The San Antonio Express News reports today that State Senator Eliot Shapleigh of El Paso - a passionate progressive described by Texas Monthly as the "conscience" of the TX Senate - is facing a surpisingly strong challenge from Republican Dee Margo.
The race, which hasn't received much attention, could not only purge the Senate of its "conscience" but also reduce the Dem delegation below the 11 members they need to block some Republican legislation.
If Shapleigh really is in trouble, this is the kind of race to which BOR readers and other activists around the state should quickly divert some attention - and cash.
Anyone have a sense of how tight the race really could be?
Also, the article raises a point I've been pondering but I haven't seen discussed too much: How does the screwy Gov race, the relatively weak but now sorta surging Bell campaign, and absence of competitive US Sen race impact voter turnout for down ballot races?
In the aftermath of the Ned Lamont victory, Democrats are working to convince voters that the party wants the U.S. to get out of Iraq soon, AND get serious about national security right now.
Polls show that Democrats are closing the gap when it comes to the trust the public has in each party's ability to combat terrorism and keep the nation safe. It's a gap we need to close to get out of this post-1964 dynamic of only electing Democratic presidents when the economy stinks AND A) voters aren't worried about threats to national security (the 1990s), or B) a disgraced Republican president has recently resigned. (Neither A nor B is likely to happen between now and 2008!)
Well, we just got a small boost from conservative George Will, who wrote in yesterday's Washington Post (reprinted in the Austin American-Statesman and the Dallas Forth Worth Star-Telegram) that:
"Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by The New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."
"Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious -- that Kerry had a point."
Both for substantive and political reasons, Democrats need to make clear that our well-justified outrage at illegal wiretapping doesn't mean we think the NSA or the Patriot Act are bigger threats than al-Qaeda-style terrorism, and that our opposition to the war in Iraq doesn't mean we have no interest in aggressively combating terrorism.
No, we're not weak on national security. We're better at it.
Here's a shocker: From Dick Cheney to RNC Chair Ken Mehlman, Republicans are capitalizing on the juxtaposition of the Lamont victory, the war in Lebanon and the apparent terrorist plot in England to renew attacks on Democrats and paint us as a bunch of defeatist pacifist pinkos.
Check out today's Washington Post editorial page (http://www.washingto...), for example, which includes: an outline of the charges and prediction of Democratic demise by Charles Krauthammer, who, in fairness is utterly serious and nonpartisan in his regular attacks on anyone to the left of Genghis Khan; Newt's charges that Democratic shortsightedness and squeamishness extend even to Richard Holbrooke; and E.J. Dionne's efforts to call out Cheney, Mehlman and the rest of the bunch on their "petty partisanship."
Of course, it's not just Republican spin; liberals like Jacob Weisberg recall the Vietnam era as they write about how the Lamont victory will lead to "disaster" for the party (http://www.slate.com...).
How to respond? We must make scream from the hilltops: GET OUT OF IRAQ, AND GET SERIOUS ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY!
Just as Republicans successfully conflated Iraq and 9/11, they are now trying to convince voters that when Democrats say we want out of Iraq, we are saying we want to ignore the whole messy business of dealing with terrorists and Islamic fundamentalism. While there are a range of opinions among anti-Iraq war Democrats, to the extent possible we need to remind our ourselves and the country that we don't just want out of Iraq because of the blood and treasure it is costing us and the Iraqis; we also want to bring the troops home as soon as possible because, in completely botching this war, the Republicans have destroyed our international credibility and crippled the diplomatic, economic, and, yes, military tools we need to promote our interests and values overseas. In other words, we want to see an expeditious end to the war in Iraq in part BECAUSE we take seriously the issues of Islamic fundamentalism, the challenge posed by Iran, and other international threats -- not DESPITE those concerns.
In taking a strong position against the Iraq war, we distance ourselves from the Republicans and avoid the Republican-lite positioning of recent election cycles. But we also need to make absolutely clear - and give our candidates the room to make absolutely clear - that most anti-Iraq war Democrats are not distancing ourselves from the international challenges we face and the need for American leadership abroad. And pointing out a handful of anti-war Veterans isn't going to be enough.
