Can Watson win?
Kirk Watson’s trial balloon is in the air, as he weighs whether to run for governor in 2010. Here are the questions he should be considering.
Q. Can any Democrat win the governorship in 2010, or will the D’s repeat the mistake they made in 2002, when they put fielded what appeared to be a strong slate (Sanchez, Kirk, Sharp, Watson) only to get wiped out?
A. A lot has changed since 2002. The Texas Lyceum poll earlier this week described the electorate at 48% independent, 28% Democratic, 25% Republican. These numbers will not enjoy universal acceptance, but even if you were to flop the D’s and R’s, the Democrats have a good shot — the best since 1990. They have to put a team on the field.
Q. Can the Democrats resolve their internal debate over whether to concentrate their efforts and resources downballot, where they have enjoyed considerable success in less expensive courthouse and state House of Representatives races, or employ them in an expensive race for governor?
A. This shouldn’t even be an issue. If the party has any hope of regaining its credibility, it has to elect a governor. No other office, including a U.S. Senate seat, can have as much impact on how the public views the Democratic party. And Rick Perry is a vulnerable incumbent. To repeat: The Democrats have to put a team on the field.
Q. Is the party infrastructure capable of sustaining a major statewide campaign?
A. The potential exists, but there are too many fiefdoms: the Lone Star Project, the state House and Senate Democratic caucuses, Austin trial lawyers, Houston trial lawyers, labor, and the party itself. “You can’t send out a press release without six people wanting to rewrite it,” a senior Democratic strategist told me. The party should provide the message. It’s ridiculous that the Democrats went through an entire legislative session without having a daily attack on what the Republican leadership was doing — as the Republicans did to Ann Richards when George W. Bush was running for governor. This is easy do do and doesn’t cost a lot of money. Why haven’t they done it?
Q. Can a Democrat keep pace with Republican fundraising?
A. Democrats were able to match or exceed Republicans in targeted legislative races in 2008. The biggest problem is that national D’s keep coming down here and sucking money out of the state that could be used for a gubernatorial campaign. In 2002, Tony Sanchez had to self-fund his race. There is a lot more Democratic money now.
Q. What are Watson’s strengths? What are his vulnerabilities?
A. He’s very smart, very focused, impossible not to like. He can rally a crowd. He knows what it takes to run a statewide campaign, having run unsuccessfully for attorney general in 02. He knows the issues — except, that is, when Chris Matthews asked him to talk about Obama’s legislative accomplishments on Hardball after the February 2008 Texas presidential debate. Another potential problem is that he has the wrong political base: Travis County instead of Harris County or the Metroplex. His Republican opponent will chastise him as an Austin liberal.
Q. Will he have Democratic primary opposition?
A. Tom Schieffer is the only active candidate. But the Democrats have a lot of talent sitting on the sidelines. Henry Cisneros would be a formidable candidate, if he ever finds the will to run. Paul Hobby, who lost a close race for comptroller in 1998, is a possibility. Bill White or John Sharp could enter the governor’s race if Hutchison doesn’t resign her Senate seat.
Q. What is the political situation likely to be in 2010?
A. This is the great unknown. Timing is everything in politics. The situation in Texas is that the Democrats are resurgent, but they have not been able to win over the independents who left the Republican party. The Texas Lyceum poll showed the I’s leaning 4 to 3 (29% to 22%) Republican. Assuming that Perry and Hutchison stay on course to face off in the March 2010 primary (no sure thing), the winner will emerge bloodied. Advantage to the Democrats. But 2010 is also Obama’s first midterm congressional election, in which the president’s party typically loses seats. The political climate depends upon whether the economy has recovered and whether Obama remains popular. It’s too early to hazard a guess.
Q. What is the blueprint for a Democratic victory?
A. The battleground is the suburbs. Why do people live in the suburbs? They want good schools. Perry is vulnerable on education, from inadequate funding to supporting the nutty State Board of Education. They want good roads. Perry is vulnerable for building toll roads that amount to a suburb tax. They want lower home insurance rates. Perry is vulnerable because Texas’s rates are among the highest in the country. They want their kids to go to affordable state schools. Perry is vulnerable because the cost of college has gone way up during his governorship due to tuition increases. And, of course, he is vulnerable because he will have been around for just under ten years by November of 2010.
Q. What are Watson’s prospects if he stays in the Senate?
A. None. Or, if you prefer, he faces the prospect of getting run over every day. The Democrats are nowhere close to having a majority. The Republicans have changed the way the game is played to get around the 2/3 rule whenever they want to. He might as well go for “up or out.”
Tagged: 2010, governor, kirk watson, texas lyceum poll, texas senate.
1993 all over again says:
Paul , you are a sore loser. Sour grapes that dribble from your lips via your key board are sour indeed. It’s a shame. If everyone would just listen to you on what to do, how great the world would be and TX would be just another California fiscal basket case without the wine. Open your eyes. Look around. Tearing down Texas at every opportunity is getting tiring.
There is a reason TX ranks first in some many things that matter to families. And your status quo views on education, transportation and health care really are old failed ideas that have lost their appeal even in DC. Paul lighten up and enjoy the world a little you’d appreciate what you have a little more.
Reply »
slick Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Tearing down Texas? BEWARE: Perry’s folks are resorting to their once-every-four-years flag-draping jingoism to hide thier expanding list of failures. The question is not whether someone is tearing down Texas, but whether we are content with a form of leadership that panders to factions and was most recently only embraced by 39% of the electorate.
Reply »
Anon Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I think the following article applies to the Lege as well as Congress….and Watson somewhat fits the role of institutinalist (though not completely….
Why Congress Needs Institutionalists
June 19, 2009
In these politicized times, it’s getting harder to find members of Congress who put the interests of the institution they serve first Former Congressman Lee Hamilton says this is troubling, and explains “Why Congress Needs Institutionalists.”
It takes all kinds of people to make the U.S. Congress work. The ambitious and the laid-back, loners and consensus-builders, partisans and aisle-crossers — all have their place. In these highly politicized times, though, there’s one type who is particularly valuable: the institutionalist.
This means pretty much what it sounds like: a member who puts the institution of Congress first. Who welcomes responsibility for making it work; who pushes his or her colleagues to fulfill their constitutional obligations; who respects the role and history of Congress in forging this country’s history.
Institutionalists generally tend to be more senior members of Congress, whose years on Capitol Hill not only give them an appreciation for the accomplishments of the legislators who came before them, but also help them put in perspective all the other considerations that compete for a younger member’s attention, like partisanship, power, relations with the White House, and the regular task of getting re-elected.
For what an institutionalist values above all else is the role that Congress plays in making our representative democracy viable. It should not be merely a body of elected officials, each pursuing his or her own goals or banding together to advance one political party’s interests. Rather, Congress has a set of responsibilities laid out in the Constitution and developed over the 220 years of its existence that enable it to serve as the place where the American people come closest to touching their national government.
To do what’s required of it, Congress must function as a deliberative and democratic body; work as both a partner and a critic of the presidency; protect itself against inevitable pressure from the White House to let the President set the agenda in all things; and engage constantly in the search for remedies to the challenges that beset our country. These things don’t just happen on their own. They require members of Congress to tend to the body in which they serve.
All too often, though, both incumbents and challengers these days run against the Congress, taking delight in criticizing it and hoping to make themselves look good as a result; this public disdain for the institution makes it much harder to play a constructive role in building on what’s right about the place.
The traditions of Congress — rules about how legislation should be handled, how debate takes place, how controversy gets channeled through layers of committees so a productive conversation can take place — evolved because of a simple insight: democracy is a process, not the most expeditious means to a result. Congressional conventions embody certain values, such as fairness, the importance of deliberation, and a bedrock concern for building consensus instead of riding roughshod over the concerns of the minority or throwing wrenches into the plans of the majority.
Fairness and deliberation and consensus-seeking have not been noticeable priorities in Congress of late. Over the last couple of decades, concern for how Congress functions as an institution has increasingly taken a back seat to other priorities: party-building, fundraising, the centralization of power in the leadership’s hands, making certain that members can take four days every week to get home and campaign. This has all taken a visible toll on relations among members of Congress, and it has also diminished the institution itself. It has become less fair, less deliberative, and — with some exceptions — less concerned with finding consensus among its diverse parts.
This is why it is so crucial that there be members of Congress whose chief goal is to strengthen it. Anyone with an appreciation for the accomplishments of Congresses past — from the GI Bill to the creation of the land-grant colleges to the interstate highway system to Medicare, Medicaid and the civil rights legislation of the 1960s — can’t help but see value in an institution capable of making this a better nation.
Institutionalists in Congress are often seen by their peers as slightly quirky nags, consumed with the trifles of process or precedent while the more important work of fighting against the opposition or slamming legislation through at all costs goes ahead. But of course, they’ve got it backward. It’s the institutionalists who have the nation’s best interests at heart, because they understand the role that Congress plays in sustaining a functioning democracy and making the country work.
(Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.)
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
The only thing I’m sore about losing is the third game of the College World Series.
Reply »
Obama's socialist Dad says:
I speak as someone who respects Watson but disagrees with most of his liberal Democrat agenda and positions: Watson is one of the best the Dems have on the bench and they might as well put him in there in a statewide race.
“except, that is, when Chris Matthews asked him to talk about Obama’s legislative accomplishments on Hardball after the February 2008 Texas presidential debate.”
That’s the funniest clip, but let’s be honest: Obama HAD no accomplishments. When a politician is found speechless you find a rare moment of them speaking the truth.
By 2010 the main Obama accomplishments will be higher unemployment, reviving inflation and the destruction of American freedom.
Reply »
Obama's socialist Dad says:
” If everyone would just listen to you on what to do, how great the world would be and TX would be just another California fiscal basket case without the wine. Open your eyes. Look around. Tearing down Texas at every opportunity is getting tiring.
There is a reason TX ranks first in some many things that matter to families.”
Absolutely true! These liberals hate the fact that Texas is pro-business climate, but Texas also was #1 in job creation in 2008. A lot of the negative stats they pull out are due to large #s of poor illegal aliens having kids (driving up infant mortality and uninsured-for-healthcare #s) and putting them in our schools (driving up dropout and poor school performance #s).
It’s tiring to hear same-old partisan BS from liberals in the media, bashing Repubs pointlessly and unfairly over everything, instead of some HONESTY about what is really right and wrong in Texas.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Nobody, least of all me, hates the fact that Texas was number one in job creation in 2008. I work for a business that depends upon the health of the business climate in Texas. I just think that there are other policies that would also benefit the state, such as more support for public schools.
Reply »
Jed Horne says:
Truest line: “’You can’t send out a press release without six people wanting to rewrite it,’ a senior Democratic strategist told me.”
The Democrats will not win statewide until the candidates step forward who are willing to step outside the narrow consultantocracy that keeps turning away the party’s best talent instead of inviting them to contribute.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
As a 46 percenter (independent), I would hope that the Dem’s run someone who has some refreshing, middle of the road views. If the D’s want to run Cisnero’s, or Watson, or anyone else who might have Kerry, or Dean, or Bill Clinton down here campaigning for them, forget about it.
I’m wondering why you and your colleagues don’t have much, if anything, to say about Tom Schieffer, who is, I believe, going to appeal to the 46 percenters. A moderate, a businessman, an Ambassador, and a one-time state rep.
He’s an outsider, that’s for sure. He doesn’t owe Big Busines, or Big Homebuilder, or Wealthy Doctor, or the TLR, or the cabal of blood suckers at the top of the plaintiff’s attorney ladder any favors, and he’s not part of the Austin political network. That really, really appeals to me.
If a few Dem’s, and a few Repub’s agree with my take on things, there could be some big surprises in store for business as usual proponents down in Austin.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Im with John Johnson…former GOPer turned hard-core independent.
The problem with the “gosh, isn’t Texas great” crowd is that it ignores the future. There is little investment in the big areas that will matter in the out years:
Water….transportation…and education.
Sure, it’s great to have a good business climate in 2009. But it’s like a quarterly earnings report. Good today…but watch out. The future is coming and the lack of investment is going to be costly.
Wanna see the future? Look at Steve Murdock’s projections. He has shown us. It’s grim.
But you have a crowd in control right now that is fixated on “saving a buck” today; even though it’s gonna cost us $10 next week.
Reply »
Brad R. says:
I have to agree with J. Johnson.
I am tired of the candidates produced by the Austin political machine. I am excited by a candidate that does not come out of it.
I could give a darn if Schieffer was friends with Bush. He has an impressive resume. While I am not fully sold, he seems to be a good candidate and is at least not part of the machine down there in Austin.
Reply »
ausowl says:
If the hard right gets Perry through the Republican primary, T Schieffer is positioned just center-right enough for moderate R’s to vote Dem.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The possibility of Watson running is the first thing I’ve heard that makes me excited at all about the 2010 governor’s race. If Schieffer is the best there is on the D side, I very well may vote in the R Primary.
The question is whether to vote for KBH (because she’s marginally better than Perry), or to vote for Perry because he’s more vulnerable to a D.
To JJ and the rest of the “What’s in it for my pocketbook?” crowd…you deserve what you get (more R garbage) if you can’t put together an ideology that (a) does something to benefit society as a whole instead of just yourself, and (b) is intellectually consistent.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Where do you get the idea that it’s all about me? It’s all about US! I think that I have consistently pressed for more money to stay in all of our pocketbooks …from top to bottom. Who is it that I am leaving out from an individual standpoint? The ones I’m after are the companies supplying services we can’t do without that are getting more than their share because they buy votes to get what they want.
If you want to pay more for insurance than anyone in the country; if you want to pay more for a kwh of electricity than most; if you want to have someone say they are fighting to keep taxes down and then turn around and give tax rebates to the two big power generators in the state as an incentive to build power plants we have already been paying for then you are either “one of them” or aren’t very bright. Which is it?
As for the discombobulated explanation you gave for who you would endorse and vote for … how does one respond to that logic …or lack thereof?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
JJ, I’m just tired of you saying that you want change when what you really want is just more of your version of Republicanism. Your guys sold you down the river, but I’m not inclined to help your kind continue to ignore our state’s dismal record on public education, public health, etc. for the sake of your own pocketbook.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
You continue to miss the point, Anon. I don’t have anything against good public education, nor better public health. If the additional money that is going to insurance and utilities was going in either of these directions, you would not hear a peep out of me.
How is someone who is wanting bills to get passed that would keep an elderly retiree, living from hand to mouth, from having their electricity cut off, or a bill that would allow people to afford proper property or health insurance, showing “Republicanism”?
Republicans are the ones who left these types of bills on the floor in committees this past session. They killed or refused to even consider them. I don’t play politics or support a political “team”. I applaud or chastise individuals.
I can take the criticism, but it appears your scope is very narrow and your opinion about “my kind” is totally off base.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I’m focused on your comment of just a couple of days ago when you said what you were looking for was keeping more money in your own wallet. If that’s not the case, ok.
For our next governor, I want someone who’s serious about addressing the problems of our society, not some materialistic, purported moralist. Neither am I for what looks to me to be the Republican-lite politics offered by Schieffer.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Check out this website, JJ, and notice the scrolling marquee on the right-hand side:
http://www.texanstogether.org/
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Quote from JJ on the most recent Lyceum Poll blog: “What I care about is what most of us care about … keeping more of our money for ourselves.”
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
To 6:14 … healthcare costs and related inequites, I’ve been pounding on; pumping more into a broken education system, not so much … not until someone comes up with a way to revamp it. Teachers are leaving because they aren’t supported by the administation. Discipline is non-existent, the classrooms are loaded with unmotivated kids that don’t want to be there, and they disrupt the entire process.
To 6:21 … put the quote into the proper context. I was displaying my displeasure that the money that could be staying in our pockets is going to Energy Future Holdings and pseudo storefront retail providers, to Blue Cross Blue Shield, who allows dermatologists’ aids to perform something called “surgery” with a bottle of liquid nitrogen, that takes seconds to perform, and then charge for it like it was open-heart surgery. This rip-off causes all of our premiums to go up, and that is money I think should be staying in our pockets.
If you don’t mind building up the stock values of the AT&T’s, the Reliant Energy’s, the Exxon-Mobile’s, and the Blue Cross Blue Shield’s, then I would say that you have more to give than I do.
I say that they should be afforded a decent profit margin; not an obscene one. I say an industry that is ruled by a couple of giants, like electricity, that spent a reported $13M through lobbyists to get everything they wanted out of our legislators, needs watching. They are getting more of our money than they deserve.
I have been spitting out this message loudly here on Mr. Burka’s blog for several years, and when I get cranked up, it takes a lot of words for me to stress my point. Definitely more words than it should. My apologies to all of you for taking up more than my share of space.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
So…you’re just going to leave the problem of education to others while you put your efforts into maintaining the $$$$ in your own pocketbook?
I don’t buy the obviously erroneous argument for not funding public education — it’s just a rationalization to justify keeping more money in your own pocketbook again. Texas is at the bottom of 50 states; 40+ are higher. Our system is the only one that’s broken?! No way — it’s not that education can’t be better in Texas. The problem is lack of funding and way too many Republicrats and folks like you who just want to keep the money in their own pockets.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 25th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
I’ll say it one more time. Lack of money is not the problem with the education system in Texas. Could it use more …yes, but there are inherent problems that money won’t solve. I’ve mentioned what I think some of them are. You choose to just tell me I’m a selfish tightwad because I don’t want to cough up more of mine to fund a disfunctional system.
You can quote all the statistics you want to, but you, and people like you, don’t address specific issues.
If you want to address money, maybe you can get specific with this. How much of our low ranking can be attributed to the higher number of illegal aliens in our schools? How many states choose to fund education through property taxes? How many people that don’t own property have children in our school system? Get my drift, Anon? I think that the illegals in Texas are skewing all the numbers in both education and cost of healthcare.
If you want me to think otherwise, tell me what’s wrong with my thinking. My positions are not etched in concrete. I would think that most 46 percenters have open minds and are looking for answers …unlike you on both sides who now show to be in the minority.
Now back to subject … no I don’t think Mr. Watson stands a chance of being governor of Texas.
Harry Doghiney (D-TX) says:
What are you Republicans doing here, wasting precious time commenting on this blog?
You should be settling your affairs before we ship you off to the socialist re-education camps.
Reply »
texun Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 11:07 am
“How many people that don’t own property have children in our school system?” Those who live in apartments for starters? Taxes are a pass-along cost that renters pay.
I would like to see data from somebody re. “illegals in Texas are skewing all the numbers in both education and cost of healthcare.” Without it, we’re just trading taling points.
Reply »
Jed says:
a lot of ink (if not grey matter) has been spilled here on what is obviously a non-starter.
watson is great for austin, and for texas. let’s don’t ruin it by running him for an office he can’t possibly win. i mean, come on.
Reply »
Lance says:
I think you are correct Paul.
I think Kirl Watson along with a slat of people like Bill White can bring the Democrats out of the desert. The Democrats need to hit the suburban areas and rural areas of Central Texas and East Texas. I see Bill White doing this right now.
I think with Rick Perry opening his big mouth, the National Democratic Party would be willing to flood Texas with campaign money. The Democrats are not in the same boat they were in 8 years ago.
The Texas Attorney General’s Office is a target the Democrats should also look at. The AG’s office is a soft target that can be hit hard by a negative campaign. Child support and consumer protection are not trademark qualities of Greg Abbott.
Greg Abbott has scored poorly on open records enforcement. He is no Jim Mattox or Dan Morales. With a poor open records enforcement policy, most of the media are not big fans of Abbott. The Texas Trial Lawyers could score big by targeting this office.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Dear Lance,
News Flash: Greg Abbott “is no Mattox or Morales” is a GOOD thing. In fact, being compared negatively to a felon is always a plus in politics. Perhaps genius strategies like this are the reason the trial lawyers continue to suck wind in TX?
Reply »
Lance Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 10:35 am
To anon 9:38,
Being compared with a convicted felon, and the convicted felon being held in higher standards is not a good thing. I was bringing up the fact the Morales and Mattox (by the way is not a convict) had better open records access policies than Abbott.
Since Abbott has been AG it’s harder for media and information professions to seek government records. Stepping on the media’s toes is not smart if you wish to keep your political job in Texas.
I’m just pointing out a weakness with Abbott and that is the media. If I was running a political campaign, I wouldn’t compare Abbott to Morales that would be stupid. That would be like comparing crooks to attorneys, or apples to oranges. The fact still remains that Morales and Mattox had better open government policies.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
You’re right, Mattox was just guilty of calling Ann Richards a coke head.
P.S. No one cares about Mattox of Morales any more.
1363574|=|= says:
Running Watson would be the dummy move of the decade. Yes, he caters to hardcore progressives, but political realists should realize that that sort of candidate can’t win statewide in Texas.
As for JJ, I agree. It’s been said here before that the R strategy of low taxes is really a sleight of hand where most of the tax money not paid winds up in the coffers of big U, big O and big B. Finding a sensible solution to this problem, that’s acceptable (or at least mostly so) to all parties will take some time but it will be worth it in the long run.
Provressives have patience.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 6:30 am
No one thought Obama could win nationally either. It’s true there are lots of JJs out there who are just Republicans who finally figured out the people they voted for have been gaming them to line their own pockets (too!). What a shock! But I’d prefer to run a real Democrat like Watson and see what happens. Truth to tell, he’s not a Sanchez or a Noriega and stands a much better chance of winning because he’s an “old” white guy. (Looks like them and therefore doesn’t play into their fears about an Hispanic takeover — that is, racism disguised in the form of rhetoric about “illegals” who are their scapegoats for everything from healthcare to education to terrorism.)
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Is someone who questions how illegal immigrants have affected out health system and our schools a racist? I think many of Hispanic descent are asking the same question.
Do you not think illegals have had an afffect?
How many people do you let swim up and crawl into the lifeboat, Captain? At some point, without tough decisions, we are all going to the bottom (re: California).
A true, blue-blood Democrat doesn’t stand a chance in Texas.
Reply »
anonymouse2 says:
“June 25th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
John Johnson says:
He’s an outsider, that’s for sure. He doesn’t owe Big Busines, or Big Homebuilder, or Wealthy Doctor, or the TLR, or the cabal of blood suckers at the top of the plaintiff’s attorney ladder any favors, and he’s not part of the Austin political network. That really, really appeals to me.”
God, don’t tell the guys at TTLA that. They’re under the well-funded impression he’s their’s.
Reply »
Blue says:
Can Watson win?
That really depends if the Democrats commit seppuku by passing this cap and trade bill. They have, apparently, no idea how bad that is going to hurt them outside the urban coastal elites.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
JJ, you’re saying it’s just a coincidence that Texas’ rank in per capita student spending is in virtually direct correlation to its rank in education? See http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/011747.html
Property taxes may not be the best way to fund education — I’d say they’re not. But it’s not because many people who pay property taxes no longer have children in public education. And it’s the same ones making that argument who think a Texas state income tax would mean the end of the world. If the “selfish tightwad” shoe fits, wear it!
It’s absolutely amazing to me that so many people who benefited from public education themselves now act as if the whole idea of public education is new to them, or optional. [It's optional only if you prefer building prisons with your tax dollars, and it's true that unenlightened folks in some areas think prison building is "economic development."]
Fortunately, our parents and grandparents recognized that it does indeed take a community to provide children with the opportunity to succeed and to become good, productive citizens. For my part, I think that’s a good idea even for “illegals.”
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Where does it say that I am against taxes to pay for education? I did, after all, support on this blog the Metroplex’s right to vote on raising taxes to improve the DFW transit system. Is that showing anti-tax tendencies?
I think that we should take a vote on funding education through some type of tax rather than property taxes. Something more equitable.
I’m for politicians coming out and telling us that we can’t have all we want without increased taxes, or a state income tax, instead of using smoke & mirrors and funds designated for “x” to bailout something else.
You, whoever you are, continue to say we need more money for education, but don’t address any of the issues I have raised. You just want more money. I continue to say that money is not going to solve the main problems with education in Texas. What is it going to be used for, Anon? More of the same?
Get specific and you might have some converts. Keep up the same old rhetoric and you’ll face bowed necks.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
It’s not popular with “conservatives,” but teacher pay is the place to start. (And no, I’m not a teacher.)
We can’t continue to underpay teachers and have so many of our kids being educated by people who aren’t really interested in teaching and/or who don’t have a degree in the subjects they teach (a teacher pay/retention issue). Dropout prevention is another place where more money would help.
Again, when Texas ranks in roughly the same place nationally in education as it ranks in per capita student spending, the correlation makes the problem obvious to all except those who don’t
want to see it. Until you choose to put enough money into the system for it to work properly, you can’t say the system is the problem.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Why can’t I say that, Anon? John Stossel had a program on several years ago that showed how much less other countries spend per student and they all whip our butts on the comprehensive exams.
Tell me how many other jobs there are out there where a bachelor’s degree gets you a starting salary in the mid-40’s (isn’t this about right?) with health benefits, with lots of holidays, and a long summer break?
I say that the problem is the work environment. No administrative support, no disciplinary support, and the lumping of disruptive underachievers with those who want to learn. The results speak for themselves. How is money going to solve these issues, Anon?
This is what I see and hear from those teaching in the schools where my kids attended.
As for dropout retention, tell me how money helps here. Do you bribe them with a $20 bill each day to stay in school and allow the district to collect their per diem? Seems kinda counter productive.
Since cost of health and education are directly related to illegals putting a bind on both systems, don’t you think that something needs to be done to curb the flow, or are we here in Texas just supposed to bend over and cough up money in increasing amounts year by year as their numbers grow? How many people can you let into a rapidly filling lifeboat?
Get specific if you want to get my attention. I’m just hearing the same old teacher union talking points from you. GET SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT MORE MONEY IS GOING TO CHANGE.
Does Kirk Watson have any of these answers? It appears that you don’t.
A2Z Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Raise the 20-cent per gallon state gas tax by 40 cents and 10 cents of it will go to education, since the law mandates a 75/25 split of gas taxes between transportation/education. Two birds, one stone?
Reply »
asmith says:
Blue,
Most of the oil industry is behind cap and trade. I think short of Sharp or Paul Hobby running, Schieffer is not a bad candidate for the Dems to make a comeback. He won’t scare the texas middle which is independent but conservative. The Dems have to start making a dent into the Collin, Denton, Montgomery counties now that they can grow their margins in the urban counties. They won’t win them but they can get at least 42% in those areas. Schieffer will make Tarrant competitive, which is the last urban GOP county. They can’t get smoked in east and deep east texas anymore up ticket. The activists and the bloggers need to understand this.
Reply »
Collin County Democrat Reply:
June 27th, 2009 at 12:41 am
asmith:
Democrats have been “making a dent” in Collin County. Comparing 2008 to 2004, there were 20,000 more straight ticket Democratic voters in 2008, while the Republicans’ straight ticket votes were virtually unchanged. Also, the raw Democratic vote in Collin County went up by 40,000 votes, while the raw Republican vote went up by only 10,000, a 30,000 net gain for the Democrats, representing a gap closing of around 17.5 percent. The number I have been hearing we need to reach in Collin County to help Democrats win statewide is 43%. We are now at about 37% in Collin County, and we’ve been ratcheting up at about 4 -8 points a cycle. (And if Dems notch up only a couple of points to about 40%, there will be Democrats on the 5th District Court of Appeals). Another factoid is that the 2008 Democratic Collin County Convention was attended by about 4,000 people and is the most well attended event in the history of the Frisco Conference Center, the largest publicly available indoor venue in Collin County. Before that, 20,000 people showed up at Democratic precinct conventions in neighborhoods across the county. The Republican era of domination of Collin County is beginning to come to a close.
Reply »
JUICE says:
“the destruction of American freedom”
The third post in this thread lists this as a potential Obmam adminsitration “accomplishment” by 2010. Details? Did this bombastic phrase come from an NRA email? From Alex Jones’ cable access show?
Most of the “freedom destruction” that’s gone on in this country over the last couple of decades has probably been perpetrated by conservative judges (remember the Fourth Amendment anyone?).
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Yes, and all the “if you’re not for our destruction of personal freedom initiatives, then you’re unpatriotic” rhetoric of GWB and the neocons.
Reply »
Blue says:
Asmith, if C&T it passes the increase in energy costs will be tied like a concrete block to the legs of every Democrat.
Reply »
Obama's socialist Dad says:
“The question is whether to vote for KBH (because she’s marginally better than Perry), or to vote for Perry because he’s more vulnerable to a D.”
Perry or KBH would beat whoever the Dems put up.
Why? Look what the Democrat clowns are putting forward in DC… “Cap and Trade”, the worst bill at the worst time. Here was have 4 million private sector jobs lost since Obama was elected and all the Democrats want to do is DESTROY MORE JOBS! Cap-and-trade is a massive, huge, unnecessary unworkable tax-and-regulation scheme cobbled together in midnight hours with corrupt giveaways to buy votes. Its real impact is to add thousands in energy costs per family, force that thousands through the Federal bureaucracy, crippling our industrial base while fattening coffers for wasteful govt programs. And the worst part? It doesnt even work! It wont reduce temperatures or global Co2 that much at all, solving a ‘problem’ that isnt even real since they are hyperbolizing the ill effects of CO2 which is mostly benign.
This bad bill will export American jobs and prosperity to polluting China. Anyone who supports this – including Doggett- is the enemy of the working class … This bill therefore will send blue dogs to being retired politicians.
If that’s the record the Dems are building up for 2010, expect a Democrat rout. Way to go, Clowns!
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
I will try to be civil here, but you sir have no idea what you are talking about as far as C02 and its effect on global climate. If its not C02 and the almost unprecedented levels of greenhouses gases (the last time they were higher was when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and reptiles roamed far above the present arctic circle), is it the precession cycles of the moon or the disruption of the global thermohaline circulation that is causing the current shift in global climate?
Some blame it on solar storms causing an increase in insolation received, but even still that is only a part of the overall effect. At present, natural climate cycles are combining with anthropogenic climate forcing to change global climate in a warmer direction.
As for reducing temperatures, the earth is not like your home in that it does not have immediately responsive heating and cooling unit. You’re right, it won’t really reduce temperatures; but it will help stem future warming trends that can potentially kill millions of people and destroy billions of dollars in coastline property.
Of course, none of what I said matters to you. You will most likely do the same thing most conservatives do in arguments: raise your voice, make your point, then leave– but that’s only if you haven’t side-stepped my intellectual challenge by changing the subject.
Way to go, clown.
Reply »
Obama's socialist Dad says:
“Yes, and all the “if you’re not for our destruction of personal freedom initiatives, then you’re unpatriotic” rhetoric of GWB and the neocons.”
LOL – that’s the exact same song the Obama kool aid drinkers sing.
Plus ca Change, plus c’est le meme chose.
… of course, in the case of Obama & Co they *really are destroying personal freedom*. Obama’s healthcare forum comments were … spine-chilling.
Reply »
Obama's socialist Dad says:
“Most of the “freedom destruction” that’s gone on in this country over the last couple of decades has probably been perpetrated by conservative judges (remember the Fourth Amendment anyone?).”
Thank you for the dumbest comment of the thread.
Remember Kelo anyone?
Remember Heller v DC anyone?
Smoking bans? Restricting our healthcare/insurance choices?
Time and again conservative justices have stood up for freedom while the NannyStatists of the left have opposed it.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
You win, JJ. The “illegals” are the problem with Texas health care and education systems. Funding them both at levels that put Texas in the bottom 10 of the 50 states has nothing to do with it. Keep all the “illegals” out of the state and all of our problems will be solved. Sounds like the perfect “old white-guy” solution. Problem is, it’s pure fantasy. You may be old enough that the consequences won’t affect you any more than they already do. But what about your grandkids?
Reply »
John Johnson says:
I just can’t get through to you. Illegals are not the the total problem, but they are part of the problem. I have brought up several other points that you just choose to ignore, so I’m going to take it that you do not have the answers.
Furthermore, your profile of me, except for being old and white, doesn’t fit. Two of my best golf/work friends are Hispanic, my son is a high school head baseball coach, his wife teaches 2nd grade, and my grandson will be attending public school.
Reply »
Obama's socialist Dad says:
Someone had a link to per pupil spending – DC is near the top ($14,000/child), Utah is near the bottom ($5500/child). Which has better performance in schools? Better outcomes? The TRUTH will set you free.
Quality of education has almost nothing to do with spending at current spending levels for education … and everything to do with standards, curriculum, focus on child and motivation/ability of parents and children to make their education better. Where standards are lax and parental involvement weak, education is poor. And you can spend $14,000 per pupil and still get that result. It’s called the DC school system.
Charter schools in Texas outperform Govt-run public schools yet spend 80% of what public schools spend. Why? Again, standards and parental involvement are what makes education better. Not shinier buildings or Superintendents making $250K a year with a nice plush office.
This is why school choice is so vital, important, valuable, and pro-schoolchildren. It’s an immediate and REAL way to get greater parental involvement and commitment to the child’s learning. As long as parents have no say in what their children are taught, they tend to stay uninvolved. Learning suffers.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Picking out the exceptions doesn’t prove a rule, if you’re really after the truth, OSD.
And JJ, since you’re so well-connected, what ARE the answers to the problems you cited? Surely your son and daughter-in-law have told you. I’m betting they both think they’re adequately paid, too.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Unfortunately for my wife and me, they do not teach in Texas. They are in Alabama. I have not even looked to see how Alabama ranks in spending compared to Texas.
I do know this …they are enjoying their summer at the beach, camping in the Smokey Mountains, and have a trip planned here. They also have time off to come visit at Christmas for a week.
They are committed to the kids they teach and put in many extra hours. I have not heard them complain about money. They chose their professions. My son was a college assistant and then was pitching coach on a minor league team, and my daughter-in-law was v.p. in a bank.
They like what they do and find it rewarding. If money was an issue, I don’t think that they would be teaching in the Alambama public school system. They have resumes that would allow them to be elsewhere.
As for answers to the questions I posed …I don’t have them. I just have a perception about what the problems are based on what I read, see and hear. I am looking for answers. When I ask the ones screaming for more money, they don’t seem to have them.
We all choose our battles. Mine has been against the Big Money and Big Business in the state, and how they buy everyhing they want …and how the people we elect sell out to them.
There is nothing more important than properly educating our youth, and I am no expert on the subject. I leave that to others. This being said, I am not going to buy all the “woe is me songs” I hear from a teachers’ union that thinks that more money will get them motivated, get more parents motivated, keep more kids in school, get rid of the malcontents and thugs, put reins on the attorneys standing by to sue, and jump the test scores up 25%.
As stated earlier, I am open to hearing someone much more qualified than myself address these issues and make suggestions on how to tackle these problems.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I never claimed to be an expert either, JJ — I’m not a teacher or administrator and I’m not employed in public education, though I am a middle-income dad who’s had kids in public education for years.
What I am is bright enough to see the correlation between Texas’ dismal ranking in public ed and its equally-dismal willingness to spend money there. And I don’t think you ignore that obvious problem simply because you can’t solve the rest.
The same guys you are fighting are the same ones who want to educate only their own (or their own kind) – to hell with the rest – and I just think that attitude sucks manure. Very few in my generation got where they are in anything other than public school, and just because the’re now fortunate enough to be able to send their own to private school, that doesn’t educate the rest (which is what most of them used to be). And it doesn’t cure the societal ills created by a poorly-educated populace.
Anonymous Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
No one here is advocating unnecessary school buildings or huge administrator salaries.
I do tend to agree that parental involvement is the key, but that’s not something you can dictate or legislate. Well-funded education programs are.
And charter school are not the answer for families who aren’t in the six-figure salary neighborhood, and that leaves out the vast majority of public school students. Another rich-o-crat solution.
Reply »
Obama's socialist Dad says:
“News Flash: Greg Abbott “is no Mattox or Morales” is a GOOD thing. In fact, being compared negatively to a felon is always a plus in politics. Perhaps genius strategies like this are the reason the trial lawyers continue to suck wind in TX?”
Yeah … but having trial lawyers sucking wind when it comes to taking over state capitals is DEFINITELY a good thing. So yeah, let the Trial Lawyer Party continue to think felons are good role models.
Reply »
Reality Checker says:
A. No Democrat is going to beat Greg Abbott for re-election or for Lite Guv. He’ll have $12 million or so in the bank by the end of the year & can double that by October 2010.
B. Watson can probably thrash Schieffer in a primary. The Bush connections just sink Schieffer with rank and file Democratic primary Voters. He’s just too corporate, too male, too white and too close to GWB.
C. But Watson now has a voting record that can be picked apart and used as a missle aimed at his political head. Watson got buried by 700,000 votes in 2002, not even pulling 42% of the vote. Even if Texas is less Republican, Watson is now a more inviting target.
D. The Lyceum Poll is a joke. Believing any of those numbers just tells people you know nothing about politics. The list of what has been wrong with the last two or three Daron Shaw polls is simply too long to print here.
E. The only way any Democrat could have a chance in the Governor’s race is if Rick parry is renominated. That is iffy at best. Texas loves to toss Governor’s out office & the GOP may not want to give Demos the chance. Kay Hutchison, despite teh erratic polls, will be very tought to beat in March or November.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 26th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I agree, Reality Checker. If KBH is the nominee, no Dem stands much of a chance. To me, the $64K question is, if Perry is the nominee, will those who are fed up with him hold their noses and vote for him anyway rather than vote for a Dem?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
In reference to “B”, Democrats had better learn to move toward the middle if they want to win this next gov election. Obama himself could not win the position in Texas right now. There seems to be lots of moderates and fewer and fewer extremists these days in both parties. You had better embrace Schieffer, or someone like him, or you Democrats will again be holding a consolation party on election night.
Reply »
cynic on the floor says:
Henry Cisneros!!?? Have you been bogarting the Pink Lady’s wine or something? Sheesh. If that’s the best the blues can do, just stay out of the race altogether and save yourself a lot of dough. Better yet, take a page from Ronald Reagan’s playbook and quit killing off your own candidates. Give us republicans a chance to have some fun, too.
Reply »
texun says:
The interplay between local party development and top-ticket contests will continue; that’s been the pattern since the 1960s. The question in my mind is will a Democratic decline in the mid-term elections have an impact on Texas? That said, a Democratic nominee who can’t carry the party core in the general election will be a liability to the ticket. I identify he “core” as Hispanic, labor, urban liberal and Black, with obvious overlaps. The largest segment is Hispanic, so even with his personal history, Cisneros might be a better bet than the two liberal Anglos.
Watson does have a progressive liberal record, but every elected official carries the same problem with a “record.” I’m guessing that Perry’s will sink him, either in the primary or in the general election.
I’m not voting in the Republican primary, so I’m really a bystander in this one, but I can’t for the life of me figure out how anybody can describe KBH’s record in the USS as anything but “conservative.” The ratings by various conservative groups certainly identify her as such. As far as I can tell this claim is merely a talking point for the Perry crowd.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
A response to a texun reply at 11:07am today. Here’s how numbers are skewed in California:
Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal
Here is an example of why hiring illegal aliens is not economically productive.
You have 2 families…”Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal”. Both families consist of 2 parents, 2 children and live in California .
“Joe Legal” works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with payroll taxes deducted….”Jose Illegal” also
works in construction, has “NO” Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash “under the table”.
Joe Legal…$25.00 per hour x 40 hours $1000.00 per week, $52,000 per year.
Now take 30% away for state federal tax. Joe Legal now has $31,231.00
Jose Illegal….$15.00 per hour x 40 hours $600.00 per week, $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes… Jose Illegal now has
$31,200.00
Joe Legal pays Medical and Dental Insurance with limited coverage $1000.00 per month, $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $19,231.00
Jose Illegal has full Medical and Dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00
Joe Legal makes too much money is not eligible for Food Stamps or welfare.
Joe Legal pays for food $1,000.00 per month, $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $ 7,231.00
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for Food Stamps and Welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,000.00 per month, $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal is now in the hole minus (-) $4,769.00
Jose Illegal receives a $500 per month Federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays rent $500.00 per month, $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has
$25,200.00
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches while Jose Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch.
Jose Illegal’s children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal’s children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same Police and Fire Services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Reply »
texun Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
An over-long hypothetical is not the same as data.
Reply »