I'm unclear on something. How is Ron Kirk a "good guy"?

He's a prominent Democrat, and I'd vote for a syphilitic goat over a Republican, but I'm unclear on the "good guy" bit.

From what I recall about his tenure of mayor in Dallas (I lived in Arlington from 1996-2001), he was pretty much in bed with the rich developers.

IIRC, the Trinity River Project (let the downtown flood so that some developers could get rich and poor people can continue to get lead poisoning) was his baby, for example.

I think the "Dream Team's" loss was more about racism then backing the Republican ticket. The mistake is that NO ONE CARES about anything anymore! Sad, very sad.

Ron Kirk was crushed by a margin of 541,485. He's a smart boy and he doesn't want to get his head kicked in twice. Ron Kirk will keep playing golf.

How is a net margin of 270,000 voters (every swing counts twice, remember) being "crushed" in a state of 24 million people? The %ages were like 55/45. That's not "crushed" at all!

Maybe Ron Kirk will contemplate a run for Gov. (note the conversation yesterday about Royce West and the same thing)?

"Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Kirk was catapulted onto the national stage when he won the Democratic nomination for Senate in 2002"

My future senator, Barack Obama, did not run for the US Senate in 2002. We re-elected Richard Durbin that year.

More seriously, I'm not sure that the Obama phenomenon is currently relevant to other states. He is where he is because of who he is.
However his personal popularity does travel well and he will instantly become a national figure (if he isn't already) on election night.

Matthew Saroff - Yes, Kirk was pro-business, a bit more than I and a lot of others would have liked. A lot of Democrats didn't like him, but overall I think he was a decent mayor. The "good guy" bit was more of a personal matter, as I've met him several times and I find him to be a genuinely decent "good guy".

As for Kirk getting crushed... he ran in a bad year for Democrats and Bush's visit the two days before e-day hurt him a lot. I know at least one poll the weekend before e-day showed the race a dead heat. It was a competetive election, and in a better year Kirk would be a solid candidate for statewide office.

I'm not trying to be a smartass about this, but is being a Democrat about issues, ideology, diversity, or winning? And how does one reconcile Ron Kirk with those goals?

I have no real love for Ron Kirk- I hated him as mayor but I held my nose and voted for him in 2002 (though I voted against him both times in the primary and the primary runoff). Yet, I think he's a good figure for Texas- a pro-business Black Democrat. He won't run in 2006 from what I've heard. I work at the state party and I suspect I would have heard something and I know some ppl that are good friends of his who have said that he wants to wait at least 8 years after his run, it really was draining and devastating for him financially, personally and really politically.

I'm sure race was a factor for many ppl, but at the same time Ron Kirk was beaten by 500 thousand votes Michael Williams, a Black Republican Railroad Commish, was elected in a landslide over Sherry Boyles. I think party line had a lot more to do with it.

Finally, yes we have 24 million people in Texas but a lot of them are ineligible/simply don't take the time to vote. Losing by 500k in 24 million is not too bad, losing by 500,000 out of 2.4 million votes is bad. What you are saying is like saying that Dallas is a small town because though it has a million people, the entire world has more than 6 billion.

Andrew and Byron, I hear what you're saying about Kirk, but personally I want someone who's going to be a leader for the Democratic Party in Texas. And I just don't see Kirk as that guy. It's important that Democrats aren't anti-business, but bending over backwards for business, that's wrong. And I regard the American Airlines Center as just that. The city gets what amounts to $90 million for $125 million investment. I could have sworn that the point of a being a capitalist was that you have the capital to invest, which certainly Hicks (Stars) and Ross Perot, Jr. and his partners (Mavericks) had. He increased the tax burden in Dallas. His projects like the AAC and Trinity River weren't in the best interests of taxpayers.

I agree that he seems like a personable fellow, and I'd like to see a minority senator from Texas. But I want someone who's more than just a nice guy but who can really revitalize Texas Democrats with a vision and a strong personality. He's another Bob Krueger. :)

I just feel like Texas has been without a strong state Democrat since Ann Richards.

Ron Kirk was part of the Dallas revitalization in the 1990s. He did a lot of good in Southern Dallas. He did a lot of good for the city. Some may not like the taxpayer financed stadium, but at least it's not in Lewisville or Arlington. DART light rail has been a success.

Every Mayor in Dallas except Laura Miller and Wes Wise, has been in bed with the Dallas Citizens Council and the downtown elite. That's old news.

Kirk ran a decent campaign. He was smeared in some East Texas phone banks that caused moderate Democrats to not vote for him. Rove was determined that no democrat would win Phil Gramm's seat. And also Sanchez brought down the entire ticket.

I think Kirk wants to be a player in DC. He's on the New Democrat Network board and he's become a fundraiser for National Senate and House candidates. I think he still wants to start up a car dealership in Dallas, so I think he'll sit out 2006.

Let's clarify something else.

Dallas has a council-manager system of government (I really think that it's too big for that system, but whatever).

Under that system, the Mayor is largely a councilman with a title. There are very few powers (IIRC, they run the council meetings).

It's not much of an executive position.

Matthew - Don't underestimate the "Head Cheerleader" value of a job like Mayor or Governor, even in systems where such positions are deprived of much de jure power. The promotional and power-brokering capabilities of such a position are oftentimes significantly more effective than any real job duties regardless.

The reality is that if Ken Bensten won the primary, he would be Senator.