A few quick updates on the Texas Senate Race:
Texas Senate Race Updates for July 18, 2011
July 18th, 2011Dissension in the Ranks of the SDEC
July 18th, 2011I went poking around the web to see if there were any signs that Ricardo Sanchez was actually assembling something resembling a serious campaign when I stumbled across some intriguing comments from one J. R. Behrman, a member of the State Democratic Executive Committee of the Texas Democratic Party. It’s always good to keep tabs on the other side, especially when there’s dissension in their ranks, and judging by these comments (pulled from down in the page), Mr. Behrman is not a happy camper:
The “Texas right of center electorate” is a construct of pimp-consultants simultaneously raising money while picking “winners” — meaning losers — namely, candidates, races, and — surprise — themselves as campaign consultants. With a few up and coming sycophants they can spend the money on “likely voter” campaigns featuring a decades-old mix of racially segmented media messages, “GOTV”, and proprietary technologies they get a portion of the license fee from.
These packaged candidate/campaign deals are peddled to the “Big Money Boys”. But, this has been so unsuccessful for so long, one wonders if it can be done any longer.
The AFL-CIO has been fleeced and given up on this.
There is, maybe, one rich, bored, living lawyer left dumping big bucks into a media campaign of his own design that does not appear to involve any actual candidates.
Meanwhile, the GOP has an actually proficient small-donor campaign fund-raising and mobilization machine based on a common technology — the same one Obama brought to Texas in 2008 but has since folded or withdrawn.
The GOP technology is nothing the same-old, same-old SDEC would even consider a competitive alternative to. They have a really great licensing deal on the VAN. The SDEC is an awards banquet for sycophants, not a strategic or technology forum.
So, Rick Sanchez can re-run the Wes Clark nomination campaign and defeat his likely opponent … nobody.
But, how does he win the general election Bill White just lost persuasively and expensively, …
If the party can not raise enough money to keep the doors open on the Little Office, …
If the Big Donors are tapped-out, dead, or, simply, looking at zero return on their “investments”, …
If the Obama campaign uses its operation in Texas to harvest volunteers and money for battleground states, and …
If the party establishment itself has nothing to stand on or run on but “ain’t it awful hand-wringing and grand-standing by districted incumbents with no race to run, and 70’s-vintage “celebrate diversity” identity politics masking zero-sum patronage among street-level race-hustlers?
And more, further down:
The SDEC has no plans or standards, just a mix of written and unwritten rules that are selectively enforced so as to perpetuate a patently failed party establishment in Austin — a Speaker’s Claque (with no Speaker).
This is how the State Legislature worked “back in the day” when we dominated bi-partisan concession-tending regime in Austin that the GOP has now hijacked. Clearly, that regime is no longer bi-partisan, but we still wallow in nostalgia for it, conduct our business habitually, and cling to the “center-right electorate” theory and “likely voter” corollary, consultants, and voter file. Those all used to work. But, the world changed in 1994 and 2000. The TDP and, for that matter, the DSCC/DCCC has not yet adjusted.
Delegate votes in the state convention — apart from ex-officio delegates — reflect the actual distribution of Democratic voters. Composition of the SDEC favors GOP voters and those in the lobby as administer the party’s McGovern-era racial quotas and patronage. This is a formula for rewarding sycophancy, not proficiency.
So, SDEC meetings are stuffed with non-voting members, honorific resolutions, and time-wasting ritual. There is simply no time to seriously or fairly consider questions, such as the employment of Ed Martin, that are sprung on the body by the staff and protected by the Palace Guard.
From cycle to cycle, the celebratory happy-talk results in catastrophic losses every eight years. In my tenure, the SDEC has become more defensive and apologetic rather than imaginative and critical.
I and others on the SDEC do come forward from Senate Districts outside of Austin with lots of both actual and potential Democratic voters or loyalists and small donors.
We bring constructive proposals that relate to increasing turnout of new and old, rural and urban, “base voters” using technologies and techniques that do not involve kick-backs and cross-subsidies to the Austin-based hangers-on and auxiliaries. But, these are quashed in committee by the Palace Guard and the hired help.
Statewide candidates, self-funded or pimped-out to their own bundler/consultants, just ignore the state party establishment which is, indeed, so negligent as to let the LaRouch cult get on the primary ballot steal votes and time from legitimate Democrats.
The likely-voter and center-right nonsense, is just the half-baked rationale for “keeping on, keeping on”, turning the state into a “red-state” bastion, keeping it there, but promising to “turn Texas blue” Real Soon Now without even discussing much less rectifying profound problems of party governance and finance.
While I would no doubt disagree with Mr. Behrman about most political issues, I find his comments quite interesting for two reasons:
- He attacks both the corrupt (pimp-consultants, Big Donors) and insane (“70’s-vintage ‘celebrate diversity’ identity politics masking zero-sum patronage among street-level race-hustlers”) wings of the Democratic Party with equal vigor.
- Some quibbles aside (I think the center-right status of the Texas electorate is an objective fact), most of his criticisms strike me as dead-on. The state Democratic Party has been largely ineffectual, and its reliance on corrupt street-level hustlers to get out the vote (and commit vote fraud in the process) certainly haven’t helped it’s reputation.
Nor is this the first time Mr. Behrman has expressed these frustrations:
The Democratic Party establishment in Texas and Harris County are artifacts of a bi-partisan concession-tending regime that lasted statewide from 1824 to 1994 and persists on City Council to this day. This establishment lacks proficiency and purpose – now that tort reform is a done deal and they have no alternative to debt-driven fiscal austerity at every echelon of government.
So the prospects for winning statewide, countywide, and even citywide elections in 2011-12 are not good. There have been essentially no lessons learned from victories in 2008 or losses in 2010. “Wave Election!” is an excuse, not an analysis or a plan. The same consultants will be doing the same thing with the same tools but without the benefit of an Obama primary campaign here in Texas next year.
Apart from dismay at the effects of national, state, county, and city austerity, there will be little motivation and no money trickling down from national politics unless and until we turn things around here on the ground … dramatically. The patronage-oriented base vote will be no better than 2010 and the (2008-vintage) “new base vote” will be hard to motivate, locate, or mobilize. It is true that on the margin there is still some ‘bloc voting’ by various interest groups. But that is not the way the politics of age, ethnicity, class, and gender work in “majority-minority” counties like Harris, for one. So we are going to have to adopt Obama-type political methods and messages if we expect results like 2008.
He seems to be seeking a “mid-left progressive populist” position between toadying up to big business/big labor/big government interests (bailed-out banks, trial lawyers, etc.) and the party’s Identity Politics brigades and their race-hustling poverty-pimp enablers. This would theoretically enable the party to grow more middle class support for its redistributive policies. I rather doubt it.
But while I differ with Mr. Behrman’s prescribed course of treatment, I do think he has admirably identified a number of the symptoms.
How widely spread are Mr. Behrman’s sentiments? Being very far indeed away from the center of the Texas Democratic Party, I would not venture to estimate. My guess is that the sentiments themselves are fairly widely shared, but that few are inclined toward his suggestions…
Paul Burka Offers Advice for Yankee Journalists on Rick Perry
July 16th, 2011You might have noticed that I have not been overly kind in my assessments of Paul Burka’s political observations. He comes across as a world-weary, old school, middle-of-the-road liberal reporter who can’t come to grips with the changing political landscape, yearning for the days when the two wings of the Democratic Party controlled Texas politics, Republicans were an exotic novelty, and big-government policies could safely be forged in smoky backrooms over rounds of whiskey without input from those butinski outsiders known as “taxpayers.” He doesn’t understand why the Tea Party won’t just go away and let him go back to a time when the people in power returned his phone calls. (More on Burka’s textbook liberalness in this Kevin D. Williamson piece over at NRO.)
All that said, he offers some very useful advice to his Yankee cohorts (i.e., fellow liberal journalists) on mistakes to avoid in covering Rick Perry. I doubt they’ll take that advice (Burka is, after all, a native Texan, and didn’t graduate from an Ivy League college (I’m sure the idea that Rice might be as good or better than many Ivy league schools is not the sort of thought likely to penetrate their mind) and is therefore automatically suspect), but it’s good advice none the less. The short essays next to Points 1 (Perry is not George Bush) and 5 (Perry is not a male hair model) are particularly good.
It is true that Perry has a much-remarked-upon coif, but don’t let this lead you to assume that he’s soft, or feckless, like that other recent walking shampoo ad, John Edwards. Perry is a hard man. He is the kind of politician who would rather be feared than loved—or respected. And he has gotten his wish.
Read the whole thing.
Senate Race Update for July 13, 2011
July 13th, 2011There’s two big senate race shoes waiting to drop over the rest of July: The announcement (whatever it is) Dewhurst is going to make on July 18, and FEC releasing Q2 fundraising results. In the meantime, here’s a smattering of senate race news
Ron Paul to Retire From Congress
July 12th, 2011To concentrate on his 2012 Presidential run. After which, since he won’t be the GOP nominee, he will presumably retire from politics.
More about Paul’s somewhat-mixed legacy, and the nature of his supporters, at a later date…
This Month in Jihad
July 11th, 2011Well, I’m not really updating it weekly anymore, am I?
So here are some notable Jihad-related stories from the last month or so:
Tom Leppert’s Campaign on Programs He Cut as Mayor of Dallas
July 10th, 2011At the Texas Tribune Senate Candidate Forum back on June 8th, Tom Leppert said that he could be counted on to be a staunch budget cutter in the U.S. Senate, and for supporting evidence claimed that he had cut or eliminated several government programs as Mayor of Dallas.
Since I have been somewhat skeptical of Leppert’s conservative bona fides, this claim piqued my interest. So i wrote his campaign to see if they had a list of programs he had eliminated as Mayor.
It took a couple of reminders, but i was finally able to get a reply from Leppert’s Communications Director Shawn McCoy. Below is his reply verbatim, save for some WordPress list formatting and removing his phone number and email address:
Lawrence,
Sorry, it has taken a while to pull all of this together.
One of Tom’s greatest accomplishments as Mayor was working to make substantial cuts to the civilian budget in order to increase the size of the police force. He did this without raising taxes. In response, the crime rate dropped by double digits, with violent crime plummeting 30 percent.
Tom’s trimming of the civilian payroll led him to eliminate over 1400 positions. Pay was also reduced for the remaining civilian employees.
Tom’s consolidation or elimination of city departments took the city from 31 departments down to 23.
This included:
- Sustainable Development and Construction
- Development Services
- Building Inspection
- Housing & Community Services
- Housing
- Environmental & Health Services
- Management Services
- Public Information Office
- Intergovernmental Services
- Strategic Customer Services
- Efficiency Team
- Office of Emergency Management
- Fair Housing
- Office of Environmental Quality
- Trinity Watershed Management
- Trinity River Corridor Project
- Streets/River Levee Operations
- Public Works/Floodplain Management
Additionally, the zoo was privatized.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Best,
Shawn
Shawn McCoy
Communications Director
Tom Leppert for Senate
Thanks to Shawn McCoy and Tom Leppert for providing this information.
I am very far indeed from an expert on Dallas’ budget process, but I hope to take a look at the official budget numbers over the next few days to confirm the information above. My first impression from the FY2011 budget suggests that they may very well be credible, as official numbers show Dallas budget was cut by just 1.5% between FY2010 and FY2011, showing at least fiscal restraint here in the midst of the Great Obama Recession.
At some point I also hope to take a look at the mentioned Trinity Watershed Management, a subject that includes the controversial Trinity River Toll Road project, a complex subject on which I don’t feel I yet have a firm handle.
Blogrolling In Our Times
July 8th, 2011Today Matt S. Dowling named BattleSwarm his blog of the week. Thanks!
This inspired me to finally get up off my lazy ass and add two of the three blogs I’d been thinking about adding to my blogroll anyway:
And the third blog I was thinking about adding, but won’t right now? That would be The Race to Replace Kay Baily Hutchison, a blog focused on the Texas Senate race that I used to check every day for updates…but there hasn’t been one since June 2. I’d be happy to add it if posts start up again, but a month’s silence isn’t getting the job done…
Pat Buchanan 1, David Brooks 0
July 8th, 2011Since leaving the Reagan Administration, Patrick Buchanan has been, at best, an erratic conservative, on any number of issues (Israel, Iraq, Free Trade, etc.), flogging a philosophy (“paleoconservatism”) that failed to catch on with any but a tiny fringe, and carried out political adventures ill-advised at best and amazingly stupid a good portion of the time. (I mean, why would you even want to take over the Reform Party? That’s like stealing a half-chewed bone from a blind dog; even if you succeed, you’ve disgraced yourself for a worthless prize.)
But on the debt limit debate, Buchanan has penned an essay that is coolly rational in articulating why House Republican must stand firm aginst Democratic promises of future spending cuts in exchange for tax hikes now.
Behind the GOP opposition to tax hikes is the party’s word given to the country that elected it in 2010, its political principles, its traditional view of what not to do when the nation is in a slump, and party history.
Fully 235 Republican House members signed a 2010 pledge not to raise taxes. And by giving their word they were rewarded with victory.
Should they now dishonor that pledge, what would differentiate them from George H.W. Bush, who famously promised in 1988: “Read my lips! No new taxes!” then went back on his word and took the party down to defeat with him?
It also does a fine job dissecting David Brooks’ panicked appeal for them to take Obama’s handful of magic beans in exchange for their good word:
In 1982, President Reagan agreed to the same deal being offered the party today: three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases to which he assented. As he ruefully told this writer more than once, he was lied to. He got one dollar in spending cuts for every three in tax increases.
Buchanan at least has learned the lesson Brooks hasn’t: Future budget cuts are non-existent budget cuts, and only a sucker believes they’re real. The only budget cuts that count are the ones to this year’s budget. Democrat promises of future spending cuts are always lies to be taken back in the next budget session. Even ironclad budgetary mechanisms to limit spending (i.e. Gramm-Rudman) will be jettisoned at the first opportunity.
No one should mistake Buchanan for a reliable mainline conservative these days, but he’s dead right on this issue. But given David Brooks’ swooning over Obama and his heresy on tax hikes, perhaps we should stop mistaking him for a conservative at all.