My report of the January 21 meeting between the 2006 statewide candidates and Texas Democratic Party Chair Boyd Richie -- By David Van Os

Many of you received my friend Barbara Radnofsky’s Internet newsletter describing the meeting that took place on January 21 between the Texas Democratic Party Chair and some of his staff and advisors, and five of the 2006 statewide candidates, including myself.

With all due respect to my honorable colleague Barbara, her newsletter did not objectively or accurately describe the meeting.  To be fair, her description may be subjectively sincere. But it conveys an inaccurate picture.

Maria Louisa Alvarado, Hank Gilbert, Dale Henry, J.R. Molina, Barbara, and I were the 2006 candidates who attended the meeting.  Judge Bill Moody was not able to fly in to the meeting from El Paso. Judge Moody is very active in the discussions among the candidates, however, and is deeply interested in these issues. Chris Bell has not been participating in the group’s discussions since November and did not respond to any of the emails or phone calls that were made to him about the meeting.

Hank Gilbert was the first candidate to speak in the round-robin presentations at the meeting.  Hank pointedly informed state party chair Boyd Richie that it was the Texas Democratic Party’s job to exert its best efforts to generate an atmosphere of excitement and pride about the statewide candidates, but that the TDP did not do so.

Every candidate present agreed that the state party did not attempt to build excitement or confidence about its 2006 statewide ticket.

I spoke next after Hank. I cannot here recite everything I said, but I will come as close as I can to summarize my presentation and discussion for the sake of a historical record.

I pointed out to Boyd that the biggest obstacle for the statewide ticket in 2006 was the constant drumbeat from the major metropolitan press about how the statewide Democratic ticket was composed of lightweights who were not to be taken seriously and could not possibly win.  I asserted that it was a major duty of the TDP to exert maximum effort to counteract that atmosphere of defeatism about the statewide Democratic nominees, but that the state party made no serious attempt to do so. I know from personal discussion that every statewide candidate present at the meeting agrees on this point.

I further asserted that the reason the TDP did not seriously promote the statewide nominees was that they weren’t part of the game plan, because the game plan was solely to try to win 17 targeted state house races, roughly half of which involved Democratic challengers to Republican seats and roughly half of which involved defending Democratic incumbents. I stated to Boyd that the Texas Democratic Party has made winning legislative seats its priority since the first “battleground plan” of 1998. I stated that this has been and remains a huge mistake, because the legislative branch of government is the most indecisive, slowest-moving, unreliable branch of government in comparison with the Executive and Judicial Branches. 

I also stated that perhaps there was significant self-interest behind the legislative strategy in that perhaps the legislative branch of government provides the most patronage.

I further pointed out how concentrating on closely contested or “swing” legislative districts ignores the highest concentrations across the state of Democratic base voters; the very reason they are swing districts is that they are not where the highest concentrations of Democratic base voters reside. I stated that if the party were serious about winning the statewide executive offices it would concentrate on turnout in the safe districts where the highest concentrations of Democratic base voters reside – it’s the very reason they’re safe districts. I further told Boyd that I clearly saw this happening in the 1998 campaign when selective legislative targeting strategies were first made the party’s highest turnout priority – I was on the statewide ticket that year and I pointed out in party circles at the time that the targeting strategy was going to risk forfeiting the whole executive branch to the Republicans. 

 The answer given to me in 1998 was that since we were coming up to a redistricting year, we needed to win as many legislative seats as possible. In reply, I pointed out at the time that we were thus shooting ourselves in the foot, because redistricting would reach a logjam in the legislature and go to the Legislative Redistricting Board, made up mostly of state executive officers, and by giving up the executive offices we would get plowed under at the LRB (with regard to state house and senate redistricting). Richard Raymond, who was running for Land Commissioner that year, hammered this point hard throughout the campaign. The inside targeters didn’t listen. The party’s turnout efforts disregarded most of the core Democratic base, we lost every executive office, the legislature stalemated on state house and senate redistricting, it went to the LRB, and the new Republican statewide executive officers easily had their way on that board. The rest is history. At the close of this narrative I posed a rhetorical question to Boyd, who was right and who was wrong in 1998?

Hank pointed out that Tom Craddick’s recent re-election as speaker of the house with the decisive votes of several House Democrats proved the failure of the party’s legislative strategy; as Hank said, the fact that Democrats in the House could not hold together on such a huge issue demonstrates the foolishness of making legislative districts the party’s top priority.

 I also told Boyd that I understand and agree that policy decisions have to be made in the allocation of limited hard money resources by the state party. I told him that it is not a question of the party giving the candidates money; that in 3 statewide races I have never asked for a penny from the party and have never expected a penny. I told him I agree the party cannot do that. I told him I agree that clearly priorities have to be set in the allocation of limited hard money resources. However, I said to him, respect for the candidates cannot be targeted. Respect is owed to the Democratic Primary voters who by their votes nominated every Democratic nominee, and that cannot be handicapped. I re-emphasized that the party has the ability to communicate to the public and the press to promote the nominees of the party, that doing so does not cost any more money, and that all of us candidates who were present know the TDP did not do so seriously in to the statewide races.

Boyd responded passionately with an anecdote to demonstrate that he knows all about targeting. He told about his wife Betty Richie’s run for the legislature a few years ago, when Betty was “untargeted” and House Speaker Pete Laney actively campaigned for the Republican incumbent in Betty’s race. I personally remember how angry this made Betty Richie, because she told me about it at that summer’s state convention, and she was most definitely not a happy camper. I agreed with her then and agree with her now – Laney’s action, and the TDP’s action in not lifting a finger to counteract it, were unacceptable. To my mind, this painful reminder makes the state party’s actions in the 2006 elections under Boyd Richie all the more difficult to swallow.

I also told Boyd that even though hard money truly does have to be allocated where it will do the most good, those decisions must be made by the elected party chair and SDEC members, who are accountable to the party members democratically; not by unelected consultants and other insiders. I showed Boyd a copy of a November 8, 2006 newspaper article in the Dallas Morning News, wherein Lone Star Project director Matt Angle is quoted as saying that “We” made a practical decision not to give support to the statewide candidates in these elections, but instead all the party’s resources went to 17 state house races. I asked Boyd, who is the “we” Angle is talking about, and if what Boyd was saying was true, why did Angle say what he did? Boyd at this point claimed that what Angle said in that DMN interview was not true, and claimed that when he first saw that article he called Angle and criticized him for it.

My immediate thought was, if the state party chairman sees someone materially misrepresenting state party policy in public, shouldn’t the party chairman publicly disavow the misrepresentation? Hank made the same point to me independently, when we visited after the meeting.  However, in the meeting itself I did not have a good opportunity to follow-up with that question.

I also showed Boyd a copy of an article posted by Martin Frost at FoxNews.com in mid-December, in which Frost says he is especially proud of “my former chief of staff,” Matt Angle, director of the Lone Star Project, for the key role Angle played in the Texas Democratic Party’s targeting strategy that helped pick up five seats in the Texas legislature. I asked Boyd about the discrepancy between Frost’s analysis and what he was telling us today. Boyd’s answer was that he could not control what Martin Frost said, but that it was wrong. I asked, “but why would Angle and Frost be saying this?” and Boyd repeated that it was wrong and he didn’t know why they would say such things.

One of the other things I said to Boyd was about the proper relationship between the Party and the Nominees. I told him that the Party’s job is to turn out the base, i.e., the identified Democratic voters; while it is the job of the Nominees to campaign outside the base, to attract the votes of crossovers, independents, and newcomers, to establish the winning coalition. Boyd quickly stated that he agreed completely with this prescription. I pointed out to him that this year’s statewide candidates (with the implied exception of Bell) followed that formula. We were an extremely hard-working group of Nominees in taking the message outside the conventional Democratic base. I asserted that I, for example, spent most of my campaign expressly going outside the base, my 254-county courthouse tour taking my message openly outside the base probably more than any statewide Democratic nominee had done in a long time.  The point was that we did our part, while expecting the party to do its part. In the case of our campaigns, I maintained to Boyd, it did not do its part.

Dale Henry elaborated further, with eloquence and passion, about how the state party has to make a real effort to generate enthusiasm and excitement for its statewide ticket. In the course of his comments Dale announced that he is running for the Railroad Commission again in 2008, against Republican Michael Williams.  I urge all readers to get behind Dale Henry in that race. Dale has spent a lifetime as a professional in the oil and gas industry. He is an immensely qualified candidate for the job. Dale is a former Republican. A few years ago he served a term in office as a Mills County Commissioner, as a Republican. Dale switched parties because he could no longer stomach the elitist policies of the Republican Party.  Dale’s convictions about protecting the ordinary Texan from corporate robber barony and about protecting the environment are sincere and strong, which makes him an ideal candidate for the Texas Railroad Commission, the regulatory agency over the oil and gas industry.

 J.R. Molina pointed out that there are large numbers of Latino citizens all over West Texas who do not vote, that the state party has made no real effort to generate turnout among those citizens, and that if those citizens voted in good numbers Democrats would win all the statewide elections. J.R. exhorted all present to apply maximum efforts to motivate West Texas Latinos to vote. He also expressed the opinion that the state party has to do much more to encourage potential political donors to contribute to the statewide Democratic nominees.

Maria Louisa Alvarado distributed a written statement, in which she addressed the need to reach outside the conventional voter base and motivate voters who have not been participating in the political process.  Restoring trust in the political process for people who have either lost confidence or never had confidence in voting was a strong and eloquent campaign theme for Maria Louisa throughout 2006.  Her written statement, which she summarized orally to Boyd, reflected her strong vision about expanding participation in government and politics. Throughout the 2006 campaign the TDP inexcusably treated Maria Louisa virtually as if she were invisible, but her vision and passion for democratic government belonging to all the people are powerful, and I personally urge all readers here to pay her much closer attention.

Barbara pressed Boyd for a commitment that the party would put on a serious campaign to carry Texas for the whole ticket in 2008. She asked, “Is a coordinated campaign being planned for 2008?” In response she was told that it depends on what you mean by coordinated campaign.  She was also told something along the lines of, “it depends on what we’re able to do.” 

The itemized list of what Barbara called “commitments” in her newsletter were ideas that Barbara proposed in the meeting. With due respect for Barbara, I did not hear commitments to any of them. What I heard were vague comments no stronger than that they sounded like ideas that might be worth considering. 

The biggest shortcoming of the meeting structure was there was very little opportunity for follow-up questions or comments to specific assertions and specific questions.

The primary response to the candidates’ statements that TDP did not seriously promote the statewide ticket was to argue that to the contrary the party did support the statewide ticket to the best of its ability. There was virtually zero response of substance to the criticisms that the TDP did not seriously utilize its public communications abilities to promote the ticket and to counteract the defeatism of the major media.

At one point I said to Boyd, “the insider targeting has to stop.” The primary responses to this statement and to the other comments made about the exclusionary targeting by unelected insiders and consultants were either to avoid the issue or to deny the facts.

Boyd Richie is a genuinely congenial, likeable man. I have known him for a number of years. I personally enjoy his company and his conversation. But the Democratic Party is not a social club and the issues facing our fellow Texans and Americans are too serious to withhold truth for fear of hurting feelings.  Whenever I heard Boyd give public speeches at rallies during the campaign year, when I was present, he said good words about supporting the statewide nominees. I acknowledged this to him in the meeting.  But as I told him, the state party’s actions did not match his words. 

At one point in the meeting I told him, “Boyd, the elected party chair and SDEC need to be in charge of the process.” Boyd is the elected party chairman, democratically chosen by the delegates at the last convention. He is a member of the SDEC, as its presiding officer. As a matter of position and structure he carries applicable authority and responsibility, and is accountable to the party rank and file and the SDEC. The SDEC is the democratically elected governing body, whose members are elected at the Conventions, are responsible for conducting the affairs of the party between Conventions, and are accountable to the Convention delegates and to all rank and file Democrats. I strongly believe, however, that unelected consultants, advisors, donors, and staffers are collectively usurping the roles and authority of the elected party chairman and SDEC members. It is the best of all possible worlds for avoiding accountability, because it is virtually impossible for the SDEC members, Convention delegates, and grassroots members of the Democratic Party to hold shadowy unelected insiders accountable, especially when the elected party leaders protect the insiders’ roles by denying their existence. (I’m sure I must not be the only one to notice that after elections the insider consultants et al. tend to rush out into the open quickly to take credit for successes, but when it comes to examining losses they do not exactly line up to assume responsibility.)

This undemocratic and un-Democratic dynamic did not originate with Boyd Richie’s chairmanship. It has been going on for a long time. Personally I have spoken against it repeatedly and publicly for a number of years. So have many others. Regardless of when it started, we have got to get rid of this mindset that generates practices and customs that tell the general public our party is a private clique. It has to stop. It has to stop now. Tomorrow is not soon enough.

At the end of the meeting I volunteered to help the Party by trying to recruit county chairs in counties that presently do not have Democratic County Chairs. (To the best of my knowledge there are eight: Armstrong, Cottle, Crockett, Culberson, Hansford, Ochiltree, Roberts, and Terrell Counties.) I intend to apply my best efforts to do so.

 We all thanked Boyd for his time.

As for the list of “commitments” Barbara itemized in her newsletter, apart from the fact that they are wishes rather than commitments, in my opinion they are superficial palliatives. The meeting confirmed my worst suspicion, that the party chairman and his team are either not willing or not able to examine the culture of insider dealing and the undemocratic practice of insiders secretly deciding that only some Democratic nominees are worthy of party support. They are not willing to examine it because they don’t think anything is wrong with it. They simply don’t see the problem.  They are satisfied with low-expectation strategies and they are content with winning a few selected state house seats and counties and losing the big elections.  They are either not willing or not able to understand the root causes of and the state party’s necessary role in knocking out the defeatism that plagues this party.

SDEC Members Linda Perez of Wilson County (SD 21) and Lloyd Criss of Galveston (SD 11) are pushing for a rules change that would create a new standing committee of the SDEC, a Campaign Committee, to oversee the budget and operations of the state party’s general election voter turnout campaigns, with a special emphasis on carrying Texas statewide for the Democratic ticket in 2008. 

While the state party chair and TDP staff clearly need to be left with the discretion to make on-the-spot tactical and operational decisions in the heat of the general election campaign, the overall goals, parameters, and oversight must be in the hands of the SDEC to ensure democracy and accountability. The Perez-Criss proposal will do this.

 Adopting this proposal is the way to make sure that the aspirations of grassroots Democrats, for a fighting Democratic Party that fights to carry our state for our whole ticket in ’08 and beyond, with a winners’ attitude of confidence, pride, and fighting spirit, will lead the way for the Texas Democratic Party. This is the way to take the process out of the hands of minimalist, defeatist, unaccountable insider consultants and advisors. With the greatest of appreciation for SDEC members Perez and Criss, their proposal will greatly advance us on the path toward reclaiming our heritage as a strong, populist party in the tradition of Jefferson, Jackson, Roosevelt, and Johnson, a party that means what it says and says what it means, a party that will fight to bring relief from robber baron corporate government to all the people of Texas in every part of Texas.

 The Perez-Criss proposal will be considered at the April quarterly SDEC meeting. Please urge your two SDEC representatives (one male and one female from your Texas Senate District) to support this vital proposal.  The Texas Democratic Party website lists all the SDEC members by Senate District, with contact information.