Bad, Not Biased ... Rick Perry's Latest "Scandal"

Since you are from Texas, I would like to ask you a couple of questions. If Kay Bailey Hutchinson leaves her Senate seat to run for governor, do you envision the Democrats making a competitive bid for that seat? Could one of the Blue Dogs (Charles Stenholm, Chet Edwards, Martin Frost, Nick Lampson, Jim Turner, Max Sandlin, Chris Bell, etc.) now out of a job as a result of DeLay's Machiavellian machinations culminating in a devious, if brilliantly successful, redistricting scheme make a race of it? I know you detest Martin Frost and that he would not be your candidate for DNC chairman or anything else. (In that regard, it looks like Frost does not have a "snow ball's chance in Hell" in his feeble campaign to head the DNC.) It might help if Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchinson went at each other, depletitng the GOP's coffers, and dividing the state party. Alternatively, has the Democratic Party sunk so low in Texas that it is basically hopeless?

I should amend my statement above. Moreover, I would like to pose a couple of more questions. Chet Edwards, obviously, did keep his seat, unlike the others named above who either did not run for reelection or were defeated in redrawn districts. How did Edwards keep his seat, while the others "bit the dust?" Do you think that there is any chance at all that the courts would actually overturn the redistricting and force the districts to be redrawn yet again? Do you think that DeLay actually could find himself indicted? If he were indicted, what would be the long-run ramifications for Texas politics?

If KBH runs for Guv, which I suspect will happen, my hunch is that Dems shy away from yet another tough race. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, however.

The tendency among likely/potential statewide candidates has been that it's best not to upset a strong top-of-the-ticket candidate because they may run so strong and their coattails might be so long that it devours us in down-ballot races. This was the approach in 1998 and 2000. In 2002, we had a decent bet that Perry and Dewhurst were beatable and others weren't possessive of enough electoral strength. Wrong-o, as it turns out.

The lessons that our better candidates take from recent elections will be critical to determining the future of the state party and if they don't offer as strong and bold a challenge as they possibly can, not even demographics will save the party for the foreseeable future.

That said, if I were a betting man, I'd probably put money down on KBH winning whatever she runs for. Given her recent actions, I think it's highly doubtful that the "best for everyone else but KBH" solution evolves and she retires. Her interest is clearly for the Guv seat, but Perry does not look like he's budging. I suspect KBH will win regardless, but it won't be a gimme. That there will be some blood on the floor at the end of that one may be just enough of a chink in the armor for Dems to be emboldened enough to put forth their best candidate ASAP.

The biggest problem with the "leave 'em alone" strategy that's been practiced in the past, is that we've allowed the construction of even more 800-pound gorillas in the desire to avoid the one that stands before us at the time. Then, it was Bush (dad, by virtue of GOP consolidation under Reagan ... son due to personal popularity) at the top of the ballot. Now, it may be KBH. But one name being mentioned as a possible candidate for Senate now is Henry Bonilla. A longshot to upset Dewhurst, I think, but if he's on the ballot statewide in 2006, there's a decent chance the Democratic party is toast if Bonilla is successful in appealing to Hispanic voters. Funny how things work when you concede more and more of the state to the other side ... eventually, the other side finds their way onto your turf.

All that said, I think there's still a window of opportunity if Texas Democrats embrace the mantle of reform and take some of the lessons taught by Mark Strama in his State Rep campaign, as well as a few other places beyond our borders (Brian Schweitzer in MT being a notable one). The inkling of doubt I have that this will happen is due to the fact that even among the offed candidates listed above, how many of them are likely to make for effective messengers of reform, as opposed to being messengers for Democrats as the party of government? If we point out that the GOP has had the run of state government for a decade and the shortcomings of the state governement are fully theirs, I think we can push forth a strong reform message along the lines that Strama pushed for.

As for redistricting, I think the damage is done regardless of what the SCOTUS comes back with. Even under the best case scenario (highly unlikely that I think it is), with reinstatement of the old lines, Charlie Stenholm, Jim Turner, & Max Sandlin find a tougher campaign in their old district with an emboldened opposition (that is, if they were to even decide to run again). Lampson and Frost would likely be the only ones to make it back to Congress. What becomes of the reconversion of the minority-dominated 9th back to a minority-influenced 25th? I'm not sure. I suspect Bell might not want to jump back into an internicine warfare by challenging Al Green, but if Al Green runs in the 25th, if goes Republican.

But like I said ... I think that outcome is alltogether unlikely. My hunch is that SCOTUS leaves the current map alone, but replaces the Veith guidelines that they just eliminated in Veith with ... something.

Thank you for the very interesting and informative assessment. You write great articles and have a great Blog. I wish you every success in your efforts to compete with other Blogs and also to place the Democratic Party on a better, more intelligent course.