Houston Democrats

I was really impressed by Barbara Radnofsky. Her message is clear and right on the issues. She is well deserving of our support and will be a great member of the US Senate.

According to the Vinson and Elkins website, during the course of Mrs. Radnofsky's legal career she has represented hospitals in a variety of medical malpractice cases including cases of death, blindness and disability, involving allegations of emergency room failure to diagnose and nursing failures to monitor and report. She represented a major Texas medical center in the jury trial of a case where a plaintiff alleged the amputation of his leg was due to nursing and medical negligence for failing to recognize the severity of a bed sore and treat the bed sore. Radnofsky obtained the first major summary judgment in Texas for a blood bank for compliance with the standard of care in a transfusion related AIDS case. She has consistently defended hospitals in cases of wrongful death. She obtained a defense verdict for the distributor of a life vest in litigation arising from the drowning of the plaintiff's decedent. Radnofsky has obtained defense verdicts for several auto manufacturers in jury trials involving allegations of design defect, crashworthiness, and flaw, in state and federal courts. She has represented department stores, hotels, a gymnasium and businesses involved in disputes involving oil field production and treating chemical distributorship/pricing disputes.

Radnofsky has done a pro bono case. She has also represented burn victims and wrongful death beneficiaries in actions against a lighter manufacturer, however, in my opinion, these cases were "slam dunks" for conviction against the lighter manufacturer and the lighter was subsequently determined defective and recalled.

My point in saying all this is that on the outside Radnofsky may appear to be a Democrat who is working "for the people", however, after reviewing the cases she has taken on and the entities she has represented it seems clear to me that she represents big business against individuals. She has consistently represented hospitals against patients as well as other types of companies i.e. auto manufacturers, nursing homes, department stores, hotels, a gymnasium, insurance companies, school districts, a blood bank etc.

I am always leery of a Democratic candidate who is so wealthy that he/she can fund his/her own campaign for a position in government. That is not to say that all Democrats who are wealthy are Republican lite, however, true Democrats are supposed to have the best interests of the PEOPLE at heart, not the corporations! I would advise the Texas Democratic Party to investigate further before rallying around and throwing support to Mrs. Radnofsky. We need PROGRESSIVE, POPULIST candidates representing the citizens of Texas. We don't need any more DINOs in Congress! The people of Texas need a voice in Congress that will truly represent the best interests of ALL the citizens of Texas and not the best interests of the giant corporations who have insinuated themselves into our government! We who are progressive Democrats demand that the Democratic Party recruit and support those Democratic candidates who are truly progressive populists.

Those who may wish to criticize me for my post would do well to visit the Vinson and Elkins website and look at the clients that Mrs. Radnofsky has represented during the course of her legal career. It is time for the Democratic Party to stop supporting Republican lite candidates and start recruiting and supporting true Democratic progressives who will be a voice for the people in Congress.

I am second to none in criticism of Vichy Democrats with either a "Republican Lite" message on the campaign trail or pimped-out voting record. I support David Van Os for Attorney General.

As an economist, I see no reason for "transaction lawyers" in general, or "bond-lawyers" in particular to even exist, or for V&E to walk away whole, given its complicity in the finances of Enron or, for that matter, of the City of Houston. OK, I am long-winded; but, surely, I am unambiguous about these matters.

In a republican democracy with responsible two-party government, we would never have heard of any such things. Transaction-lawyer? Bond-Lawyer? Who do they represent? (Answer: nobody but themselves)

In the world of Jim Crow and, now, post-war crony capitalism, these perversions of law and tradition are all over the place, with the last great growth in this sort of political-economic fungus having come under President Clinton. So, let's not get too huffy-puffy here, mes enfants.

And, let's get some basic things straight: Our adversarial system of justice takes prosecution or plaintiff and defense lawyers functioning on equal terms and neutral judges. This criticism of Barbara Radnofsky for zealously defending ... whoever she is hired to defend for whatever they may be charged with or sued over is way off base or, rather, is better suited to the defamatory rhetoric of the GOP.

Which firm lawyers work for and who hires them should not be matters of political dispute or government intervention. Don't complain about Admiral Poindexter in the bedroom or the clinic or the bookstore and give Barbara Radnofsky this kind of grief, for Pete's sake.

Frankly, I think she and Chris Bell may have already won the auction that Democratic pimps and consultants conduct by way of a nominating process. That is a bad process, but it is the one that delegates to Democratic conventions have allowed to grow up. It is a given for any candidate, as much for Barbara Radnofsky as for David Van Os, both of whom are now running for public office and leaving party matters up to mee and thee.

The decrepitude of the Democratic Party of Texas is ultimately attributable to the two days every other year when the state delegates generally fail to exercise their rights or discharge their responsibilities. The pimps and consultants or, for that matter, the bond-lawyers just fill a hole we have left.

Barbara is, I think, working hard to revise and articulate a position on abortion that the Democratic Party can unify around even as the GOP comes apart, I hope, in their up-coming primary. This is commendable. David Van Os is doing a fine and timely job of restoring some oldfangled populist credibility to this party of clever lawyers and blow-dry media personalities -- that is to say Bar and Chris. In fact, some GOP voters are going to come out of the primary mad and, I hope, look for faces and words they can embrace. It probably won't be David's. But, it might be Bar and Chris. To quote the semi-incarcerated Martha Stewart, that is a "good thing".

I think David's populist message will resonate, too, especially if it can be related to matters of cars and trucks, oh, and of jobs -- other than lawyering -- that people increasingly do not have.

The question for this party is whether a "mixed" or "diverse" ticket can, in fact, be "robust" and just credible with an electoral majority. That will not be a matter of nuances but of logistics and discipline on the part of our candidates and our voters.

My question is not for which sort of lawyers Bar, Chris, and David would have been prior to running and gaining office in our name. I don't care and neither should you.

None of them were my lawyer. I love my lawyer. Everybody loves their lawyer and hates all those other damn lawyers. That is the nature of that work. But, Democrats are used to thinking office-seekers and office-holders as "advocates", not as "managers" or, presently, as "generals". Even Bill Clinton -- the "wonk" -- was a lawyer. If I can accept these facts, so should all of us.

The important thing is whether our lawyers can fill the many holes in our party, the lack of a logistics or, for that matter, strategical party executive, the lack of a credible, practical platform, the complete absence of deliberative order or results that our party establishment wallow in. It would be much better if we had dealt with these lacunae. Our candidates could focus on running for office confident that a party was "wathing their back". They can't, but I, for one, do not want to give them excuses for running "away from this party" or "away from each other". David Van Os needs some support from the kind of campaign the consultants are going to finance and run for the candidates they have selected. But, those candidates are going to need the kind of populist authenticity and depth that David brings to the ticket.

If these three candidates run alone or as a pair not a trinity, the GOP snipers will pick them all off one by one.

Kris Graham and John Behrman are two of my favorite Houston Democrats. And I want either one of them in my foxhole when the battle begins.

(Preferably Kris, because she's a lot cuter than John. And smaller...)

Thanks for the sweet compliment, PDiddie! I'd be happy to get down in the trenches with you when the fight for democracy gets "down and dirty", which I believe it will eventually have to. Keep raising hell and always question authority!!

Barbara Radnofsky has been reading the blog and appreciates the discussion we have going here. I received the following email from her this afternoon:

Thanks for the great, substantive meeting and the opportunity to speak on the issues. I appreciated the Q and A period, in particular. And I've very much enjoyed reading the robust blogging, as well, on your website. To follow-up on questions: An article about my defense and plaintiff's work (dated Jan 13, 2003) is posted on my website: www.radnofsky.com, as are articles about my volunteer teaching to schoolchildren for the past decade on mediation and problem solving, in avoiding violence, and helping people.

The Jan. 2003 article describes my work on behalf of victims, including burned children. After the article was published, my case of Flock v Scripto Tokai came down from the appeals court in favor of my clients, whose beautiful little boy was killed in the fire. The appeals court held in my clients' favor, reversing our loss in the trial court.

I noticed one of your bloggers called my work for the burn victims a “slam-dunk”, including my multi-year successful effort which finally persuaded the Consumer Product Safety Comission to declare these lighters dangerous and defective.

No advocate could appreciate your blogger's hearty comment more! No one but me, during the many, many, many years my clients and I were fighting these matters, would call my efforts a “slam dunk”. But I always said we would win in the end. I'm glad that it looks like it was a slam-dunk.
I know how to fight for people.
I know how to represent people.
And, I know how to bring people together.

All the best,
BAR
Barbara Ann Radnofsky for US Senate Committee, Inc.
www.radnofsky.com
P O. Box 550377
Houston, TX
77055-0377

Thank you Barbara for responding! It's great to know that we have a politician who's actually listening!

Kris Graham's comments miss the point. I'm a Radnofsky volunteer, and am ready for the Democrats to win a major election in Texas. The people in this state want someone who can relate to their problems and who will represent them in D.C. Barbara Ann is a mom, a wife, a teacher, a daughter, and a brass-knuckles attorney when it comes to a fight. Barbara has a real message--let's work together to fix problems--that most Texans are dying to hear. Her message is devoid of party rant. She never blames anyone, and she focuses on answers. Kris, you can sit around waiting for the "populist, progressive" candidate who has a snowball's chance--most other Texans will throw in with Barbara Ann.

Seth, why is it you think a progressive, populist candidate has a snowball's chance to be supported by the citizens of Texas? I don't give a damn what other Texans do. I don't fall lock step behind other Texans who will simply "throw in" with Barbara Ann. I don't believe I have missed any point. The point YOU are missing, Seth, is that if the Democratic Party continues to support Republican lite candidates the people of the United States will never have a voice in Congress. Would be politicians say and do a lot of things in order to get the people to support them. It seems that once they get into government they are more interested in keeping their corporate contributors happy than in exercising the will of the people. It's narrow minded thinking like yours that has helped contribute to DINOs getting into public office.

It is not "party rant" to bring attention to the problems we have as a party in not recruiting and supporting truly progressive, populist candidates for office. If you want to line up behind a centrist candidate that's your prerogative. I, on the other hand, and many people like me choose to support candidates who truly represent our best interests and the interests of the poor and middle class.

It will take A LOT more than words to convince me that Barbara Radnofsky has the best interests of all Texans at heart. From what Ron and I have read on the Vinson and Elkins website regarding the clients she has defended in the past, it seems to me she is more interested in defending the "rights" of business over the rights of the average citizen.

Sorry, Seth. I don't support someone just because he/she CLAIMS to be a Democrat in order to win a major election in Texas. When enough of the people of this country get hungry enough, when they can't pay their bills and when they can't afford to take their kids to the doctor, then, they'll look at one another and wonder what the hell happened! We'd better start recruiting and supporting politicians who represent the poor and middle class and who are answerable to the people instead of the corporations. It's not about winning with Republican lite candidates, Seth. It's about having a government BY THE PEOPLE, OF THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE, which we don't have right now.

Why not join with those of us who want to change the fabric of government and infuse it with candidates who represent all of us? Oh, by the way, I'm not "sitting around" as you put it waiting for progressive, populist candidates to materialize. Those of us who support Progressive Democrats of America are helping that organization recruit progressives to run on the Democratic ticket. Check out their website at www.pdamerica.org and become a sustaining member. Help them in their endeavor to return our government to the people.

I will recruit and support progressive candidates who will seek the nomination of the Democratic Party for local, state, and national office. I do not "throw in" with anyone for sake of convenience. Democrats have "thrown in the towel" for too long. Barbara Radnofsky has a long way to go to convince me that a partner in the Vinson and Elkins law firm who has defended hospitals against patients, nursing homes against the elderly, and automobile manufacturers against the accident victims is not a Republican. And don't tell me she is just doing a good job. Lawyers always have the option to serve whom they choose. I would like to know where Barbara stands on issues such as "Roe v Wade", the gay marriage amendment, the open source code/paper trail ballot, the Patriot Act, the confirmations of Negroponte, Gonzales and Rice, the opening of ANWR for oil and gas exploration, the bankruptcy bill etc. etc. etc. I haven't heard a word from her on anything except something about "target zero" on abortion while she claims to support a woman's right to choose. Hey, isn't that coming down on both sides of the "waffle"?

Beware the false prophet who comes in sheep's (Democrat) clothing for inwardly they are as ravenous as wolves (Republicans)! One Kay Bailey Hutchison is enough!

"Target zero" is about reducing the number of abortions, not eliminating the right of a woman to have an abortion. I believe it is and should be the right of women to choose what they can do with their bodies. I think most people can agree regardless of their personal beliefs that having an abortion is not something desireable to go through, or something a woman looks forward to in life. It can be emotionally straining as well as having a significant physical impact, not to mention the cost to pay for one. I don't see any problem with implementing measures to try and reduce the need for abortions. I think "abstinence-only" sex education promoted by religious conservatives is not only naive in this day in age, but totally irresponsible. On the other hand, increasing the awareness of young women AND men (since men contribute to the need for abortions too) about the different methods of contraception AND how to use them when it comes to the decision to have or not have sex is critical to reducing the number of abortions. Abstinence can be part of sex education as well since it is the only 100% effective and sexually transmitted disease-free method to prevent pregnancies, but it shouldn't be the sole method of contraception.

I think we can all agree that it is generally not in the interest of teenagers or other young adults to become parents before they have even had a chance to mature as a person, physically and as a cognitive being. By becoming parents at such a young age, it puts an incredible amount of pressure on women to try and make it through the rest of high school and/or college. This is especially so since the man does not always stick around or have the means to support his girlfriend, one night stand, etc. during and after the pregnancy.

Caring for a child can make it extremely tough for a woman to find and maintain a job to pay the bills, such as doctor and medical fees for the child, nevermind house payments, credit card payments, car payments, groceries, electricty, heat, etc., etc... Often the young woman's parents end up having to support their daughter and new grandchild that causing financial problems for them as well since raising a child is a full time job, mentally, physically, and economically. Additionally, there are the life experiences that one misses out on as a young parent because one's time is tied up in caring for the child. I'm not talking just about the chance to experience the social aspects of college life, but the chance to have an education, to travel, to spend time with the person you decide to marry before having kids. In as much as its good to have good life experiences, it is necessary to have some bad life experiences as well, hopefully not a lot of them, but to understand what living means and to know how to look out for and avoid certain pitfalls in the future. For these reasons, we all should be attempting to reduce the need for abortions. It's only fair to the young women of our nation (and ultimately the world) and for the sake of the children because their life is impacted if their young and potentially single parent does not have the ability to raise them as they would like to in order to give them the best life possible.

There are other cases in which I would support an abortion. One is rape, which no one should have to go through, but in the chance it happens, the woman shouldn't have to carry the pregnancy to full term if she does not wish to since she obviously didn't have any consent in the decision to become pregnant or a parent. Therefore, no one should require her to have the baby, it's not her fault.

Another case would be if the baby will be born with serious birth defects that can often be detected much in advance of birth (like several months) with today's technology. I support this because it is unfair to the child who will never be fully capable to think or develop to go through life hooked to a machine. Obviously this isn't the only example or degree of severity, but these kinds of cases are also huge fiscal constraints on the parents' ability to remain fiscally sustainable. Obviously, one's financial situation has to be sound in addition to being physically and mentally ready in order to be able to care for one's child to the fullest extent possible to give the child the best care he or she needs. I'm sure reducing the choice to having a baby to money sounds cruel and cold-hearted, but the ability to support the needs of the child are paramount. Additionally, if a child has serious birth complications that will prevent it from ever supporting itself and the child is not wanted by the parents, it would be unfair and cruel to keep it alive because the child will not have the love and care it needs. Plus, it's a fact of life that we all age and the parents may not be around to support the child throughout its own life, and it is unreasonable to expect that there will certainly be someone else willing to continue the care necessary for the child.

I should say here that there may be many other cases in which abortions should be allowed, but I just have thought of or explicity mentioned them. Ultimately, the choice to have an abortion is a personal one, and should not be decided by the government or anyone else.

Yes, "target zero" may seem like one is straddling the fence, but it really is an attempt to stay firmly on the side of responsibility and to give the fullest chance at life that parents and their children can and should have the opportunity to live. Abortions should be allowed, and we should respect the ultimate and fundamental right of women to choose when it comes to their body. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility as a society to make abortions as unnecessary as possible, something that can be done through education about the types and uses of contraception and the lifelong demands and needs of raising children, NOT by discriminatory legislation to make everyone live by the beliefs of a particular religion that one believes is the only truth. In the end, "target zero" benefits all involved by providing the means to the people to prevent the need for an abortion from ever arrising and respecting the rights of the individual. Minimizing unwanted or unintended pregnancies should be a proactive effort not just a reactive one.

This is a classic case of nuance that the religious conservatives cannot or are simply unwilling to bring themselves to comprehend.

Although I am not convinced about Radnofsky, what I can say about Marc's explanation is that I always thought the Democratic Party supported a proactive approach to this issue, along with the reactive.

Proactive by always supporting effective sex education delivery methods in the classroom that have always included abstinence as a goal, but knowing that our reality includes all of the situations he wrote about. And Reactive by assuring a woman has the option of reproductive choice if it arises--by surprise or not.

We've always supported these ideas. What Radnofsky might be trying to do, to take from Lakoff's book, is to "reframe" the issue to one that might sound better to voters. Of course, any "reframing" will also ruffle the feathers of pro-choice activists, such as myself, without a full explanation from the candidate.

More than anything, I agree with Ron when he says: "I would like to know where Barbara stands on issues such as "Roe v Wade" (THE CASE NOT THE ISSUE), the gay marriage amendment, the open source code/paper trail ballot, the Patriot Act, the confirmations of Negroponte, Gonzales and Rice, the opening of ANWR for oil and gas exploration, the bankruptcy bill etc." Especially the confirmation of Gonzales and Negroponte!

Let's all remember that it is still VERY early in this primary process. Perhaps some of our Texas elected officials in Austin are mulling a run for Senate, but still cannot announce, or work behind the scenes, because they're busy in session. We should get a better picture after the session ends--if we don't go into special session!

For now, Radnofsky has every right to campaign as agressively (and obviously as successfully) as she has, and progressives have every right to ask questions and challenge her views. That's what the Democratic Party is about!

Kris--
It's nice that you support progressive candidates. It's not nice that you've been blown out of the water in every Senate race since Ralph Yarborough. It's also not nice that your conception of politics starts and stops with labels. Very, very not nice.

You suggest that Barbara is a wolf in sheep's clothing. So let me make sure I have this straight--in order to get a trip to D.C. she runs as a Democrat in George Bush's Texas? It galls a few people that Barbara is willing to balance competing interests in the name of getting to a solution--but only a few. The rest of us find moderation and common sense unbelievably refreshing.

I recommend that you pay attention to substance and quit focusing on labels. Barbara is a mom. She's a wife. She's a daughter caring for a parent. She believes that Texans working together can find workable solutions to abortion, religious issues, health care, immigration--that we can find common ground in spite of our differences. You may call these the qualities of a sell-out. I call them the qualities of a statesman.

And Kris, it's in poor taste for you to talk about Barbara's corporate clients without giving equal airtime to the fact that she has close to a quarter of a century worth of experience as a paid mediator. That means people fork over their own hard-earned money because they believe Barbara can help them reach a working compromise with their most bitter adversaries. Find me a politician with these credentials, with this degree of credibility, with this level of personal warmth and dedication, and I'll vote for her no matter which party she represents.

#1 Seth, I recommend that you stop recommending I do things. #2 Seth, I didn't write that Barbara is a wolf in sheep's clothing. My husband did. So take it up with him. #3 Seth, I also happen to be a wife and mother. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Aren't those just labels? Exactly what did you mean when you said, "So let me make sure I have this straight--in order to get a trip to D.C. she runs as a Democrat in George Bush's Texas?" #1 Texas doesn't belong to George Bush. He's not even a Texan, for Christ's sake! He and his family are from Connecticut. #2 What in the hell are you talking about? I want a progressive populist Democrat to run for the U.S. Senate in Texas, not a so called moderate Democrat as Radnofsky touts herself. #3 What is your problem with progressive populist candidates? What is so wrong with being a progressive populist?

You mentioned that Barbara believes that Texans working together can find workable solutions to abortion, religious issues, healthcare and immigration. First of all, government should keep its nose out of issues dealing with religion. Check out the Constitution, Seth. We do have a separation of church and state in there. Secondly, Roe v. Wade has been decided. The government, which is made up primarily of men, should stay the hell out of women's business when it comes to what they should do with their reproductive organs. How about the Democrats getting behind Universal Healthcare, or is that too much of a socialist policy for them and you? As far as immigration goes, we have people coming over here from Latin America to find work and get paid probably less than minimum wage so they can send the money back home to their families. We have immigrants in the United States doing jobs others here don't want to do. We sure as hell don't need the Minutemen or whatever in the hell these idiots are calling themselves patrolling the borders in Arizona and Texas.

Why won't Barbara address the issues my husband presented in his earlier post? These are issues of importance to us and probably to many other people. Why are you running interference for Barbara Radnofsky, hmmmmmm? Let her answer the questions that were posed to her regarding the issues listed earlier. Then, maybe Ron and I will change our minds about her.

By the way, what did you mean when you said my conception of politics starts and stops with labels? I know what a true Democrat is supposed to stand for. I'm not sure Mrs. Radnofsky is a true Democrat. I want her to define herself as a polar opposite to a Republican. Can she do that? Does she choose to run as a so called moderate so she doesn't offend anyone? Does she lick her finger and hold it up to see which way the political wind is blowing ala John Kerry? How 'bout it, Seth? You seem to be running to her defense. Fess up.

It's wonderful that Barbara has been paid to be a mediator in situations where people can't seem to work out their own differences. Gee whiz. She gets the best of both worlds, I guess. She gets to reap the benefits of representing big business against average citizens AND she gets to collect the dough for doing "mediation". She gets the brownie star!

Your little quip about voting for someone who can not only represent big business as Barbara has done but also can mediate and you don't care which party they represent tells me everything I need to know about you, too. Obviously, you DON'T support progressive populist candidates. You're willing to trot on down the garden path like the Democrats have been doing for the last 25 years and lick up the crumbs the Republicans whisk off their table. Good luck, pal. You're gonna need it.

Seth, you are confusing my post with my wife's. I admire your voluntary zeal for Mrs. Radnofsky. After reading many of your posts on this blog (and others) I could almost surmise that you either are or will soon be a consultant for marketing her campaign. If so, please don't refer to her as a "moderate, progressive" again.

MODERATE - One who holds or champions moderate views or opinions, especially in politics or religion.
PROGRESSIVE - A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.

This is a very interesting thread. My impression of the political mood here is that people are hungry for a quality individual - no matter what the party - who seems to have values they share, and a high degree of personal integrity. I met Barbara Radnofsky recently, and she impressed me from the get-go. I don't know her position on every issue yet. I can't say that I will agree with every vote she will make in the Senate, but I can say that I would trust her to make those judgments.

If I could add to the comment above about Lakoff, the poster seemed to imply that the point of his book is that "reframing" an issue amounts to revising the language to make a position more palatable to voters. Actually, he argues against doing this. His point is that progressives need to work on a longer term strategy to establish frames, but that these frames must be grounded by solid values. Language can help to establish these frames, but it is important first and foremost to know your values and never contradict them. Lakoff says that most people vote their values rather than on issues. If people voted on the issues, I doubt George Bush would be president.

The other point Lakoff makes is that conservatives work hard to find common ground -- despite their differences on specific issues -- because they know that essentially politics is the art of the possible. Some of the language in this thread lends credence to his view that progressives do not do this, to their detriment. This -- in my opinion, more than "moving to the right" -- is what has increasingly cost Democrats elections.

My own view of her background is that she seems to be a pretty tough fighter, and I would say that is probably a good attribute when considering a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Kris--

Texas doesn't belong to George Bush? Got some really bad news for you...You want a populist Democrat to run for Senate in Texas and win? The last time Texas elected a progressive Senator was in 1964. I don't have a problem with progressive candidates--this thread started because you have a problem with Barbara, who I happen to like and whose stance on many issues I agree with.

You want Barbara to define herself as the polar opposite to a Republican? Which kind of Republican? Teddy Roosevelt? Nixon? Reagan? Lincoln? Or are they all the same? Or does it matter as long as she yammers and yaps that she hates 'em all, slams the hot buttons with a hammer, and acts like a caricature painted by Rush Limbaugh? I'd prefer that she define herself independently of the Republican Party. I know what I think of Kay Bailey Hutchison.

If she's not the candidate for you, vive la difference, Kris--go round up the progressive populist contendah who suits you best and throw in with her or run yourself. In the meantime, I'm backing Barbara. She's razor sharp, she's got a heart a mile wide, she cares about people, she wants to be part of the solution, she knows how to brawl, she's got a pretty smile, and she has the power to inspire.

I never said I didn't "like" Barbara Radnofsky, Seth. You're turning this into something personal, which it isn't. I haven't even met the woman. I'm simply stating some facts regarding past clients she has represented, and you are turning this into a pissing contest. Grow up and get over yourself.

You are well within your rights to "throw in" with Barbara if you so choose. I'm holding off on supporting her until I've had a chance to meet her and talk with her about where she stands on some very important issues.

I want Barbara to define herself as a true Democrat who adheres strictly to the party platform. If she can't do that she's no Democrat. I don't support candidates strictly because of their perceived mental/physical attributes, as you put them: She's razor sharp, she's got a heart a mile wide, she cares about people, she wants to be part of the solution, she knows how to brawl, she's got a pretty smile, and she has the power to inspire. I don't care if she looks like Quasimoto and is a peacenik at heart so long as she represents the poor and middle class of the state of Texas in the Senate and doesn't end up whoring herself out to the large corporations and special interests who will be sniffing around her hindquarters the minute she starts warming a Senate seat.

I would like for you to explain this sentence you wrote: Texas doesn't belong to George Bush? Got some really bad news for you...You want a populist Democrat to run for Senate in Texas and win? The last time Texas elected a progressive Senator was in 1964. Do you think the people of Texas are cretins or what? Do you think they WOULDN'T support a candidate who emerged and had a message that resonated with them both socially and economically? Explain yourself. The people of the United States have been lied to for years by the Republicans. These Republicans in this government have played to the very WORST in people, namely their biases and their fears. How about finding Democrats who play to the very BEST in humankind....their willingness to accept others unlike themselves, their willingness to work hard, play by the rules and make a liveable wage, their ability to reach out and help their neighbor? Good grief, Seth! You are either so jaded and pessimistic that you think a Democrat has to run as a Centrist or Moderate to win an election or you are extremely naive or you're a handjob for Republican lite Democrats. Which is it?

Pull your head out of your posterior and stop trying to attack me for not lining up behind your beloved candidate. I'll reserve judgment until I've had a chance to talk with Mrs. Radnofsky. Until then, step off me and allow someone other than yourself to make an informed decision about whom he/she wishes to support.

Kris--
Since I'm not her spokesman, your best recourse to finding out where she stands might be to attend a meet and greet at Maria Selma's Restaurant, 1617 Richmond, from 5:00-6:45 tomorrow night. You should have plenty of opportunity to inquire about her legal career and her stance on other issues.

Thanks very much, Seth, for the information. I was aware of the meet and greet from Lyn Wall's post earlier. I do intend to respectfully ask Mrs. Radnofsky many questions regarding where she stands on issues of importance to me and issues I believe are of vital importance to other Texans, as well. I will decide then based upon her answers whether or not I will support her in her endeavor to become a U.S. Senator.

To the gentleman who thinks progressive populists don't stand a snowball's chance: Kerry won by 50% or more in 20 counties in Texas. Van Os won by 50% or more in 31 counties in Texas. Van Os even got more votes than Kerry in several counties.

My bet is that BAR already has more in the bank than Van Os spent on his entire campaign.

Many have heard that BAR is liberal but running as a moderate. Perhaps she should follow Van Os' lead and just be herself.

If you were part of my staff I would have fired you after your first ugly post to Kris Graham. Kris is a wildcat but you ought to pay attention to her. Democrats don't have anything to lose by being unapologetic about their ideology.

Right on Senora Rata !! Methinks I smell a consultant posing as regular folk in Seth, flaking for his client. Kris Graham for U.S. Senate, a person of conviction ! "Beware the Weasel", as Mark Twain or someone said.

Stan, Senora Rata--
Barbara spoke last night at Maria Selma's and was available for almost two hours of extended questioning. I had the pleasure of meeting Kris and Ron and thanked them for their tough questions as well as for their role in helping "move the needle." They are an asset to any democracy, and don't seem to mind dishing it out or taking it--the mark of honesty and sincerity. You can get more information about me and my work by visiting my web site, www.wildsteps.com, or my two other blogs, http://savercd.blogspot.com and http://museumworld.blogspot.com.