Comments: Lame Duck Ron Wilson

No BIG TENT here. I guess independent blacks are not welcomed here. Must be beholden to the Masters. Well fine, come over to our BIG TENT and we'll welcome you with open arms.

Posted by peter at March 10, 2004 01:41 PM

Its not a race thing, it a party thing. The republicans don't like the potential of various races joining together to fight their injustice. Whether its blacks, whites, browns, no matter what color, they want to divide us so that they can control. Wilson supported a plan that would eliminate Democratic representation in Washington. He helped take away my voice in DC. Everyone is welcome in the Democratic Party as long as you believe in progressive ideas. Makes no different what color you are, what language you speak, or how big you bank account is. DON”T LET THEM DIVIDE US.

Posted by TC at March 10, 2004 02:39 PM

Go ahead and open your big tent to Ron Wilson. He only slandered a man because of his psychological disorders, used vulgarities in front of a Senate committee, slandered another senator as having his "head up his ass", wears "ghetto clothes" such as baggy jeans and jerseys on the floor of the House, who hangs out with convicted felons and drug dealers, who has all kinds of dirt on him I can't even write about because we might need the oppo research down the line, who sent Black Panthers to the polling places yesterday do intimidate voters and he only sides with the most radical racist elements of Houston Black politics. Go ahead and take him into your fold- we have no use for him.

Posted by Andrew D at March 10, 2004 02:47 PM

I don't think anyway here is racist. Why do people keep saying that? Wonder what notgonnatell has to say..Where is the solidarity?

Posted by AustinGirl172 at March 10, 2004 05:24 PM

Sorry, meant anyone here..

Posted by AustinGril172 at March 10, 2004 05:25 PM

When you're good, honest, intelligent and openly-opinionated, you can almost bet that someone will be right there to try and slam you...I could almost predict someone would rail in with unsubstantiated and inflammatory comments like Andrew's. Carry on...Rep. Wilson's district has lost a genuine leader. He voted for a redistricting plan that would give his constituency one more seat, hence more representation. The omnipresent, reactionary, "Democratic" mob attitude will be the downfall of the party. This has been but one example.

Posted by MLD at March 10, 2004 07:42 PM

Notgonnatell is here:

I congratulate Dr. Allen. It is clear that Chairman Wilson was too cocky to run the kind of race he should have run, and Representative-elect Allen ran a great campaign, with more or less full-time help from Senator Ellis and Representatives Coleman and Noriega.

This may have been the most expensive House race -- on a per-vote basis -- in Texas history. By my rough count, each vote cost about $800. Another interesting point: the only Democratic incumbents who lost were minorities. I mention this not to allege that race was an issue; plaintiff bar versus defense bar, party loyalty, redistricting, and relationships with Speaker Craddick were the driving factors.

I will leave you with a thought that Harvey Kronberg raised today. Why is it that when Republicans worked within the system and accepted leadership roles under Democratic leadership, they were hailed for their bi-partisanship. But when Democrats join the leadership under a GOP-ruled House, they are targeted for defeat?

P.S. Killer D liberal Democrat, good guy, desk mate of Jim Dunnam, trial lawyer Representative Mike Wise lost to an unknown with no money. That seems to be the one anamoly to the be above theory.

Posted by notgonnatell at March 10, 2004 08:38 PM

I would assume because Republicans didn't try to subvert their party.
Joe

Posted by joe at March 10, 2004 08:54 PM

I don't understand Joe's theory.

I don't remember Midland Republicans targeting then-Representative Craddick when he was appointed Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and given seats on the State Affairs and Calendars committees by then-Speaker Laney -- even as Craddick forcefully fought for the GOP. Craddick had also been Chairman of the Natural Resources and Public Health committees under Democratic speakers.

Insurance Committee Chairman John Smithee held that post under Laney and now Craddick. Representative Swinford was a Laney chairman and is now a Craddick chairman. Representative Keel was going to be given a chairmanship under either Laney or Craddick. Ditto Representatives Dutton, Bonnen, Solomons, and others.

The Republican Chairmen who were "busted" by Craddick -- folks like Representatives Kuempel, Haggerty, Goodman, Chisum, Jones of Lubbock, Merritt, etc. -- were all considered RINOs by the extremists, but the GOP primary voters as a whole never punished any of them at the polls.

Maybe Texas will have to resort to a system like virtually every other state and just divide the House by party. But I think good public policy would be the loser in the long run.

Posted by notgonnatell at March 10, 2004 09:15 PM

"Why is it that when Republicans worked within the system and accepted leadership roles under Democratic leadership, they were hailed for their bi-partisanship. But when Democrats join the leadership under a GOP-ruled House, they are targeted for defeat?"

In large part, it was because the Democratic majority coalition in the legislature that existed until 2002 governed from the center, whereas Craddick is governing from the hard-right.

2001 Legislative redistricting also served to polarize the legislature.

Let me put it this way -- the distance between the median Republican voter in Texas and the leadership under Pete Laney in 2000 was/is considerably smaller than the difference between the median Democratic voter in Texas and the leadership under Craddick in 2004.

Posted by Jim D at March 10, 2004 09:39 PM

Jim is exactly right. The reason that Republicans called RINO's that were Laney committee chairs were able to beat off conservative challengers was because Democrats governed from the center. Who's going to call Pete Laney a liberal? The difference between then and now is that Pete Laney was fairly acceptable to moderate Republicans. Tom Craddick has led from the far right and thus is acceptable to very few Democrats.

As for why all the incumbents who lost were minorities.... well that's a simple question. All of the minority Democrats that lost (except Timo Garza), lost to other minorities, so there's not really any point there. So, there'll be one more White guy in the legislature (Tracy King) and one more Black guy (Al Green) in Congress. Big deal. Most of the Democrats in the legislature are minorities. In fact, there are zero White Democratic Women in the legislature. I'd like to see more White Democratic Women in the legislature, but that's life. I care most about having Democrats that vote like Democrats in the legislature. Voting with the right wing policies of Tom Craddick is fundamentally opposed to what the Democratic Party stands for - and that's why Ron Wilson and Glen Lewis and others lost.

Posted by Byron L at March 10, 2004 09:47 PM

When a conservative republican works with a conservative democrat, like Laney, to achieve a conservative goal, repug voters have no problem with that.

It would be different if conservative republicans worked with liberal democrats to achieve a liberal goal.

I dare say no republican voter would help re-elect a republican who worked and voted to get rid of 7 republican congressmen.


Posted by Tek_XX at March 10, 2004 09:48 PM

Jim D, Byron L and Tex XX all make excellent points. I think it is fair to say that Speaker Craddick came out of the gates with guns a-blazing and probably could have taken an elementary "uniter" course.

I also suspect the anti-Ron Wilson feeling demonstrated on this site is not based on ideology or the single vote on redistricting (after all, there is no outrage over Representative Vilma Luna) but is based on his (admittedly) arrogance, flashy style, etc. He has irritated me plenty of times, but I had to acknowledge his legislative prowess.

If the above three posts are correct, however, should the Democratic establishment be going after conservative Democrats (okay, they DID go after Allan Ritter, who won anyway) and not just single out minority members who maybe were less than pure? I think that intellectually honest BORers would acknowledge that the Democrats who signed up with Craddick, gained leadership positions yet still voted liberal on 99 percent of the issues empowered their constituents in a practical way -- just as Republicans who were given leadership positions under Speakers Laney, Lewis and Clayton realized that joining the team then "voting their districts" made them effective lawmakers.

Posted by notgonnatell at March 10, 2004 10:21 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?