Burnt Orange Report
News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas
|
|
Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
|
 |
 |
January 04, 2006On the Governor's RaceBy Karl-Thomas MusselmanWell, the Governor's race is certainly white... Ok, bad jokes aside, I have included and bolded below a great rundown of the lay of the land prepared by Dean Rindy of Rindy Miller Media. It was prepared for the Bob Gammage for Governor Campaign, but it is still by far almost exactly what I was going to say on the race. So read it below-it's an outline for what is needed for a Democratic victory this fall. TO: BOB GAMMAGE CAMPAIGN
Suddenly the Governor’s race is winnable— but not for Strayhorn. Strayhorn’s Private Meetings Strayhorn has been meeting privately with major Democratic donors around Texas, trying to raise a campaign kitty of $20 million. I have talked to people who have been briefed on these meetings. Strayhorn is touting a poll which she says demonstrates that, running as an independent, she would beat Perry, Chris Bell and Kinky Friedman for Governor. (The poll was conducted in December, before Bob Gammage announced, so he wasn’t included in the trial heat.) Her poll confirms the theory that Friedman will fade away into single digits with Strayhorn in the race as an independent. She simply sucks the air out of Kinky’s message, hogs the media spotlight, steps on his story line, and makes it very difficult for him to attract significant numbers of Perot type conservatives. Kinky will have to go after Democrats, and a strong Democratic candidate will make that very difficult. On the issues Kinky is a bland centrist who doesn’t offer much to a progressive constituency. In her presentation to donors Strayhorn offers the caveat that if the Democratic candidate for Governor gets a million or two for TV in the last week, he will pull enough Democrats back into the fold to defeat her. Strayhorn’s spin is that this would hand the election to Perry. A more objective view is that it would allow the Democrat to win. A major part of Strayhorn’s private mission is to dry up money for Democratic candidates. This is actually a grave admission of her fundamental weakness, for it reveals how fragile her poll numbers really are. At the present moment she can do well against a weak unknown like Chris Bell, or if Democratic voters see her as the only alternative to Perry....but that will change dramatically once a Democratic candidate receives the millions of dollars worth of free publicity that comes from merely winning the Democratic primary. If the nominee is a real Democrat, like Bob Gammage, who excites the party’s base, then it is a new ball game and fundamental electoral forces come into play. If Strayhorn and Perry cut each other up, and if Bob Gammage holds the Democratic base, we can win. The Lay of the Land In 1992 George Bush Sr. carried Texas with 41%. Clinton got 38%, Perot 22%. Bush Sr. barely scraped by in that election, and Rick Perry is not a George Bush. Perry is a lot more vulnerable in the state. His performance ratings and trial heats have been well below 50% in every poll for the last year, which often foretells death for an incumbent. While Perry is no Bush, Strayhorn is no Perot. Her image as an independent is much weaker than Perot’s, and it will be extremely easy to discredit her with Democratic voters. This is a woman whose announcement speech opened with the words, “I am a Republican,” and closed with “I love George Bush.” Her son, Scott, is Bush’s chief flack. Buried in news archives around Texas are rich troves of nasty quotes she has delivered about Democrats in very recent years. And she has an additional problem. Strayhorn cannot use this year’s most effective issue--the culture of corruption in the Republican machine, because she’s been part of it herself. The Democratic Base Thirty-eight percent is a good, conservative indicator of the Democratic Base vote. Clinton won 38%. Kerry got 38.2% in 2004, and Gore got 38% in 2000. Down-ballot Democrats with no money finish in that neighborhood or a little below in statewide races. In non-presidential years Democrats have done BETTER. Perry won 58% in 2002, while Sanchez got 40%. In 2002 Sharp got 46% for Lt. Gov; Ron Kirk got 43.6% for U.S. Senate. Other down-ballot Democrats in 2002—unknown and unfinanced--- came in below 40. Obviously circumstances, previous name I.D., or TV advertising can lift a Democrat above the party’s base numbers. Strayhorn’s Impossible Math Here’s the math. For Strayhorn to reach the high 30’s in total statewide vote, she has to win almost HALF of all the voters who voted for Kerry and Sanchez (That gets her to about 19-20 percent of the total vote). Then, she also needs to pull nearly ONE-THIRD of the voters who chose Bush and Perry (which would get her up to 38-40% of the total vote). THERE IS NO WAY THAT CAN HAPPEN. There is no way Strayhorn is going to win half of all Democratic voters while winning one-third of all Republicans. If there is any kind of credible Democrat in the race, Strayhorn will get no minority votes, no White liberals (as in Houston and Travis County), and no Democratic loyalists. The Party has been purified down to its base. The people who might defect already did so some time ago. Strayhorn’s best potential targets are moderate conservative, Republican-voting “independents” and moderate Republicans who can’t stomach Rick Perry. These are the people who gave Perot 22% in 1992. They are not enough. If somebody starts talking about the large share of self declared “Independents,” in our electorate, (as much as 24% in the 2004 exit polls) tell them to sit down and catch their breath. Any pollster will tell you that most self-identified “independents” are actually partisan and are usually inclined Republican or Democratic. Less than 10% of Texas voters, if that, are truly “independent.” So the best measure of voter potential is to actually look at the way the total vote for party candidates has gone in recent elections. Strayhorn’s poll is an artificial universe, frozen in time, which assumes a zombie-like quietude from the Democrats and an ineffective attack campaign from Perry. Neither of those assumptions will hold true. The Logic of the Situation So it’s 1992 again---Clinton, Bush, Perot. And we’re Clinton. He won nationally, but didn’t quite get over the top in Texas; we can. Money will come into the race from national Democratic sources who see the fantastic opportunity here. If Democratic funders in Texas contribute, even modestly, we can be competitive. Ordinarily you would need at least $20 million to run for Governor in Texas. But this is not an ordinary time, and a Democrat can win with less than half that. We can spend money three times as effectively as normal campaigns, because we only have to target advertising at our base, which is all we need to be competitive in a multi-candidate free-for-all. Our advertising dollars can be spent far more economically than our opponents’. And our message is much simpler. Here’s the logic of the situation. Strayhorn will probably launch a TV campaign, perhaps fairly soon, to reestablish her positive identity and explain her new “independent” role. She cannot win, however, by being nice. Strayhorn has to attack Perry in order to win. Perry has to crush Strayhorn, the earlier the better, to stop her from gaining momentum. It is quite likely that we will see a $30 million bloodbath. While the two dinosaurs thrash about in the jungle, we can remain relatively unscathed for the mid part of the campaign year. We will hammer home our message to hold our base, while looking far cleaner than our two Republican rivals. Perry will wake up as we begin to move, and start to attack us, but it will be too late. He and Strayhorn will be damaged goods, we will have outflanked Kinky on progressive issues. We will hold our base, we will pick up some votes in the disillusioned center. And we will win. Dean Rindy Comments
Interesting analysis, and one I hope is correct, whether Gammage or Bell is the nominee. By chance, I've been reading a book about third parties and their impact on US politics (namely, how Perot's run in 1992 and 1996 had ripple effects not commented on by many observers) which is pretty good, so far. It's called "Three's a Crowd", and it's by Ronald Rapoport and Walter Stone. I think Ronald Rapoport is the son of Democratic stalwart Bernard Rapoport, but I'm not sure. Anyway, it's worth a read, especially by anyone on the Strayhorn team who might be looking at this post (and I know you're out there!). Here's a link: I've come up with guesses on how the parties will split. Republicans- My first guess is 65% for Perry (which is around his Republican approval rating in SUSA), 16% for Carole, 15% for Kinky, 4% for GammaBell (I don't think there's a huge difference when it comes to bases or something else). Democrats - GammaBell would have 72%, 16% for Kinky, 6% for Perry and Carole Independents - 32% for Perry, 31% for GammaBell, 25% for Kinky, 12% for Carole I'm coming to the opposite conclusion as the Carole supporters. I think that Kinky will finish ahead of Strayhorn. Granted, money could put Strayhorn in third. I don't think that Strayhorn doesn't seem to really have much of a base of support. As for the overall numbers, I have them for both a 38/32/30 split (SUSA sample) or a 43/32/25 split (The 2004 exit poll split). For the SUSA sample, it's Perry with 36%, GammaBell with 34%, Kinky with 18%, and Carole with 12%. For the exit polls, Perry goes up to 38%, GammaBell drops to 33%, Kinky and Carole stay in the same place. I might have my head up my ass though. But, unless Perry really screws up, I don't see momentum to an independent. My guessing formulas for a GammaBell/Perry/Kinky, GammaBell/Perry/Strayhorn, and GammaBell/Perry may be off too. My simple split for if Carole isn't on the ballot is 60% to Kinky, 30% to Perry, 10% to GammaBell, But I really should mess with that to guess how many of them would stay home. My split for if Kinky isn't on the ballot is 17% to GammaBell, 11% to Perry, 10% to Carole, and the rest stay home. As for Perry/GammaBell, that's least likely of all scenarios. Once again. I could have my head up my ass. Or I could be overly doubting of the TROD strategy(Three Republicans One Democrat) of the Bell campaigh. I'm guessing Perry/GammaBell/Carole is the most likely of all the non-4 way scenarios, and GammaBell would have a pretty good chance in that situation. So yes, feel three to bash my guessing abilities. I'll modify the numbers when I see a poll or two. Posted by: RBH at January 4, 2006 09:16 PMI certain am not fond of this statement; "If the nominee is a real Democrat, like Bob Gammage, who excites the party’s base, then it is a new ball game and fundamental electoral forces come into play." Does that mean that Bell is not a real Democrat? I for one and pretty damn certain that Bell is as real as it gets. "a weak unknown like Chris Bell" Gammage has so much better name recognition across the state, NOT! I mentioned Gammage's name to my regular voter but not politically active friends and get a "Who is he?" reaction. Maybe they are suggesting that Gammage is a strong unknown. When I mention Chris Bell to these same friends, they react the same way. Then when I mention that he was the first to level an ethics complaint against Delay, they get all excited. When I tell them about Gammage's history of service to our state, they yawn. As for exciting the base, maybe Gammage excites the older crowd who are familiar with him, but for the younger crowd and Deaniacs who are breathing life back into the party, I am not so certain. Are Democrats really at the point where we are bashing each other? Even if it is by ommission, it is still hitting below the belt to suggest that Bell is not a real Democrat. Posted by: Chrisitna at January 5, 2006 07:38 AMI certain am not fond of this statement; "If the nominee is a real Democrat, like Bob Gammage, who excites the party’s base, then it is a new ball game and fundamental electoral forces come into play." Does that mean that Bell is not a real Democrat? I for one and pretty damn certain that Bell is as real as it gets. "a weak unknown like Chris Bell" Gammage has so much better name recognition across the state, NOT! I mentioned Gammage's name to my regular voter but not politically active friends and get a "Who is he?" reaction. Maybe they are suggesting that Gammage is a strong unknown. When I mention Chris Bell to these same friends, they react the same way. Then when I mention that he was the first to level an ethics complaint against Delay, they get all excited. When I tell them about Gammage's history of service to our state, they yawn. As for exciting the base, maybe Gammage excites the older crowd who are familiar with him, but for the younger crowd and Deaniacs who are breathing life back into the party, I am not so certain. Are Democrats really at the point where we are bashing each other? Even if it is by ommission, it is still hitting below the belt to suggest that Bell is not a real Democrat. Posted by: Christina Ocasio at January 5, 2006 07:39 AMI think Perry will carry the day in a five way GE. Their base is longer and deeper. Carole takes money and attention away from the Democrat whom ever that is. Kinky will beat Carole just from the entertainment value alone. Just think what the democrat could do with all that trial lawyer money carole has been packing away? Posted by: hamiltonfan at January 5, 2006 07:45 AMDemocrat victory?? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Excuse me for laughing so hard there. Even as incompetent as Perry is, the Dems have been vowing to take back the governor's mansion since 1998. Kinda reminds me of the Bruce Hornsby song, "Gonna Be Some Changes Made," in which Bruce sings from the vantagepoint of the guy who can never get his act together. Posted by: Trey at January 5, 2006 09:27 AMGammage has a long history of fighting corruption in state politics. We should all be thankful for what Chris Bell did in getting the ball rolling against Delay, but that is his only claim to fame. He was a one term congressman, and a city councilman from Houston. He also challenged a very popular African-American in the Democratic Primary that didn’t exactly endear him to the community. The ripples are still felt today. That puts Bell behind the 8-ball immediately in trying to bring the Democratic base forward to victory. Gammage has a career resume of doing corruption busting and restoration of public trust in state politics at all levels of state government, and even a bit in national government. Politics is politics, and Bell's campaign threw the first mud when they labeled Gammage as "Cut-and-run Bob." Facts are facts, Bell does not give Democrats the best chance to win. He can't raise the money, he has proven that. His campaign isn't as economical with its budget since he has never run a statewide campaign with over 250 counties to campaign in. Gammage has always run an under funded, underdog campaign. But he has won that way through effective strategizing, budgeting, heavy advertising, old-fashioned grassroots work, and pummeling his opponent with everything he has. Gammage has GREAT name ID in the DFW area, everywhere I go they get excited and want to know what they can do for him. His Dirty Thirty background of tackling cultures of corruption and fighting for political reform are legendary in Texas politics. He can raise money to at least be competitive, get his consistent and aggressive message out there, and be the Pied Piper of reform across the state. Disenchanted Republicans, Independents, and the Democratic base will follow to victory. Gammage doesn't seem to be doing too badly since he hasn't even started campaigning yet. Since he didn't get into the race till about a month ago, I'd expect that his team spent the last few weeks raising some money and putting together an infrastructure and building a statewide organization. Bell has had a year to do all that and what was the top story the other day? Some drivel about 'facebook'. Gammage has had the good sense to create the fundamentals of a campaign while everyone was distracted with the holidays. When he begins campaigning, we can handicap how effective that campagning is. Posted by: Texas Dem 06 at January 5, 2006 10:07 AMKeep laughing Trey. It was overconfidence that did in Richards in 94. Besides, what is Perry going to run on? His record of success? Posted by: Jeb at January 5, 2006 10:11 AMGranted, Perry has very little to run on. But what do the other candidates have to offer: Folks, when you have candidates that show about as much skill as the contestants on Saturday Night Live's "Celebrity Jeopardy" (i.e. Sean Connery, Phil Donahue, Burt Reynolds), the incumbent can almost sleep in, in lieu of having to make alot of campaign speeches. Check out Perry's record, and you'll see that he's a "moderate populist conservative," which is why the disenfranchisement amongst some hardcore Republicans exists against him. But in the end, when you're almost campaigning from a warehouse in the middle of nowhere, with nothing in your speeches but a bunch of slogans the most you can expect to gain from your campaign is the campaign experience. And just for the record, I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate for governor this year. Posted by: Trey at January 5, 2006 11:53 AMWatching Bob Gammage base his entire campaign around DeLay and Abramoff and ethics is painful. There is no question that he was a great public servant and probably a good guy- though personally I had never heard of him before two months ago and I am from Houston and have worked in Texas politics for years. The bottom line is that Chris Bell single handedly changed the political debate in America, and has done more than any other single Democrat to help change the fortunes of Democrats nationwide and expose DeLay and the systemic corruption in Washington and Texas. The Democratic leadership in Washington knows this...Chris is a folk hero here among national Democrats. He did what no one else had the courage to do. After all, He was not just the first to file an ethics complaint- he is the ONLY to have done so. He broke the 7-year truce and opened the door to a national debate on ethics and reform…and he did it when everyone was telling him not to. The thing is, if you know Chris like I do, you realize that the qualities and values that he exhibited during the DeLay ethics battle are values that have defined his career. He is exactly the kind of Democrat we need in Texas- he is smart and gutsy and willing to actually stand his ground and fight for our values. The thing is, he has always been that way. Years ago, in Houston- long before redistricting, he single-handedly re-wrote the city ethics laws to shut the revolving door and clean up city hall. And he created the first ever Ethics committee in Houston on the heels of local scandal and corruption. how do i know? I was working at Houston's city hall when he did it. Likewise, before redistricting and the ethics complaint, Chris was asked to be a deputy whip in his first term in Congress…unheard of in DC. He also started what became the largest Bi-partisan congressional Caucus in DC…as a freshman, also unheard of. Chris is a true leader and he cares about the right things. Now, I won’t pretend to be unbiased here. I served as Chris' Communications Director in Washington. I worked with him on the ethics complaint and now I work on the House rules committee- continuing his proud legacy of fighting for ethics reform in national politics. But it is important to note that there certainly isn't any confusion here as to who single-handedly took on the meanest, most powerful, most corrupt Republican in America by himself...and won. He took everything the best and brightest Republicans in the nation could dish out and at the end- DeLay was admonished, discredited and will certainly lose his stranglehold on Washington politics. And he will bring the same intensity and passion to Austin. Chris Bell is not just a “real candidate” … he is the only candidate for Texas Democrats right now. It may not be easy for some to see as the primary campaign gets started slowly- but there is only one Texas democrat who has a shot of winning this race- and it is Chris. Go ask Nick Lampson who has made a difference for Texas Democrats on these issues, or ask Richard Morrison who he thanked every night when he was running against DeLay… go talk to Dick Gephardt about who has been fighting the good fight for democrats, or Nancy Pelosi, or Steny Hoyer, or Max Sandlin or Martin Frost… Bob Gammage is a welcome addition to the primary. I am sure he is great and his dirty-thirty status is laudable- but lets get serious for a minute. The fact of the matter is that it has been a long, long time since then. We have run with and lost with plenty of Bob Gammages over the years. It is time for a change…for fresh blood and a new vision. And Bob Gammage running on Abramoff and DeLay and ethics reform? It’s cute- and a big compliment to Chris, but really- gimme a break.
In the final analysis, I don’t think there is much doubt that Chris will win the primary. But whether or not you support Chris or not at this point, I am confident that all Texas Democrats will come to realize what a good thing for Texas that really is. Ericb: And, if I might add, by the time they put Bell's voting record and views through the grinder, the only solid bloc of voters Bell will be able to tie down are those in the Austin area and other loyal Democrats, such as those who regularly post on the BORLib website. Others will be split between the other three (Perry, Strayhorn and Friedman). So I hope Bell is readying his application for Research Coordinator for Ronnie Earle's office. I'm sure that'd be a perfect fit for ol' Chrissy. Posted by: Trey at January 5, 2006 04:36 PMChris Bell also invented the wheel, and inspired people to use fire for cooking food. (just messing with the Bell supporters.. I mean "Chris Bell single handedly changed the political debate in America, and has done more than any other single Democrat to help change the fortunes of Democrats nationwide".. that bird isn't flying.. right now, I just regard that as impressive hype) Posted by: RBH at January 5, 2006 05:02 PMWell, clearly Trey you have gotten a hold of some really old RNC talking points on Bell...(talk about kool-aid) Indeed, for all the bitterness you supposedly speak of, it seems like you are the one with an axe to grind my friend.
Ethics Complaint: In fact, I can send you a copy so you can actually read it if you like. Also, you are wrong on the ethics committee...they didn't reprimand Bell for frivelousness- they clairifed rules that had never been clarified before and mentioned that the complaint 'drew conclusions' about DeLay. In hindsight that is rather humerous considering DeLay has been charged with a felony for the exact same thing and he is facing multiple possible felony indictments in federal court in connection with the impending Abramoff case. Needles to say he won't be returning as Majority Leader...even Gingrich wants him out- that ought to be enough to justify chris' complaint right there. But it is important for Texas Democrats to realize that Chris' race isn't just about DeLay- because DeLay is done like a turkey dinner. Its about Delayism- as Republican columnist David Brooks put it in his op-ed in today's New York Times. It is about having the courage to fight for a better Texas, an ethical and responsive govenment and a brighter future. I mean, Trey, we can't even get education reform passed through Austin and the R's control all three branches of government. Maybe we need some balance, and some courage and vision in the Governor's office... a new approach. Chris has all that. Posted by: ericb at January 5, 2006 05:12 PMericb wrote: "The bottom line is that Chris Bell single handedly changed the political debate in America, and has done more than any other single Democrat to help change the fortunes of Democrats nationwide and expose DeLay and the systemic corruption in Washington and Texas. The Democratic leadership in Washington knows this...Chris is a folk hero here among national Democrats. He did what no one else had the courage to do." Oh dear..... you ARE overstating this just a wee bit, aren't you.... spoken like a true... Communications Director.... Chris Bell is a nice guy, but hasn't been able to generate (in a year) the kind of excitement that Gammage managed to in just his first few weeks. 1) Of the two who have gone after Delay (Bell and Ronnie Earle) anybody worth their oppo research would know that Ronnie Earle is the "hero". Ronnie made it stick. 2) I sincerely doubt that any one-term Congressman has the sort of impact that you've claimed -- not in your wildest dreams. This little bit of hype is even more than most Bell fans would claim. To claim "first place' for Bell over more senior (and frankly better) Congressmen like Chet Edwards--who managed to survive everything the repubs could throw at him -- is insulting and untrue. Thanks for reinforcing the same "It's all about me" theme that Bell is known for. 3) I actually know what Gammage was doing during the redistricting fight in Texas. He was working his butt off (in conjunction with other Texas Democrats in North Texas to keep it from happening. My question to you: Why didn't you know that if you're so in tune with Texas politics? 4) What makes you think that Gammage hasn't talked to your "laundry list" of Texas elected officials (and more besides) before he decided to run? Gammage isn't one to tilt at windmills and wouldn't have gotten into the race without touching base with the core Democrats in the state. That means everybody from elected officials to labor leaders to leaders in the minority communities. BTW, this isn't California.... why in the world would he talk to Nancy Pelosi??? 5) Bell's never run a statewide race. His highest elected office (depending on how you look at it) was either as congressman from a Democratic congressional district or city council in Houston. Neither one what you would call a 'challenging' race. Gammage has run (and won) against tough opponents and statewide. He seems to know what it takes. According to the research I've done, he's won 18 of 21 races. 6) You don't sound as if you know much about Texas politics. If Chris is a hero in DeeCee, perhaps he should have run for Congress again, instead of Governor. (Oh yeah, he did that and lost in 04)...... Aggie: AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!! We need a gubernatorial candidate who can run an aggressive 2006 campaign. Bob happens to be that kind of dynamic candidate! Bob Gammage has the experience, values, and dedication to serve as Governor of Texas. Aggie, I agree with you 100% Posted by: Ide at January 5, 2006 09:40 PMoh my, Texas Aggie. well if you want to play that way then ok...(and my apologies for the horrid typing in advance). you wrote: - I would agree with you on the overstaement comment if what I said wasn't true- but it is. And I will grant you it may not be easy to see from wherever you are, so i understand your skepticism- but that doesn't make it any less true. There was no national discussion of ethics before the ethics complaint. That is why they called it an 'ethics truce'. and when I say none-i mean NONE. The dems were just too scared. The complaint and admonishemnt of DeLay directly led to the debate over ethics we have today. The Repubs in Congress tried to roll back the ethics rules on the 1st day of the 109th Congress to protect DeLay from further action, as a result, and it was only at this point that national dems truly engaged on the issue. It was out of all this that the "culture of corruption' was coined and it has steadily grown and grown and is now, arguably, one of the three most important issues in national poltics. The thing is, without the ethics complaint, DeLay would still be majority leader today- and the indictment wouldn't have been nearly as potent. But the environment has been created, or the predicate had been laid down, and the ethics debate had raged for almost a year-before the indictment was even issued. I would remind you that DeLay came very close to losing his leadership seat right after the admonishments last year-but perhaps that is just too insider to go into. the result of the complaint was a ripple effect. and when i made those comments, which I stand by, i wasn't considering ronnie earle. As a law enforecement official he deals with a different reality and different concerns- I was talking about elected democratic poltical leadership in America(And yes, i know that Ronnie ealre is elected- but there is a difference). you wrote: --ok- news flash- not much excitement out there for Gammage. but who knows what the future holds?(I think we already know know) And you are right- Bell is a nice guy. He also has done as well or better than most Dem nomination winners in the past at this point in a primary with less initial name ID and having spent no money at all on advertising- AND without much media coverage- they dont tend to cover one candidate races too much. TUnfortunately, your argument just makes no sense if you know anything about campaigning. It is too broad to fully cover here anyway. You wrote: -I assume you are using the term "oppo research" very loosly here. well- Ronnie is great- no arguments there. But he hasn't made anything stick yet- i hope he does. He is a district attorney and can file criminal charges, members of congress can't- they file ethics charges. Only one did out of 435- Bell. But if you think that the Bell complaint wasnt a huge blow and the critical first hit to DeLay then you haven't been paying enough attention. There has been an ethics media frenzy going on for a year and a half and the indictment just came down recently. Astute poltcial experts were calling DeLay a dead man walking a year ago. The indictment also had a much more potent political impact because of the complaint- but it was the complaint that started the castle walls falling around the corrupt republicans- the indictment has added credibility. But common sense tell us that, so we can move on. you wrote: - uh- Chet Edwards is a GREAT Texas Congressman... no doubt about it...and he has been able to weather some big storms and is really important for Texas Democrats. But your comnparissojn doesnt make sense here. Chet hasn't been really engaged in the ethics debate vocally...its not his bag. And Bell did have that impact. He was the first and the ONLY one to file a complaint and he carried the ethics reform message when nobody else would- he got the ball rolling. He started the debate. Chet would agree with that himself. Also, if you knew Bell you would know it is never "all about me" and just as it is not now- because I am not him writing this. I am me writing about him. you wrote: -I don't know- during all the Texas strategy meetings we had about it for over a year his name never came up, and i never heard or saw anything...maybe he was flying way below the radar all stealth like and such- or maybe i wasn't hip to the local Dallas hand to hand street fighting. But that certainly doesn't mean I don't know Texas poltics. You sound like you know little about anything else- but seem to have a healthy opinion of your own politcal acumen, so I will take your word on that one on faith. But he sure wasn't high profile- and he certainly hasn't been out there on ethics at all-that is till he decided to run- But now his campaign website is suddenly dedicated to it? How can that be? you wrote: - This isn't France either, but I still eat french fries and read the new york times...CRAZY, I know. I didn't reference Pelosi in relation to gammage running. But, she does have this little position called House Minority Leader(it has nothing to do with those commie liberals in california).. and i referenced her because she and her staff understand what Chris did for the national ethics debate- they were there. And as for all the Texas folks I mentioned- they get it too- but that was hardly a laundry list. As to whether Gammage talked to them or not i have no idea...but I doubt they will be jumping out for him. you wrote: Gammage has run (and won) against tough opponents and statewide. He seems to know what it takes. According to the research I've done, he's won 18 of 21 races. -Well he took on the the entire national republican establishment basically on his own last year- and he won a victory for all Democrats that was bigger than any one election. That is a baptism by fire on par with any statewide race- probably even a little tougher. And since when did being a statewide politician spell success in Texas poltics for dems? its been a while. you wrote: - Ouch, I'm bleeding! Very classy and truly, truly original. Way to elevate the debate there Texas Aggie. Posted by: ericb at January 5, 2006 11:29 PM"Also, you are wrong on the ethics committee...they didn't reprimand Bell for frivelousness- they clairifed rules that had never been clarified before and mentioned that the complaint 'drew conclusions' about DeLay." http://www.house.gov/ethics/Bell_letter.htm The letter speaks for itself and you can spin it anyway you want, the committee admonished Chris Bell. They admonished you as well. The complaint did more than "draw conclusions." It made representation based on innuendo rather than fact. That seems to be the forte of Chris Bell. Posted by: Baby Snooks at January 6, 2006 12:58 AMHail all Gammage fans. Enlighten us youngsters on who "Gammage has run (and won) against tough opponents and statewide. He seems to know what it takes. According to the research I've done, he's won 18 of 21 races." ? If I recall when he was active in campaigns the Texas republicans were John Tower, Period. So who did he beat that was tough? And how/why did he retire from office? ericb: 1. "There was no national discussion of ethics before the ethics complaint." Maybe there wasn't any discussion of ethics in DeeCee where you are, but I'll guarantee you that it was a hot topic in grassroots TEXAS politics for years. Where I live. Pretty much points to the problems inherent in living inside the bubble of the beltway, doesn't it. "I wasn't considering ronnie earle." Where you're from I guess that's par for the course. Dear Ronnie has had this investigation in the works for over 2 years, so Bell was late to the party on that one. I said: "Ronnie Earle made it stick." Earle isn't a grandstander. He's more interested in results. Delay's indictment had nothing whatsoever to do with Bell. Again, he was late to the party. Delay didn't lose his job as Majority Leader today because of Bell, you should say "Thank you, Mr. Earle" and quit. 2. I suspect that Cong. Edwards' staff reads BOR. They'll be happy to hear (I'm sure) that you don't think 'ethics is his bag'. Oh, yes, I'm sure they'll be very pleased that you think that (and felt compelled to write it here). 3. Bell has a reputation here in Texas that you may not be aware of.... but then you are in DeeCee and he was your employer. Not your fault, you're just not close to the action. 4. In grassroots politics (where Gammage has been extremely active) you don't always get your name in the paper for your work. If you don't know who Martin talked to in DFW to 'get the job done', then I guess your meetings were less detailed than they should have been. "Our strategy sessions?' I don't know what you did in DeeCee. I do know what was going on the ground here. I suppose it shows the disconnect (and dismissal?) that those who feel they are the strategists and planners about those who actually do the work. Typical. " and he certainly hasn't been out there on ethics at all" Look up "ethics" in the dictionary of Texas politics. You'll see Bob Gammage's picture there (along with Ben Grant and Fred Head). Bell needs to find another talking point. 5. "took on the the entire national republican establishment basically on his own last year" oh, yeah... all on his own. Casually dismissing the efforts of all the other democrats who work in the trenches (and those who took on the republicans) is hubris. Down here, hon, you can lose your livelihood by declaring yourself a Democrat and supporting Democratic candidates. Democrats in Texas do it anyway. Every person who risked their jobs, their friendships and their family relationships to support Democrats here are in Texas are deserving of just as much (if not more) praise. Democrats in Texas have not won because they've forgotten what Texas Democratic politics is all about. It's not some new namby-pamby DC-centric "national platform'. It's not some re-packaging of a "sweetness and light message". It's not a laundry list menu of issues -- 'one from column A, one from column B'. We're fighting for our lives down here in Texas. This is not a game. This is deadly serious business. I for one am very glad that some of the 'big dogs' in Texas politics -- those who had already given their lives in service to the people of the state of Texas -- have decided to make one more sacrifice and get back in the fight. Posted by: Texas Aggie at January 6, 2006 11:11 AMWell said Aggie! And from where I sit, Gammage has excited a lot of folks (myself included) and I really liked Bell at first, but quickly jumped on board with Gammage, as I'm sure a lot of Democrats will. I know who's bumpersticker will be on my car in the primaries -- and it's not the ugly "ChrisBell.com" (I really hate that sticker -- it needs to be changed). And ya know, eric, filing an ethics complaint and taking on all of Republican-dom is not enough for me to support a guy for governor in the primary. Neither is the fact that Chris is an awfully boring public speaker -- and I'm not trying to be mean. I can listen to the same stump speech over and over if the candidate is great -- but I can't get through one of Bell's speeches (but they are great to read). "If I recall when he (Gammage) was active in campaigns the Texas republicans were John Tower, Period." Being the curious sort, and wondering a bit about you, ericb, I did the Google thing. Thanks to Baby Snooks for the letter that provided pertinent information that made this possible. Once more I discovered Google is a friend "...At one time, he ( Eric Burns) drove Rob Mosbacher (Bush Pioneer -- Rob Mosbacher) around in a Jeep Cherokee. At 32 years of age, he has had a brief but distinguished career and has worked with several different politicians and political parties. So, until 1998, you were part of the Republican machine that dragged Texas into the dark ages. No wonder you don't know anything about Texas Democratic politics. First you helped saddle us with KKKarl Rove, George Bush and the rest of his merry band, then you move to DeeCee and pontificate about the subject from inside the bubble up there. Wow, I think I'm glad you don't know Bob Gammage. Thanks for the insight into your 'political acumen', perhaps it's best for Mr. Bell if you'd keep it to yourself. Once you've finally decided on a political party to support, join the rest of us who are trying to undo all the damage you did in your earlier career. Posted by: Kitty at January 6, 2006 03:03 PMmeooooooowwwwww... Posted by: Baby Snooks at January 6, 2006 04:00 PMgrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Posted by: Kitty at January 6, 2006 04:28 PMWow...ya gotta love Google! Posted by: Matthew at January 6, 2006 04:59 PMI know it is strange that I would be surfing the Fox News website, but while doing it, I came across an ad that asked "Why is Texas #1?" Naturally, I clicked on it to see what the story was about the Rose Bowl, but to my suprise, I was directed to the Perry Campaign website aka ProudofTexas.com... Awesome... Posted by: Bob the Redneck at January 6, 2006 07:10 PMI know it is strange that I would be surfing the Fox News website, but while doing it, I came across an ad that asked "Why is Texas #1?" Naturally, I clicked on it to see what the story was about the Rose Bowl, but to my suprise, I was directed to the Perry Campaign website aka ProudofTexas.com... Awesome... Posted by: Bob the Liberal Redneck at January 6, 2006 07:10 PMI prefer to vote for Strayhorn to try to move Texas leadership towards the middle. It seems to me that Texas is dominated by conservative voters. A liberal is unlikely to win and if they did they might be a lame duck for 4 years. Kitty: It is not exactly a secret that i spent an errant youth as a Republican. But don't believe everything you read on the internet- because it definitely paid better and I have never worked for the Green party. I became a Democrat for all the right reasons and I am proud of that- and I will saty one till the day I die. And I have done plenty to earn my stripes. If we had more Republcians switching over-then we would have a Democratic Texas-so lets make sure you and Baby Snooks aren't on the Party welcoming Committee, or we might end up just like the Green Party. And BTW the DC vs. Austin thing is really lame. Y'all make sure to listen to the Democratic Radio Address today- it is on CSPAN radio at 2:50PM EST/1:50 CST. It will be on Ethics and Abramoff and what not. ericb I have long suspected that Chris Bell is an opportunistic "talking head" with no solid credentials for quite some time. This business about Strayhorn's operative calling Bell's wife Alison to get her to persuade Chris to file for Comptroller didnt make sense til now. What do you know!! Mrs Bell is a card-carrying Republican operative. But we're not supposed to mention that because she has cancer. Give me a break! Explain to me why are we promoting a republican in our primary and not backing the "real Democrat" in the Governor's race? Chris Bell couldnt even keep his congressional seat in the DEMOCRATIC primary...and now I know why. I bet Al Green has some things to say about Republican Chris. Gammage has stellar credentials and unlike Chris, he can walk and chew gum at the same time. Bob has a real chance to be Governor if he wins the Primary. The same doesnt hold true for Republican Chris. Posted by: Terrified Citizen at January 7, 2006 09:25 AM"But don't believe everything you read on the internet.." Except of course what you put out there? Posted by: Baby Snooks at January 7, 2006 06:31 PMPost a comment
|
|
|
