Houston Democrats

Murvin gets the details mostly correct, but I think he misses the point:

The change agenda won.

The individuals most responsible for that, Stan MERRIMAN and Sheril SMITH, were not there and not running for anything. In any event, a change agenda that does not depend on a handful of individuals or groups is the only such agenda that will ever prevail.

Nobody in the race for state chair campaigned on anything but change. However, all those with a stake in preserving the established patronage chain (a) circled their wagons months ago and used their control of the SDEC to organize the convention under Bob SLAGLE then (b) lined up solidly behind RITCHIE. What was Boyd to do? Spurn them?

Actually, nobody has figured out how to organize 31 + 7 mini-conventions in the SD and add-in caucuses so as to "take over the SDEC". I took the ExecViceChair post at the Progressive Populist Caucus (PPC) after Boyd was made Chair with no intent of trying that. So, pack the annual meeting and fire me.

The JONES and MAXEY campaigns were designed to sieze the top slot in the chain no more or less than Boyd's campaign to hold that slot. So, maybe, Charlie or Glen, having won Saturday night, would be re-building the party from the top-down today, but probably not: It is by no means clear that anybody on earth can transform this party that way.

Murvin, both Charlie and Glen have been on the inside -- relative to the PPC -- for some time without accomplishing much. In any case, all three candidates ran "positive" campaigns, so it is not clear whether or when the "negative" part of the "change" process -- marginalized old hands, fired consultants, and so on, would or will begin -- probably not until after the November after-action reports come in.

Boyd filed to run against Charles SOECHTING last November. Charles was an outsider and was ground-up and worn-down by the patronage-chain. Boyd, in fact, challenged Charles high-handedness in a way nobody else did. In any case, I think it will take a strategic, grass-roots approach, not a savior on the SDEC, to redeem this party from profound and ancient dysfunctions.

From that perspective, here are four things I bring away:

First, Boyd can conduct SDEC meetings without relying on Bob SLAGLE, Ken MOLBERG, and the other SDEC drones. Thursday afternoon before the convention he did just that and made a subtle but significant change in how the meeting was conducted. Boyd can preside over the SDEC far more effectively I believe than anybody I have seen.

Second, the Permanent Committee on Rules resolved a long-running problem -- the Tejano Democrats monopoly -- not through Bob SLAGLE's packing, or the PPC/RITCHIE agreement, or me, or anything pre-arranged. It was resolved by long hard work by Fidel ACEVEDO from our caucus that was supported by a whole bunch of outstanding young Democrats I never heard of and the old-hands could not recognize and neutralize as they did me and have done to Stan again and again easily enough.

Third, to the extent one can do anything with a floor resolution, the PPC did that with VVPAT two years ago. It is still a matter of great importance. But, the SDEC and the party staff did precisely nothing over the last two years about the matter. The SDEC record on this matter was one of smug complacency and negligence. So, who gets fired? That is nothing any chair candidate would speak to. We will have to see. I know who should be, and I think I can get Boyd to take long-overdue action.

Fourth, the most important single item on the PPC agenda was the TEAM agenda. It is obscure, unlike VVPAT, but forward-looking. DRE/VVPAT is a six-year old problem. TEAM is a three-week old problem but an 18-month opportunity. In fact, the TEAM matter is moving forward in a wholly unanticipated way, like the Tejano Democrats resolution, thanks to a perfectly wonderful piece of work by John KELLY and a Rules Committee member from Nueces County, Brian MILLER, who -- out of the blue -- did more with the TEAM resolution than one could hope for, more than I imagined, certainly.

So, there you have it: A grass-roots process of re-vitalizing this party is not going come from the top-down by definition and has to be pulled out of a party with vast latent strength not pushed up or down a decrepit patronage chain.

Where I hope we all learned lessons are Lydia CABALLERO's run for Vice-Chair and Ted WEISGAL's run at the Permanent Chair. These are both PPC members, but both attempts were spontaneous, out of the blue, and I think better for it. Lydia, in fact, accomplished her mission -- overthrow of the minority token in that slot. And, I think that Ted has now retired Bob SLAGLE.

The SDEC is unrepresentative of grass-roots Democrats, stifling, manipulative, secretive, stuck in the past. That is not news.

But, I think they just ran their last convention into the ground. I doubt they will solve the profound problem of building a self-governing and self-sustaining party two years from now, but that would be easier if David VAN OS does not just lead our ticket but actually wins. And, of course, if David wins, Chris BELL is a cinch.

Failing that and, in all events, the party-building agenda has to be pushed within and without the PPC. When Stan is back in the saddle, you will quickly see that he and I ususally disagree on strategic approach. That is why we have meetings, post everything on the site, follow rules, and rely on majority rule to ultimately decide the most important questions.

If we can survive one close vote, I have some hope that this party can more than survive, can prosper and win.

::JRBehrman

Murvin,

I assume all the mixed & matched references above refer to the Progressive Populist Caucus (aka - PPC). Assuming that, it's worth noting that the endorsement was non-binding. In other words (and with all due respect to several good friends in that group), it was a pretty irrelevant endorsement for an entirely irrelevant position.

That aside, I'm curious what "gentelman's agreements" were at risk from a Maxey-led TDP. You make this recap a question of "Reform" versus "Good ol Boy" race. What would have helped frame this message better is an example of actual reform that Maxey would have made - a point even he didn't seem to engage in during his "discussion."

Let's be honest and plain-spoken about this, shall we? There wouldn't have been one iota of difference at TDP headquarters if Maxey or Richie were in the figurative corner office. There is nothing to reform where there is no money for the TDP to actually DO anything of any real significance.

If I'm wrong on that point, I'd welcome any solid examples that go beyond simple catch-phrases passing for real ideas. Unfortunately, not even Maxey's staunchest defenders have been able to come up with an example.

If you preferred Maxey over Richie, fine. Just say so and leave it at that. But the rest of the banter is just fluff. If you want to win elections, forget about TDP and find a good candidate or two to help out directly. That's about the only reform worth mentioning these days.

John:

I find your analysis enlightening and very encouraging.
I still believe that, at the least, a Maxey victory would have shaken up the dispensation of places and patronage. Would Maxey simply have replaced one set of clients with another? Possibly so, but the very fact of disturbing the patronage tree in the short run could have been a good thing.
I agree that the spontaneous victory of Lydia CABALLERO is a good sign. In the Black Cacucus, an old guarder was replaced by a new face for the position of set aside vice-chair. I don't know if she got the slot or not, but it was nice to see that feeling that a position is yours by birthright is not enough to keep it against a grass roots challenge.

I am a new comer, so I cannot began to judge all the analysis you offer. Time will tell.

Thank you for your reply.

Greg:

I spent about an hour on the ride home talking about all the set asides for positions within the party, all the gentleman's agreements about which group or county etc. got which positions in which rotation.
I was speaking to people who had experienced the power of these "gentleman's agreements." I saw thier operation in the SD 15 caucus and the distribution of positions.
I do not agrue that such set asides are always unwarranted . I do argue that long term agreements like this need to be revisited. They tend to begin as valid and useful arrangments. Over time , the persons and groups who are benefitted come to see them as their birthrights. It becomes about protecting their birthright at the expense of winning elections or any other larger Party good.

I choose not to name names any more than I have for 2 reasons. First it would be selective and therefore, I think inherently unfair to single out some and not mention others. Second, it would serve no purpose in going forward toward the November elections.

In short, I don't write fluff. Whether you agree with me or not, be assured that I base my remarks on what I have gathered to be factual. I don't claim that I know all the facts, but those I know, I believe are trustworthy.

Thanks for your passionate and honest comments.

Murvin,

I appreciate the response. But I'm a bit more confused than even before. Aren't you just making the argument that Maxey's cronies would be a different set of cronies than Richie's? That doesn't strike me as reform so much as it does just your average, garden variety power struggle.

What confounds me even more is that for all the Vice Chairs of this and Vice Presidents of that referenced above, I keep asking myself one very simple question: "What on earth is it that all those Vice Presidents actually DO." I realize I'm advancing a rather pointed argument here, but until I actually hear a realistic, productive answer to what is actually done (or would be done) by all these people either in power or playing political tug of war to be in their stead, I remain even more convinced of the increasing irrelevance of the state party as a structural entity.

Murvin,

In all due respect, I do not agree the PPC Steering Committee sandbagged its members. The SC's Resolution was on the PPC web site prior to the caucus. I knew about this resolution, and later joined the PPC despite the fact I had supported Maxey.

The PPC's stated values and its reputation outweighed any disagreement I had with the SC regarding its recommendation to endorse Ritchie. However, when I attended their caucus, I decided to abstain from voting for or against this endorsement.

The PPC had an opportunity to vote against this endorsement - including some PPC members like me who chose to abstain.

Greg raises the issue of money: regardless of whom we backed for TDP Chair, the new chair cannot get much done without money. Yet Greg treats this problem in a vacuum. Who will give money to the TDP who lacks confidence in the leadership? Which leader would organize the state most efficiently? These questions bear on TDP fundraising.

The TDP cannot administer a populist agenda, or any agenda, without being funded. Demonstrating we have leadership with great organizational skills is necessary to draw money to the TDP. However, a populist agenda will never draw enough money to run statewide campaigns through media buys. Therefore, such an agenda will require grass roots organization. We will depend on an army of volunteers. Let's make sure this army is well-supplied so we can win.

Jon:

Thanks for your reply. I understand your reasoning and see your point.

I think you misunderstand my posiiton. I don't think the PPC sandbagged its membership. I think they were sandbagged in that their decision, to allow a vote by the membership on recommendation, was twisted into a full endorsement before any such vote took place. I believe that the leadership acted in good faith. I am not so sure about their endorsee.

Jon:

Thanks for your reply. I understand your reasoning and see your point.

I think you misunderstand my posiiton. I don't think the PPC sandbagged its membership. I think they were sandbagged in that their decision, to allow a vote by the membership on recommendation, was twisted into a full endorsement before any such vote took place. I believe that the leadership acted in good faith. I am not so sure about their endorsee.

Murvin gets this about right, save and except perhaps for the sandbagger/sandbagee aspect. Yes, either Boyd sandbagged me or I sandbagged him. But, not much either way. We will see.

The convention did not start until 8 June 2006. Prior to that, there was only an endorsement game to play and, I would add, quite a few others playing it and lots of matters at issue in convention more important than the state chair race.

Now, to the extent that the party is a patronage-chain -- and that is about all the SDEC is -- the state chair race seems all-important. Actually, whoever is raising money for Chris BELL is the single most important person in the party right now. I do not know who that is, and he -- I am sure it is a he -- was not up for election on the 10th.

After the November election, the party will pretty much collapse either because (1) BELL ekes by (the party elite plan) and the Austin parasites and patronage-seekers everywhere move their seige train to the Governor's mansion or (2) another round of anger at yet another wall-to-wall defeat engineered by the party elite has to be dealt with.

I am confident that in the event of another wipe-out, Boyd RITCHIE will be as or more merciless in dealing with the party elite than I would be. He, for instance, knows better who they are, actually. If BELL ekes out a victory in one race without actually leading the ticket, I think that Boyd knows that the actual power in Austin will be very diffuse. I expect him to work with the PPC to re-build this party happy that all or most of the unemployed consultants will be up at the Mansion and not down on Rio Grande.

Still, there may be another outcome: (3) Our statewide ticket "sweeps" or, in any event, David VAN OS leads the ticket and becomes AG.

(3) is the best outcome for the PPC, the party, and the people of Texas. Again, I think Boyd will know how to handle that. For instance, he knows that one member of the Texas Supreme Court and the Attorney-General of Texas are each, not both but each, more powerful than the Governor.

The PPC contributed little to and got little out of the endorsement game. I am sure we will get nothing whatsoever out of the what-if we had not semi-endorsed Boyd RITCHIE prematurely or, what sticks in some craws, had endorsed Glen MAXEY in due course only to lose. These are petty speculations.

Our co-founder, David VAN OS, chose not to be a delegate at all and expressed no public opinion at all on the state chair race. The PPC barely endorsed RITCHIE and he won though, I think, in a second-ballot deal I am not privy to. Our magin did not put him over. Neither did margins from Harris or Travis Counties.

What did transpire in a very complex dynamic is about as good as it gets for any as want to pursue the robust agenda of the PPC. That has a lot do with party message, a fight we won utterly. It has nothing to do with patronage, little to do with self-validating protest, and everything to do with building a strong party.

In any case, I believe that PPC members who supported Charlie URBINA-JONES, Glen MAXEY, or Boyd RITCHIE, on the first or second ballots all advanced themselves and this caucus broadly. That is far more important than whoever presides over a patronage-chain that is rotting at the head and withering at the roots.

So, this is all I have to say on a now tiresome and unproductive topic. It is "all hands" now to the campaign.

I read all of the posts about the Convention in the hope that I could find out a little something about what went on there. Silly me. I'm normally a fast reader, and I read English as well as anyone else does, but you can't read this stuff fast. I've been struggling with what appears to be some other language--Esperanto, maybe--and, what's got to be worse, Esperanto in acronyms. You boys--and you are, please note, all boys--are so high on Texas Democrat politics that you've made hash out of what should have been a good, meaty discussion of The Issues facing the Party of the People. You've assumed that we all know more than most of us do. I'd like to know, for instance, about the Gentlemen's Agreements that have been in place for years. Just that tag smacks of dirty backroom dealing, or, if not that, at best some racial manipulation that we shouldn't be participating in. We ought to be beyond such stuff, but, just looking at Harris County's political set-up, I know we're not.

The State Party needs to lead, for God's sake, not get down to the Republican level in the political scata and make pasture pies to throw at each other. That stuff sticks and it's hard to wash off, especially in an election year.

You guys need to get Murvin to set aside a Saturday session to talk about What Happened at the State Convention. Or speak to ROADwomen and get them to set up a panel at one of their meetings. They will, of course, include some women. It just so happens that ROADwomen has recently launched a sort of Gentlewomen's Agreement, free of all biases but committed to the idea that "Well-behaved women seldom make history."

Should be an interesting discussion.