Burnt Orange Report

From the stories I've heard and my understanding of Texas politics, one of the most intense/negative primaries Democrats have had in recent history was the 1990 primary between Ann Richards and Mark White -- and it ended up producing our last Democratic Governor here in Texas.

Gammage is attacking Perry, which is great and all, but I'm not sure attacking him in East Texas will necessarily get much traction for the primaries. A clear majority of Texans don't like Perry, but just as many won't trust Democrats - no matter what we may say or do. I'd imagine that there are many rural voters that would just as soon turn to Carol or Kinky as they would a Democrat.

Trying to lock up the Democratic base is going to be important for Bell and Gammage, and one way to do that is to establish yourself as the absolute, pro-choice, woman's candidate. I don't think that's necessarily a terrible idea. Could Bell have done that in a better way? Probably, but if he had, we here at BOR wouldn't have got to have three different posts about a single e-mail.

"I like Chris Bell. He's a great guy, a good man for stepping up the plate, and if he's the nominee my support as well. But I'm disappointed."

I'm neither disappointed nor surprised. I think at the end of the day, his sole motivation in filing the ethics complaint against Tom De Lay, as indicated by the committee itself, was merely to garner publicity for himself and provide a platform for another political campaign for another political office. Nothing more.

An endorsement letter is not an 'attack'.

Publishing a candidate's voting record and having a discussion about it would be an appropriate exercise of our democracy. The earlier post here -- Vince's? -- containing the history of the Democratic Party as being what we would now call "pro-life" was fascinating.

This is the second thread here, however, that is disapproving of pointing out the differences between candidates. And this one's just a little too caustic.

We all have our preferred candidates, K-T, but this is the second time that raising questions about one of them has resulted in your use of the word 'attack'.

I would suggest checking the definition again in your Merriam-Webster.

And leave the bitters to Baby Snooks.

Hair splitting worthy of a Bush appointee - the "untrustworthiness" charge directed at Bob Gammage in this "endorsement" letter could not more clearly be an attack - but then desperate candidates always go negative when their numbers start going south.

See?

Now THAT's an attack.

Well, at least Bell finally did something that hasn't inspired voters to go take a nap.

I prefer the honesty of directly communicating the meaning intended rather than the passive-aggressive exercise of describing the application of trustworthy vs. untrustworthy as a dispassionate discussion of voting records.

I prefer the honesty of directly communicating the meaning intended rather than the passive-aggressive exercise of describing the application of trustworthy vs. untrustworthy as a dispassionate discussion of voting records.

Your quarrel then is with the letter's signers, which FWIW is a perfectly fine disagreement to have. I thought their intention was most direct and crystal clear, but then that's how I read it.

And thanks for not using the words 'attack', 'desperate', and 'Bush appointee' this go-round.

Again, finely parsed. The text of the letter is NOT a discussion of voting records on its points but rather a point blank attack on the character of the candidate. From the Austin Statesman story:

"When he had to choose between placating anti-choicers and sticking up for his beliefs in Congress, Bob abandoned us," the letter says. It also commends Bell for his voting record during his two years in Congress.

The letter does not point to specific votes, but Bell's campaign charged that Gammage voted in 1977 and 1978 against allowing federal funds to pay for abortions in cases of rape or incest or when it was deemed necessary to protect a woman's long-term health.

Gammage spokesman Jeremy Warren responded that Gammage "is pro-choice and has been for decades."

"The issue that they're discussing is not a woman's right to choose but whether the taxpayers should be paying for that," he said. "At the time it was a new issue, and it was very controversial, and Bob Gammage voted with Al Gore, Dick Gephardt and a lot of other Democrats."

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/01/12abortion.html

Notice please in that first paragraph the word choices - it is mischaracterization to the point of mendacity to declare it nothing more than a discussion of voting records as is done in some earlier posts.

The discussion is being had right here, e.

We're having the discussion. The letter simply expresses an opinion, makes reference to the voting record, and the voting record is linked and discussed here and elsewhere.

Bell's campaign "charges" nothing but what the evidence of Bob Gammage's voting record displays. Everyone is free to come to their own conclusions about it, but Jeremy Warren's explanantion seems to be that Bob really didn't mean it when he cast all those votes. That's simply disengenuous.

I will accept an explanation -- from the candidate -- that his thinking has evolved over time. That would be a logical, rational thing for any thoughtful person to do on so controversial a subject as freedom of choice. I will NOT accept that Bob Gammage's votes were attributable to the tenor of the times, or the 'herd mentality' existing in the Democratic Party, or any other rot like that. This strikes me as similar to the excuses proffered for Robert Byrd's former membership in the KKK.

It's up to Bob now to explain his position.

Apparently it's only a swift-boat attack when Republicans do it. When an erstwhile Democrat does it, it's called an "endorsement letter."

It's ugly no matter what it's called.

The Mosbacher contingent is certainly teaching the Bell camp how to run a campaign -- swiftboat tactics and all.

Mr. Dittie, it may be news to you, but when a campaign sends out an email like the one the Bell campaign did yesterday, the Bell campaign is responsible for the content.

Yes, we are having that discussion - and what is becoming clear is that this letter is far more revealing about Chris Bell than Bob Gammage.

Comparisons to Swift Boating and Republicans are way out of line.

Chris Bell has endured fifty times the ad hominem from Democrats so far on these boards, and I am certain it will only get worse. That's OK, because Chris can fight -- and win -- his own battles.

I met Bob Gammage this past weekend in Galveston, and he answered all the questions I had asked about him previously, and he did so candidly and to my satisfaction. He has a refreshing honesty and direct approach that few politicians of any stripe possess and for which I have a tremendous respect. I don't think this is his race to win, and I frankly wish he had run for Lieutenant Governor, but should he win the primary I will wholeheartedly -- and with the same enthusiasm as I will Bell -- support his campaign for governor of Texas.

I will wait to see the Gammage supporters here express the same sentiment for Bell. But I won't hold my breath waiting.

"Comparisons to Swift Boating and Republicans are way out of line."

I think they're right on target. His campaign theme song should be "With a Little Help from My Friends." Chris Bell gets by with a little help from his Republican friends although they probably are dwindling in number after he turned a personal phone call from one of them into a cloak-and-dagger political conspiracy.

The issue you have consistently failed to address in this discussion, P, is that the "endorsement" letter goes FAR beyond endorsing Bell for his votes, it directly impugns the character of Bob Gammage.

Address that issue and you may get pleasantly surprised - continue to duck it and you will continue to get called on it - and most likely in terms that compare it unfavorably to the current administration in Washington.

I like Chris Bell and am horrified that he would let a letter go out in which the only Dallasite signer is Susan Hays, someone who ran the local Party $25,000 into debt and had to be run out of office. Also, she is on record in Texas Lawyer as endorsing Kinky Freedman. Maybe she's had a change of heart, maybe she can't figure out what Party she's in, or maybe she's just indecisive (and looking for employment), but It was incredibly unwise to include her name on a endorsement letter that would be read by Democrats in North Texas.

it directly impugns the character of Bob Gammage.

In what way? You should point out how.

I think this is a BS contention (and I'm not referring to Snooks).

And you would by contrast characterize the response of the Gammage defenders here as lily-white and pure of intent?

Read back and find the references to Swift-Boating and comparisons to the Repuke Party.

You people are really something....

Tom: your objections to one of the signers of the letter will draw no response from me. As I have written elsewhere, your opinion has the same value as theirs.

I will ask you to cite the following assertion:

Also, she is on record in Texas Lawyer as endorsing Kinky Freedman. (sic)

I have seen it posted elsewhere but as yet seen have no verification.

"When he had to choose between placating anti-choicers and sticking up for his beliefs in Congress, Bob abandoned us," the letter says.

The letter does not point to specific votes...

From the post above quoting the Austin Statesman.

The language is pejorative and inflammatory, and addresses the character of the candidate rather than the issues and is unsubstantiated. It is an ill considered attack that will ultimately prove more harmful to Bell than to Gammage.

Also, I understand Ms. Hays was also signatory to a letter on Democratic party stationary endorsing a Republican judicial candidate - anyone from North Texas jump in here.

You are correct energyecon, Hays did sign an endorsement for a Republican on Democratic Party stationary, which is what earned her the boot, led by the Young Democrats of Dallas County.

I found Bell's smear tasteless. It is a desperate move by a desperate campaign, I just really never imagined it would go that low, but when you have to try and stop a snowball downhill effect like Gammage has right now with the media, then you'll pull out all the stops.

Gammage is getting great media coverage, both in print and on the television. He was on Channel 11 news in DFW on Wednesday. I haven't seen Bell on television since his campaign started.

This is politics, and we should have seen this coming. Having said that, I know Gammage will stick to his call of not swinging at Democrats, and swing at Republicans. Be nice if Bell would do the same.

The language is pejorative and inflammatory, and addresses the character of the candidate rather than the issues and is unsubstantiated.

Horseshit. Nowhere is Bob's character mentioned.

And again, if this is all you can come up with, then your beef is with the signatories to the letter and not Chris Bell.

You Gammageites are some of the nastiest people I've ever seen online that aren't Republicans. You're neither building support nor engendering sympathy for your candidate by lashing out every time someone questions him.

P, methinks thou dost protest too much.

1. This letter is being circulated by the Bell campaign. It attacks the character of his opponent by describing him as untrustworthy, unwilling to stand up for his principles and abandoning Democratic women - YOU may call that a 'stress position' or 'enhanced interrogation techniques' but I have another name for it.

2. The signatories have signed as individuals only, endorsing Bell and calling both the character and chops as a Dem of Bob Gammage into question. Thus their individual standing to make these arguments is fair game and relevant to the discussion.

3. Earlier in this discussion you addressed the issue of tone, which seemed to be a point well taken at the time. However it strikes me as quite ironic that in your latest post you resort to profanity and lashing out at those who disagree with you in the name of decrying lashing out and name calling...

4. I propose a poll be taken online - perhaps Burnt Orange Report can even do it - to determine how the Democrats who are following this letter see it, as a simple 'endorsement' or an 'attack.'

Cheers

For the last time:

If the signatories question Bob's trustworthiness, then that's their opinion.

You can stop catapulting the propaganda now, please.

His stance on choice is called into question, and you don't like it (a lot), and you subsequently sling ad hom at me. Not a very skillful debater, are we?

And if you repeat the false assertion that someone is impugning character again, I'll call 'horseshit' again.

I paint what I see, child I paint what I see...

Any thoughts on the poll concept - and is that a promise on the last time?

This is a primary, people. The meek and weak-hearted need not apply. All you Bell haters have taken every opportunity to slam his every move and his every comment. So, now, when 12 of Texas' most prominent women and Pro-choice activists endorse Chris, you are up in arms about the letter and "the way it was handled." Wah. Guess Gammage's campaign isn't as strong as some may think if all it takes to rile him up is a letter of endorsement for his opponent.
I was in Galveston this past weekend, too. I heard Gammage speak and wasn't that impressed and wasn't sure what or whose record he wants to set straight.

"So, now, when 12 of Texas' most prominent women and Pro-choice activists endorse Chris, you are up in arms about the letter and "the way it was handled.""

And some of those women were held in high esteem prior to the endorsement. But are no more.

You seem to respond to any criticism of Chris Bell by automatically labelling the critic a "Bell Hater" which calls into question your ability to be objective about the issues as well as the candidate. Some of us have personal reasons for not supporting Chris Bell but the real reason, when we try to be objective and put the personal reasons aside, is that he has not offered any substantative solutions to the myriad of problems facing Texans apart from an ongoing diatribe against Republicans and a promise to appoint committees to look into the problems.

We already have a governor who has appointed committees. And the committees haven't been able to offer any solutions. So why should we vote for another governor who has no real solutions of his own? We might as well stick with Rick Perry.

Reality is we are always reminded of the personal reasons every time he engages in more diatribe laced with factless innuendo about someone. Some of the responses by Tom De Lay to the diatribe unfortunately have some truth to them.

Apart from anything else, it is doubtful any Democrat can win a statewide election in Texas without the African-American vote and his "exposing" Sylvester Turner as a "conspirator" to confuse voters in a mayoral election followed by his filing an ethics complaint against Al Green alone will most likely block Chris Bell from carrying the African-American vote. And Garnet Coleman can send all the mail-outs he wants. It is not going to change the impression quite a few African-Americans have of Chris Bell. Particularly after his "I guess I'm the wrong color" commment when he lost the primary election to Al Green. Perhaps the African-American voters didn't have a problem with Al Green's ethics. That is reality. They didn't buy into it. And won't. And yet you somehow believe he will carry the African-American vote and become governor. Or you believe as he does that he can carry enough of the Hispanic vote to negate the African-American vote. You are, in a word, delusional.

Bob Gammage began his campaign on the high road and Chris Bell chose to continue his on the low road. Again, I hope Bob Gammage joins him on the low road and has the guts to tell all Texans what Chris Bell is. The few who don't already know.

"I was in Galveston this past weekend, too. I heard Gammage speak and wasn't that impressed and wasn't sure what or whose record he wants to set straight."

I haven't been able to hear Gammage yet -- but you have got to be kidding me. I think most have acknowledged Bell is a snore-fest -- the worst stump speech giver I've heard, and I've heard a lot.

If Bell can't even keep the hardest of hard core Democrats awake in a speech (a la TYD Fundraiser in 2005, among others) how can he appeal to anyone else?

I'll support whomever the Dem nominee is, b/c Perry has got to go -- but Bell is just not impressive -- and out of the gate Gammage has really impressed me. Of course, I hold everyone up to Cong. Sandlin -- who was one *hell* of a speech giver -- that man could really raise the roof.

But, I'm just one voter of many and we all get to make up our own minds...

The bottom line is that unless Gammage can raise enough money, he probably won't win the Democratic Primary. If anything, Bell has raised more, but neither has raised enough. Unfortunately, the primary is a resounding dull-off from the point of media coverage at this point.

Strayhorn hurts us. She may steal some Republican votes but the people voting independent will hurt us more because we have less to lose. I fail to understand the TTLA approach. Every dem dollar and vote to Scott McLyin's mom is vote and a dollar for Perry. Wake up!

The key question is how do you destroy Perry. Link him to the culture of corruption that is the Republican Party (including Delay and Jack Payemoff if possible) blast him on School Finance, and turn out the vote. The reality may well be that the Republican implosion on the national level, if it continues, may give local and state-wide races in this Congressional Mid-Term year than anything else regardless of what GammBell we take.

Additionally,

Dems should be as concerned with registering former New Orleaneans to vote in Texas b/c many are Dems, and fighting for a paper trail (ballot) from electronic voting machines to prevent election fraud through computer tabulation manipulation.

So did anyone see the Rasmussen polling?

40% Perry
20% Strayhorn
14% Bell
12% Kinky

Couple thoughts/Questions on that:
(1) Is Jeremy Warren pissed that they didn't poll Gammage?
(2) Is Jason Stanford pissed that Bell is tied with undecided?
(3) Where does Labor go - Gammage, Bell, or Carole?
(4) How much is John Sharp kicking himself for not running right now?

This is in honor of PD, since I seldom post at BOR. I thought I'd do so tonight, he seems to want to drag a discussion from a different venue over here. PD, please refrain from name-calling and hissy-fitting at BOR. It much too classy a venue.

Rick, to answer your questions in order:

1) No
2) Probably, more than likely why all the attacks started.
3) Labor isn't endorsing anyone in the primary, but I suspect they have mostly made up their individual minds already.
4) Sharp had every opportunity to get into this race, but I think it might have been the fatigue factor.

Hope that helps....

Baby Snooks,

Bell said WHAT? when he lost to Al Green?

Gotta link?

No, she doesn't have a link because it's not true. BS is a nut who typically goes off on these rants. She argues with herself and sometimes it's amusing but mostly it's just boring.

Well I found the quote by Bell that was paraphrased above, it is on the WSVN web site but I am having some issue posting it to the blog here... try C37465 and WSVN on a search.

That's very odd, I keep getting:

"Your comment was denied for questionable content. "

Hey, it's a quote already!

I guess I'm not the only nut ranting away on BOR.

"I'm not going to stand here and pretend that it's not somewhat heartbreaking when you've spent your entire career in public service fighting for diversity, championing diversity, to suddenly be placed in a situation where many people do not want to look past the color of your skin," Bell, 44, told his supporters Tuesday night."

That is the quote in the story run by WSVN in Miami on March 10,2004. For some reason, the link is considered "questionable content.

As I recall the "I guess I'm the wrong color" quote was posted on the Chris Bell for Congress website the day after the primary. But not for long. But long enough for quite a few to have caught it. Minerva has not finished archiving the 2004 political websites. They may have archived it before it was removed. I was told by someone I called that Forward Times may have printed the comment as well in a story. Don't know, don't care. This may not be the quote I referenced to but it conveys the same message. About Chris Bell.

The voters did look past the color of his skin and he didn't want to acknowledge that so instead blamed it on some sort of reverse discrimination.

Chris Bell: "The sun rises in the West."

Marie: "Yes, it does."

Take your bile and go away, Snooks.

Gammage has clarified his position:

(Gammage) reaffirmed his support for abortion rights and raising the minimum wage, despite what the Bell campaign said were contradictions in Gammage's voting record while in Congress in the 1970s.

"I've cast a lot of votes ... over the 25 years I was in public service. I wish I could look back on that record of service and say, 'I never made a mistake,' " he told reporters.

Gammage, who last held office in 1995, also is a former state legislator and a former Texas Supreme Court justice.

He said he strongly supports a woman's right to an abortion and always has, despite several votes in 1977 and 1978 against federal funding of abortions. "The question as we saw it at the time was not whether a woman should have the right to choose but who should pay once that choice was made. Today, I wouldn't vote that way," he said.

As regards the issue of choice, that was perfectly handled, sir. And as I posted above, that is good enough for me.

I am much less happy about your explanation regarding the minimum wage votes, however:

Bell ... said Gammage, who advocates raising the state minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.50 an hour, cast two votes against raising the federal minimum wage in 1977. Gammage said he didn't remember them.

"We cast thousands of votes, hundreds of votes a day sometimes, and there are a lot of nuances when legislation comes along," he said.

This doesn't reflect well on you, Bob.

"Take your bile and go away, Snooks."

That doesn't reflect well on you, PDiddie. Upset because there was a link and there was a quote?

"Bell ... said Gammage, who advocates raising the state minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.50 an hour, cast two votes against raising the federal minimum wage in 1977. Gammage said he didn't remember them."

And of course we all know that every other Democrat voted for the minimum wage increase in 1977.

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/3584357.html

"Socialite Carolyn Farb hosted a fundraiser for Friedman at her River Oaks home, where Friedman mingled with local glitterati who are supporting and funding his campaign."

"The guest list included criminal lawyer Dick DeGuerin, international business lawyer and former Houston Port Commissioner Vidal Martinez, civic leader Ginni Mithoff and retailer Robert Sakowitz."

One of the Dirty Dozen signs the "endorsement" of Chris Bell and then off she goes to a fundraiser for Kinky Friedman. Sort of calls into question why Ginni Mithoff signed it. Maybe Sissy Farenthold caught her at a cocktail party and just asked her to sign it and didn't tell her what it was. Maybe Ginni Mithoff has her "social committments" mixed up? "I support Chris Bell but socially I'm committed to Kinky Friedman."

I wonder if Sissy Farenthold was there as well and just hid from view as Kristen Mack made the rounds with her notepad. Maybe she was hiding in the powder room along with Liz Carpenter.

If nothing else this sums up women with social agendas that conflict with their supposed social consciousness.

Look, I'm the first to admit that votes taken in 1977 are a little obscure. But if Gammage is going to base his whole candidacy on his role in 1971's Dirty 30 uprising, he can't then turn around and dismiss his 1977-78 Congressional record as water under the bridge. That his political career peaked before a lot of us were even born is a liability, not an excuse for bad votes.

Also, I need to raise two objections to what Gammage's supporters are writing here...

1) Pointing out significant differences in where the candidates have stood on the issues throughout their careers is not dirty, unfair, below-the-belt, or mud-sligning. If Bell strays from the issues and gets into Gammage's personal life, or if he just starts making stuff up, then I'll be the first to abandon his banner. But suggesting that there's some greater ideal of party unity that compels Bell not to point out obvious discrepancies between Gammages current rhetoric and his past record is, quite frankly, absurd.

2) Take another look at the anti-choice votes in question. These were not, as some of his supporters have been trying to argue above, broad votes on the philosophical question of federal funding for any and all abortions. These were very specific votes about whether or not exceptions to an existing ban should be made for the most extreme cases. Rape. Incest. Even when the health of the mother was in question. Gammage voted against allowing exceptions to the funding ban even for these most extreme cases. And he did so repeatedly. I'm sorry, but there's not way to spin such an extremist position as anything other than "anti-choice." Bob says his views have changed since then, and I was glad to see him accept resposibility for what he admitted were bad votes.

K-T, in the comment you excerpted in your post, a Gammage supporter accused Bell of baseless innuendo for claiming that Gammage had made bad, anti-choice votes. Then, hours later, Gammage himself admitted that he made some bad, anti-choice votes, and that he regrets them. I'm glad for Gammage's clarification and I accept it at face value, but I don't hear any Gammage supporters taking back any of their slams on Bell. Remind me again, which side in this debate is engaging in baseless attacks?

"...a Gammage supporter accused Bell of baseless innuendo for claiming that Gammage had made bad, anti-choice votes."

Bell accused Gammage of not "toeing the line" on abortion rights to be more exact. While not pointing out that quite a few prominent Democrats also were not "toeing the line" during that same period. But then Chris Bell for the most part doesn't like the party itself and on more than one occasion has launched attacks on the party itself. For not "toeing" HIS line.

Chris Bell used a letter from 12 prominent, although at this point very hypocritical, women to launch his attack and one of those women proceeds to publicly support Kinky Friedman. That if nothing else is hypocritical. But also reflective of the sense of committment behind the letter itself and of the motivation behind its release by them and by Chris Bell.

The letter, as commented on by someone else on another blog, appears to be just another attack on Bob Gammage by 12 women seeking to beat a dead horse to death which was then used by Chris Bell to try to further a very dead political campaign and hopefully a very dead political career.

Abortion rights is not the only issue confronting women in our society. The Dirty Dozen should have looked at those other issues instead of focusing on one vote almost 20 years ago on a matter that Bob Gammage himself has said was a mistake although has to be framed with regard to the reality of the day.

Reality is something Chris Bell and his supporters, including the Dirty Dozen, apparently have lost touch with.

One of the Dirty Dozen signs the "endorsement" of Chris Bell and then off she goes to a fundraiser for Kinky Friedman.

This is going to be difficult for you to understand.

There are actually a great many people in the world who don't just automatically hate other people. They can have real differences of opinion with others without spewing vomit at them.

Go away. You're vile.

How about a referee here - P, your reply is more overheated than the post you are responding to - at least THAT poster is making characterizations of the campaign issue rather than other posters on BOR.

Cheers

"While not pointing out that quite a few prominent Democrats also were not "toeing the line" during that same period."

Snooks, can I assume you're referring to the "prominent Dems" that Gammage's spokesman mentioned in the article? Namely al Gore and Dick Gephardt?

One problem with that -- Gore and Gephardt were both avowed pro-lifers at the time. They ran as anti-choice Democrats and voted accordingly. Not a position I or most Democrats agree with, but they were at least straightforward about it.

Gammage, on the other hand, campaigned as a pro-choicer. It wasn't until it actually came time to vote that he sided with the anti-choice Democrats.

"This is going to be difficult for you to understand."

What I understand is that you obviously don't understand. You don't endorse one candidate and then go write a check to another as Ginni Minthoff did. Not if you intend your endorsement to be taken seriously. Not that many took it seriously. Which obviously is where your rage, not mine, comes from.

Why don't you go away? Or at least restrict your infantile name-calling to your own blog.

"Gammage, on the other hand, campaigned as a pro-choicer. It wasn't until it actually came time to vote that he sided with the anti-choice Democrats."

You and the Dirty Dozen seem to feel every Democrat shares your view that abortion on demand should be paid for by the taxpayer. That simply is not the case. Not now. Not then.

I stand by my assessment of what was and is a deplorable endorsement that seems motivated by something other than the endorsement.

My suggestion to the "ladies" is they find a better way to settle scores than promote a candidate they don't even support. Which obviously in the case of Ginni Mithoff they don't.

I wish Bob Gammage had just given them the bird which is what they were giving him.

Next time I see four of them, that is what I intend to do. Hopefully in a very crowded room for all to see.

"...one of those women proceeds to publicly support Kinky Friedman."

It's not one, it's two. Remember Susan Hays publicly supported Kinky in "Texas Lawyer" on Sept. 12 (see "Getting Kinky: Lawyers Supporting Friedman for Governor Say His Run Is No Joke").

Maybe someone forged their signatures.