GregsOpinion.com

Kuff lands the Q&A with Harris County District Attorney challenger Reginald McKamie. Like Kuff, I've had the pleasure of meeting McKamie on a few occassions. On the exterior, he's exactly what you look for in a DA. Kuff, meanwhile, digs into the interior with his questioning.

The short version of my take is this: if moderates and independents across the county get a chance to meet McKamie, they'll likely come to the same conclusion. But Democrats have not yet built a unified, cohesive message that says "this is why we need to have a Democratic sheriff, DA, county clerk, tax assessor, etc ...." Invariably, these jobs tend to come down to name ID and party ID. For someone of my ilk, that's not acceptable. But then again, I've met McKamie ... I've had a chance to question him, hear him address other questions, and have been suitably impressed to state that the man will have my vote. That said, the broader campaign message needs work:

CK: DA Rosenthal's TV ads have a strong "tough on crime" theme to them. What does being "tough on crime" mean to you?

RM: Being tough on crime means protecting citizens from predators and violent criminals and making sure there is space in the prisons for those that commit violent crimes and who the public need to be protected from. I do not consider it being tough on crime to send a mother to jail for welfare fraud who worked during the Christmas holidays to provide Christmas gifts for her children.

CK: What is your overall campaign strategy? Do you believe you will get a boost from the Presidential election?

RM: My overall campaign strategy is to utilize e-mail and people power to get the word out that my campaign represents an alternative to what's happening in Harris County criminal courts and if they want a change they need to vote and make a difference. I believe and have always believed I will get a boost from the 2000 presidential election. I believe the voters remember what happened in 2000 and those that are conscious have decided it will never happen again and that they will get out and vote. I believe the early vote numbers are proving that to be the case and that we will have one of the highest voter turnouts in recent history. I call it the "tide" principle. When the tide comes in there is nothing you can do to stop it, and when the tide goes out there is nothing you can do to stop it. I believe the political tide wants change and that the tide of change is coming in and there is nothing anyone can do about it and no matter how much money Rosenthal spends on "I'm tough on crime" ads, it will not change the tide.

In order ....

Re: "Tough on crime" ... this is a matter of issue ownership that Democrats need to rebut. Yet the exterior view shows a black Houston candidate talking about a moratorium on the death penalty and emphasizing justice over meting out penalties to those whom many would like see penalized. The Texas GOP has pretty much bastardized what it has meant to be "tough on crime," though. Given the runup of prisoners and death penalties, the debate is now framed in terms of "which current prisoners don't need to be in jail" and "which murderers do you want off of death row?" Democratic candidates should not cower from the challenge. The answers are both plain and simple: Which current prisoners do we not want in jail? McKamie hits this one on the nail's head: welfare mothers working over the Christmas holiday ... that's who. There's a punishment that may or may not be warranted by that mother's actions, but jail probably isn't one of them. Which murderers do we want off of death row? I'd suggest we answer this with "the ones who are innocent" ... tying that answer into problems such as the Houston Crime Lab. Given my own faith, I put myself down as agnostic on the death penalty itself, but one has to realize that that's the minority view. If people want to have faith in the fact that the people frying for their crimes are truly guilty, we need to have faith in the case that sent them there. Currently, there's not a lot of good reason to have consistent faith out of many. That concern needs to be addressed to those who support the death penalty. If they see the good faith steps taken (or promised) that lead to the certainty that we all require for putting someone to death, this shouldn't frighten any candidate of any party.

Re: the "Tide Principle": I'll differ with Reggie on this one. Relying on tides is tantamount to saying "I deserve to win because of the party I belong to, not because of the principles I advocate." It's a step away from relying on crass machine politics to get elected, and that's something I've never been a fan of. The "tide" as it exists in Harris County has tended to keep the GOP in power for just over the last decade. Ideas can overcome tides. We Dems failed countywide over that time by not looking within to get a better read on the case we need to make to voters in order to earn their trust. Instead, we've suggested that demographics alone will be our savior. And it may well be ... even if not this year. Anger at Florida's voting irregularities is not a governing principle that voters can take solace in their leaders for. It may get a politician or two elected, but I'm guessing it's not going to be the Harris County District Attorney ... and I say that as one who has sent out over 100 letters in my precinct advocating for votes to Reginald McKamie.

All of that is said with benefit of knowing that I've had the good fortune to meet Reggie, talk to him, get a measure of him, and all that other good stuff that New Hampshirites get to do with Presidential candidates. I do know that he has a lot more depth than sometimes is offered up and I'm also confident he'd make a great DA. The Chron gave him their endorsement, albeit seemingly for much of the reason that his name wasn't Chuck Rosenthal. Fair enough ... elections are about choices. But for more voters now and beyond to head to the polls to vote explicitly FOR Reginald McKamie, he needs to try a little harder at showing some more depth as a suitor for that position.