And nobody in the race — perhaps on the entire ballot — offers a more admirable life story than Chavez-Thompson. At 10, she worked for 30 cents an hour in the West Texas cotton fields. She dropped out of school in the ninth grade — never to return — to help support her family.
[...]
But she comes equipped with first-hand knowledge of the everyday and lifelong challenges faced by our state's largest segment — folks who earn a weekly paycheck. Chavez-Thompson is aware of how tuition deregulation has made it more difficult for some Texans to afford a college education for their children.
She's aware of a taxation system that, despite repeated efforts, still has not hit upon an equitable way to fund state services. And she's aware that state leaders — in dealing with the upcoming projected budget shortfall — must be careful not to hurt those who depend most on state services.
About a week ago, Democratic candidate for Lt. Gov, Linda Chavez-Thompson spoke to a very friendly room at the Texas AFL-CIO convention. A friendly room to say the least. Chavez-Thompson has a rich history within the labor movement.
In December 1967, she was hired as a Secretary at the Constitution Laborer's Union in Lubbock, Texas. Over the next forty years, Chavez-Thompson kept working to build a long and impressive career working on behalf of working people, fighting to bring fairness and opportunity to Texans in communities across the state. Her work with unions culminated in 1995, when she was elected Executive Vice-President of the National AFL-CIO, the first woman and the first person of color to hold that position.
Having seen her on the campaign trail a few times, Chavez-Thompson always gives a good, fiery speech. This however, is a particularly comfortable and exciting one.
My favorite line is, "it's easier to secede than admit that you rank #48, 49, or 50 in almost every state ranking." (a line first reported on twitter). It is easy to see her comfort with the room and her eagerness to campaign. Most importantly, her passion for her life's work is evident. Chavez-Thompson will have a tough few weeks ahead of her, especially in Austin, but with such a low information campaign being waged for one of the most important job in Texas, every vote, video, new article, etc. will matter.
Chavez-Thompson is running along with former Austin District Attorney Ronnie Earle, and Marc Katz an Austin Deli guru.
(disclosure: GNI Strategies did LCT's quick, temporary website for the primary)
Seven months ago I moved to Texas from the upper-Midwest, where I worked for 7 years in the labor movement. After two "purple" electoral cycles in 2000 and 2004, I witnessed the central role that labor played in re-establishing the upper-Midwest as a reliable democratic stronghold. Now I find myself in Texas, eager to help repaint this state blue--a challenge made unnecessarily difficult due to the relative low density of organized labor in the state.
The candidacy of national labor leader Linda Chavez-Thompson for Lieutenant Governor needs to be seized upon by Democrats as the first fortuitous opportunity of the new decade. At the core of this candidacy lie the seeds of powerful possibilities for both Texas workers and Texas Democrats. To paraphrase Georg Simmel, sometimes we need a stranger to point out something new about ourselves--I hope that my perspective as a new Texan may shed a novel light on this subject.
One observation I have made since arriving in Austin is that unions are sometimes held in contempt or discounted by otherwise loyal Texas Democrats. To understand why I find this startling, consider this: of the top 15 states in terms of high union member density, Obama won 14 (not Alaska). Of the bottom 15 states, Obama only won 4 (New Mexico, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida). If Texas had over 15% union density like Wisconsin, opposed to the reality of less than 5%, not only would it be easier to elect Linda Chavez-Thompson, but it would be easier to elect other democrats to statewide office. In short, there is an electoral argument that the Democratic Party can't afford to ignore: labor brings money and volunteers.
Democrats need to understand that a primary victory by Linda Chavez-Thompson would bring a keen interest from the national labor movement that will guarantee their serious involvement at the top of the ticket. Nationally, Chavez-Thompson continues to be revered in the labor movement and that means that both dollars and volunteers will flow to Texas to support her campaign. Labor will understand that her fate is tied to the bigger picture of Democratic favorability and I think that there will be a positive spillover effect to the other campaigns.
Electing Linda Chavez-Thompson would also be a boon to Texas workers. Organizing campaigns would benefit from having a major public official who would stand up to defend workers' rights to organize. I don't have to have lived in Texas to know that many Texas employers have waged shameful and illegal campaigns of harassment and intimidation to prevent their workforce from joining a union. Nascent unions would have a public ally to shine a light on these practices and ultimately that would mean more successful campaigns and more union members.
What would be the impact of greater union density in Texas? There are many reasons to believe that greater union density would help the state economically, not least those most in need. More union members also would lead to more local resources (i.e. money and volunteers) to fight politically. Moreover, unions are one of the rare institutions that have the power to counteract and deconstruct conservative ideology amongst its membership. Communication from unions to their membership via newsletters, direct mail, and general exposure to progressive ideals has the power to transform people, so it is no wonder that the fear-mongers on the right have always been afraid of the labor movement. In short, more density means more Democrats.
To conclude, many people seem to think that the labor movement can be reduced to a handful of major accomplishments in the first half of the 20th century and that it is no longer relevant to the modern American worker. The reality is that the labor movement still exists and is meaningful for millions of American workers across most sectors of the economy. The successful campaign to organize 5000 janitors in Houston in 2005, combined with the fact that 2007 marked the first year of overall growth of the US labor movement in 25 years signals that labor history is very much up for grabs. Electing Linda Chavez-Thompson, a major figure in the US Labor Movement, has the potential to reshape Texas popular opinion of organized labor and would have broad implications for the Texas Democratic Party.
(Former Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle is running for the Democratic nomination for Lt. Governor. His full remarks continue in the extended entry. I encourage you to read them. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Deciding to run for Lieutenant Governor of Texas was not easy; part of me very much wanted to continue to enjoy being the former District Attorney of Travis County.
Democracy is more than just mass action; it is the sum of individual actions. That means that it makes a difference what each of us does. I found it hard to sleep at night thinking about how far things have gotten off track here in Texas without trying to make things better for regular Texans.
That's because the world, including us, is getting worried. We're all in need of a little more light. The spirit of democracy rests on the shoulders of justice, which in turn rests on the shoulders of an informed and responsible citizenry. Responsibility in a democracy rests on all of us together, and the doing of justice is everybody's job. Please come to my campaign web site and get involved.
Great news from Jason Embry in First Reading -- Democrats may have a very strong Lieutenant Governor candidate in 2010: Linda Chavez-Thomspon. A strong Democrat from San Antonio, Chavez-Thompson would bring some immediate firepower to the No. 2 spot on our ticket -- and give Democrats even more to get excited about in next year's statewide elections.
From First Reading:
Linda Chavez-Thompson, a former executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, is leaning toward running for lieutenant governor as a Democrat, according to multiple sources familiar with her plans.
The San Antonio resident, born and raised in the Lubbock area, is now executive vice president emerita of the labor organization and is also a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee. She was also a super-delegate during the 2008 presidential primary.
Among Democrats who know about her plans, there is already considerable excitement about a Chavez-Thompson bid. The thinking goes that her personal story — she quit school in the ninth grade so she could start working and earn money for her family — creates a contrast with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the wealthy Republican incumbent. (Of course, it’s worth pointing out that Dewhurst wasn’t born into wealth). And as someone who has risen to the top of the national labor movement and the top of the national Democratic Party, Chavez-Thompson has a myriad of contacts within the party from whom she can raise money. Plus, she is well-known in the San Antonio area.
Chavez-Thompson was born in the Lubbock area in 1944. According to her bio, she:
Worked in cotton fields as a ten year-old, and had to drop out of school in 9th grade to support her family.
At age 19, she took a job as a house cleaner and worked for $1 an hour.
Four years later, in 1967, she took a secretarial position with the Lubbock local chapter of the Laborers' International Union
In 1971 -- after proving invaluable as a bilingual union worker -- she went to work for ASFCME in Austin, then in San Antonio. By 1977, she was executive director of the San Antonio office.
Then her story really gets incredible:
Word quickly spread of the powerhouse Latina who was winning battles for workers throughout the state, and soon Chavez-Thompson was in demand for her negotiation and organizational skills. She saved the jobs of 33 community college workers by bringing about the public ouster of three trustees whose financial abuses the workers had reported. Chavez-Thompson organized emergency drivers to cover for workers on a wildcat strike, driving one of the trucks herself, and became known as a union representative who would risk arrest at protests and on picket lines to help the people she represented.
By all accounts, Linda Chavez-Thompson is the emodiment of a community organizer who has made a difference not only in Texas, but across the country. Her narrative is inspiring -- someone who has overcome every disadvantage in her path to improve the lives of those in her community. Contrasted with the exceedingly wealthy David Dewhurst, it provides an incredible contrast in the Lieutenant Governor's race for Democrats.
More on this later in the afternoon...but if Linda Chavez-Thompson does decide to get in the race, we could have the best 1-2 punch on our ticket in decades.
Key Point: While Democrats in the State Senate could hope that Dewhurst, Ogden, or any other Republican left in charge would be fair in 2011, there is really no evidence for that. It may end up being that the only way Senators can preserve Senate traditions like the 2/3's rule -- that allows individual Senators of both political parties to impact major policy decisions - is for Senate Democrats to file for or work to elect a mainstream Democratic Lieutenant Governor who could build a centrist coalition with moderate Republicans to fix the problem at the source. While having a Democratic Lieutenant Governor would not change the fact that 16 Republican Senators could change Senate rules to eliminate the 2/3 rule or create a "Majority Leader" position, it would eliminate a problem rooted in the animosity against the current presiding officer -- and a capable Democratic statewide winner would have an opportunity to build a coalition of sixteen Senators who would put problem solving above rank partisanship.
With the expected announcement this Friday that Bill White will decide to run for Governor, discussions have begun to shift towards who will run for Lieutenant Governor. Having a strong candidate atop the ticket is the #1 priority for Democrats statewide -- but closely following at #2 is the Lieutenant Governor's spot, where Texas Democrats must find a serious candidate to take charge of the Texas Senate before the far-right wing of the Republican caucus gets there first.
The balance of power in the Texas Senate strongly favors Republicans. With a 19-12 advantage, Republicans hold a strong majority. Traditionally, the minority in the Senate was able to use the 2/3 rule -- where no legislation will come to the Senate floor unless 2/3 of the Senators agree to it -- to block over-reaching and or highly partisan legislation put forth by the majority. However, Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst partnered with Republican State Senator Tommy Williams during the last legislative session to obliterate the 2/3 rule for voter ID -- a purely partisan maneuver that, ultimately, spelled devastation for the entire Legislative session.
Harvey Kronberg, writing for News 8 Austin, on "Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst Controversy", explained the details of Dewhurst's sneaky maneuver -- and how his failures to preside over the Senate chamber have lost him the trust of many, if not most, of those in the Texas Senate:
[David Dewhurst's] denials notwithstanding, most in the Capitol now believe that Dewhurst conspired with Sen. Tommy Williams to trick the other senators on the first day of the session. Williams surprised his colleagues by proposing a new rule mandating the Senate take up voter ID, a bill that Democrats otherwise had the votes to block.
[...]
Dewhurst's erraticism, lack of concentration and inability to keep a schedule were the talk of almost every senator. He was rarely in the chair. By most reports, he was inconsistent and dismissive in his dealings with Speaker Joe Straus. He surprised and blindsided the House by not sending more than 400 bills in those critical final days.
Dewhurst also faced a strong challenge from his colleagues by refusing to set legislation on the Calendar that had the support of more than 2/3 of the State Senators. Republican State Senator Jeff Wentworth went so far as to boldly announce, in the Austin American-Statesman, that "we're not going to put up with this any longer":
“If I have anything to say about it, we’re going to change the rules come January 2011,” Wentworth said.
[...]
He added, “We’re not going to put up with this any longer. There are a number of senators that I’ve already spoken to that agree with me. It only takes 16 senators to adopt rules.”
David Dewhurst's reliance on purely partisan politics, and foregoing long-lasting Senate rules at his own political whim, are reason enough for him to be defeated at the polls. Yet, some Democrats in the State Senate -- including those who could consider a run against Dewhurst for Lieutenant Governor, now that it looks like Bill White will be atop the ticket -- believe that if they run against Dewhurst, they will lose the power to negotiate on the critical legislation coming up in 2011. Along with redistricting and the upcoming state budget disaster, nearly a half-dozen major state agencies are up for Sunset review. Working behind the scenes -- the way the Senate operates -- can be more difficult to broker if a Senator just beat up the presiding officer for a year on the campaign trail.
However -- there is one option that is even worse than having to negotiate with Dewhurst again, and that's having to negotiate with a Republican Majority Leader.
Paul Burka, writing on Texas Monthly's BurkaBlog, wrote extensively about how Senate Republicans are considering creating the position of "Majority Leader" to go around Dewhurst's authority -- not to mention any minority power Texas Democrats would control through the 2/3 rule:
Republicans have grown weary of his eccentricities and his AWOL leadership, and part of their caucus discussions has been about changing the rules to transfer power from the lite gov to the caucus, presumably to a senator who would act as majority leader. [...]
We could be on the verge of seeing momentous changes in the Senate—changes that would completely change the way that the upper chamber operates. The radical Republicans are in a position to exploit their caucus colleagues’ disdain for Dewhurst to end the tradition of a strong lieutenant governor and transfer his power to the caucus leadership; they can change the rules in the Senate to eliminate the two-thirds rule and to operate by special orders when the normal course of business does not produce the results they want....
The radicals signaled their intentions with the Voter ID play at the start of the 81st Legislature: They want to change the rules in the Senate so that they have complete control over policymaking and the Democrats are frozen out. The majority of the caucus may well go along. I don’t think Dewhurst wants to stick around and watch all this happen.
The possibility of changing the rules to create a "Majority Leader" is very real. If Senator Jeff Wentworth -- by far one of the most moderate in the Texas Senate -- has already publicly declared his intention to limit some of Dewhurst's power. The question, then, becomes who would become this new majority leader?
Steve Ogden could be one -- he is ideologically similar to the block of Senators that want to create a "Majority Leader" position, the Statesman has written that he "wields ultimate authority" in the Senate, and he could promise to only serve two years until 2012 -- when, perhaps, Dewhurst would be running for Hutchison's (finally) vacant U.S. Senate seat, and someone else can run the Upper Chamber. One thing is certain -- should he decide to return, he's not going to sit quietly. He'll want to be in charge, in a big way.
Add everything up, and what it looks like is that Texas Democrats will be facing one of two people in charge of the State Senate in 2011:
David Dewhurst -- Who is ineffective, untrusted, and has shown the willingness to eliminate the Senate's long respected 2/3 rule -- something he will surely do for redistricting in 2011, and possibly on other major issues.
Steve Ogden -- Who, in many ways is worse than Dewhurst -- remember, he went so far as to try and sneak a rider to ban appropriations for stem cell research in the budget, despite objections from Democrats and Republicans -- because he shares the same ideological zeal yet manages to earn respect despite of it for his ability to do what Dewhurst cannot -- manage and corral the Texas Senate to action.
While Democrats in the State Senate could hope that Dewhurst, Ogden, or any other Republican left in charge would be fair in 2011, there is really no evidence for that. It may end up being that -- for any State Senate Democrat hoping to pass the best policies possible in 2011 -- their best chance for action would be to file for Lieutenant Governor and attempt to fix the problem at the source. And while having a Democratic Lieutenant Governor does not change the fact that only 16 Senators are needed for any change to the Senate rules (including the creation of a "Majority Leader" position), it would eliminate the animosity against the current presiding officer -- which is the source of the problem for both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate.
Texas Democrats must find a passionate, intelligent, and strong-willed candidate of substance to challenge David Dewhurst in the 2010 general election. If we don't, we will be heading into 2011 -- facing a massive state budget crisis, redistricting, the sunset review of numerous key state agencies, another possible voter ID fight, and more -- with the proven failure of David Dewhurst in charge, or, what could be even worse: a Republican Majority Leader operating under dramatically different Senate rules.
Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson says he will either run for Lieutenant Governor or seek re-election in 2010, according to a story by the Statesman's Asher Price.
If Patterson is able to win the Lieutenant Governor nomination (which could be a big "if" considering Attorney General Greg Abbott is considering the race and David Dewhurst could possibly run for re-election), he could be a good target for Democrats.
The Statesman seems to think his recent behavior has created a "distinctive political presence" that serves him well. While it will ultimately be up to the voters to decide, some of the things he has done are clearly out of the mainstream and might turn off moderates. and independents.
Patterson, one of the most controversial figures in the state as the Christmas Mountains debate raged, says he will run again, and maybe for higher office, in 2010. Democrats say he is vulnerable, but others say the imbroglio, far from injuring him, may have enhanced his image as a plain-talking, property rights-supporting, gun-toting personality, which goes down easy in many parts of Texas. At the Republican state convention in Houston this month, a video composed of photographs of Patterson aiming a gun, boarding a plane in his Marine flight suit, marching through the Christmas Mountains and posing with his family was broadcast as the Tom Petty song "I Won't Back Down" played in the background.
But the man who packs a pistol in his boot (he says he owns about a hundred guns) and appears to shoot from the hip is actually deliberate in his aim. He has built a political career as a contrarian who uses contrariness to his advantage, crafting a distinctive political presence that serves him well in a bluster-prone state like Texas ...
Democrats suspect that voters want somebody to be part of the solution, not part of the problem," Democratic consultant Kelly Fero said. "They want someone who can get along with others, make government work, rather than deliver ideological statements."
In an action that embodies Patterson's ability to invite both admiration and notoriety, he hands out unofficial business cards that feature the Texas flag as it was under the Confederacy. (A native of Houston, he is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans; his great-grandfather served.) The father of 4-year-old twins, as well as two adult children from a previous marriage, he says he has sworn off running for a seat in Congress because he can't stand being anywhere north of Fredericksburg, Va., on the East Coast.
The article also speculates about a few Democrats who may be eyeing the race for Land Commissioner.
If Patterson runs for re-election as land commissioner, he will be a favorite against opponents who could include Democratic state Rep. Patrick Rose of Dripping Springs, Kinky Friedman or Bastrop County Judge Ronnie McDonald ...
I think Kinky Friedman's ego is too big and his experience too small to mount a serious bid for Land Commissioner. The other two mentioned candidates, however, are intriguing.
Rep. Patrick Rose is one of the rising stars of the party. He has made some votes that we probably don't all agree with, but he is extremely well-liked by his constituents and has turned what should be a Republican seat into a district where he received over 60 percent in 2006.
Rose is also one of the most prolific fund raisers in the House. If he is looking for a statewide office to run for in 2010, I think he would be wise to take a long look at the Land Commissioner's race. Rumors have also circulated about Rose and the attorney general's race for sometime. He would give Democrats a great chance in either race.
I don't know anything about Judge McDonald, but I'm hoping some of our readers, like Robert from Bastrop County, will be able to shed some light on his potential candidacy.
