Bio:
Currently working in DC for a number of clients.
Former Texas activist/consultant -- started SaveTexasReps, worked for DriveDemocracy, consultant for Richard Morrison. Worked for Gov. Mark Warner's Forward Together PAC in 2006.
What Democrats have been doing this year in Washington, D.C. isn't working. The voters of Massachusetts made that abundantly clear last night by electing a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy in the U.S. Senate.
It's clear we haven't been picking the right candidates. The mood of the electorate is angry and frightened. We desperately need candidates that can address voters' very real concerns head on, not endlessly repeat the talking points coming out of Washington, D.C.
In Texas, we've got John Sharp running for U.S. Senate. And despite the set back last night, Sharp's candidacy represents a very real opportunity for Democrats to pick up a seat in Texas.
While plutocrat Mikal Watts was getting some well deserved tough love from the Houston Chronicle, the people-powered candidate Rick Noriega was getting some great press around the state. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has a particularly glowing piece that points out the prescience of Noriga supporter State Rep Lon Burnam, one of the first to endorse Rick and also THE first to totally reject the corrupt leadership of the Texas GOP:
In a church turned reception hall, state Rep. Rick Noriega, D-Houston, told local Democrats last week that Fort Worth Rep. Lon Burnam is a prophet.
Burnam was the lone representative in 2005 to vote against electing Tom Craddick as speaker of the Texas House. In 2007, Burnam led another House dissent against Craddick, but this time he wasn't standing alone.
Perhaps Burnam is foretelling the future with his endorsement of Noriega to win the Democratic nomination for the 2008 U.S. Senate race. Noriega, citizen-solider, believes that Texans are as frustrated as other Americans with the Iraq war debacle and yearn for experienced leadership to end that conflict.
As battalion commander of an infantry unit in the Texas National Guard, he has led troops in Afghanistan and guarded the southern U.S. border.
Noriega said he's running partly because of his warrior ethos, which demands you leave no soldier behind.
"We have 160,000 brothers and sisters right now who I think are being misled by civilian leadership that has never walked the walk," he said.
Noriega claims that his experience at the front lines and the border gives him the expertise to formulate policy based on the realities of war and diplomacy. After five terms as state representative from District 145, he said he's ready to go to Washington to help fill the leadership void.
There's no need to worry that Noriega will be a "Bush Dog" when we send him to Washington to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate. Here's a man who knows why he's running and knows that there are real life consequences to political action.
Still, the citizen-soldier, like Noriega, has an unromantic, unsanitized understanding of war that tempers the zeal to shock and awe the enemy. As any grunt in Iraq will tell you, the mission is far from accomplished.
Turning his attention to immigration, Noriega claimed that Sen. John Cornyn was the administration's first lieutenant in supporting every policy introduced in the Senate except for comprehensive immigration reform. Instead, he said, Cornyn joined the ideological extreme and became an obstructionist.
Noriega said that obstructionists oppose reform because it offers them a punching-bag issue in the next election cycle. Doing nothing provides employers with an easily exploitable work force. The Noriega plan recognizes that this country will continue to need professional and manual immigrant labor as the baby boomers age. At the same time, he wishes to secure the borders with more law enforcement officers.
His five months serving along the U.S.-Mexico border taught him something valuable: "There are bad guys over there doing bad things," he said. Those "bad things" include human and drug trafficking.
Unlike most politicians, Democrat and Republican who would be happy to stop there, Noriega goes on to offer real solutions. Solutions that recognize the messy realities of our situation here on planet Earth in the year 2007 AD:
Noriega recognizes that as long as the enormous economic difference exists between the United States and Mexico, the flow of undocumented immigrants will not end. He said that "people will continue to do risky things for $15 an hour."
He proposes foreign aid to Mexico that will help build its infrastructure. Mexicans building roads, schools hospitals and dams will give them the opportunity to work with dignity and will reduce the temptation to come to the United States.
"They may make $8 an hour, but they won't take the risk or leave their families to do something treacherous." he said. Noriega's comprehensive plan would address the supply-and-demand side of the immigration equation.
In short, Rick Noriega is so obviously the real deal, a once-in-a-lifetime candidate with obvious cross-over appeal that even the Texas press corps can recognize the potential. But here's the catch. Texas is a huge state. More than 23 million residents. More than 15 million eligible voters. More than 8 million likely voters. More than 261,000 square miles. More than 20 media markets. Winning a state-wide election will likely take more than $20million. (!)
And since, unlike his primary opponent Mikal Watts, Rick Noriega only makes around $100,000 a year rather than $109,589.04 a day, the "smart money" in Texas politics is asking the obvious question, how's Noriega, a citizen-soldier going to fund a race like that?
If Noriega wins the Democratic Senate nomination, the citizen-solider will certainly give the Republicans a run for their money.
But first we may need to consult with prophet Burnam to discern where Noriega will find the war chest required to run a statewide Senate race.
If Watts wins the primary, his background as a trial lawyer will hurt him, but Cornyn will carry a lot of the baggage that has piled up during Bush's second term. Watts will have enough money to focus the race on Cornyn's record. Noriega has the better shot to beat Cornyn--if he can raise the money.
The other factor is this -- the netroots has never faced a challenge of this magnitude at less than a presidential level. The biggest netroots senate campaign in history -- Jim Webb's amazing win over George Allen -- only required a little under $8 million -- half of that raised online. This race will require an unprecedented committment from the netroots. Can we do it? Throw some turkee on the pile today.
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mikal Watts of San Antonio once tried to pressure a legal opponent into a $60 million personal injury lawsuit settlement by claiming he would have an advantage on appeal because of his firm's "heavy" campaign financial support to an appellate court's justices, "all of whom are good Democrats."
"This letter seems to confirm what everybody thinks about Texas justice. Very seldom is it this well-articulated," said Craig McDonald of Texans for Public Justice, an organization that advocates for campaign finance reform. "It confirms the fact Texas courts are filled with politics."
And not just politics -- pay to play politics.
What made the letter unusual was the linking of campaign contributions to sitting justices and the potential of an appeal.
The letter then noted that if the case went to appeal, it would go to the 13th Court of Appeals.
"This court is comprised of six justices, all of whom are good Democrats," Watts wrote. "The Chief Justice, Hon. Rogelio Valdez, was recently elected with our firm's heavy support, and is a man who believes in the sanctity of jury verdicts."
The letter goes on to name Justices Errlinda Castillo, Nelda Rodriguez, J. Bonner Dorsey, Federico Hinojosa and Linda Yanez, and says his firm also has financially supported them.
Watts and his law firm in 1999 donated $5,000 to Valdez and $2,500 to Rodriguez; in 2000, $15,000 to Hinojosa; and in January 2001, $10,000 to Castillo. The firm donated $50,000 to Yanez in 2002.
I highlighted Linda Yanez' name because she's running for Texas Supreme Court (again). If Watts' outrageous claims are true, then not only is she a perennial candidate, she's one who can be bought. Not what we need on the court or representing our party as a nominee for statewide office.
(Texas made a big splash in Chicago this weekend. Dan Grant and Rick Noriega were both there talking about the tidal wave of change coming through Texas, and clearly people across the country took notice. - promoted by Matt Glazer)
Rick Noriega wasn't the only Texas Democrat to make a good impression at Yearly Kos. Dan Grant got a great write up from Matthew Yglesias on the Atlantic blog:
One of the most interesting people I met at YearlyKos was Dan Grant, who worked in Afghanistan and Iraq on democracy-building programs and is now running for congress in Texas' 10th congressional district. It's not the most liberal seat on the planet, but the GOP incumbent ran unopposed in 2004 and only got 55 percent of the vote in 2006, so given that the very softest of targets have almost all broken Democratic already and that the larger political climate continues to be very favorable to Democrats (see, e.g., this PDF from Democracy Corps).
Dan himself is both a cool guy and also has the kind of meaningful, detailed knowledge of US Middle East policy issues -- not just the right stance on the war, but real understanding of and engagement with what's happening -- that it seems to me the congress could use more of. He also has a good politician's voice, firm handshake, and ability to very earnestly say things like "the mortar shells didn't really care whether or not I was wearing a uniform when they blew up my office." At any rate, I don't think I really endorse candidates per se, but check out his website.
In an unprecedented show of strength nine months before next year's primary elections, Joe Jaworski announced today that he will report raising more than a quarter-million dollars in contributions for his Texas Senate race, saying that voters are investing their money and hopes in his campaign to bring independent leadership for a new direction to Austin.
The filing deadline is Monday for the latest fundraising period from January 1, 2007, to June 30, 2007. Jaworski will report a total of $214,495 raised from 348 individuals for the period. His campaign had $209,508.50 cash on hand at the deadline and has raised $37,000 in online contributions.
Jaworski is running for Senate District 11, which includes portions of Harris, Brazoria and Galveston Counties. He has raised more than $250,000 since entering the race last fall.
(Have we mentioned how we are Stopping Cornyn? - promoted by Matt Glazer)
I just got an email from John Kerry calling for contributions for John Cornyn's challenger.
John Cornyn of Texas has approval ratings well below 50%, a sign of danger for any incumbent. Even in the heart of Texas, support for George W. Bush’s Iraq policy gets you in trouble. Let’s show him that he’s not safe in his Southern seat. Contributions to this fund will be sent to the Democratic nominee upon his or her selection. Click here to contribute to his defeat.
This is a huge deal as John Kerry's email list is the one of the biggest in Democratic politics -- only MoveOn.org reaches more progressives. His last RoadblockRepublicans email raised almost $80,000 for the eventual Democratic nominees in Kentucky, Minnesota, and Maine. This time Texas is in there along with NC and KY.
This is a major breakthrough -- the Texas Senate race is recognized as competitive by Democrats across the country.
Some of you laughed when we started raising money for the anti-Cornyn nominee. Well keep laughing chumps, we're going to see that fund break six figures soon.
(Dan Grant has already raised 2/3 of what Ted Ankrum did in 2006 and Ankrum received 45% of the vote. Things look good in the TX-10. - promoted by Matt Glazer)
SwingStateProject has just posted a list of the top 20 congressional candidate fundraisers on ActBlue so far this cycle and our own Dan Grant is at #8.
It's interesting to note that, outside the top four candidates (who are all vying for safe Democratic open seats), some of the top names on Actblue are contesting tough districts like Bob Lord's campaign against Rep. John Shadegg in Arizona's 3rd (R+5.9), and Dan Grant against Mike McCaul in Texas' 10th (R+13). It will be interesting to see how many aggressive challenges can be raised in Republican-leaning districts like these over the next year and a half. My guess is that we'll see quite a few. There's nothing quite like a massive wave election to inspire recruitment.
Dan's traveling to Washington DC today to meet with the powers that be how about a little show of support from the home team to send him off right?
Texas Republican Mike McCaul was a beneficiary of a mid-decade redistricting plan — spearheaded by Tom DeLay, the Texan who then was House majority leader — that left the GOP with six more House seats after the 2004 election than they had after 2002.
The 10th Congressional District, where McCaul ran, seemed so Republican (its voters would give President Bush 61 percent in 2004), that McCaul won that year without Democratic opposition, pulling down 79 percent to defeat a Libertarian and a write-in candidate.
But McCaul did draw a Democratic foe in 2006, and it made a difference. His challenger, former NASA employee Ted Ankrum, was not well-known in the 10th — which spans 150 miles from eastern Austin to western suburbs of Houston — and spent less than $65,000 to the incumbent’s $1.1 million. Yet the outcome was a fairly modest 55 percent to 40 percent victory for McCaul.
This letter to State Rep Donna Howard came my way today. It's from former State Rep. Rayford Price, an old friend of Tom Craddick's who helped Craddick get elected Speaker way back when. He knows his stuff, having served in the legendarily troubled 1972 session.
And no, he's no longer a Craddick supporter.
Dear Representative Howard:
I am writing you, as my State Representative, to share my opinions and observations in regard to the actions of some members of the House to remove Tom Craddick as Speaker and his response to those actions during the final days of the past session of the Legislature.
The money shot:
At the next session of the Legislature, you and the other members of the House should change the House Rules to provide that the Speaker may be removed at the will of the House upon a written motion made and signed by a majority of the members. This motion would take precedence over all other actions of the House and would be set for debate and action by the House at a time certain as provided in the motion and rule. The Speaker would be required to vacate the chair at the time the motion is considered and the House would be presided over by a temporary chair. If the motion prevails and the Speaker is removed, the House would immediately elect a new Speaker.
James L at the SwingStateProject has a good write up about TX CD 10 and how vulnerable McCaul is to being knocked off next year.
McCaul's 55% was easily the weakest performance from a Republican incumbent in Texas other than Henry Bonilla. On top of that, Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Presidential candidate in 2004, outspent fightin' Democrat Ted Ankrum by a hefty $400k margin and only walked away with 4% of the vote to show for it. Numbers like that would indicate that the Democratic base is pretty solid in this district.
Now, what could be the source of McCaul's weakness? Is it possible that lingering resentment over the mid-decade redistricting carried over into 2006? Looking at a few of the other beneficiaries of the scheme who were freshmen during the 109th Congress, Representatives Poe, Gohmert, and Conaway all improved on their 2004 margins of victory, although Poe & Gohmert faced sitting incumbents in 2004 and Conaway was unopposed last year. Rep. Marchant (TX-24) did slip a little over the two years, but only by 4 points. No matter how you slice it, 55% is a terrible performance for an incumbent Republican in a district that delivered 62% of its vote to Bush in 2004, even in a rocky year like 2006. There is a weakness here, revealed by Ankrum's challenge, that perhaps an aggressive challenge can exploit.
One such challenger has already stepped up: Democrat Dan Grant, an international development worker who has worked on USAID projects in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. (He even posted a diary here last week.) I don't know enough about Grant and his organization to tell whether he'd be a serious nuisance to McCaul, but he has managed to raise nearly $25k on Actblue in just a week or two, a year and a half from election day--and that's more than one quarter of what Ankrum spent during his entire campaign. He could be a guy--and this could be a district--worth keeping an eye on.
