2012 elections, acting on political lessons

I am surprised when I hear pundits express surprise about A: The absence of top GOP names like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie in the 2012 primary race; and B: The acute rancor of Republican candidates' attacks on one another.

The answer to both seems pretty obvious to me. Republicans are more interested in keeping and extending their power in Congress and weakening President Obama's influence over policy than in gaining the presidency. They've learned from George H.W. Bush's daunting task of economic recovery post Reaganomics and Barack Obama's unprecedented challenges in cleaning up George W. Bush's legacy of near total economic disaster. The cleaning crew that comes in after a parade of elephants gets little credit for holding down the stink. It doesn't matter whether the uniforms are red or blue.

One key to control of Congressional politics, particularly in the House, is to energize as many mini-constituencies as possible. That's more easily accomplished in a mid-term election with no presidential coattails involved for good or ill. In 2010, when Republicans took control of the House, they did so with two million fewer votes than Obama garnered to win the presidency in 2008. To sustain that success, the GOP needs to ensure the Tea Party as well "moderates" go back to the polls in November. Unified allegiance to a presidential candidate is not as likely to accomplish that as is the rough and tumble Republican candidates are now experiencing. None of this means their big money guns won't be trained on Obama or that the GOP wouldn't take a presidential victory, just that faced with a choice, they'll take Congressional might.

Many Democrats secretly breathed a sigh of relief when they lost the presidential race in 1988. Someone was going to have to take the fall for the costs of rescuing the economy from the S&L crisis and other "supply side" economic craziness. That someone was "Read My Lips" George H.W. Bush, who was forced to suck up the blame and approve new taxes to counter recession in the early 1990's.

The Democrats' 1988 primary field ranged from Klansman David Duke to solidly liberal Paul Simon and perennial Democratic nut-case candidate Lyndon Larouche with Michael Dukakis as the eventual nominee. Ted Kennedy and Mario Cuomo, (Sr.), who both gained considerable political coinage after their national convention speeches in 1984, sat out the '88 presidential primary. Notably, so did the party's rising star, Bill Clinton. Thus Clinton avoided a loss to the elder Bush that likely would have significantly weakened the Democrat's chances of claiming victory in 1992. With the fallout of economic decline solidly tagged to a Republican administration, Clinton was able to work with both Democratic and a Republican Congresses to craft an economic recovery complete with tax breaks and eventually, a budget surplus.

Democrats had taken back the Senate in 1986. They already had a significant majority in the House. With such as diverse field of candidates at the top of the ballot, they held, and made small gains in both houses in 1988. And with that power over George H.W. Bush's policy objectives, the Democratic Party was poised to take the whole ball game in 1992.
Defending against a takeover of the Senate and continued GOP power in the House in 2012 will require Democrats to mount a deep, broad and costly campaign in every state. With some of the shine off Obama's message, deserved or not, stimulating the kind of grass-roots, social-media movement for the Democratic message will be much more difficult this time around. Although drawing a well-financed liberal third party opponent could spell disaster for the president, an in-party leftward leaning challenger would help Obama articulate his message. Such a development also would invigorate the national debate over how to proceed with fixing the many things that ail us. Otherwise, we're stuck with a Republican dialog that ranges from radical right to reactionary right vs US.

So, for the time being, the likes of Jeb Bush and Chris Christie are keeping their powder dry, watching the melee, making safe choices and stockpiling their political capital for 2016.

Excerpts from Rick Noriega's Speech 1

This past week I’ve had the privilege of training with the best soldiers in Texas, the1-141 Infantry Battalion, the Alamo Battalion.

As you know I’ve been entrusted with the honor of commanding this unit which is the direct descendant of William B. Travis’ company and the battle at the Alamo…
This time…I’m counting on a different outcome.

Several weeks ago, our unit was alerted that they are to be deployed again to the middle-east. k
As the commanding officer, in that uniform, I have a sworn duty and obligation to take care of my soldiers so they are trained to perform their mission.

But at the same time when I’m in this uniform, as a citizen, as a citizen soldier, I have a duty and obligation to take care of the people, the families, of Texas.

To paraphrase our first President, George Washington, “When I picked up the sword I did not lay aside the citizen.”

And that is why I’m running for the United States Senate - to change the direction of this state and our country.
great state, is that Texans want change.

And we’re gathered here tonight to offer Texas new leadership.

A few years ago, everyone said Texas would be a Republican state as far into the future as anyone could imagine. You stood up and spoke out for change –more than 2.8 million Democrats voted this past spring and returned to caucus to express their support for a new leader and a new direction for our country.
Leadership is not about telling people what they want to hear, it’s about solving tough problems.
The way of life we once took for granted has become threatened because of the poor leadership of this administration.

We are facing some tough problems as a state and nation, and the politics of special interests must stop. You see, I believe that it is time we had a Senator that worked for Texas families for a change.
Texans are fed up with government that stands aside while hardworking families fall behind.

While my opponent and this administration have been in office, gas prices have skyrocketed, from $1.35 a gallon to $4.00 a gallon.

Van Os addresses Progressive Populists

AUSTIN — His voice quavering with anger and resolve, former Judge David Van OS, who ran for Texas attorney general in 2006 and chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court twice, announced during the Progressive Populist Caucus Friday morning that he will fight Boyd Richie for the chairmanship of the Texas Democratic Party.

Van Os said in an interview after his announcement, which might have been made throughout the morning at various caucuses, that for the past eight or nine days, people across the state approached him to run because they are tired of the party leadership’s insider decision-making, limited vision and defeatist attitude. He said he decided Thursday to take on that leadership, because their handling of state party business has led to a steady decline in votes for the party.

“(T)he thousands and thousands of people who have come here to this great convention, not because they want more of these minimalist goals, not because they want more of this defeatist strategy, but they come here because they believe in themselves, you come here because you believe in yourself, and because you want to carry Texas.”
The job of leadership is to project the vision and the winning attitude.”

The caucus broke into chants, “David, David” standing and clapping.

Hector Nieto, press director for the Texas Democratic Party said that Richie was engaged in running a successful convention and probably had not commented on Van Os’ announcement.
“As you know this is a record-breaking convention and he is heavily focused on running the convention impartially and making sure that all Texas Democrats are having a good time,” Nieto said.

Van Os told the Progressive Populist Caucus, which he co-founded in 2002k he had received a conference call from activist Democrats May 22, asking him to run for state party chair.

“The insiders and the defenders of the status quo and highly paid insider consultants don’t like me at all because I’ve run for statewide office three times in the last 10 year … and they don’t like me because every time I told them, ‘No! I’m not interested in all your maps and your pretty charts where you exclude 90 percent of the people of the state from your campaign. … and this philosophy of ‘Oh No, we can’t carry the whole state of Texas; our goal is to pick up six seats in the Texas House of Representatives’. We can try to target and pick up about six seats. That’s defeatism and that defeatism started about 14 years ago. And the end result is that the Democratic percentage in the statewide vote has gone downward, every election.”

He laughed at the Richie and other leaders’ notion that they should be proud of picking up five legislative seats in the last election.

“They don’t want to mention that we are 0 for 29 in statewide executive and judicial offices. Now I’m glad that we picked up those five seats and I’ll be mighty glad is we pick up six more …

He decried Richie’s statement to the State Democratic Executive Committee that Texans should concentrate on down-ballot races “and let the presidential race take care of itself.”
“That’s not good enough, not just because it’s bad political strategy, but because it’s not enough. We are in a crisis in America. The people of America are struggling under the corporate jack boot, and the jack boot of the Constitution thieves and the robber barons and their greedy profiteers. The people need a fighting Democratic Party that will fight back for them, and not just in a few districts but for all the people in Texas in 234 counties.”

Van Os to challenge Richie

Bulletin:
His voice quavering with anger and resolve, former Judge David Van OS, former candidate for chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court and other positions, announced during the Progressive Populist Caucus Friday morning that he will fight Boyd Richie for the chairmanship of the Texas Democratic Party.