually active after abstinence-only edication became federal policy. The Dallas Morning News reports (emphasis mine):

Abstinence-only programs – the hallmark of the Bush administration's federal sex education policy – seem to have little impact on the behavior of Texas teenagers.

The first evaluation of programs used throughout the state has found that students in almost all high school grades were more sexually active after abstinence education. Researchers don't believe the programs encouraged teenagers to have sex, only that the abstinence messages did not interfere with the usual trends among adolescents growing up.

"We didn't find what many would like for us to find," said researcher Buzz Pruitt of Texas A&M University. [...]

Among the findings in the Texas study: About 23 percent of the ninth-grade girls in the study already had sexual intercourse before they received any abstinence education, a figure below the national average. After taking an abstinence course, the number among those same girls rose to 28 percent, a level closer to that of their peers across the state.

Among ninth-grade boys, the percentage who reported sexual intercourse before and after abstinence education remained relatively unchanged. In 10th grade, however, the percentage of boys who had ever had sexual intercourse jumped from 24 percent to 39 percent after participating in an abstinence program. [...]

Texas has now joined about a dozen other states that have evaluated their abstinence education programs. "By and large they got no changes in behavior," said Debra Hauser, vice president of the non-profit group Advocates for Youth, which has conducted studies that support more comprehensive sex education programs that include contraception.

How many studies will it take for people to realize that abstinence-only programs don't work? Sure, some kids will listen to such programs, but those students are those that are most likely to abstain from sex anyways. To many teens, you might as well tell them to jump off a cliff. Among these teens, how can you prevent unwanted pregnancies and STD's if you don't tell them how to prevent them? Well.... you can't.

A Three Four-Way Race?

By Byron LaMasters

Wow. This is an upset. The executive committee of state party chairs endorsed Donnie Fowler today, via MyDD. The executive committee is the twelve member ASDC executive committee, not the entire ASDC.

People will debate the significance of this. I think it's obviously a disappointment for Howard Dean, as the frontrunner, but also a setback for Martin Frost as he missed an opportunity to clearly establish himself as the "anti-Dean" candidate in the race. Then again, this could all be overblown. The Fowler endorsement was only of a majority of the 12 member executive committee, and some of Fowler's voters are due to Michigan connections that he established as Fowler managed Kerry's 2004 Michigan campaign. Endorsements should be coming fast and furious over the next week, so the next few days ought to give us an indication as to whether this means anything.

The SD2 Summit

By Vince Leibowitz

On Saturday, more than 30 Democrats from across Senate District 2 gathered in Canton for the initial "SD2 Summit," a meeting geared toward electing a Democratic Senator in State Senate District 2 in 2006.

Considering filing doesn't open for about 300 days, and a primary is well over 12 months off, the turn-out was wonderful and everyone present seemed quite dedicated to dumping Dr. Bob Deuell (R-Greenville) in the next election.

The SD2 Summit featured Christian Archer of the Archer Nathan Group, one of the leading consulting groups who help head up Take Back Texas, which was very active in the last election and sent out wonderful third-party mailers against Republicans like Talmadge Heflin, Bryan Hughes and others.

In addition to Christian Archer, other speakers included J.B. Mainord, who worked for the previous State Senator in SD2, David Cain; Dallas County Democratic Chairwoman Susan Hays who discussed campaign finance and election law; and Bill Brannon of Sulphur Springs, who recently completed a tour of duty with U.S. Congressman Max Sandlin's campaign.

Both SDEC members for SD2, Dr. Martha Williams, and Steve Tillery, were on hand, as were county chairs from Dallas, Van Zandt, Smith, Rockwall and Hunt Counties. Counties represented in attendence were Van Zandt, Smith, Rockwall, Hopkins, Fannin, Rockwall, Kaufman and Dallas. Delta and Rains counties were the only counties unable to send participants this time around.

Though it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss all of the strategy we talked about during the meeting, we did take several major, positive steps toward ensuring we can win this race in 2006.

Most importantly, we set up four committees to both help prepare for the coming race and keep and eye on Senator Deuell, as well as recruit candidates. The following committees are presently working hard to help take back East Texas and Senate District 2: Recruiting, Communications, Message Development, and Finance. Former State Representative Bob Aikin of Commerce is heading up the Finance Committee. One of our goals is to be able to develop a good donor base so we can eventually present that base with a candidate to support. Given that the previous incumbent in this district had raised as much as $1.2 million in the past, we should do all right in that area--especially when we show the donors we have a viable candidate and that the district is once again winnable.

Of particular interest to me was that some people from SD1, represented by Kevin Eltife (R-Tyler), and SD3, represented by Todd Staples (R-Palestine), came to see what we were doing just to listen and learn.

Since I don't want to let the cat out of the bag yet, I will simply say that it was a very, very productive meeting and that Bob Deuell will have a serious fight on his hands come 2006. I especially want to thank our gracious SDEC members Dr. Martha Williams and Steve Tillery for allowing me to put this meeting together--with tremendous help from my counterparts in Rockwall, Dallas, and Smith Counties.

Our next meeting (excluding committee meetings set between now and then) will be in April in Rockwall. Following that, meetings will be held in Terrell, Greenville and Sulphur Springs.

Vince Leibowitz is County Chairman of the Democratic Party of Van Zandt County.

The News from Blanco

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I managed to find a more official statement on the County Chairs from my Senate District endorsing Howard Dean for Party Chair. And look what I came across over at the American Prospect...

POLLING THE 447: WAY DOWN IN TEXAS. The Democratic Party chair of Blanco County, Texas (LBJ’s birthplace) relays news that's sure to bring a smile to the Howard Dean campaign.

On Jan. 6, 12 Democratic County Chairs from the rural Hill Country west of Austin met and unanimously endorsed Howard Dean for National Chair. We have communicated our decision to Charles Soechting, Texas State Chair, and the entire voting delegation to DNC.

We let them know we are tired of seeing the same old policies and same entrenched people lead our party to defeat after defeat…Dean arouses enthusiasm among a wide spectrum of Democrats, will stand firm and push back against Bush and the Congressional Republicans and would be an articulate spokesman on television and in person. Plus, his use of the internet both to fund his campaign for President and to interact with his supporters is the single most innovative technique to emerge from the election.

Though the writer is not one of the 447, this rural, west Texan unanimity for Dean bodes well for the Northeastern doctor.

Post-modernism defined

By Jim Dallas

It really irritates me to see polemicists body-slam "postmodernism" without any apparent knowledge of what they are talking about.

Brad DeLong apparently agrees.

Malfunction

By Jim Dallas

CNN on the string of costly government info-tech boondoggles.

I've been involved in a couple minor-league, private sector boondoggles. They're not fun, and usually attributable to poor planning.

Representative Government?

By Byron LaMasters

I'm pleased that the Iraqi elections were completed without widespread violence, however, I fear that the National Assembly will hardly be representative of the Iraqi people. Via Juan Cole are some Zogby Poll results:

Sunni Arabs who say they will vote on Sunday: 9% Sunni Arabs who say they definitely will not vote on Sunday: 76% Shiites who say they likely or definitely will vote: 80% Kurds who say they likely or definitely will vote: 56%

What would be the American equivalent of such results? Juan Cole adds more:

On the other hand, if the turnout is as light in the Sunni Arab areas as it now appears, the parliament/ constitutional assembly is going to be extremely lopsided. It would be sort of like having an election in California where the white Protestants all stayed home and the legislature was mostly Latinos, African-Americans and Asians.

On Hubert Vo

By Byron LaMasters

I'm cautiously optimistic from what I've heard from people familiar with the hearings. According to one source, Vo still leads in Hartnett's count by over a dozen votes after all of Heflin's challenged votes have been ruled on. Kuff has the best recap of everything, so give it a read.

Update: Greg Moses pegs Harnett's count of Vo's lead after complete review of all voter depositions at 13.

Some Background Notes

By Byron LaMasters

Southpaw has some background notes of the 2004 Frost race from someone who had a first-hand perspective of it all. It's definitely worth a read if you're from out of state, or did not have the chance to follow the Frost/Sessions race, along with the other Texas congressional races this cycle.

Iraqi Elections

By Jim Dallas

Polls are slated to close in about 75 minutes (at 8 a.m. Houston time, or 5 p.m. Baghdad time).

Turnout is high in some places, low in others. There were several cowardly bombings in Baghdad, as well as other acts of violence.

Will the elections produce a clear winner? Juan Cole points to a poll that shows the UIA (the group associated with, et alia, moderate Shi'a clerics) to have a large plurality, but not a majority.

Nonetheless, perhaps the biggest issue for most Iraqis is the one that's not on the ballot: whether the U.S. should disengage.

P.S. Don't expect results any time soon. We're gonna have us a good ol' fashioned American-style election, with weeks worth of counting, accusations about accounting, possible recounts, etc.

Newtonians

By Jim Dallas

Newt Gingrich is blogging trying to get together Newt Meet-ups.

And darn it, I find this at once both fascinating and highly worrisome, speaking as a Democrat.

On the other hand, I'd really like to see the Republicans go back to the 1990s, when they were making sense. That would be good for America.

We want Keyes

By Jim Dallas

Oliver Willis finally has the infamous mosh clip available for viewing on his site.

One Republican Drops out in HD 121 Race

By Byron LaMasters

This certainly shows that Rose Spector is giving the GOP a scare in HD 121:

The field for the Texas House District 121 race shrunk to three candidates Friday when Republican Glen S. Starnes withdrew from the race, although his name will remain on the ballot.

"I believe that the Democrats are waging a very strong campaign, and I do not want even one vote displaced for a Republican in that district," said Starnes, a financial adviser.

The election is Feb. 5; early voting runs through Tuesday.

Starnes, 39, was one of two Republicans seeking the seat. The other, Joe Straus III, already has garnered key endorsements from elected area leaders, including U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, state Sen. Jeff Wentworth and County Commissioner Lyle Larson.

Starnes said he plans to add his name to the list of endorsements and actively campaign for Straus, 45.

Because the ballots already have been printed, Starnes' name will remain on the ballot, and his vote totals will be reported election night, said officials with the Bexar County Elections Department.

I figured all along that Straus and Spector would be the two candidates advancing to a run-off, but Starnes withdraw makes it possible that the race will be decided next Saturday.

Early Austin City Council Handicapping

By Byron LaMasters

Coming up this April are three Austin City Council races. While both Daryl Slusher and Jackie Goodman are term-limited, Austin has an embarrassment of riches to replace them. In the third race (Place 4), Betty Dunkerly shouldn't have too much trouble winning a second term.

One of the open seats (Place 1) will likely go to Lee Leffingwell, who has a healthy lead in money raised and name identification in one of the races. The other race (Place 3) is still rather wide open at this point. The View From the Left has this to say:

It appears the only real race (sorry, Jennifer) will be in Place 3, with Gregg Knaupe, Jennifer Kim, Mandy Dealey (who lost to Ann Kitchen in the Democratic Primary for State Rep District 48 in 2000) and the annointed front-runner Margot Clarke, who lost to current Councilman Brewster McCracken in a run-off in 2003. There's no way Clarke can pull this off without a run-off. I look for either Knaupe (who is excellently qualified for the council post having worked for the Texas Hospital Associationor and orchestrating last year's Healthcare District victory) or Kim to join her in the run-off, with Clarke probably winning in the end.

I'd say that Clarke is probably the frontrunner at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised if Knaupe leads the first round of voting. Clarke led the first round of voting two years ago largely becuase she was the only female candidate in a field of eight. She had a strong central Austin base, but she failed to expand beyond that base in the run-off. I'm skeptical of Clarke's ability to change that this year. Dealey has the ability to self-finance much of her race, so it would not surprise me if she sneaks her way into the run-off as well. Kim is a good candidate that in another year might have a decent shot, but I expect her to trail in name identification this time around even though she currently leads in fundraising. All four candidates have strong Democratic credentials, and Austin would be well served by any of the four.

Websites:
Margot Clarke
Mandy Dealey
Greg Knaupe | Blog
Jennifer Kim

Labor and DNC

By Byron LaMasters

I'll try to make this my last DNC post of the day. Karl-Thomas noted how Dean rolled out a new batch of DNC member endorsements including a few affiliated with labor. One can look at that development several ways. Is it the begining of a trend? Or is it an attempt to preempt a move by labor towards Frost or another candidate?

One of the key issues for labor appears to be the Fowler Amendments. The amendment would reduce the number of appointments made by the DNC Chair of at large DNC members from 75 to 25, and give the remaining 50 seats to the four regional memberships for appointment. Frost and Rosenberg oppose the amendment because they fear that it decrease diversity among the DNC membership. Dean, Fowler and Webb (I believe) support the amendment.

Also taking sides on this issue is ASDC - the group of state leadership types, which of course, support the decentralization plan. Interests groups, notably labor, oppose the plan. I personally have mixed feelings on the proposal. It's important to have some at large seats in order to ensure racial diversity, and ensure that various factions receive fair representations, i.e. labor, GLBT, youth, etc. On the other hand, I'd like to see power decentralized from D.C. I think the most sensible idea would be a compromise of some sort.

I think that the system that the Texas Democratic Party uses for its executive committee makes a lot of sense. The SDEC (State Democratic Executive Committee) is made up of a male and a female member from all 31 state senate districts, then there are add-on members for various groups, i.e. Stonewall Democrats, Young Democrats, African-American and Latino Democratic groups, etc. The top ranking male and female officers in such groups have an automatic seat on the SDEC. Such a system could be used similarly with the DNC , for example, allowing decentralization, but giving the regional groups "diversity goals" in order to maintain a diverse DNC.

Anyway, as it is currently writen, Labor opposes the Fowler amendment, and the UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers) endorsed Frost yesterday. This may be a sign of movement of labor towards Frost, or it could just be one individual union bucking the trend, but the I've posted the endorsement in the extended entry...

FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS BACK FROST FOR DNC CHAIR

One of the nation's largest worker organizations, the 1.4 million member United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), is backing Martin Frost in his fight to rebuild the Democratic Party as chair of the Party's national committee.

"Working America needs a political action program that respects it values, is based in its community and addresses its needs from good jobs to affordable health care. Martin Frost has the plan to build the national Democratic Party from a grassroots base, reconnecting the party to its core beliefs, and to its state and local leaders. The UFCW enthusiastically supports Frost for Chair of the Democratic
National Committee," said UFCW International President Joe Hansen.

The union's decision focused on Frost's background as a successful elected representative with a pro-worker agenda from the heart of Texas. His grassroots campaigns stripped away political labels, and concentrated on the people and their issues. For 30 years, Frost was a thorn in the side of the anti-worker establishment who could not figure out how to drive a wedge between Frost and his constituents, or how to beat him in a fair election. Only after rigging the election district could they take his seat in Congress.

The UFCW is America's neighborhood union with hundreds of thousands of members in neighborhood grocery stores. "UFCW members are part of the community. With their work at the meat counters and checkout lines at thousands of supermarkets across the country, they are connected to daily life of America. So is Martin Frost., and so must be the future of Democratic Party," said Hansen.

The UFCW is urging other unions and the AFL-CIO as well as allies at the DNC to also support Frost. His platform to build a small donor base on the Internet, develop a strategic communications plan, and to develop a new generation of leaders and candidates from the ground up is in line with union efforts to activate workers with neighborhood and workplace programs.

The UFCW is one of the largest unions in the AFL-CIO, and is one of the most active unions in member mobilization for political and issue action.

Soechting's Letter

By Byron LaMasters

I saw this post over at MyDD. Apparently, Martin Frost has angered some people by claiming that Dean "could hurt Democratic efforts to compete in less liberal areas of the country". While I don't think that Howard Dean is too liberal to be party chair, the perception of him by many Americans is firmly in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

It's interesting that Martin Frost has the opposite perception. He's a progressive Democrat with a more conservative perception based on his past campaign. Furthermore, Martin Frost may be confronting Howard Dean in this campaign, but that's what these campaigns are for. As long as it's not too negative, I can understand the need for all of the candidates to make distinctions and comparisons of their records.

Finally, there is so much blogosphere outrage when Martin Frost makes a distinction between himself and Howard Dean, but where is the outrage of anonymous front groups like "DNC Chair Fact Check"? I don't hear it.

Anyway... take the jump for the full letter by Charles Soechting to DNC members.

From the Desk of Charles Soechting

January 27, 2005

Dear Fellow DNC Member,

Please take a few minutes to read this brief message. Like you, I am tired of the avalanche of mail, e-mail and phone calls, but I ask you to make room for just one more. This is worth your time.

In the past few days, you may have received an inaccurate, cowardly email attack from a front group misleadingly named "DNC Chair Fact Check" that tries to smear Martin Frost by distorting both the context and effect of two TV ads aired by his campaign for re-election last year in a 65% Republican district.

And today, we read that "prominent [Howard] Dean supporters have begun to distribute" descriptions of the same ads, according to ABC News's "The Note" (1/27/05). As much as I may like Governor Dean, this is just wrong. Let's spend our time fighting Republicans, not smearing each other.

To rebut this dishonest, dishonorable campaign, let me very clearly set the record straight.

• The purpose of the ads - as any Democrat who has tried to win in a Red State will immediately recognize - was to demonstrate that Martin's GOP opponent, Pete Sessions, is a dangerous extremist well outside the mainstream, more extreme than even George W. Bush and other Republicans.
• The ads focus on an airline security vote on which Frost voted with every Democratic member of the U.S. House and Senate, while Sessions was in a minority of only 9 - again more extreme than even George W. Bush and other Republicans.
• The ads do not praise any Republican, and they do not attack any Democrat. The cowardly email attacks circulated this week are simply inaccurate attempts to mislead you.

Perhaps even more important is the fact that where these TV ads actually ran, the Democratic base was energized and the campaigns of other Democratic candidates benefited from the Frost campaign, contrary to the implications of this cowardly attack.

In fact, Martin's 2004 campaign could serve as a model for Democrats who are running in equally tough territory around the country. The campaign involved hundreds, if not thousands, of volunteers, including Democrats of all races, union members, and many of the most ardent progressives in a tough, aggressive grassroots campaign.

Martin refused to back down against enormous odds - standing up to DeLay and Rove by refusing to retire when their illegal redistricting scheme forced him into a 65% GOP district.

Martin showed the kind of strategic skill our Party desperately needs by challenging Republicans on security issues while seeking out and energizing Democrats in both base precincts and hostile territory. In the process, he put together one of the strongest grassroots Congressional campaign ever - finding, organizing and turning out
Democrats in both low turnout Hispanic precincts and some of the most Republican precincts in Texas. - building the Party and scoring historic Democratic victories in local races below him on the ballot.

My point is very simple: in Dallas, where these ads ran, Martin's campaign did not discourage Democrats, it increased Democratic turnout.

Here in Texas, we're used to Republicans like Karl Rove and Tom DeLay using damned lies and dirty tricks to launch character attacks against tough, effective Democrats like Martin Frost. Whoever made this attack clearly has no idea what it takes to win in tough districts - in "Red States" like Texas or anywhere else in the country.

I trust that you know better. Most of you have had the opportunity to get to know Martin Frost, to talk to him about his vision to build a stronger DNC, and to talk to those of us who can personally testify to his unparalleled track record as a proven manager, winning strategist, innovative organizer, and disciplined national
spokesperson who can represent Democrats in every region of the country.

No one in this campaign has done as much to elect other Democrats in tough races than Martin Frost. Over the past 26 years - reinventing and then running the most successful DCCC in modern history and driving Newt Gingrich from Congress, directing our efforts to preserve Democratic power in Texas during the height of the Bush era,
and organizing Democrats at the state, county and national levels - Martin's credentials as a successful partisan fighter for Democrats have been unmatched. And his 2004 campaign was no exception. (His campaign is rightly credited with electing the first Democrats to Dallas County office in 20 years.)

And finally, using George W. Bush in TV ads to discredit his Republican opponent as a wide-eyed extremist - more extreme than even Bush himself - did nothing to slow down our efforts to elect Martin or any other Democrat.

Not too long ago, Howard Dean said on national TV, "So there's some agreement that I have with the President. I daresay other Democrats find some common ground with the President." I know for a fact that Martin Frost does not agree with George W. Bush on much, and that he has fought and beat him on behalf of Democrats for years; but on the
occasions when Bush is with other Democrats, Martin knows how turn that into another one of the tools he uses to elect Democrats in even the reddest of Red States.

If you have any questions about Martin's unmatched record of success for Democrats, please do not hesitate to call on me.

Sincerely,
Charles Soechting
Chairman, Texas Democratic Party

Tom Delay in the Middle East

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Thank you.

Rosenberg, Dean Pick up DNC Votes

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

While many more DNC votes will likely be made public after this weekend (and while Frost is busy makeing the Dean v. Frost race about ideology again instead of reform), Rosenberg and Dean make their final round of DNC endorsements.

First, Dean picks up the endorsement of former DNC Chair candidate Harold Ickes, the best indicator of what the Clintons may be thinking...

While Ickes would not comment on the Clintons' preferences, he is a close ally and would not be endorsing Dean against their strong objections. No one was immediately available in Sen. Clinton's office to comment.

Ickes said Dean "has a real ability to communicate with people in leadership, but also to grass-roots and average Americans. He understands the need for party building."

Ickes' endorsement comes at a critical time in the chairman's race and gives Dean almost 50 of the more than 215 votes he would need to win the post.

Also, Dean picked up just under 20 more DNC votes today, many from California, but a mix as before.

Steven K. Alari - California DNC Committeeman and DNC Executive Committee Member

Jeremy Bernard - DNC Member-at-Large

Rachel Binah - California DNC Committeewoman, Former Chair of the Environmental Caucus, California Democratic Party

Mary Ellen Early - California DNC Committeewoman

Ed Espinoza - California DNC Committeeman

Jimmie Farris - Tennessee DNC Committeewoman

Hon. Mike Fitzgerald - DNC Member, Chair of National Association of Democratic State Treasurers

Alice Huffman - California DNC Committeewoman and Chair of 2004 Democratic National Convention

Hon. Pete Jorgensen - Wyoming DNC Committeeman

Johnnie Patton - Mississippi DNC Committeewoman

Alexandra Gallardo Rooker - California DNC Committeewoman, Vice-Chair of the California State Democratic Party and Vice President CWA Local 9400

Aleita J. Huguenin - California DNC Committeewoman

John A. Perez - California DNC Committeeman and UFCW Local 324 Political Director

Garry S. Shay - California DNC Committeeman

Smith Bagley - Former DNC Finance Vice-Chair

Hon. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.)

Hon. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.)

Debra DeLee - Former Chair of the DNC and CEO of 1996 Democratic National Convention

Hon. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.)

Notice the Labor tags on a couple of those endorsements. Could be indicative of where labor is going, or at least that Dean is making sure he isn't getting left out with that crowd.

Also, Rosenberg announces 4 DNC votes, bumping him up in the "DNC Votes Not From My Home State" category. DNC Members Mark Bryant (MO), Gloria Nieto (At-Large, NM), and Moretta Bosley and Jo Etta Wickliffe (KY) are behind him now. (The Simon for Chair website is down so I have no link.)

Jimbo's first official 2006 endorsement.

By Jim Dallas

It's January and I'm already getting letters from the very senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Rest assured, Senator Kennedy, I support your re-election! I just don't have any money right now.

D-Trippin'

By Jim Dallas

Jesse Lee of the D-Trip's Stakeholder blog and Old Man Wythe are having a terribly civil debate about party-building.

While Greg is no big fan of Howard "Come-All-Ye-Children" Dean, it's clear that he's got some good ideas about party building. You know, like running more candidates. It's such a good idea it'll make you want to scream!

Also, I'll ask here what I said earlier in Greg's comments: why on earth do we elect the SDEC out of state senate districts (instead of, say, fixed groupings of counties)? Have you seen a map of state senate districts recently? Do they bear any relationship to political reality? No. And they always mange to get even funnier lookin' each 10 years. Makes it kind of hard to give the SDEC long-term leadership when their base constituents keep shifting around.

A few words about freedom

By Jim Dallas

First off, I have tremendous respect for teachers and professors. That said, I want to say a few words about how they do their jobs.

I hear through the Kos grapevine that up in Ohio they want to pass an Orwellianly-titled academic freedom bill of rights. It's a big bundle of "thou shalt nots" targetting college professors who allegedly inject irrelevant personal opinions into things.

I don't need to tell you that this is a horrendous idea. On the other hand, though, I think it's important that professors who teach get rewarded and professors that preach get penalized.

But how to do it without making a mockery of freedom? So, once again, I must present that old solution: merit pay. Specifically, Adam Smith's proposal. Seeing that "the greater part of the public
professors have, for these many years, given up altogether even
the pretence of teaching" in his own time, Smith suggested tying professor salaries to how many students that sign up for their lectures. And to insure that the students are "bribed" into signing up for easy courses, I propose institution-wide grading and attendance standards.

I'm sure that's a solution that these pro-market, pro-accountability Republicans can endorse, no?

P.S. I see those flaming lefties at the American Enterprise Institute already had the same idea.

Frost and the Success of 2004 Dallas Democrats

By Byron LaMasters

In 2004 Dallas County Democrats had perhaps their most successful election in twenty years (on a countywide level). They elected a Democratic Sheriff for the first time since the 1970s, and Democrats picked up three GOP-held judicial seats. Naturally, everyone wants to take credit for such success. But instead of debating over who worked harder, who donated more, who ran the best ads or who registered the most voters, it makes the most sense to take a good, hard look at the numbers, because the numbers don’t lie.

Last week, Anna wrote this:

i've seen all sorts of folks whom i respect write that martin helped downticket dems. i don't believe this is borne out by the numbers. byron over at BOR attributes the high turnout in dallas county, as well as the judgeship and sherriff victories, to martin's campaign (i hope i'm not misinterpreting what you said, B). i respectfully disagree, and here is why. i think that in order to really get an idea of who martin's race affected the downticket dems, we need to focus on the numbers that came out of martin's district and how the non-martin candidates fared there. then we need to look at the county-wide totals. but you can't really just throw out the county-wide totals and claim that's the end-all-be-all assessment.

I had hoped to respond earlier, but it took about a week to get the numbers that I needed to make my points about how the 2004 Martin Frost campaign affected downballot races. At the December 2004 Dallas County Young Democrats meeting, former SDEC member of the 23rd Senatorial district, and well-known Democratic freebooter Gary Fitzsimmons presented his analysis of the 2004 election results. Gary didn’t work for the Dallas County Democratic Party or the Martin Frost campaign. He’s just a well respected activist who crunches the numbers after the elections and presents the results to local Democratic clubs.

Gary’s presentation effectively showed that much of the success of Dallas County Democrats (winning the race for sheriff and three judicial races) was due to the GOTV operation of the Martin Frost campaign as opposed to any of the efforts put forth by the Dallas County Democratic Party. He prepared a PowerPoint presentation to present to Democratic clubs which you can download here.

I’ll explain this slide-by-slide. Slide two shows how turnout in 2004 in Dallas County was up sharply. The 58% turnout of 2004 contrasts sharply with the 49% turnout of 2000, and the 52.5% turnout of 1996. Slide three shows how the number of registered voters compares to the number of voters in each presidential election since 1992. The number of registered voters varies greatly from 1992 to 2004 as the county “cleaned up” it’s voter rolls at various points. That explains the decline in registered voters between 2000 and 2004, while the number of voters in 2004 increased by over 70,000 from 2000.

Slide four makes some noteworthy comparisons. It takes a look at each congressional district that contains a portion of Dallas County – 3, 5, 24, 30 and 32, and compares the percentage of the vote received by three candidates. First, is the vote of (losing) 2002 Democratic DA candidate Craig Watkins, second the vote share of 2002 U.S. Senate candidate Ron Kirk (also lost), and third is the vote of the victorious 2004 Democratic Sheriff candidate Lupe Valdez.

Watkins' race is a good benchmark race for DPI in Dallas County in 2002. The DPI (Democratic Performance Index) of Dallas County in 2002 in 2002 can be generally pegged at 48-49%. Watkins received 48.8% of the vote in his race. Kirk, meanwhile won Dallas County with 50.2% of the vote in 2002. In 2004 the DPI of Dallas County was pretty much right at 50%. Valdez won her race with 51.35% of the vote. That's a 2.5% increase over Craig Watkins vote in 2002. Where did that increase come from? Much of it came from the District 32 portion of Dallas County. Slides four and five show how Lupe Valdez improved on Craig Watkins 2002 performance by a full 6% in the 32nd Congressional District. That effectively amounts to nearly 12,000 votes (slide 5).

Valdez won by just over 17,000 votes, so Martin Frost’s GOTV operation can legitimately lay claim to providing over two-thirds of her victory margin. However, assuming that Valdez’s improvement over Watkins’ performance remains a relative constant for all Democrats in the 32nd district (and the evidence suggests as much), Martin Frost’s GOTV operation can legitimately claim to providing the entire margin for two of the three victorious Democratic judicial candidates. Judge Don Adams and Judge Dennise Garcia won their races by 5000 and 7000 votes respectively. The ability of Martin Frost to raise the DPI in the 32nd Congressional District in 2004 easily provided the entire margin of victory for both.

Another example of the Martin Frost campaign helping Dallas County Democrats is with the campaign of State Representative candidate Harriet Miller (slide 6). Harriet ran in a state representative district partially within the 32nd Congressional district. She took on a longtime incumbent Republican, and ran nearly a full ten points ahead of DPI, losing with 47% of the vote. Miller’s campaign was one of the biggest surprises of election night in Texas. Her race was not highly targeted by the state party nor typical interest groups that generally engage the top state representative campaigns. Texas Tuesdays and BOR didn’t mention the race, because I pretty much expected her to get in the low 40s. Well, Harriet Miller surprised us all, and got 47%. Why? Harriet Miller ran a great campaign, and Martin Frost raised the DPI of the district with his campaign. Because of that, Harriet Miller is running for state representative again in 2006. You can bet that we’ll be paying attention this time.

Slides seven through twelve focus on the turnout in various state senate districts, so that’s not particularly relevant to our discussion of Martin Frost here, but in my analysis, I’m inclined to give the Martin Frost campaign much of the credit for the success of Dallas Democrats in 2004. Gary Fitzsimmons comes to similar conclusions:

The Martin Frost campaign improved Democratic performance in Congressional District 32 by 3% to 8% depending on race. Lupe Valdez ran 6% ahead of DPI in the congressional district [...]

The Martin Frost campaign was responsible for the overall improvement of the Democratic margin countywide. The more aggressive Democratic campaigns were able to capitalize on this improvement.

Most Democratic improvement came from outside the Democratic base and probably resulted from Frost’s intensive voter persuasion efforts.

Furthermore, I’m inclined to credit the Martin Frost campaign for much of the success of Dallas County Democrats as the Dallas County Democratic Party is in relative disarray. The activist base in the county Democratic Party has become increasingly disenchanted with the county party chair, and several high dollar donors have cut their contributions to the county party after some of the actions of the county chair, notably her endorsement of a Republican judge. At least five Dallas County Democratic clubs have passed resolutions denouncing her leadership.

There are a few examples here: Dallas County Young Democrats, Dallas Stonewall Democrats, the Lake Highlands / White Rock Democrats, Dallas County East Democrats and the Richardson / Northeast Democrats. This may all seem beside the point, but I think that this information reinforces my point. The evidence from both the voting data, and the analysis of Gary Fitzsimmons suggests very strongly that much of the Dallas County Democratic success in 2004 can be attributed to the Martin Frost campaign while the turnout efforts of the Dallas County Democratic Party among the base were relatively mediocre.

A County Chair's Words

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

The following comment was left by the County Chair of Taylor County (Abilene) on an older post of mine about how grassroots Democrats in SD 24, one of the more Republican districts, are organizing on their own to Change the Equation. They also happened to all endorse Howard Dean.

Karl's article says the vote for Dean for DNC at the SD24 county chairs' meeting earlier this month was "unofficial" and many of us weren't "rabid Deniacs" last summer.

I was there, and it was unanimous. I don't know what it takes for something to be "official."

And I don't know what our feelings last summer have to do with our choice for DNC chair now.

I think use of the term "rabid Deniacs" plays into the hands of the Republican opposition, which has said some very desperate things to discredit Gov. Dean. Like about the "scream" speech. Those who check into it can see he was trying to speak above the roar of his ecstatic volunteers, and the mike the networks used was unidirectional, capturing only his words and not the background noise.

That said, I wouldn't mind being called a "rabid Deniac" last summer or now, even though I was as loyal to Kerry after his nomination as anyone else.

-Dave Haigler
Taylor County Democratic Chair
Abilene, Texas

At the time I didn't have duplicate confirmation of the vote that was taken to endorse Dean being something that was public or not, so I went on the cautious side with my language. And my use of the "rabid Deaniac" statement was not to be degrading but to further highlight the point that since such an endorsement was coming from a region where many of the chairs were for other candidates and not "drinking the Dean kool-aid" like I was, their endorsement is all the more telling of the opinion of those on the ground in Texas.

Because it isn't news if a DFT poll says Dean supporters support Dean or if Texas DNC members support Frost... (I'm comprimising with you Byron) But I think it is news when there are multiple signs of the everyday Democrat and county level Party folk speaking up for Dean. If the MoveOn.org vote in the state shows the same thing, there is only so far you can run with the "well, that's not a surprise" meme until you have to deal with the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the majority of the "Democratic National Committee of Millions of Democrats" are on the same page.