05/10/2002 Archived Entry: "Texas Politics & Bush's 2002 juju"

Some suspense has been lifted, things are still black and white (no shades in-between), in Texas too.

I'd been wondering for some time whether Bush would come out and campaign against Sanchez, or stay sort of non-committal about the Gov race in Texas. My logic was thinking that it would be of more use to Bush in 2004, having a sitting latino Gov who's endorsed him, if Sanchez happens to win. I haven't thought Sanchez would though, though I wouldn't write him off at this time. Bush also came out against Kirk rather strongly in TDMN:

"'I don't want them to get their hopes up too much. A lot of those Democrats who smell blood are going to be mighty disappointed because I think our ticket's going to win… I know Ron Kirk. Like Ron Kirk. He's a nice fellow. He's not the right man for the United States Senate, as far as I'm concerned. I need a man up here in the Senate that's going to help me get an agenda done. I don't need an obstructionist. I need a positive influence. And John's an independent thinker, but he's a man who, I'm confident, working together, will help Texas."
When asked whether he thought Mr. Kirk could work with him, Bush replied: "Oh, I don't... It's going to be hard for him to be able to make that claim when his first vote is to vote for the kind of committee chairmen that have been resisting everything I've been trying to get done."

I sort of get the feeling that Bush is looking at this election as a baseball season. A grand game of win or lose. Where he's the captain, the cheerleader on one side, and the "obstructionists" are on the other side. The term "obstructionists" is somewhat effective, as it is both saying, 'we have an agenda' and 'they don't, all they do is try and stop ours.' However, does campaigning for the Republican trifecta (assuming that McCain/Chaffe don't jump ship), work? I have my doubts, it leaves a big gapping hole-- it has no substance. The Democrats can counter this with strong rhetoric that defines what they are stopping, and in doing so, define the substantive terms of the debate. Can the Republicans define what the Democrats are obstructing? The Republicans would like to say it's the War on Terrorism, but that's been negated by 98% support by the Democrats. The Democrats would like to say they are stopping the privatization of Social Security, but that's been put off the table by the GOP, at least until next year. So what's left? Judges, making the tax-cut permanent, not very exciting issues. Republicans, as they have found out, need more:

"Right now, voters perceive the parties as headed toward a matchup of Republicans on taxes and terrorism versus Democrats on economy, education and the elderly," says the memo, distributed recently by Public Opinion Strategies, a prominent GOP firm. "We need more than just taxes/terrorism to win."

The Republicans have read their polls, and to supplement, I would expect that Republicans stick to non-substantive "support the President" themes, with the sidekicks of Education 'reforming' and Social Security 'protection' themes there to support their theme. The Democrats will still use the privatization theme, if only to put the Republicans on the defensive about the issue. What they need to do is define the Republicans as having a rightwing agenda, that only they can stop form steamrolling into law. Kirk lays out a pretty good counter:

Mr. Kirk described Mr. Cornyn as a patsy for the president. "One of us believes in the future of every person in this state," Mr. Kirk said. "One of us will wait on a phone call from George Bush to tell him what to do."

That's close, but needs to be a bit more warm and fuzzy. More along the lines of campaigning for a bipartisan agenda, saying that all Americans, not just half, need to be represented is how the Democrats best confront the "obstructionist" charge. Bipartisanship is a word that Bush used to say alot because it was effective, and he'll be using it again if he gets his trifecta back. The Democrats taking of the bipartisanship claim, is the best counter to obstructionist slam. Kirk is campaigning along these lines.

It's quite true that Bush didn't have any coattails in 2000 or 2001, and there are no signs of him having any across the nation in 2002. However, in 1998, in Texas, he most certainly did have coattails. And that's what he's banking on here against Kirk and Sanchez. It will be interesting to see how Sanchez responds, and interesting that his campaign had no comment. Were they merely unprepared? Or is Tony calling George know and saying 'what the crap, I give you big wads of cash and now this!' If Bush's juju isn't working in Texas, the GOP is going to lose more seats in the Senate, and the House majority. I am a bit surprised to see that Bush is going to slam Sanchez, but he want's to win more than anything else. There's a nuance here with Bush to be gleaned, in policy, he's more than willing to cut the corner & x-out the differences, to be on the popular side of the bill. In campaigns, it's black and white, my side and theirs.

Replies: 2 comments

Mydd,(Jerome)

This is Mr. Liberal (Stephen). Thanks for the great message today on West Virginia and Oregon. I'm backing Workman and Stein also, based on what I've seen and what you've told me. I think Humphreys could win on Rockefeller's coatails, however. Workman would probably beat Capito easier, however. Humphreys' website is www.jimhumphreys.com. I think he has a cool mustache-what do you think?

As or Oregon, I think that if Kitzhaber had endorsed either Stein or Hill, they'd be leading right now. Kulongoski seems shallow, and he could lose if Weaver runs, and he's the nominee. Stein would eliminate the Greens, and would be a good candidate against Roberts or Saxton. Both states are shaping up to be good ones.

Posted by Mr. Liberal @ 05/11/2002 01:15 PM PST

Hey Stephen,
I read your summary on the NJ races, thanks for the info there.

Posted by myDD @ 05/11/2002 07:04 PM PST