"Lupe get your gun," or "Lupe's got no gun"!

On the news that former Dallas County Sheriff Loopy Lupe Valdez (sorry, Brains, she's earning it more and more) "misplaced" her Dallas County Sheriff's Office service sidearm, a Beretta 9mm, sometime after transitioning out of office as of Dec. 31 last year, the head-shaking just gets worse.

This explains more of how her sheriff's office could "lose an inmate," I guess. It doesn't excuse it, of course, it just explains it.

Just another apparent example of bumbling that has kind of described her career as sheriff and now as guv candidate.

 Anyway, in light of this, we need some campaign theme music for her.

We can either say "Lupe get your gun" per a classic musical of 1950:



Or per Aerosmith, say, "Lupe's Lost a Gun":



Hey, Gilberto Hinojosa and other Texas Democratic Party poobahs? I know it's too late for him to establish Texas residence. But, if celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti doesn't run for prez in 2020, (and why, per Brains, doesn't CNN list him?) maybe you could recruit him four years from now?

Meanwhile, readers, feel free to vote in BOTH polls at right if you want. Will Loopy Lupe do better, the same or worse than either Wendy Davis in 2014 or Bill White in 2010?

==

Update: The gun has been found, and it wasn't Valdez' fault. Rather, it was the Sheriff's Office. Of course, this is the SO she ran for 13 years.

==

Whoever's fault it ultimately was for being lost, Valdez admitted she didn't follow protocol for turning it in. Disorganization. A property room custodian has been reprimanded, or perhaps more accurately, made into the fall guy.

Toothless Texas ethics — second-latest installment is #WendyDavis (updated)

Update, April 21: Davis is now just the second-latest; scroll down for a GOPer with basically the same problems, plus additional ones.

The latest conflict of interest problems of Wendy Davis (and other state legislators of both parties, like GOP state Sen. John Carona) illustrate the laughable toothlessness of much of what passes for ethics legislation in Texas. (The story also illustrates the continuing decline of big-bucks mainstream media; Wayne Slater, a veteran political reporter, misspelled Carona's last name, and nobody on copy desk caught it. Twenty-four hours later, Wayne Slater's not responded to my Tweet, and the misspelling still isn't fixed.)

It's yet another reason why the Green Party should be skeptical about making deals with Democrats, like the idea of suspending gubernatorial candidate Brandon Parmer's campaign in the idea of helping Davis.

Specific to Davis, and the North Texas Tollway Association, it's "interesting" how loudly power and money can shout:

As a member of the Fort Worth City Council and the regional transportation authority, Davis had a history as an NTTA critic. She voted as a state senator in 2009 against an NTTA-backed measure to give the agency first right of refusal for building road projects in the region. As the 2011 legislative session opened, she introduced a bill to sharply cap the fees NTTA could charge on delinquent tolls.

But, when her law firm got a contract to work for NTTA, things changed. And changed indeed. (Especially given that politics, and political money, made strange bedfellows of her and her "political boutique" firm's partner, Brian Newby, who used to work for Tricky Ricky Perry.)

Again, it's not just Davis and it's not just Democrats. The story notes:

Being a state legislator is a part-time job. The Texas Constitution prohibits lawmakers from voting on measures in which they have “a personal or private interest,” though only if it affects a lawmaker’s specific business. It doesn’t apply to measures affecting entire industries or issues.

For example, Republican Sen. John Corona [sic, per my note above] of Dallas, founder of the nation’s largest homeowners’ management association, has written legislation benefiting those groups. Democratic Sen. Rodney Ellis’ Houston firm has represented local governments on bond issues. Former House Speaker Tom Craddick, a Republican from Midland with significant oil and gas investments, regularly sponsors bills boosting the industry. And Republican Rep. Gary Elkins, a payday lender, has supported efforts in the Legislature to protect such firms.

And, we haven't even talked about Rick Perry's Texas Enterprise Slush Fund.

If the Greens really suspended Parmer's campaign, even though he officially remained on the ballot, I wouldn't vote for him, nor would I vote for Davis.

Until we get something radical here in the Pointy Abandoned Object State, like public campaign financing (an adequately paid but full-time state legislature in a state our side would also be nice), things won't change. 

===

Actually, Davis is now the second-latest installment of loose ethics. Back on the GOP side, Ken Paxton, in a runoff to be the nominee for Abbott's AG seat, is accused of basically the same issues as Davis. 

The Texas Tribune obtained 2006 letters showing the McKinney lawmaker was being paid to solicit clients for a North Texas financial services firm at a time when he was not registered with the State Securities Board. Registration in such circumstances is typically required. Nor did Paxton ever reveal his solicitor work on the employment history section of his personal financial statements, which must be filed regularly with the Texas Ethics Commission.

Also missing from his ethics filings is any disclosure of his service on the boards of at least a half-dozen nonprofit corporations, the Tribune investigation found. Ethics laws require legislators to reveal service on corporate boards, including nonprofit ones.

He's busy looking for loopholes, a low-level staffer to blame, or both, as we speak.

That said, this is about more than ethics, and backdating loopholes and reports. It's also potential state regulatory hot water for him:

Running afoul of State Securities Board regulations, on the other hand, carries potentially tougher penalties; violations can range from fines to felony prosecution. Paxton has not been accused of wrongdoing. His campaign declined to answer any questions about his employment history, details that are necessary to determine whether laws were broken.

He can stonewall the Trib right now; the Securities Board can start legal requests, though, if Paxton doesn't voluntarily cough up paperwork.

So, even if Paxton is the fave in the runoff, are GOP leading lights, even more wingnutty ones, going to start "leaning" on him to get out?

This is worse, indeed, than Davis.
1. It involves potential criminality, not just ethics.
2. It involves potential criminality from someone running for Texas' top law enforcement office.

I hadn't paid full attention when the third GOP candidate in the pre-runoff round, Barry Smitherman, first raised allegations. I figured it was him and Paxton as two candidates that are in the more wingnutty portion of the GOP in various ways and degrees vs. Dan Branch as the one representative of the semi-sane branch, and Smitherman was just trying to gain some traction. It's actually more than that, though.

There's past lawsuits and other issues that clearly bring into question Paxton's fitness to hold this position.

===

Sidebar: In a "political chess match" issue, this is why it's always easier to run for governor from a lower-level executive position than from a legislative one. Same is true at the federal level. Aside from Dear Leader, who surely had one-quarter of an eyeball on the White House as soon as he was elected to the U.S. Senate, and half of one from 2006 on, we don't elect senators and representatives to be our presidents. We dip into statehouses, have Veeps jump up via death, or in the case of Poppy Bush or, belatedly, Tricky Dick, elect a Veep to the office. Ike as a war hero fits the executive model well, actually. The last presidents not to fit the mold, Hoover and Taft, actually did, coming from a previous president's cabinet. Before that? Post-Civil War, all the GOP candidates were war heroes first, even if they later served in Congress, and Grover Cleveland, on his first time around, was a governor.

Unfortunately for Texas Democrats, who don't hold any statewide offices, this doesn't bode well, which is why Bill White as a mayor got the nod in 2010. Assuming Davis doesn't win, it's back to looking at mayors, or finding a rich businessman who's more of a Democrat than Tony Sanchez was in 2002.

===

Sidebar 2: Bill White's new book proves he's a double-dyed neolib. Please, Texas Dems, never nominate him to another electoral campaign run in your collective lives.

===

Sidebar 3: New polling numbers don't look good for Davis, especially the rise in her "negatives." P.Diddle has further take on this, the uphill sleds of both of the third parties in the state as shown at their conventions and more.

What's the matter with ... Demographically delusional Democrats

The DDD: It kind of rolls off the tongue, does it not?

I've already blogged about Battleground Texas' semi-mindless belief that demographics (increased Hispanic numbers, mainly) will make turning Texas "blue" a piece of baklava. For me, at the state level, it's been crunching numbers about how BG's thinking about Hispanics, and how "blue" they're likely to lean, isn't quite as true as they might think.

That said, that leads to broader issues, like assumptions in general, counting chickens before they hatch or otherwise demographically grow up, and so forth.

Well, now, Thomas Frank, editor of The Baffler and author of "What's the Matter with Kansas," weighs in on that very topic, on the 10th anniversary of the book. And, it ties in well with current Texas politics, too, as my pull quote shows.

He starts here:

These days, the big thinkers of the Democratic Party have concluded that they can safely ignore the things I described. They’ve got a new bunch of voters these days — the famous “coalition of the ascendant,” made up of professionals, minorities and “millennials” — and it pleases them to imagine that with this unstoppable army at their back they will win elections from here to eternity. There is no need to resolve the dilemmas I outlined in “Kansas,” no need to win back working-class voters or solve wrenching economic problems. In fact, there is no need to lift a finger to do much of anything, since vast, impersonal demographic forces are what rescued them from the trap I identified. They now have the luxury of saying, as Paul Krugman did on the day after the 2012 election, “Who cares what’s the matter with Kansas?”

And, he's exactly right that there's a degree of smugness at play, from what I see. And, that smugness has often failed before in the world of politics.

Let's take a look at that first link, though. Obama himself, it's clear, is ignoring ethnic demographics more than I think Frank accepts. Rather, by targeting two hot-button social issues plus education, he's targeting millennials first and foremost, followed by professionals, especially those in the "creative class." To the degree that pop music and younger generations are more heavily minority, "targeting" of minorities comes along for the ride. That said, the NJ piece is worth a read itself.

Krugman's worth a read, too, just too see what blinders he can wear at times. Like not even mentioning the name of "Ted Cruz."

Frank follows up with a further look at that smugness:

Now, maybe doing absolutely nothing about the Kansas conundrum will serve Democrats well in the years to come. I suspect, however, that their smug fantasy of demographically determined triumph will take them the way of all the other smug mechanical dreams to which the liberal mind is so peculiarly given. I recall, in this connection, a conversation I had about Kansas politics with a prominent national Democrat back in 2003. To him, the situation was obvious, as was its solution: The state’s Republicans had pushed too far to the right, and now they were fated for defeat by the laws of physics, by the irresistible swing of that ol’ pendulum.

Ahh, it's a decade later, and we see what the result of that smugness has been. Cruz here in Texas. Mike Lee in Utah. A "tea party" of old-resentment GOPers now young and radicalized, dominating the House GOP caucus, and that hasn't backed down from the previous Congress' intransigence.

The "liberal mind" link is paywall-protected, rightly, at Harper's. Perhaps it comes free in a month or so.

But, teh Google tells me he starts by triangulating off Krugman's myopia and goes from there. Noting how this smugness has failed in the past, he cites post-1964 Democratic smugness over Barry Goldwater's obliteration as a starting point, as described by Rick Perlstein. Or how FDR blew it in 1938 midterms. From there, he gets more specific about what this leads to:

Why bother getting out there and building majorities capable of sweeping the G.O.P. out for good? There’s no need, insist Democrats of the optimistic kind, who believe that the impersonal hand of history will soon deliver the world to their doorstep, tied with a bow. (Ralph Nader, who has been observing the progressive collapse for decades, is irked by the demographic argument, which he described to me as “the verbal equivalent of anesthesia for the Democratic party.”)

Next, he notes, this both is rooted in, and fuels, a different attitude:

The difference between conservative culture and progressivism couldn’t be more stark. They read the RedState blog and refresh their anger; we read Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight blog and learn the exact statistical odds of an Obama victory in North Carolina. They are all would-be organizers, alternately Sam Adams or Saul Alinsky (the enemy they love to emulate). On my side, those figures are barely remembered; the model for progressives today is academia.

There's no anger of the wingnut sort. Look at Obama himself. Not for nothing is he called President Kumbaya, here and elsewhere. Speaking of ...

Corrente sums up its observation:

One reason arguing with Obots is so hard; they genuinely believe they don't have to do anything. Obama successfully anesthetized a big segment of the professional, creative, and political class. It's amazing. Anyhow, I just remembered you don't actually have to buy the current version of Harper's; you can go to the library and read it there!

Totally agreed. And, the Angles and others affiliated with Battleground Texas are all Obats. Which is why Wendy Davis will lose in 2014 to Greg Abbott.

And why, looking four years ahead, Julian Castro will lose to Abbott in 2018, unless he's smart enough not to run, or to have somebody radically different than BG manage his campaign. However, given that he's one of the "ascendants" who's Obat-leaning, he's not that smart.

Frank himself thinks that at least a few red staters will listen to traditional economic messages. Now, governors have less influence on this than congresscritters, but they have some.

Why, instead of sounding like Tricky Ricky Perry, isn't Davis talking about something like "Let's make Texas more friendly for workers"?

The fact the she isn't, and that Bill White wasn't, probably explains why many potential Ds never vote.

When has the word "union" crossed a Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidates lips on a regular basis?

Did #WendyDavis actually outraise #GregAbbott? Not so fast, including you, BOR (updated)

(Update, Feb. 5: Let's see how Burnt Orange Report, the Angle Bros. et al spin THIS, namely, how badly Greg Abbott kicked Wendy Davis' butt in January fundraising. And now, back to your original blog post.)

It sounds like it, right? In the July-December 2013 period, Wendy Davis outraised Greg Abbott in fundraising for the Texas governor's race, by $12.2 million to $11.5 million.

Not so fast. Here's the fine print on that:

The senator's campaign finance totals include funds raised by the Texas Victory Committee, a joint effort that splits money between the Davis campaign and Battleground Texas, a group trying to turn Texas blue.

So, how much money did SHE raise? (As well as how much cash does she have on hand?)

Answer? Per the Snooze, some $3.5 million of the total is from the Texas Victory Committee. Split that in half between her and Battleground Texas, and her $12.2 million falls to $10.5 million. Still impressive, no doubt about it. But not Greg Abbott's $11.5 million.

Burnt Orange Report decides to join in the spinning:

To call the Texas Victory Committee a "split" between Wendy Davis and Battleground Texas suggests that she won't be the recipient of all of the money. That doesn't accurately convey how the money is to be used -- it will be used by Battleground to elect Wendy Davis. She will be on the receiving end of the electioneering paid for with that fund.  

Nice, but ... not true!


Let's say the Texas Republican Party created an alternative to Battleground Texas called, oh, Attack for Liberty. Attack for Liberty and Greg Abbott's campaign then formed Texas Liberty Committee.

And, Texas Liberty Committee raised $3.5M and claimed that as part of his $11.5M?

Don't tell me BOR wouldn't be on that like white on rice. Because, Abbott, Attack for Liberty and the Texas Liberty Committee would be using the exact same explainers it trots out.

That said, BOR does have a live blog of actual, Texas Ethics Commission-filed donations, for all major candidates, with figures also including cash on hand.

And, the January numbers are reflective. Maybe national pro-choice groups are backing off, if David is "prolife." Or national LGBT groups are backing off because Davis allegedly doesn't have time for their endorsement questionnaires (really, she's running away from that, too), but does have time for one from the Morning News, and surely other mainstream papers.

Meanwhile, nobody's claimed that Abbott's money was co-raised with a third party. Because, if it were, BOR would be critiquing Abbott just like I just critiqued Davis.

That includes you, Michael Li, from BOR's story:

Amused by the spin on Wendy Davis' fundraising numbers by GOP operatives who understand exactly what a joint fundraising committee is.
— Michael Li (@mcpli) January 1

Amused you think everybody critiquing this is a GOP operative. If you've got goods on Abbott money coming from a joint fundraising committee, feel free to mention it. 

Beyond that, I've had a bit of a shootout with at least one GOP consultant vs. other blogging on this site. Per my day job, I'm familiar with all of this. 

Beyond that, at times, per the title of this blog, I like being a deliberate contrarian. Or, in this case, a deliberate nit-picker, or whatever you want. So, keep spinning, and I'll keep blogging about it. 

Don't get me wrong. Li knows the legal issues around things such as the redistricting fight. But, he's still spinning on this. 

Now, I see Harold Cook joined the spinning, too. I get where Cook is coming from. However, I'll venture that if we went to every Abbott event, we might see plenty where the Texas GOP was listed as a separate recipient of funds, or whatever.

Finally, the Texas Ethics Commission has the official numbers. And the filing doesn't count the Texas Victory Committee as part of Davis' totals. It's $11.6M for Abbott and $8.7M for Davis.

Jonathan Tilove at the Statesman rounds up the reality on the spinning. And adds:

The most obvious manipulation in the Davis campaign's late release of its fundraising numbers was a spin of omission - its failure to report how much money it burned in the reporting period and how much money it has in the bank going into 2014. Abbott, whose campaign put out its numbers 20 minutes after the Davis campaign put out its numbers, reported that it has $27 million in cash on hand, which will probably prove to be three or four or more times as much as Davis will report today.

Bingo. And, the transparency of a lot of this spinning is laughable. So, too, is the faux indignation of a Michael Li. As for saying Romney and Obama did this, fine. If Abbott did, too, we'll find out in the official Texas Ethics Commission wash. One of the oldest reporting tricks in the book, Michael. Mark Twain would have a field day with modern finance numbers.

And, assuming Abbott does use third-party joint fundraising, you bet your ass he'll report combined numbers from here on out, anyway.

And, Cook, at least, concedes as much:

If Greg Abbott’s team doesn’t want Wendy Davis to claim as part of her fundraising totals that money which she is contributing to a coordinated effort, then Greg Abbott should subtract from his totals whatever amount he anticipates he will eventually contribute to the Republican coordinated effort. If, in the alternative, he is raising money directly into his coordinated effort, as Davis has done, he should have counted it as part of his total – assuming he hasn’t co-mingled that money with that of other Republican candidates who are also contributing to the Republican effort.

So, let's just wait until the next fundraising cycle, and compare apples and apples.

And, this is where my day job in the press biz kicked in long ago, and takes precedence here over progressive politics. If Abbott had done the same, I'd have kicked him even harder, since he's a conservative, and it's not his first statewide race.

But, comparing apples and apples? Abbott won. Period. End of story. Can we stop with other claims?

In short, a short-term spin could backfire down the road. Assuming it does, we'll see what Li, Cook, et al have to say.

I mean, I've blogged a lot of baseball stuff, for and against certain players' candidacies for the Hall of Fame. Trust me, I've seen numbers and statistics sliced more different ways than 99-cent bologna.

If I wanted to drill down enough, I could probably find that Abbott outraised Davis in some ZIP code in her state Senate district. Or that Davis outraised Abbott among left-handers who live within 300 yards of the Ben Franklin store in Duncanville where they idolize him to death.

So, if you want to be technical, because Abbott chose not to slice and dice his bologna some way, because he wasn't worried about Davis getting that close to him, she "won." Wave your hands in the air, Battleground Texas. If Abbott's really worried about this, he'll find a way to spin your numbers into the grave in the next reporting cycle or two. 

And, to be honest, I dig my heels back in on issues like this. Part of it may be "motivated reasoning" on my part, given that nobody likes to stake out a stance then be proven wrong. On the other hand, Cook opened the window himself, with his caveats, essentially admitting this was at least semi-spin, though he refuses to take the extra step of admission.

And, speaking of, I've exchanged enough tweets with Li on this. On my last one, I told him to talk to Tilove, or Jay Root at the Trib. None of us are "GOP operatives." You, Michael, on the other hand, ARE a Democratic operative, even if not officially affiliated with the Davis campaign. And, Cook, a political PR meister, has nothing about this on his blog, either.

Oh, and this also gets at one thing Perry talked about. Davis, like Dear Leader, wasn't supposed to be about politics as usual. But, between this and her David Alameel endorsement, she indeed appears to be Just.Another.Politician.™, and the Michael Lis of the world probably don't want to talk about that at all.

Besides, Bill White outraised Rick Perry at times four years ago. And, we all know how that turned out.

If the last few presidential campaigns have shown us anything, it's that fundraising itself, and how it's framed and phrased, has itself become political gamesmanship.

Get a TV and Internet 30-second, or 15-second, sound bite of one-upsmanship, then get everybody to move on before the details are announced.

Or, if you want an even blunter reminder of how fundraising prowess doesn't always translate into political success? Phil Gramm for president. Before him, John Connally for president. 

P. Diddie has more thoughts along this vein. And goes the next step down the road:

Wendy Davis is on pace to amass the fifty million dollars all the talking heads said she needed to raise in order to have a chance to beat "Wheelchair Ken".  In other words, if she loses then she won't be able to say she couldn't raise enough money as an excuse.

I have contributed to her campaign, and I sincerely hope she doesn't lose.  But I also don't see any deviation from a path we have trod for decades now, which shows not even the smallest sign of changing the kind of government we have.  The one that gets bought and paid for every two years.Wendy Davis is on pace to amass the fifty million dollars all the talking heads said she needed to raise in order to have a chance to beat "Wheelchair Ken".  In other words, if she loses then she won't be able to say she couldn't raise enough money as an excuse.

I have contributed to her campaign, and I sincerely hope she doesn't lose.  But I also don't see any deviation from a path we have trod for decades now, which shows not even the smallest sign of changing the kind of government we have.  The one that gets bought and paid for every two years.

Yep, and that's why he, and I, worry about ...


I agree with Perry on the money, but it's more than just that. Spinning like this is sophomoric. People who know a lot about politics see through it right away, and call you out on it. Then you have people like Michael Li and Harold Cook doubling down on spinning.

And so, instead of a new type of politics, we have the same old shit. And, I've had tussles with consultant types from the GOP side before, not liking it when I called them out. (Last time over there was for non-monetary reasons, but I still called GOP shit what it was. And gave the same answer as to Li, and now Cook: This is the media part of me operating.)

Beyond the political gamesmanship, this gets back to the question of her endorsement of Texas' latest Democratic Daddy Warbucks, David Alameel, in the Senate primary.

What's in it for her to endorse a candidate worth $50 million or more, but one who hasn't revealed his stances on a single major political issue? 

Oh, and I asked Li about this. While trying to spin every which way but loose the news about Davis' and Abbott's campaign contributions, I got bupkis in reply from him about her Alameel endorsement, when I tweeted suggesting he ask about that. 

Finally, given the fact that she sued the Startlegram and its corporate parents after losing her 2006 Fort Worth City Council race, I'm thinking more and more we're at the Politics of Usual. More reason than ever to vote Green in the general election if we've got Republicans and Democrats alike offering up a pair of overlawyering lawyers. 

Now, I don't buy into wingnuts taking her "mental health was affected" statement as part of filing as part of a claim she has actual mental health problems. That's not my angle.

No, I'm just, as I read more about the suit, raising my eyebrows higher and higher over what appears to be overlawyering mixed with cluelessness about the First Amendment, a thin skin, or something.

She sued over editorials, my friends, not news stories.

Now, I've primarily been at small-town newspapers, but much of my time has been near the Metroplex. And, at least immediately, I cannot recall any other candidate who has lost a race and then sued over opinion articles.

Good fucking doorknob. 

I am linking to National Review's story, knowing it's not trotting out the Eric Erickson angle but is seemingly giving a halfway fair overview. I'm trying teh Google to see if I can find a link to any StartleGram stories about the suit after its final disposition.

Yeah, wingnuts may be worried about the likelihood of her success. But, as some currently in the media, I'm pretty sure I don't want a Junior Barack Obama, in terms of attitude toward the First Amendment, running the state.

And, I've now found a copy of the actual editorial. I'll be doing a follow-up post, and the hell if I don't make any progressive writers' groups.

Good-bye, Kay Bailey Cheerleader

And, hello, David Dewhurst?

Now that Kay Bailey Hutchison has made her expected retirement as Texas' senior U.S. Senator official (her letter is here), who's her successor?

Business Week has some quotes from around the state.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has salivated over the position, of course.
Dewhurst issued a written statement that said: "While my focus remains on the challenges we face here at the state level and making this upcoming session successful, I fully intend to explore running for the United States Senate, and should I run, I will run with the intention of winning and continuing to serve the people of Texas just as I have done throughout my career."
Will he get serious opposition in the GOP primary? Greg Abbott seems likely; who else? And, Railroad Commissioner and former RC chairman Michael Williams — does somebody at his pay grade challenge Dewhurst, or seek to fill Dewhurst's current job? Well, fellow Railroad Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones thinks that's not too much a leap, even without the double schtick of Williams' bow tie and being a black Republican. And, while Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert has supposedly expressed strong interest in a Senate run, he'd be much smarter to target something like Dewhurst's job. Speaking of Williamses, former Texas Secretary of State Roger W. is also interested. So, too, reportedly, is state Sen. Florence Shapiro.

Given Texas' growing Hispanic population and the relative closeness a B-team canadidate ran against Big John Cornyn in 2008, surely some Democrat has to be eyeing the seat. But whom? Houston Mayor Annise Parker? Her predecessor, Bill White, might have been a guess, but he has officially pulled himself out. Defeated Congressman Ciro Rodriguez? Perennial candidate (he's getting there!) John Sharp also gets mention. Chet Edwards? He might be electable.

Why Kay Bailey Hutchson lost - and her future

Kay Bailey Hutchison folded like a house of cards, unable to even send Rick Perry to a runoff in a three-way race with a tea partier challenging Tricky Ricky on the right. How weak is that?

Very weak, from where I stand. BUT ... not unexpected.

She ran about the lamest major-level state office campaign I've seen in my journalist history. It was clear, a month after her entering the race, why she ducked out of a challenge to Perry four years ago. She simply wasn't ready to, at first, and then refused to mentally get ready to, trade gut-level punches, or below.

When your most memorable TV commercials involve TxDOT electronic traffic billboards, you have a media campaign staff that should be fired. Other weak-tea commercials? The ones that had the pull quotes from newspaper editorial endorsements come immediately to mind.

Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News offers his take, summed up in a one-liner:

She had a dozen messages and no message.

That said, you can have multiple messages, if they're ultimately submessages of, if more than one, no more than three main messages. AND, if you're ready to play political hardball in selling them.

If you wanted more moderate GOP voters to be more enthusiastic, you should have targeted younger, suburban voters. Targeted them better. And, gotten more troops involved with GOTV efforts.

That said, I don't totally blame campaign manager Terry Sullivan. He worked with the material he had. But, so much for his reputation as a "hardball strategist," eh?

Now, do Debra Medina supporters vote for Tricky Ricky in November, or stay home? It depends in part on whether he decides to tack to the center or stay far right. That, in turn, depends in part on whether or not Bill White can gin up a legitimate "Republicans for Bill" organization.

And, yes, that's possible. Some of Kay's financial big guns actually, per the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, seem to kind of welcome it:

"I can assure you that I will not be a financial supporter of Rick Perry, and I can assure you that most of the people I talk to are not going to support him either," said Fort Worth oilman Dick Moncrief, Hutchison's financial chairman in North Texas, predicting that Republicans who are "fed up with Perry" may wind up supporting White if Hutchison fails to get the nomination.

Stay tuned. And, I hope Bill White can pull this off.

Kay's Senate seat
Now, what's in Kay's future?

Now that she stands exposed, will she get a primary challenger for her Senate seat two years from now? I'd give you 50-50 on that. No, it won't be a Debra Medina-level nutbar, just a Rick Perry-level one.

Now, will she stay, or go through with the "pledge" of leaving early?

Burnt Orange Report offers four options:

She resigns respectfully, campaigns for the Republican, and walks off the stage with little fanfare and no big applause. Her legacy then is the same as it is today.
She stays in the Senate, finds a bipartisan cause to champion, and passes an historic piece of legislation. Strong legacy, especially if Perry loses to White in the fall -- which would amount to a vindication for Hutchison's campaign.
She endorses Rick Perry. The weakest of her options, because it makes her less than Perry.
She endorses Bill White. The most unlikely of options, but the one with the highest reward.

I offer option five: She stays in the Senate, licks her wounds, does little, and stays in Washington after January 2013.

Let's look further at why all four of Burnt Orange's options are wrong.

No. 1? Too painful for even "Miss Good GOPer," I think. Plus, if Tricky Ricky plays to the base and tacks right in the general election, he might not want her.

No. 2? Nope. First, of course, no big bipartisan issue is getting past the rest of this Congress. And, depending on how many Senate seats the Dems lose in November, and who fills them from the GOP, the next Congress is likely to be even less bipartisan. Doorknob bless Burnt Orange Report, but their "options" are kind of clueless on this one.

I presume, though it's not clear, that Options 3 and 4 also presume she resigns. I don't think it's likely, as said. But, if she does, 3 is more likely than Option 1. Option 4 ain't likely.

Per the StartleGram link above, it's clear Options 1 and 3 ain't what her financial backers want, either.

Meanwhile, CQ Politics looks further at how her different possible decisions play out for others.

Texas governor's ad watch, Feb. 5

The Rick Perry ads, claiming how much he's cut taxes? Conveniently overlooked the expansion of the business franchise to fund lessening local school district property taxes. Overlooked how much state "fees" have grown in the last decade. Slamming Hutchison on earmarks? Overlooks any credit Perry may claim for them.

Hutchison's Nolan Ryan ad? Great feel-good ad. But, if she's trailing by very much, doesn't she need to "go negative" and soon?

On the Dem side, Bill White's first TV ad that I've seen is clearly aimed at the general election. Rightly so; Shami's not going break single digits, probably.

White to run for Texas gov, NOT Senate?

Looks like Kay Bailey Hutchison’s delay in leaving her Senate seat is affecting both parties and not just the GOP.

It also would seem to indicate White doesn’t think the Texas Cheerleader will beat Gov. Helmethair in the GOP primary. It's also an indication of which race he thinks will be the easier one.

That said, assuming Perry wins the GOP primary and Kay still hasn't left her Senate seat, what Dem will run against her?

White to run for Texas gov, NOT Senate?

Looks like Kay Bailey Hutchison’s delay in leaving her Senate seat is affecting both parties and not just the GOP.

It also would seem to indicate White doesn’t think the Texas Cheerleader will beat Gov. Helmethair in the GOP primary.

Whackjob Cornyn thinks Cheney could help in 2010

Just when you think Texas Sen. John Cornyn can’t be stupider, he ups the ante on all of us.

This time, it’s thinking that Uncle Fester can actually help the GOP win Senate seats next year.

Bring him to Texas next year. I am sure Houston Mayor Bill White will be glad to hang Cheney around his GOP opponent’s neck.

Bill White to run for Hutchison Senate seat

Good news here as the Democratic Senatorial Campaign committee actively recruited the Houston mayor.. And, John Sharp can go back to sucking up to Rick Perry and other Texas Republicans now.