Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » NoPasaran Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
NoPasarants
Posted by NoPasaran in General Discussion
Sun Feb 20th 2011, 03:24 PM
First, the Texas Democratic Party is a weak, dysfunctional. disorganized, underfunded joke of an organization. Rural areas that have very few Democratic voters have disproportionate influence on the State Democratic Executive Committee and at convention. (Party rules provide that districts vote their "full delegation strength" whether or not the actual number of delegates is present.) For the last few election cycles, rather than develop any political tactics the state party has been driven by what a few candidates and their consultants have wanted with a total lack of success is statewide races.

While the state party is a disaster, the county parties range from robust in some of the cities (like Dallas, Austin, Houston), though faction-riven battlefields (cough-San Antonio-cough) and old-fashioned political patronage fiefdoms, to barely existent is some rural areas. While being shut out in statewide races, Texas Democrats had in 2004 reversed the trend of losing seats in the Texas House and by 2009 had almost achieved parity in that body. But 2010 was a disaster, the GOP winning a 100-50 seat super majority. Now, I don't think that that's a permanent loss. We lost a lot of swing districts in what was a very anti-Obama, anti-Democrat year. We should do better next time with a hopefully friendlier political climate combined with blowback from the horrors the current legislative session will generate. However, we need strong county parties beyond what we have now if we're going to win a safe majority in the House and the state party throws up its hands and does nothing to help in that arena.

The electoral strategy of the TDP has been to try to win back a slice of moderate and conservative white voters lost to the GOP over the last couple of decades (with pretty much a total lack of success) while awaiting the "demographic jubilee"---the rise of Hispanic voters who will magically turn the state blue again. In the meantime, though, the TDP has done a piss poor job of relating to minority voters. In 2010, Bill White, our candidate for governor was careful to be in another city when President Obama spoke in Austin, lest he be linked to "that one". (Didn't matter, Rick Perry nationalized the election so well White might as well have had an Obama logo tattooed on his forehead.) I doubt many African American voters were impressed by our guy's reluctance to be seen with our first African American President. And after years of assuming that Hispanics will be the salvation of Texas Democrats, it was only a month or so ago that the TDP hired an Hispanic outreach director. (And the party website still doesn't have any content in a language other than English.)

Now, there are a few things that need to be remembered about the burgeoning Hispanic population in Texas which may limit its electoral impact. For one thing, it's a less-prosperous, younger group, and historically poor people are less likely to vote, young people are less likely to vote than their wealthier, older counterparts. And people who haven't voted before are less likely to vote than those who've already lost their ballot box virginity. So while I'm not denying that they represent a great potential gain for the Democratic side, bringing that vote in is going to require real effort and long-term commitment.

Also I should mention that in some areas which do have a great concentration of Hispanic voters the Republican Party doesn't make much of an effort so the primary becomes the "real" election. Yes, that insures a Democrat will hold that office, but then the local party doesn't put as much effort into GOTV for the general election, so we don't pick up as many votes for statewide and national candidates as we might hope.

Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NoPasaran in Texas
Wed Nov 03rd 2010, 06:14 PM
I say fuck 'em. I hope the republicans do their worst in fucking up this state because that's what these idiot fucking fucks of voters wanted. Fuck them! As Mencken said "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." Well nobody deserves it more than the pathetic fucking morons who vote in this fucking fuckhole. Fuck them all!

I've fucking had it with these fucking fucks and I approve this message.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NoPasaran in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Jul 12th 2010, 05:54 PM
It is definitely time to change the bong water.
Read entry | Discuss (34 comments) | Recommend (+15 votes)
Posted by NoPasaran in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Fri Aug 14th 2009, 10:00 AM
I unrecommend when I'm drinking in a bar
I do it when I'm gazing at the stars
I unrecommend when I'm playing my guitar
But I wouldn't get all in a rage
Not every thread belongs on the Greatest Page

I unrecommend when I hit a hockey puck
I do it and then I say good luck
I unrecommend when I'm trying to make a buck
But mostly when I don't give a fuck
But I wouldn't get all in a rage
Not every thread belongs on the Greatest Page
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NoPasaran in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sat Jul 11th 2009, 08:20 AM
Just unrec every thread you open, regardless of content like I do.

Yes, even those with pics of kitties.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NoPasaran in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat Jul 11th 2009, 08:09 AM
A thousandfold more powerful than the Clenis, if the ObamaGaze is used carelessly it could cause the oceans to boil away or crops to wither in the fields.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by NoPasaran in Texas
Sat Dec 13th 2008, 09:10 AM
The answer seems to be pretty much everyone these days. Working off the premise that Kay Bailey Hutchison will resign her Senate seat to challenge Governor For Life Rick Perry in the 2010 Republican Primary, would-be senators have been lining up like WalMart shoppers to replace her. Numbered among that host are two prominent Democrats formerly mentioned as possible gubernatorial prospects, former Comptroller John Sharp and Bill White, Mayor of Houston.

Assuming that KBH actually does resign (and remember that we've been through her "running for governor" thing before in 2006) the seat will be filled in a special election. No parties, no primaries, just a ballot with a dozen or more candidates. Anyone with money and name recognition would have a chance to make it at least as far as the almost-inevitable runoff.

Of course, this brings up the question of who the Texas Democrats will run for governor, a race where our prospects for winning don't look so good at the moment. Two years ago, Chris Bell remarked that even a corpse running on the Democratic ticket would poll at least 31 percent; of course, when the votes were counted the New Mainstream maven received just a shade less than thirty. (In 1998, Gary Mauro's doomed campaign against George W Bush actually did reach 31.)

What to do, what to do? In the absence of a serious effort by a credible Texas Democrat to take on (presumably) KBH for the governorship, what is our true strategy? The bad news is that we cannot actually run a corpse. (I was hoping for Sam Houston. No, not the 2008 judicial candidate, I'm talking Hero of San Jacinto. After all, he actually had been governor and senator as well as general and President of the Republic. They just don't make resumes like that anymore.) Do we prevail on another party loyalist like Mauro to take a bullet for the team?

No, I think our solution is to draft a challenger who already has experience running (and losing) to Hutchison, perennial candidate Gene Kelly. In the 2002 senate race he received 32.34% of the vote against KBH (just a few points less than Radnofsky managed six years later.) To the extent that he refuses all campaign contributions we can consider him self-financed and by doing no campaigning and shying away from the media the hard-working TDP staff can focus on winning Democratic control of the Texas House.

Gene Kelly 2010! Why the hell not?
Read entry | Discuss (4 comments) | Recommend (+1 votes)
Posted by NoPasaran in Bush/Conservatives
Sat May 26th 2007, 02:14 PM
A 19th Century Vision

Republican Ron Paul missed out on the 19th century, but he admires it from afar. He speaks lovingly of the good old days before things like Social Security and Medicaid existed, before the federal government outlawed drugs like heroin. (Washington Post, 7/9/06}

Race

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably-fleet-footed they can be.” {Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96}

“Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” {Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96}

“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.” {Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96}

“The Criminals who terrorize our cities - in riots and on every non-riot day - are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to fight the power, to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against The Man.’” {Victoria Advocate, 8/7/96}

“There is no such thing as a hate crime.” {Ron Paul: Political Action Report, 1/15/92}

Aid for the Needy

Paul has stated that a “free market provides for the poor...” {MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, 10/24/88}

Aid for Hurricane Katrina Victims

NOTE: Paul’s own district, the 14th, has about 150 miles of coastline and was struck by Hurricane Rita a few weeks after Katrina inundated New Orleans.

"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?” he asks. “Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?" {Washington Post, 7/9/06}

Health Care

Paul’s press secretary said that Paul believes that Medicare is “unconstitutional” but instead of scrapping it immediately, according to his spokesperson, he believes that Congress needs to “wean people off the federal pig.” {Victoria Advocate, 8/11/96}

“I am opposed to any form of government health insurance as I am opposed to the taxes, regulations, licensing requirements, and monopolistic practices, which keep health costs higher than their true market value.” {CNN Presidential Questionnaire, 1988}

Social Security

As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? …Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation." {Washington Post, 7/9/06}

“Something must be done to phase out the government’s involvement in Social Security. Pension and annuity plans should be the concern of the people, not the government. Political control of these things will lead only to bankruptcy and misery for retired persons.” {CNN Presidential Questionnaire, 1988}

The Border

In the 1988 Presidential campaign, Paul argued that “the U.S. Border Patrol should be eliminated. Any necessary guarding of our borders should be done by the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force.” This would effectively militarize the Mexico-U.S. border. {CNN Presidential Questionnaire, 1988}

“Immigrants can spread diseases for which we may have no immunity. There is also the question of crime and culture. Many immigrants come from countries with different legal structures and are not willing to behave in the way we expect American citizens to behave.” {Ron Paul Political Report, 3/15/92}

Burnt Orange Report

Ron Paul: keeping the in Re
Read entry | Discuss (5 comments)
Posted by NoPasaran in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sun May 13th 2007, 01:56 PM
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that Hume brought up the Tet Offensive. For years, the rightwing windbags have been insisting that Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. For Hume to even bring up Tet shows he's losing faith in his own fairy tales. Frankly, I expect more from the managing editor of Fox News

But since he's brought it up, let's talk a little bit about the Tet Offensive. In the years following the massive US escalation which began in 1965 the Johnson Administration and the US military issued repeated claims about progress being made, the enemy losing his will to fight, the war being won. The Vietnamese insurgency's ability to stockpile the logistical wherewithall and launch a nationwide coordinated surprise offensive demonstrated that those predictions of success were wildly optimistic and largely untrue. American public faith in a military victory began to erode and the country began to look for a way out of the war.

American publc opinion about Iraq is already in the post-Tet phase. Only a handful beleve that the Administration's claims about progress being made are anything but tired, recycled lies. Victory? Who can even say what "winning" means... and who believes that it might be achieved? No, as Mr. Hume well knows, no Tet Offensive is needed to break the will of the American people to continue this war. That will has already been broken by four years of lies, of endless claims of progress totally divorced from reality, and of the steady stream of wounded and dead.

So all I can conclude is that Mr. Hume believes that the Iraqi insurgents do have the capability of launching a widespread military offensive that would threaten the very existence of our military forces there. And to believe that he must have even less faith in the past four years of our military and political progress than do I.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by NoPasaran in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Tue May 08th 2007, 12:47 PM
Most sources give Emanuel the lion's share of credit for 2006 wins. Not everyone worships at the alter of Howard Dean.

As the saying goes, success has a thousand fathers. I think that the extent of our victories in 2006 was big enough that paternity could be shared among many people. I have no doubt that Rahm Emanuel, as head of the DCCC, should get a lot of the credit for taking back the House. But we also won in many other races, many of which didn't get much national attention. For example, Democrats took over the county government in Hays County, Texas, a rural county that is becoming suburban. In Dallas County, every single Republican judge on the ballot was swept out of office. And while victories like these may not have the immediate impact on the nation that national races have, they do affect peoples' everyday lives as well as building the farm team from which our future national politicians will arise. And I'm going to insist that this is the level where Dean's "run everywhere" strategy has its impact.

To be sure, there were disagreements over allocation of resources in 2006. I view this like a military battle. Every commander on the field sees the piece of ground he's fighting over as the most important sector, the most deserving of support and reinforcement. The general commanding has to make some tough decisions about when and where to commit his reserves. If the decisions he makes are by and large good ones, the army as a whole wins. If he makes poor choices, he may "win" the sector that he reinforces while losing the overall battle because of some catastrophe elsewhere on the field.

Afterwords you can continue to argue over what might have happened if X had been done instead of Y, but I think it's hard to argue with winning the overall battle.

Dean activists are far wealthier, better educated, more secular and much less ethnically diverse than other Democrats. A disproportionate number of Dean activists are white, well-educated Baby Boomers ­ fully a third are college graduates between the ages of 45 and 64, compared with just 9% of Democrats in the general public.


I hope you're not going to hold our relative wealth, education, or whiteness against us. We are a big tent party, after all.

Throughout the whole Dean "movement," non-Dean Democrats were always amazed at how Dean supporters believed canvassing was a new thing. That sentiment isn't surprising coming from folks who were, for the most part, new to politics.



Speaking as one of those Dean supporters, canvassing WAS a new thing for a lot of us because we came from places where canvassing just wasn't being done. We had to learn to knock on doors because there had just never been Democratic machine foot soldiers to show us how it was done.

From my own experience, I bought a house in Southwestern Austin in 1996. The first time I ever saw any political flyers of any description in my neighborhood was in 2004 when I walked the precinct by myself during early voting (although back in 2000 I do recall the republican precinct chair knocking on my door and offering me some pictures of aborted fetuses). In 2004 the incumbent GOP state representative and county commissioner both were re-elected without opposition. However, the influx of new door-knockers and voter registrars and phone bankers did allow us to defeat one republican incumbent state rep, come within a few hundred votes of beating another, as well as winning every countywide race we contested. Since then, the one remaining republican judge flipped parties and we've elected a solidly Democratic legislative delegation, including winning the seat we didn't even contest in 2004. And my Republican county commissioner knows he's got a target on his back for 2008.

True, back in 2004 we were idealistic and naive. But since then those of us who have remained active have gone through several elections. We're not as new and inexperienced as we were back then. Some have gone from knocking on doors for the first time in 2004 to running campaigns in 2005 to running winning campaigns in 2006. And may I say, hurray for us! Any party that doesn't get an infusion of new, enthusiastic activists from time to time is doomed to extinction. And naturally there will be conflicts between the new people and the old. I myself am looking forward to some young know-it-alls to pry the party out of our tired, arthritic hands some ten or twenty years from now.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by NoPasaran in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat Jan 13th 2007, 11:18 AM

I have to admit that I resisted Howard Dean for as long as I could in 2003. Something about his campaign reminded me of my first political love, George McGovern's quest for the Presidency in 1972. After all those years, here once again was a candidate I could support wholeheartedly, believing that small people trying to do good could somehow prevail over Big Bucks and Big Politics and Big Influence... and to have my heart torn out and stomped all over when reality finally won out over dreams.

But the year went on. I was watching Dean's speeches on CSPAN, checking out various candidates' websites, and I realized that Howard Dean really DID speak for me. So I finally took the plunge. Came out of my shell and started going to Dean Meetups. Wrote letters to primary voters I didn't know in other states about why it was so important they consider Howard Dean. Donated til it hurt. And actually dared to believe that our best days could still lie ahead of us, that something decent and good could yet be achieved through politics.

Then of course Reality came along, ripped my heart out and stomped that sucker flat.

But that was not the end of the story. I was not alone. Along the way I had met other people who were a lot like me, people who had been attracted to this movement and still saw the need to change things. Many of us stuck together, and now we're a few years down the road, learning from our mistakes along the way, finally starting to have some successes. And the unexplored road stretches out before us.

So, what has Howard Dean accomplished? Did he change the country? Yes, I think, a little. Did he change the Democratic Party? Obviously. But I think his biggest achievement is he inspired a lot of people to change themselves.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by NoPasaran in Texas
Wed Nov 08th 2006, 02:36 PM
2000:

Kay Bailey Hutchison 65.03%
Gene Kelly 32.34%

2006:

Kay Bailey Hutchison: 61.69%
Barbara Ann Radnofsky 36.05%

Discussion?
Read entry | Discuss (89 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by NoPasaran in Texas
Thu Nov 02nd 2006, 07:55 AM
The repubs know how little support they have in Austin and that their only hope is to deny citizens their right to vote.

Read the transcript

Press release from the Travis County Democratic Party
TRAVIS COUNTY REPUBLICANS DISSEMINATE INACCURATE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION
Austin, TX -- The Chair of the Travis County Democratic Party, Chris Elliott, has called upon the Travis County Republican Party to correct and/or withdraw inaccurate and misleading information that it provided to election judges in Travis County. At issue is a document entitled “Ballot Integrity Task Force Guide” that the Travis County Republican Party, in cooperation with the Republican Party of Texas, disseminated in an election judge training session that it conducted on its own last week, separate and apart from the County’s official training sessions for election judges.



“I have serious concerns about this document, and I have brought them to the attention of our County Clerk, Dana DeBeauvoir, who oversees elections in this county,” said Elliott. “Ms. DeBeauvoir shares my concerns that this inaccurate and misleading information could lead to problems on Election Day if the judges to whom the information was provided follow its directives.” Elliott has also brought his concerns to the attention of Travis County Republican Party Chair Alan Sager and has asked that the errors be corrected. “This is a very serious matter as it could result in folks not being allowed to vote on Election Day even though they are qualified in every respect to cast their vote. I call on the Travis County Republicans to take immediate action,” Elliott continued.



The Travis County Democratic Party will be sending letters to all election judges and alternate judges in the county to clear up any confusion that may have been created by the Republicans’ document. In addition, Ms. DeBeauvoir has referred this matter to Roger Williams, Texas Secretary of State, the state’s highest election official, for possible further action.



Egregious Errors that Republicans have told election poll workers:



1. On the third page, under the bold heading “Provisional Voting (TAC 81.172)”

This section purports to deal with situations where a voter “must” cast a provisional ballot. The fourth bullet point states that if a registered voter shows up at a precinct different from the one where they are registered, they must vote a provisional ballot. This is not true. Election judges are supposed to make an effort to direct such a voter to the proper precinct. It may be that the voter decides not to go to a different precinct and would prefer to vote a provisional ballot where he or she is, but the voter is not required to vote a provisional ballot, as the language herein suggests, just by virtue of appearing at the wrong precinct.

2. On the fifth page, under the bold heading “Quick Summary of the Provisional Voter Process”

The second bullet point under that heading states that if a voter does not (sic) personal identification or refuses to produce it, the voter “is permitted to vote, but the vote is not counted.”

This is factually inaccurate. If this scenario arises, the voter is allowed to vote a provisional ballot. Whether or not the vote is counted is up to the ballot board. If an election judge were to follow your advice here and tell a potential voter that his or her vote “will not be counted,” this may very well discourage the potential voter from casting a provisional ballot.

3. On the seventh page, under the bold heading “Voting Irregularities to look for”

The sixth paragraph down suggests that a voter appearing at a polling location “without photographic identification” constitutes a voting irregularity. This is, once again, factually inaccurate. Many voters appear at the voting location without photographic identification and are not required to produce photographic identification if they have another accepted form of I.D. or if they have their voter registration card.

4. On the flow chart, which is the next to the last page in the materials that I have:

If a voter does as you suggest at the top of the left hand column of your chart and he or she presents a voter registration card with a date that is not current, your flow chart, by following it to the right, suggests that the voter must then present a different form of “valid ID” in order to vote. Again, factually inaccurate. A voter registration card with an expired date is considered by the County to be a valid form of ID in and of itself so that if that voter’s name appears on the voter list, he or she is allowed to vote, period. No provisional ballot required.
Read entry | Discuss (5 comments) | Recommend (0 votes)
Posted by NoPasaran in Texas
Sat May 27th 2006, 03:51 AM
In my part of town one of the precinct chairs started a new club a couple of years ago. You can't talk to him for five minutes before he points out what a great job he does "carrying Pct XXX for the Democratic Party." Well, my precinct is next to his and has similar demographics. For years, my precinct chair was an elderly woman who was very ill so she did essentially nothing. (I've lived here ten years and I know the first time any Democratic literature showed up on peoples' doors was 2004 when I started doing it.} Anyway, for my own amusement I looked at the precinct-by-precinct returns going back several election cycles and guess what? My precinct actually voted more Democratic than Mr Slap Himself On The Back's did. Consistently! So, whatever "magic" he was working wasn't having much effect, was it?

Anyway, he started his club and it quickly became apparent that he was not at all interested in running a democratic organization. It was meant to be "his club" and anytime it looked like his control over anything was threatened he would change the rules.Now, I can tolerate a certain amount of ruthlessness if a person is actually accomplishing things as a result. But he wasn't. His club endorsed candidates in last year's city council races and then did... nothing. They endorsed in this year's primaries and did... nothing. Meanwhile, some of my friends and I who had meanwhile put together Keep Austin Blue, worked our butts off for various candidates.

I think it's grand that there are still some folks who helped LBJ stuff the boxes six decades ago out there. And if they're actually contributing to the cause, great. But if the only thing they're doing is feeding their own egos, they need to get the hell out of the way. We are engaged in a war for survival and we cannot afford their bullshit.

As for the neighboring precinct chair... my precinct has now been combined with another. And I'm the new chair. And come November, we'll see what carrying it for the Democratic Party really looks like.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
Random Journal
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.