Burnt Orange Report

chris bell doesn't stand a chance, even against a embattled governor like mofo. the guy couldn't win when he ran for state rep in amarillo, he couldn't finish in the top two when he ran for mayor of houston, and he barely mustered one third of the vote last year in the democratic primary as an incumbent congressman.

i know sharp hasn't been the most loyal democrat in the world and has already lost twice when he was towards the top of our ticket.

if jim turner is making too much money in washington as a lobbyist to seriously consider running, what's paul hobby up to these days?

Why don't we try to focus on substance for a change? Using the faulty logic offered above, neither John Sharp or Chris Bell should be running because they've both lost races in the past, even more so for Sharp since he has lost statewide races. It would also be difficult to explain how George Bush got elected governor the first time since he had lost a congressional race in Midland in in his earlier years. So it's just a silly argument that takes us nowhere.

Chris Bell and John Sharp have both won just as many races as they've lost and are two of the smartest guys the Democratic Party has had to offer in years. John Sharp was a great Comptroller and Chris Bell was a great Congressman who got screwed when his district was completely redrawn. Despite both being admirable, they would obviously bring different mindsets to the race and that's what we should be talking about - not pointless won-loss records that will have no bearing on the 2006 outcome.

Last week in Williamson County we heard Chris Bell speak and the way he took it to Perry and the Republicans is nothing I've ever heard from John Sharp. Sharp was a good Comptroller but since then he has always ran away from Democratic principles and tried to run the same as a Republican just that he's a Democrat. We now know that is a sure loser every time for a Democrat in Texas. I also think that if Sharp changes his tune now and tries to run as a progressive just because others have began to reform the Democratic Party in Texas to something other than Republican light would be a hollow strategy. I would welcome a primary battle because the Democrats need all the exposure and scrutiny they can get but at this point I am very skeptical of John Sharp. I think the only reason he's not a Republican is because Perry beat him to it years ago. Chris Bell has begun the process of separating Democrats from Republicans on many issues and I think his message if solid.

Just a note to say how proud I am to see that BOR has a fellow College Houses alumnus! I lived at Taos in the early 90s and worked for College Houses for another year after that.

Best damn college decision I made was co-op living.

Yes, I'm glad to be part of the College Houses system too. Though did you know that Taos looks like it is scheduled to be sold and then likely demolished for retail space as CH starts to build a new 3 lot 3 complex cooperative?

Sharp may have decent name ID, but he still desperately needs plenty of free media coverage. I've lived in this state for nearly seven years now, and have heard his name a fair amount, but I have essentially no clue who is really is.

It's been a long time since he was in office.

John Sharp has always been a Democrat. If anyone has actually listened to Sharp speak, he is not a Republican. Do we know for sure if he is really in or just a rumor. Has he filed with the Ethics Commission? He can get rural voters,the Farm Bureau,the NRA,Hispanics(he is from South Texas) and cross-over votes from Indepedents and some Republicans. Sharp can also raise the 15 million it is going to take to compete.

If John Sharp could get "rural voters,the Farm Bureau,the NRA,Hispanics(he is from South Texas) and cross-over votes from Indepedents and some Republicans" he would have been elected Lt. Gov in 98 or 02. I'm not really trying to knock the guy, but for two cycles in a row people have said he could get all those voters and he's failed two times in a row.

Sharp and Paul Hobby have done the best of any Dem the last 2 cyles 49%. GO,SHARP,GO! I am a Sharpie!

anonymous,

keep in mind in 1998 the state GOP had bush at the top of its ticket and in 2002 we had tony sanchez at the top of ours.

Politics is about (1) organization, (2) narrative and (3) timing. The Texas Democratic Party currently lacks an organization that is competitive with the R's (we all understand that), but that is a chicken-egg issue. We need strong candidates to help us build our infrastructure.

Meanwhile, there are times that (2) and (3) overcome lack of (1). Of the candidates under discussion, Bell is the one with the compelling narrative that takes advantage of Republican weakness wrt governance and corruption. That narrative actually stems from his Congressional defeat, so I don't think that or previous losses is relevant. The whole reason there is speculation about other candidates is that the timing is good for us. There is widespread unhappiness about the recent legislative session. Recent statewide polls show that not only is Perry unpopular, but even Bush is hanging on by his fingernails. He is unpopular with young voters, Hispanics and independents, and there are plenty of R's who are beginning to wonder.

But I don't believe we are best poised to take advantage of that opening with candidates who will be perceived as rehashed. On the statewide level, Bell is a fresh face, and having heard him speak on multiple occasions, I can attest that he is a very capable politician. It may be that lack of money will drive him from the field, and it could be that the lack of competitive infrastructure would doom any Dem in the general. But right now, I don't see any candidate or potential candidate OTHER THAN Chris Bell who can win.

And I think I agree with the other posters that it should be about winning.

Jim Turner should run for governor. He is probably the best candidate. Chris Bell is weak, unpopular, lacks name recognition, and lacks money. John Sharp would be a strong candidate, too.

Guys, I think the dynamics are a little better than they were in 2002, or 2000. The GOP has a numbers advantage that you have to consider. They are already at 44%. The Dems are like 38%. Granted if you can get new voters into the process we can catch up. Done before. Very hard to do and very expensive.

Otherwise you need Democrats like Sharp, Hobby (if he would run), and Turner who have independent appeal to pick up voters that a base Democrat can't get. Otherwise we will have feel good progressives who won't be able to appeal to rural or suburban voters.

for the record, NUMEROUS candidates have lost time and time again before winning...clinton lost a congressional race once...then he lost his seat as governor...even W. lost a congressional race once...a former pennsylvania governor had run and lost something like 4 or 5 times in a row and THEN won. history doesn't matter. a good campaign matters. money matters. support from the grassroots matters. and not being a candidate like tony "dirty" sanchez matters (or aligning oneself on the "dream team ticket" with him for that matter). there are way too many factors and the primary is still way too far away for all this campaign speculation. let the man announce, if he plans to, get a team together and start campaigning. stop being armchair quarterbacks and crystal ball gypsies. if you actually want to affect the election and effect some change in the state, stop predicting and speculating and start DOING something.

that is all.
cpk

Fellow Democrats,

Between Chris and John I don't have a dog in that hunt. I'm ready to campaign for a united Texas Democratic victory in November 2006 along with whomever our Party chooses as its nominee for Governor. But a couple of comments I've read here prompt my own.

Especially cpk - bravo! Armchair punditry is nothing but gossip and has about the same value. Every election stands on its own. Losing in the past means only as much as the individual lets it mean. Abraham Lincoln ran for practically everything and lost almost every time until he won the Presidency. Who knows how many more generations of Americans would have had to endure the the ultimate tyranny of chattel slavery had it not been for Lincoln's political persistence. Ralph Yarborough ran again and again for statewide office and lost every time until he finally squeaked into the Senate in a special election - where he became the only Senator from the South to vote Aye on the 1964 Civil Rights Act and provided many other important votes for the Great Society. The only thing that matters in this equation is what is in the candidate's heart and soul. Lincoln and Yarborough didn't keep on running just to find a position to fill up their egos; they did it because their hearts were on fire for a better world, and no one election loss could stop them from continuing their battles.

As for pc's comment about what he/she calls "feel good progressives" not being "able to appeal to rural or suburban voters" -- folks, that is a false assumption that's been sold and hustled by false merchants of the Beltway mentality. It is elitist (though perhaps unintentionally so) to assume that rural or suburban voters are too backward to appreciate progressive Democrats. And it is just plain not true, although one can make it become true by riding into a town on a high horse of cynicism or self-imagined cultural superiority. There are many, many more genuinely progressive Democrats sitting in various offices in rural County Courthouses than the Washington and Austin Beltway pundits imagine. I campaign in the non-urban parts of Texas on a message that you would probably call "progressive", but it sure isn't about "feel good;" it's about fighting back against the immoral alliances between entrenched political power and entrenched corporate power, and what you might consider ironic is that the non-urban folks generally display more fire in their bellies about fighting back than some of their higher-tech cynical urban liberal cousins. The main thing the non-urban voters don't appreciate is being ignored and written off, which is what our Beltway-minded backward political strategies have done to them for the last 15 years or so. Now before you rise up in your armchairs to denounce me as hopelessly naive, take a trip through part of the hinterlands and meet with middle and working class rural Democrats. They'll know what makes their communities tick and they'll know what it will take to make political inroads. You will find most of them telling you they are sick and tired of the Republican-lite politics that the big-city Democrats keep giving them, that the thing they want most of all is Democrats who aren't afraid to be Democrats, that they miss Democrats like "put the jam on the lower shelf" Ralph Yarborough and "give 'em hell" Harry Truman, that they like Howard Dean because he isn't afraid to tell the truth, and that the only way to get their "moderate Republican" neighbors to come back to the Democratic Party where they belong is to NOT be Republican-lite because those R voters won't switch unless they are given a real reason to do so by showing them a real difference. Although I spend much of my time doing what I am urging you to do and my remarks are solidly grounded in empirical experience, I ask you not to take my word for it. Go forth and see for yourself.

David Van Os
Future People's Lawyer of Texas

I would have to agree with David on this one. While it might seem easier to package a republican lite to rural voters its not the answer. The answer is to have strong convictions not be uncertain of where you stand on what matters to real working americans like a decent wage. Health care and a chance for a better education are important to all people. Those are all things that will go far with rural texans. in my experience last election cycle it seemed to me that getting out and walking to eblocks moved peoples hearts the most. It is important to show these Texas Republican voters we are not evil liberals like the media makes us out to be. Democrats are the people they live near work with and go to church with. So whoever gets it if they spend there enrrgy walking the blocks talking to the people of all parts of Texas we can win. if we just pick and choose safe zones we can write this one off. So Sharp or Bell is fine with me as long as they get out and talk to the people of both rural and urban texas.
Proud democrat,
Guy Stuart
Precinct 23 Chair
Burnet County Democrats

Last time I checked Paul Hobby was busy doing fundraiser for republican Candidate in Houston City Council Race.

Any of them, Bell, Sharp, Hobby, Turner, or a host of others, COULD win. Over a year before the election no one, including those men (why are they all men?) or their pollsters, knows which one would have the best chance against whichever wounded Republican emerges from their very bloody primary. I'd like to hear more talk about which one would make the best Governor. I'm genuinely asking for info here, because I don't personally know any of them, though we've met in campaigns, and I'm not familiar with the records some of them have made in office. The best person doesn't always win, but it would help to know who that was.

David, I appreciate your service to the party. I'm just saying politics is all about addition. We have a 38% base. The GOP has 44%. Admittedly this is among likely voters. But still you do the math. I think a populist can win in Texas, but a feel good progressive needs a lot of misfortune on the GOP side to win. I grew up in red county Texas, and I know what we are up against over there. Progressives who don't appeal to the independent minded middle class Texan do so at their own peril. I don't think that's elitist.

Do we have this story confirmed. Is Sharp actually going to run? Who is the consultant that is offering the endorsement? Has Sharp filed any paper work with the Tx Ethics Commission? He closed his prior campaign filing.

Sharp wants to beat Perry, that's it.
He is not thinking of the Party, just his own agenda. If people want Sharp to run and think he can win, why not bring back Gary Mauro?
Enough said.

So David, what about that Gary Mauro?

Although I've heard the terms "Republican-lite" and "Democrat in Name Only (DINO)" bandied about quite a bit over the last year and a half or so, I've never really seen anyone define them very well.

Do the terms mean someone who would be considered a DINO by us city types because they represent a traditionally democratic but conservative, usually rural or small town areas?

Or do they mean someone who votes with teachers and other traditionally democratic groups much or part of the time, but votes friendly to corporate and insurance company interests as much as they can get away with it?

Or do they mean someone who votes democratic 90% of the time, but happens to be on the other side of an issue from the person calling the politician "Republican lite" or "DINO".

We seem to be throwing these terms like DINO and "Republican Lite" around a lot, and I'm curious if there is a consensus definition that folks have.

Using state legislators as an example, personally, I think we have to keep in mind that Democratic politicians such as Texas House and Senate members have to be able to vote their districts to stay elected, and we must recognize that not every area in Texas is as progressive as districts in Austin, or the Valley, or inner city districts in the major cities.

When Democratic politicians stray from the interests of their districts and vote, not according to their districts, but according to hopes that they will be rewarded by corporate contributors, then I think they should be disciplined, much as a number of Democratic House members were in the 2004 primary, but we should also let members vote their districts, without calling them names.

We have to find a way to effectively pick up democratic votes in some more of the moderately conservative areas in the rural and suburban areas. In my opinion, we will make it more difficult to do that if we are not careful and selective in how we criticize the more moderate members of our party.

Shawn Stevens

I'm afraid David thinks he is paid by the column inch. Lone Star your right on track with Paul Hobby, first time out disappointing loss but great family history and name. Sharp beats Bell hands down. Gene Green knows how to represent a majority minority district and keeps getting reelected....Bell????

I wasn't referring to David van Os. It was more of an in joke so never mind.

Anyone else see Rep. Thompson showing off the Laney for Gov...2006 T-Shirt today on the House floor.

Roy Spence.