Saturday, December 27, 2003
Why We Lose
Mark Ovard, a former Dallas County Justice of the Peace and Democratic activist posted this to the Yahoo! TexasDemocrats Group. Mark graciously agreed to allow it be posted here. I thought it may be of interest to you all. I've edited it slightly for length.
Why we lose - badly - in elections...
By Mark Ovard, Dallas
I do not believe Democratic candidates lost because they tried to be
"Bush-lite".
In my view, Democrats lost because Democrats were in a fight between
Caucasian liberal men and Caucasian male consultants - and nothing else
mattered to them.
We presumed because we had minority candidates, we per se then get lots of
minority votes without any issues at all (which is just Caucasian bigotry in
perspective) and because the Democratic Party treated the woman's vote like
so much dirt under their feet.
At ever turn, Caucasian Democratic leaders - including liberals - endorse
men over women and Caucasians over minorities in the primaries (at least up
this way). No issues of interest to women, minorities or working people were
even presented.
Every Republican running for State office made pointed pitches for the
women's vote. No Democrat did.
They ran ads promising to protect women, to get women money, and be loyal to
women.
Democrats? Nothing - other than now and then to kick dirt into women's
faces. It was sickeningly, lunacy, political suicide.
It was so bad up here, that Democratic "leaders' (particularly "liberals"),
joined forces with Republicans against women's rights, women candidates and
women's issues. In a bizarre and complex sequence of stages, we used this to
elect the only Countywide Democratic judge in over 2 decades - a cross over
woman Republican judge.
Did Democrats cheer of how, finally, the stronghold had been broken? No,
they essentially shot us the finger. Who? Not Democratic consultants.
Caucasian liberals.
What insanity lead anyone to believe people will vote for you because you
were no-billed on the charge of laundering drug money?
"Vote for me, I was found not guilty" is not a winning campaign issue. 20
million dollars in ads on this.
In fact, our side's ads made a point of how many times found not guilty too.
Now there's a campaign slogan - "They tried and they tired, but that ain't
got a conviction against me yet! Vote for me while I'm still free."
And they did not make that defense from a woman's perspective, but a male
perspective. Remember Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison on the issue of using
staff in her campaign? Her response strictly was to women. How cruel it was
to do this to her family. That it wrong to try to hurt her family for
political purposes. It worked. It was to women.
In addition, rather than running issues, most ads were certain to backfire
personal attack campaigns - and they did backfire. It was an election almost
devoid of issues on our side and in virtual contempt of Democrats most core
essential voters. That core is NOT urban white liberals.
This is why I believe Democrats lost.
When I criticized party leadership, it was not because they were not liberal
enough, but because the campaigns were no-issues, ignore minorities and blue
collar, and trash women campaigns.
Actually, that is another poll-problem area for Dean. Polls show women and
minorities tend to not approve of him. Dean's supporters are notable
disbalanced in terms of the percentage of Caucasian men to women and
minorities. That has been in the press more than once.
Have you ever read Clinton's and the Democratic Leadership's Council's
strategy for how to recapture Congress and defeat Bush? I think it's
brilliant.
I amto change. The election is not here yet. I began with Dean - but
with his fury against the Democratic Party took a harder look and did not
like what I saw in terms of beating Bush. I believe Dean's primary tactics
are leaving him little to no chance to win in November. Clinton and dozens
of other SUCCESSFUL Democratic elected officials continue to urge Dean to
get back on the issues and issues against Republicans.
Kerry seemed great, but then seemed to trip over himself one time too many.
Gephardt has always been acceptable, but Clark seems to fit the
circumstances of this election. However, he has made some blunders and some
poor ad choices. Edwards definitely has the personality, but is unseasoned
and struggling to get past name recognition and acceptance as a credible
candidate problems.
We are at a stage where the politics and candidates evolve, and pressure,
contention and challenging finds out if our candidates have what it takes or
not. Defeating Bush is going to be one of the difficult elections
Republicans have faced - with much at stake and much at risk.
The ,most revealing of all polls and stats?
16 key states were won by Gore specifically on the woman's vote.
At least 50, maybe 250 times, in the last election, in this election, I
wrote that the core factor in beating Republicans was, is and always will
be:
WOMEN
Women out vote men. Women decide virtually every election. Women do not get
off on war stuff. Women are more compassionate. Women are less party
dedicated. Women are more independent thinkers in politics. Women are more
concerned of the environment and half a dozen other Democratic issues.
Our critical core, other than women, is not urban liberals. It is blue
collar workers, under employed and minorities.
To believe we can win by white urban liberals running to the extreme left
and declaring Republicans to be homophobic warmongers and that us new-age
Democrats and our candidates are so far left that Bill Clinton and our
Democratic Caucus are Republican by comparison is crazy.
To believe we can run off ten million old time moderate Democrats and
replace them with 30 million never-before-voted young people is delusional.
Old people both out number young people and go to the polls in higher
percentages.
Proof otherwise in cheering crowds is like proof because the crowd at a rock
concert cheers.
Nor is mine some radical, off the wall view.
1. Every polls shows this is NOT going to work and it is going to devastate
our Party. We have never beaten the Republicans from the far left.
2. Historically, we have never won with a candidate whose foremost issue is
anti-war - those have been our most disastrous elections.
3. Bill Clinton and the majority of our SUCCESSFUL and MOST POPULAR winning
Democratic officials insist this will be a disaster.
We can not win by becoming the purist, exclusionary party of the urban
renegade enlightened white people.
That is my true opinion and I believe it is both obvious and certain. And I
am a very liberal guy, more than you might imagine.
I have now read hundreds of thousands of words by supporters of Dean's
campaign. I read fury against the Democratic Party. Lots of reasons they
think Dean will win - but never - NEVER - do I read anything of any mention
of women, minorities, or blue collar/underemployed voters. Just trendy
new-age white urban liberal self praise and oft anger at the world in some
notion that in Dallas we will get everyone to flock out of Deep Ellum to the
polls en mass for their enthusiasm for Dean's personality - when to most he's
just another old white guy in a suit.
Our candidates are, again, talking in "white guy voices" and thinking like
Caucasian men. Sexism and bigotry with a liberal flair. It is their
reasoning, battles, and focus. And it is the formula for disaster.
Again.
And again.
And again.
I write these things because I believe the Democratic Party is good and
noble, because I want Bush beat, I want all Republicans beat, and I want to
protect our incumbents if not.
By: Mark Ovard
Comments-[ comments.]
Why we lose - badly - in elections...
By Mark Ovard, Dallas
I do not believe Democratic candidates lost because they tried to be
"Bush-lite".
In my view, Democrats lost because Democrats were in a fight between
Caucasian liberal men and Caucasian male consultants - and nothing else
mattered to them.
We presumed because we had minority candidates, we per se then get lots of
minority votes without any issues at all (which is just Caucasian bigotry in
perspective) and because the Democratic Party treated the woman's vote like
so much dirt under their feet.
At ever turn, Caucasian Democratic leaders - including liberals - endorse
men over women and Caucasians over minorities in the primaries (at least up
this way). No issues of interest to women, minorities or working people were
even presented.
Every Republican running for State office made pointed pitches for the
women's vote. No Democrat did.
They ran ads promising to protect women, to get women money, and be loyal to
women.
Democrats? Nothing - other than now and then to kick dirt into women's
faces. It was sickeningly, lunacy, political suicide.
It was so bad up here, that Democratic "leaders' (particularly "liberals"),
joined forces with Republicans against women's rights, women candidates and
women's issues. In a bizarre and complex sequence of stages, we used this to
elect the only Countywide Democratic judge in over 2 decades - a cross over
woman Republican judge.
Did Democrats cheer of how, finally, the stronghold had been broken? No,
they essentially shot us the finger. Who? Not Democratic consultants.
Caucasian liberals.
What insanity lead anyone to believe people will vote for you because you
were no-billed on the charge of laundering drug money?
"Vote for me, I was found not guilty" is not a winning campaign issue. 20
million dollars in ads on this.
In fact, our side's ads made a point of how many times found not guilty too.
Now there's a campaign slogan - "They tried and they tired, but that ain't
got a conviction against me yet! Vote for me while I'm still free."
And they did not make that defense from a woman's perspective, but a male
perspective. Remember Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison on the issue of using
staff in her campaign? Her response strictly was to women. How cruel it was
to do this to her family. That it wrong to try to hurt her family for
political purposes. It worked. It was to women.
In addition, rather than running issues, most ads were certain to backfire
personal attack campaigns - and they did backfire. It was an election almost
devoid of issues on our side and in virtual contempt of Democrats most core
essential voters. That core is NOT urban white liberals.
This is why I believe Democrats lost.
When I criticized party leadership, it was not because they were not liberal
enough, but because the campaigns were no-issues, ignore minorities and blue
collar, and trash women campaigns.
Actually, that is another poll-problem area for Dean. Polls show women and
minorities tend to not approve of him. Dean's supporters are notable
disbalanced in terms of the percentage of Caucasian men to women and
minorities. That has been in the press more than once.
Have you ever read Clinton's and the Democratic Leadership's Council's
strategy for how to recapture Congress and defeat Bush? I think it's
brilliant.
I amto change. The election is not here yet. I began with Dean - but
with his fury against the Democratic Party took a harder look and did not
like what I saw in terms of beating Bush. I believe Dean's primary tactics
are leaving him little to no chance to win in November. Clinton and dozens
of other SUCCESSFUL Democratic elected officials continue to urge Dean to
get back on the issues and issues against Republicans.
Kerry seemed great, but then seemed to trip over himself one time too many.
Gephardt has always been acceptable, but Clark seems to fit the
circumstances of this election. However, he has made some blunders and some
poor ad choices. Edwards definitely has the personality, but is unseasoned
and struggling to get past name recognition and acceptance as a credible
candidate problems.
We are at a stage where the politics and candidates evolve, and pressure,
contention and challenging finds out if our candidates have what it takes or
not. Defeating Bush is going to be one of the difficult elections
Republicans have faced - with much at stake and much at risk.
The ,most revealing of all polls and stats?
16 key states were won by Gore specifically on the woman's vote.
At least 50, maybe 250 times, in the last election, in this election, I
wrote that the core factor in beating Republicans was, is and always will
be:
WOMEN
Women out vote men. Women decide virtually every election. Women do not get
off on war stuff. Women are more compassionate. Women are less party
dedicated. Women are more independent thinkers in politics. Women are more
concerned of the environment and half a dozen other Democratic issues.
Our critical core, other than women, is not urban liberals. It is blue
collar workers, under employed and minorities.
To believe we can win by white urban liberals running to the extreme left
and declaring Republicans to be homophobic warmongers and that us new-age
Democrats and our candidates are so far left that Bill Clinton and our
Democratic Caucus are Republican by comparison is crazy.
To believe we can run off ten million old time moderate Democrats and
replace them with 30 million never-before-voted young people is delusional.
Old people both out number young people and go to the polls in higher
percentages.
Proof otherwise in cheering crowds is like proof because the crowd at a rock
concert cheers.
Nor is mine some radical, off the wall view.
1. Every polls shows this is NOT going to work and it is going to devastate
our Party. We have never beaten the Republicans from the far left.
2. Historically, we have never won with a candidate whose foremost issue is
anti-war - those have been our most disastrous elections.
3. Bill Clinton and the majority of our SUCCESSFUL and MOST POPULAR winning
Democratic officials insist this will be a disaster.
We can not win by becoming the purist, exclusionary party of the urban
renegade enlightened white people.
That is my true opinion and I believe it is both obvious and certain. And I
am a very liberal guy, more than you might imagine.
I have now read hundreds of thousands of words by supporters of Dean's
campaign. I read fury against the Democratic Party. Lots of reasons they
think Dean will win - but never - NEVER - do I read anything of any mention
of women, minorities, or blue collar/underemployed voters. Just trendy
new-age white urban liberal self praise and oft anger at the world in some
notion that in Dallas we will get everyone to flock out of Deep Ellum to the
polls en mass for their enthusiasm for Dean's personality - when to most he's
just another old white guy in a suit.
Our candidates are, again, talking in "white guy voices" and thinking like
Caucasian men. Sexism and bigotry with a liberal flair. It is their
reasoning, battles, and focus. And it is the formula for disaster.
Again.
And again.
And again.
I write these things because I believe the Democratic Party is good and
noble, because I want Bush beat, I want all Republicans beat, and I want to
protect our incumbents if not.
By: Mark Ovard
Democrats Jostle To Be Dean's Temmate
The following story is from Agence France Presse, and I thought it was interesting and worth posting here.
Democrats jostle to be Dean's teammate
Thu Dec 25,12:30 PM ET Add U.S. National - AFP to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON (AFP)
-The Democratic party has not yet chosen its presidential candidate, let alone won an election, and yet it is already agonising over who could be vice president.
Howard Dean is now the clear frontrunner among the nine Democratic candidates who want to take on President George W. Bush for the White House in November.
Now analysts are focusing on who could be the former Vermont governor's possible running mate.
Predicting Dean's shortlist of likely vice presidential contenders "is what is being discussed" in US political circles, said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
"You don't hear a lot of discussion about the presidential race," Sabato said. Many political analysts feel Dean has already won the Democratic ticket.
The debate went public this week after former general Wesley Clark said that he had been asked to be Dean's running mate -- an assertion flatly denied by the Dean campaign.
Clark said Dean had offered him the number-two spot in a meeting in September, several days before Clark announced his own intention to seek the Democractic nomination.
"He did offer me the vice presidency. And what I told him was, that's not the issue," Clark told US television.
"The issue is whether I'm going to be the commander-in-chief and run to be the commander-in-chief or not," the NATO supreme commander said.
"I believe I'm the best qualified person to protect the United States and take us successfully forward into the 21st century," Clark said.
But Dean's campaign manager Joe Trippi said it was ludicrous to suggest that Dean would pick a running mate so many weeks before primary elections get underway.
"We haven't been thinking about that," Trippi told US television.
"Particularly back in the period he was talking about, we were still an asterisk in most of the polls. So to be talking to anybody about being vice president doesn't make a whole lot of sense," Trippi said.
Experts said whatever the nature of their conversation, Clark now is unlikely to be selected for Dean's presidential ticket after this week's public spat.
"There is absolutely no chance now he will be the vice-presidential candidate for Dean," Sabato said.
Political pundits dispute the importance of the lower half of a presidential ticket. Some said the vice presidential pick matters little, if at all.
"Most people don't vote for vice president, they vote for president," said Chuck Jones of The Brookings Institution think-tank in Washington.
But others insist the vice presidential pick can add balance to a geographically lopsided campaign or help reach out to voters of a specific ethnic group.
Among the names widely mentioned as strong vice presidential contenders are New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, a Hispanic who could help bring in Latino voters, and Arizona's governor Janet Napolitano, who could draw women voters.
Also under discussion are some current governors, congress members and other prominent Democrats.
Florida's US Senator Bob Graham -- who abandoned his own bid for the White House earlier this year -- also is reported to have vice presidential aspirations.
Graham is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and one of the leading opponents of the Iraq war in the United States -- a stand he shares with Dean.
"He's a man with great success in an important state, a large state with a lot of electoral votes," said Jones.
"Plus he speaks southern; he knows the South well," he said.
Some experts were cool on Graham whose campaign for the White House had been panned as disorganized and uninspired. "He's a possibility, but he didn't do well on the stump this year," Sabato said.
Comments-[ comments.]
Democrats jostle to be Dean's teammate
Thu Dec 25,12:30 PM ET Add U.S. National - AFP to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON (AFP)
-The Democratic party has not yet chosen its presidential candidate, let alone won an election, and yet it is already agonising over who could be vice president. Howard Dean is now the clear frontrunner among the nine Democratic candidates who want to take on President George W. Bush for the White House in November.
Now analysts are focusing on who could be the former Vermont governor's possible running mate.
Predicting Dean's shortlist of likely vice presidential contenders "is what is being discussed" in US political circles, said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
"You don't hear a lot of discussion about the presidential race," Sabato said. Many political analysts feel Dean has already won the Democratic ticket.
The debate went public this week after former general Wesley Clark said that he had been asked to be Dean's running mate -- an assertion flatly denied by the Dean campaign.
Clark said Dean had offered him the number-two spot in a meeting in September, several days before Clark announced his own intention to seek the Democractic nomination.
"He did offer me the vice presidency. And what I told him was, that's not the issue," Clark told US television.
"The issue is whether I'm going to be the commander-in-chief and run to be the commander-in-chief or not," the NATO supreme commander said.
"I believe I'm the best qualified person to protect the United States and take us successfully forward into the 21st century," Clark said.
But Dean's campaign manager Joe Trippi said it was ludicrous to suggest that Dean would pick a running mate so many weeks before primary elections get underway.
"We haven't been thinking about that," Trippi told US television.
"Particularly back in the period he was talking about, we were still an asterisk in most of the polls. So to be talking to anybody about being vice president doesn't make a whole lot of sense," Trippi said.
Experts said whatever the nature of their conversation, Clark now is unlikely to be selected for Dean's presidential ticket after this week's public spat.
"There is absolutely no chance now he will be the vice-presidential candidate for Dean," Sabato said.
Political pundits dispute the importance of the lower half of a presidential ticket. Some said the vice presidential pick matters little, if at all.
"Most people don't vote for vice president, they vote for president," said Chuck Jones of The Brookings Institution think-tank in Washington.
But others insist the vice presidential pick can add balance to a geographically lopsided campaign or help reach out to voters of a specific ethnic group.
Among the names widely mentioned as strong vice presidential contenders are New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, a Hispanic who could help bring in Latino voters, and Arizona's governor Janet Napolitano, who could draw women voters.
Also under discussion are some current governors, congress members and other prominent Democrats.
Florida's US Senator Bob Graham -- who abandoned his own bid for the White House earlier this year -- also is reported to have vice presidential aspirations.
Graham is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and one of the leading opponents of the Iraq war in the United States -- a stand he shares with Dean.
"He's a man with great success in an important state, a large state with a lot of electoral votes," said Jones.
"Plus he speaks southern; he knows the South well," he said.
Some experts were cool on Graham whose campaign for the White House had been panned as disorganized and uninspired. "He's a possibility, but he didn't do well on the stump this year," Sabato said.
On The 2004 Elections
There are just a few days left before filing closes for the 2004 Democratic Primary. In those few days, I think it is important for us all to remember that, regardless of who we support in the primaries, we need to support our entire ticket this fall.
In decades past, Van Zandt County was a "straight ticket" Democrat county. Recently, though Republicans have drilled their faithful with the idea of voting a straight ticket. Democrats, being a more tolerant party in general, haven't focused too hard on this idea recently, but it may be time to turn back and focus on "Marking the D."
In Texas, and in Van Zandt County especially, voters are very independent. They vote for some Republicans and some Democrats. However, I think it is important to realize that our Democratic candidates in Van Zandt County by and large represent the will and beliefs of the people more than GOP candidates. For example:
The overwhelming number of Van Zandt residents favor a nuisance abatement ordinance. DEMOCRATS have supported this while the GOP has not.
The overwhelming number of Van Zandt residents favor funding county government enough that necessary services (roads, courts, etc.) are given the tools they need to serve the people of Van Zandt County. The GOP has consistantly supported stripping funds from departments that provide essential services. They have, in fact, wasted county money by doing things like using self-funded health insurance for county employees.
Comments-[ comments.]
In decades past, Van Zandt County was a "straight ticket" Democrat county. Recently, though Republicans have drilled their faithful with the idea of voting a straight ticket. Democrats, being a more tolerant party in general, haven't focused too hard on this idea recently, but it may be time to turn back and focus on "Marking the D."
In Texas, and in Van Zandt County especially, voters are very independent. They vote for some Republicans and some Democrats. However, I think it is important to realize that our Democratic candidates in Van Zandt County by and large represent the will and beliefs of the people more than GOP candidates. For example:
The overwhelming number of Van Zandt residents favor a nuisance abatement ordinance. DEMOCRATS have supported this while the GOP has not.
The overwhelming number of Van Zandt residents favor funding county government enough that necessary services (roads, courts, etc.) are given the tools they need to serve the people of Van Zandt County. The GOP has consistantly supported stripping funds from departments that provide essential services. They have, in fact, wasted county money by doing things like using self-funded health insurance for county employees.
An End-Year Texas Accounting
The following is an editorial from the Houston Chronicle which many of you may find interesting.
I especially find it interesting about Attorney General Greg Abbott fighting the Americans with Disibalities Act. How sad.
Dec. 19, 2003, 11:53PM
An end-of-the-year Texas accounting
By CLAY ROBISON
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle
Here are a few end-of-year observations delivered in the spirit of the season.
H -- Higher and higher. One of the bigger myths to emerge from 2003 was that all the budget-cutting in Austin spared Texans' pocketbooks. Not true. According to Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Texans will pay $2.7 billion in assorted new state fees or other costs over the next two years. The estimate doesn't include the higher tuition that thousands of students (and moms and dads) also will be forking over since lawmakers gave universities the power to set their own rates. The cost of "no-new-taxes" will continue to rise.
A -- Attila the Hun. Try as he might, Gov. Rick Perry hasn't been able to position himself to the right of this 5th-century figure just yet, but he keeps at it. He better be careful not to get too close to the edge of the Earth, though. He could fall off.
P -- Perry, Rick. Speaking of whom, the governor will continue to be wary of, and occasionally vindictive toward, those fellow Republicans suspected of coveting his job. Comptroller Strayhorn will fume at Perry over policy and personality differences and enjoy speculation that she is itching to challenge him for the GOP nomination in 2006. U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is quieter but could pose a bigger threat to the governor, should he stumble.
P -- Promises, promises. There will be many of these in 2004. See if you can forget as many after Election Day as the candidates will.
Y -- Yes. What the Legislature repeatedly said to the business lobby in 2003.
H -- Hutchison, Kay Bailey. Another theory has the senior U.S. senator from Texas running for re-election in 2006, so as to position herself for a vice presidential bid in 2008, particularly if Hillary Rodham Clinton seeks the Democratic presidential nomination that year. Hutchison isn't saying, but guessing can be amusing.
O -- Oops! What happened to all those campaign promises from Gov. Perry and eager, suburban Republican legislative candidates to repeal the Robin Hood, share-the-wealth school law? Ol' Robin proved to be a tougher opponent than many of them expected. So, once again, Robin's foes beat a hasty retreat behind the trees to study their plight.
L -- Lackeys. With a few exceptions, Republicans in the Legislature and a couple of other prominent offices in the statehouse were exceptional boot-shiners and water-carriers for U.S. House Majority Leader (and chief cartographer) Tom DeLay.
I -- Insurance. This was a great campaign issue for political candidates in 2002, what withhomeowners insurance rates and medical malpractice premiums soaring. The Legislature responded with a new regulatory scheme for homeowners coverage. Rates now seem to be cooling off a bit, but many are still headed in the wrong direction -- up. Lawmakers, meanwhile, used the high medical malpractice costs as an excuse to further restrict injured consumers' access to the courthouse. In short, all that campaign rhetoric against greedy insurance companies was a lot tougher than what the election winners ultimately delivered.
D -- DeLay, dictator. Congress, Texas and the entire country would have been better off if Tom DeLay had found more gratification from killing bugs, which he used to do for a living, than squashing Democrats and other political foes, which he seems to do for fun.
A -- Abbott, Greg. The Texas attorney general's sensitivities are AWOL again. During his 2002 campaign, Abbott criticized his Democratic opponent for being a plaintiffs' lawyer who sued doctors, hospitals and business owners on behalf of injured clients. Abbott seemed to have forgotten that during his own time of need, he had sued and collected compensation from the owner of a tree that had fallen on his back and disabled him. Now, the attorney general, who is confined to a wheelchair, is fighting a portion of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits public entities from discriminating against the disabled and was signed by the first President Bush. Abbott, a professional and political success, may not need the extra help, but thousands of other disabled Texans do.
Y -- Yes. What the business lobby will repeatedly say when legislators, particularly Republicans, ask for campaign cash in 2004.
S -- School finance -- One of the biggest surprises of the new year -- short of President Bush failing to carry his home state -- would be legislative approval of a new, equitable school finance plan and an adequate, equitable tax system to pay for it. I hope lawmakers surprise me.
Comments-[ comments.]
I especially find it interesting about Attorney General Greg Abbott fighting the Americans with Disibalities Act. How sad.
Dec. 19, 2003, 11:53PM
An end-of-the-year Texas accounting
By CLAY ROBISON
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle
Here are a few end-of-year observations delivered in the spirit of the season.
H -- Higher and higher. One of the bigger myths to emerge from 2003 was that all the budget-cutting in Austin spared Texans' pocketbooks. Not true. According to Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Texans will pay $2.7 billion in assorted new state fees or other costs over the next two years. The estimate doesn't include the higher tuition that thousands of students (and moms and dads) also will be forking over since lawmakers gave universities the power to set their own rates. The cost of "no-new-taxes" will continue to rise.
A -- Attila the Hun. Try as he might, Gov. Rick Perry hasn't been able to position himself to the right of this 5th-century figure just yet, but he keeps at it. He better be careful not to get too close to the edge of the Earth, though. He could fall off.
P -- Perry, Rick. Speaking of whom, the governor will continue to be wary of, and occasionally vindictive toward, those fellow Republicans suspected of coveting his job. Comptroller Strayhorn will fume at Perry over policy and personality differences and enjoy speculation that she is itching to challenge him for the GOP nomination in 2006. U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is quieter but could pose a bigger threat to the governor, should he stumble.
P -- Promises, promises. There will be many of these in 2004. See if you can forget as many after Election Day as the candidates will.
Y -- Yes. What the Legislature repeatedly said to the business lobby in 2003.
H -- Hutchison, Kay Bailey. Another theory has the senior U.S. senator from Texas running for re-election in 2006, so as to position herself for a vice presidential bid in 2008, particularly if Hillary Rodham Clinton seeks the Democratic presidential nomination that year. Hutchison isn't saying, but guessing can be amusing.
O -- Oops! What happened to all those campaign promises from Gov. Perry and eager, suburban Republican legislative candidates to repeal the Robin Hood, share-the-wealth school law? Ol' Robin proved to be a tougher opponent than many of them expected. So, once again, Robin's foes beat a hasty retreat behind the trees to study their plight.
L -- Lackeys. With a few exceptions, Republicans in the Legislature and a couple of other prominent offices in the statehouse were exceptional boot-shiners and water-carriers for U.S. House Majority Leader (and chief cartographer) Tom DeLay.
I -- Insurance. This was a great campaign issue for political candidates in 2002, what withhomeowners insurance rates and medical malpractice premiums soaring. The Legislature responded with a new regulatory scheme for homeowners coverage. Rates now seem to be cooling off a bit, but many are still headed in the wrong direction -- up. Lawmakers, meanwhile, used the high medical malpractice costs as an excuse to further restrict injured consumers' access to the courthouse. In short, all that campaign rhetoric against greedy insurance companies was a lot tougher than what the election winners ultimately delivered.
D -- DeLay, dictator. Congress, Texas and the entire country would have been better off if Tom DeLay had found more gratification from killing bugs, which he used to do for a living, than squashing Democrats and other political foes, which he seems to do for fun.
A -- Abbott, Greg. The Texas attorney general's sensitivities are AWOL again. During his 2002 campaign, Abbott criticized his Democratic opponent for being a plaintiffs' lawyer who sued doctors, hospitals and business owners on behalf of injured clients. Abbott seemed to have forgotten that during his own time of need, he had sued and collected compensation from the owner of a tree that had fallen on his back and disabled him. Now, the attorney general, who is confined to a wheelchair, is fighting a portion of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits public entities from discriminating against the disabled and was signed by the first President Bush. Abbott, a professional and political success, may not need the extra help, but thousands of other disabled Texans do.
Y -- Yes. What the business lobby will repeatedly say when legislators, particularly Republicans, ask for campaign cash in 2004.
S -- School finance -- One of the biggest surprises of the new year -- short of President Bush failing to carry his home state -- would be legislative approval of a new, equitable school finance plan and an adequate, equitable tax system to pay for it. I hope lawmakers surprise me.
On Blogging
Here is an interesting article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on blogging.
INTERNET FREEDOM: Weblogs change face of 'public journalism'
Leonard Witt - For the Journal-Constitution
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
About a year ago I wrote an opinion column for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the need for the press to stop reporting just from the top down and for journalists to listen to the people.
It is a mantra that advocates of "public journalism" have been chanting for some 15 years.
Now thanks to Weblogs, the people have a revolutionary publishing tool at their fingertips that is forcing journalists to pay attention. Intermediaries are no longer needed as public journalism morphs into the public's journalism.
Powerful software programs at Web sites such as MovableType.org and Blogger.com make it possible for anyone to be a worldwide publisher in minutes for free.
Anybody can post words, photos, audio and video. Links built into the text enable these citizen publishers to network their audiences to infinite information sources. More than 4 million "blogs" have been set up at the eight most popular hosting sites. A much smaller number are active or worth reading, but this is still a nascent movement.
Some sites, such as humor columnist Dave Barry's own DavidBarry.com, are frivolous, but in his case, very funny. Others are much more serious.
PressThink by Jay Rosen, chairman of the New York University journalism department, is helping scholars, journalists and the public understand the limits of everyday journalism and the power of Weblogs.
An example of Weblog power was played out on the AJC's front-page story entitled "Electronic votes touch off doubts" (News, Dec. 6). The article raises questions about the trustworthiness of electronic voting machines, including those sold to Georgia by Diebold Inc.
I have been following this story for months on Internet Weblogs, but it remained below the radar screen of the national press. Then the New York Times recently had a small story basically summarizing the high points of what was being said on the Web. At about the same time, presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich posted key documents that Diebold was trying to have removed from blogger sites. Then New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote another summary of the information that has been floating around the Web for months.
If you want in-depth information about electronic voting machines, including those in Georgia, you still have to go to citizen-maintained Web sites and Weblogs. You will not find the complete story in the press. However, you should be able to and eventually you probably will.
Newspapers such as The New York Times and the AJC have the resources and the credibility to do the definitive investigative story.
The voting machine question is just one example of how Weblogs amplify public voices and produce active rather than passive audiences. Several newspapers are experimenting with having citizens provide coverage of small meetings, local sports and the variety of other events that are too small for full-time professional journalists to cover.
Dan Gilmore, who writes the eJournal Weblog at SiliconValley.com, is asking his readers to help him write a book on the Weblogging phenomenon.
Collectively, he says, his readers know far more than any one individual, including himself. Smart journalists will learn how to tap into that collective knowledge to produce smarter stories. In the past, citizens sought empowerment from the press, but in the future the press will receive empowerment from the people thanks to Weblogs, the people's printing press.
Leonard Witt is the Robert D. Fowler Distinguished Chair in Communication at Kennesaw State University and maintains a Weblog at www.PJNet.org.
Comments-[ comments.]
INTERNET FREEDOM: Weblogs change face of 'public journalism'
Leonard Witt - For the Journal-Constitution
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
About a year ago I wrote an opinion column for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the need for the press to stop reporting just from the top down and for journalists to listen to the people.
It is a mantra that advocates of "public journalism" have been chanting for some 15 years.
Now thanks to Weblogs, the people have a revolutionary publishing tool at their fingertips that is forcing journalists to pay attention. Intermediaries are no longer needed as public journalism morphs into the public's journalism.
Powerful software programs at Web sites such as MovableType.org and Blogger.com make it possible for anyone to be a worldwide publisher in minutes for free.
Anybody can post words, photos, audio and video. Links built into the text enable these citizen publishers to network their audiences to infinite information sources. More than 4 million "blogs" have been set up at the eight most popular hosting sites. A much smaller number are active or worth reading, but this is still a nascent movement.
Some sites, such as humor columnist Dave Barry's own DavidBarry.com, are frivolous, but in his case, very funny. Others are much more serious.
PressThink by Jay Rosen, chairman of the New York University journalism department, is helping scholars, journalists and the public understand the limits of everyday journalism and the power of Weblogs.
An example of Weblog power was played out on the AJC's front-page story entitled "Electronic votes touch off doubts" (News, Dec. 6). The article raises questions about the trustworthiness of electronic voting machines, including those sold to Georgia by Diebold Inc.
I have been following this story for months on Internet Weblogs, but it remained below the radar screen of the national press. Then the New York Times recently had a small story basically summarizing the high points of what was being said on the Web. At about the same time, presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich posted key documents that Diebold was trying to have removed from blogger sites. Then New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote another summary of the information that has been floating around the Web for months.
If you want in-depth information about electronic voting machines, including those in Georgia, you still have to go to citizen-maintained Web sites and Weblogs. You will not find the complete story in the press. However, you should be able to and eventually you probably will.
Newspapers such as The New York Times and the AJC have the resources and the credibility to do the definitive investigative story.
The voting machine question is just one example of how Weblogs amplify public voices and produce active rather than passive audiences. Several newspapers are experimenting with having citizens provide coverage of small meetings, local sports and the variety of other events that are too small for full-time professional journalists to cover.
Dan Gilmore, who writes the eJournal Weblog at SiliconValley.com, is asking his readers to help him write a book on the Weblogging phenomenon.
Collectively, he says, his readers know far more than any one individual, including himself. Smart journalists will learn how to tap into that collective knowledge to produce smarter stories. In the past, citizens sought empowerment from the press, but in the future the press will receive empowerment from the people thanks to Weblogs, the people's printing press.
Leonard Witt is the Robert D. Fowler Distinguished Chair in Communication at Kennesaw State University and maintains a Weblog at www.PJNet.org.
Redistricting Before Federal Panel (AP)
Texas Redistricting Before Federal Panel
Tue Dec 23,11:39 PM ET
By APRIL CASTRO, Associated Press Writer
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - A trial to hear challenges to a Republican-backed congressional redistricting map wrapped up Tuesday, with the case now in the hands of a three-judge federal panel.
One of the judges said a ruling could be made at the end of next week "at the earliest."
Democrats and minority groups sued the state over the map, saying minority voting strength was weakened in a handful of districts in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
The map could put as many as seven additional Republicans in Texas' congressional delegation, which is now ruled 17-15 by Democrats.
After closing arguments Tuesday, Judge Patrick Higginbotham questioned state attorneys as to how the court should proceed if a violation is found but cautioned them not to "read anything into this."
The court could tweak the map to rid it of violations while maintaining the new districts, but plaintiffs argued that the state should revert to the existing map if flaws are found.
Either way, the ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites).
Candidates and counties are preparing for the March 9 primary election. Some congressional candidates who already have filed for candidacy under the current map will have to refile if the new one is accepted by the court.
The redistricting plan was passed by the Legislature after a year of partisan fighting. Democrats staged two out-of-state boycotts to thwart the effort.
The Justice Department (news - web sites) cleared the map last week after reviewing it for violations to the Voting Rights Act.
Comments-[ comments.]
Tue Dec 23,11:39 PM ET
By APRIL CASTRO, Associated Press Writer
AUSTIN, Texas (AP)
- A trial to hear challenges to a Republican-backed congressional redistricting map wrapped up Tuesday, with the case now in the hands of a three-judge federal panel. One of the judges said a ruling could be made at the end of next week "at the earliest."
Democrats and minority groups sued the state over the map, saying minority voting strength was weakened in a handful of districts in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
The map could put as many as seven additional Republicans in Texas' congressional delegation, which is now ruled 17-15 by Democrats.
After closing arguments Tuesday, Judge Patrick Higginbotham questioned state attorneys as to how the court should proceed if a violation is found but cautioned them not to "read anything into this."
The court could tweak the map to rid it of violations while maintaining the new districts, but plaintiffs argued that the state should revert to the existing map if flaws are found.
Either way, the ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites).
Candidates and counties are preparing for the March 9 primary election. Some congressional candidates who already have filed for candidacy under the current map will have to refile if the new one is accepted by the court.
The redistricting plan was passed by the Legislature after a year of partisan fighting. Democrats staged two out-of-state boycotts to thwart the effort.
The Justice Department (news - web sites) cleared the map last week after reviewing it for violations to the Voting Rights Act.
The following was posted by John McConnell on the TexasDemocrats Yahoo! Group. I hope to soon locate a web address to the article Mr. McConnell has mentioned here and post it to the blog.
To Democrats and Democratic supporters, Greetings,
An article in today's San Antonio Express-News, "Demo hopefuls seriously trying to make 'em laugh.," states that "According to a new CBS poll, 66 percent of Americans can not name a single Democratic candidate running for president." Other recent polls say that about the same percentage of Democrats can not name a single Democratic candidate.
It seems to me that there is a message here for those who are spending most of their time, effort, and coin touting one candidate. Unless a large percentage of these uniformed prospective voters (UVPs) vote for your candidate, she or he hasn't a prayer of becoming president. These UPVs don't have email capability, they aren't on the Internet, they pay little attention to the daily news. Most of them are too busy trying to make ends meet. How are you going to get UPVs to vote for your candidate in the Primary and the General Election? Given the animosity toward unsolicited phone calls from strangers these days, there is only one way. You, or your representatives, have to knock on their doors. There is no other way that I can think of.
The process of getting UPVs to vote will not be an easy, one-time, thing. It must begin with a canvass of every household--and every homeless person on the street for that matter. Has your precinct chair begun a canvass of your precinct? If you are a precinct chair, have you begun to canvass your precinct? If not, you are far behind. Because of the press of other matters I am far behind. Just what is the purpose of the canvass? It is strictly to find out where the Democrats and Democratic sympathizers dwell. The canvass is not the time to try to campaign for any one candidate or to convert Republicans. It is a time to listen. Listen to the concerns of those who seem willing to talk. If the person who answers the door says in a firm, clear voice, "This is a Republican home," thank them and move on. If the answer is the one that is music to our ears, "We are Democrats," ask them what the Democratic Party can do for them--and listen to their answer. Take notes! Demonstrate that you are truly interested in what they have to say. If they seem eager to take part, ask for their help in organizing the precinct--but don't ask too much and frighten them away. Remember, they are busy people.
Here is what I have found in one block of one street: Three registered Republicans who say they leaning toward a Democratic candidate. One Republican who read the riot act to me in 2002 says she will vote Democratic this time. One Republican who thanked me for what I was doing (canvassing) and asked for material on Democratic candidates.
Don't tell me not to knock on every door. To paraphrase that 1849 Gold Rush saying, "There's votes in them thar houses."
Every one says that Grassroots organizing is the road to victory, but I hear little about anyone actually doing it. It's a hard road, but there is no other way. Unless we canvass and organize our precincts, our candidates will lose. It's that simple. If we organize every precinct in every county in every state--and get out the vote, we will win. George W. Bush is vulnerable. It will be a close race even if we do nothing. If we do what we should be doing--we will win. It is a choice we have to make.
Do we want to win--or just sit around and play Ain't it Awful?
The choice is ours.
Comments-[ comments.]
To Democrats and Democratic supporters, Greetings,
An article in today's San Antonio Express-News, "Demo hopefuls seriously trying to make 'em laugh.," states that "According to a new CBS poll, 66 percent of Americans can not name a single Democratic candidate running for president." Other recent polls say that about the same percentage of Democrats can not name a single Democratic candidate.
It seems to me that there is a message here for those who are spending most of their time, effort, and coin touting one candidate. Unless a large percentage of these uniformed prospective voters (UVPs) vote for your candidate, she or he hasn't a prayer of becoming president. These UPVs don't have email capability, they aren't on the Internet, they pay little attention to the daily news. Most of them are too busy trying to make ends meet. How are you going to get UPVs to vote for your candidate in the Primary and the General Election? Given the animosity toward unsolicited phone calls from strangers these days, there is only one way. You, or your representatives, have to knock on their doors. There is no other way that I can think of.
The process of getting UPVs to vote will not be an easy, one-time, thing. It must begin with a canvass of every household--and every homeless person on the street for that matter. Has your precinct chair begun a canvass of your precinct? If you are a precinct chair, have you begun to canvass your precinct? If not, you are far behind. Because of the press of other matters I am far behind. Just what is the purpose of the canvass? It is strictly to find out where the Democrats and Democratic sympathizers dwell. The canvass is not the time to try to campaign for any one candidate or to convert Republicans. It is a time to listen. Listen to the concerns of those who seem willing to talk. If the person who answers the door says in a firm, clear voice, "This is a Republican home," thank them and move on. If the answer is the one that is music to our ears, "We are Democrats," ask them what the Democratic Party can do for them--and listen to their answer. Take notes! Demonstrate that you are truly interested in what they have to say. If they seem eager to take part, ask for their help in organizing the precinct--but don't ask too much and frighten them away. Remember, they are busy people.
Here is what I have found in one block of one street: Three registered Republicans who say they leaning toward a Democratic candidate. One Republican who read the riot act to me in 2002 says she will vote Democratic this time. One Republican who thanked me for what I was doing (canvassing) and asked for material on Democratic candidates.
Don't tell me not to knock on every door. To paraphrase that 1849 Gold Rush saying, "There's votes in them thar houses."
Every one says that Grassroots organizing is the road to victory, but I hear little about anyone actually doing it. It's a hard road, but there is no other way. Unless we canvass and organize our precincts, our candidates will lose. It's that simple. If we organize every precinct in every county in every state--and get out the vote, we will win. George W. Bush is vulnerable. It will be a close race even if we do nothing. If we do what we should be doing--we will win. It is a choice we have to make.
Do we want to win--or just sit around and play Ain't it Awful?
The choice is ours.
