Joe Deshotel Posts

Scott Walker became the first governor to defeat a recall in US history. Unions and progressives thought they could take advantage of the uproar Gov. Walker caused when he forced his collective bargaining reforms through Wisconsin’s legislature.  As the petition driven recall gained momentum and became a national story both sides banked on using victory as a referendum on the other party’s policies. It was a high stakes gamble that Democrats lost because they didn’t have the money or the political will behind them.

The plan for victory, as Gov. Walker told one of his largest donors, was to ‘divide and conquer’ the unions. In his concession speech Democrat Tom Barrett acknowledged the state is in fact “deeply divided”. Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus wasted no time harnessing the win and attempting to redirect its energy toward Obama, "this was a message election about spending and debt and the size of government. That will be the central question of November."  That message was firmly ingrained into our political discourse 2010. Add in a slow recovery and high unemployment, and it should have been apparent even in progressive Wisconsin that running to maintain or increase public sector benefits was a hard sale at best. Granted pre-election polling was within the margin of error, the true results delivered a demoralizing defeat of 8%.  From the outside social media and mass media dumbed the election down to a partisan popularity contest while Wisconsin voters were actually voting on the merits of differing views of how to close that state’s $3.6 billion budget deficit.  Now we can look forward to seeing Wisconsin‘s failed gubernatorial recall spun as a referendum on everything from the Affordable Care Act to Gay Marriage.

Congratulating Walker, Mitt Romney exclaimed, “This victory will echo beyond the borders of Wisconsin.” He’s right, Walker’s 13 billionaire donors from out of state along with other big moneyed interest heard it loud and clear – on to November.  In this case it wasn’t super PACs but an obscure statute that allowed the incumbent governor to raise over $30 million by removing caps on individual donations. Either way this election is just a preview of what a post-Citizens United no donations barred campaign will look like.

The latest polls show Obama is ahead in the Badger State and exit polls from yesterday’s recall have him up by double digits. That didn’t stop RNC chairman from calling the loss an “absolute disaster for Obama”. The President did endorse Barrett but avoided campaigning for him in the state probably realizing that the risk was greater than the reward. Wisconsin Democrats wishing they had drawn the same conclusion will have to shift gears and reevaluate after this unforced error.  As for organized labor they will have to brace for the inevitable consequences of voters’ reaffirming Walker’s plan for cuts. The lesson here is not that political victories will be taken out of context but that we are in a new era of campaign fundraising and Democrats will be unable to compete with or without unions. Democratic Congresswoman Gwen Moore of Milwaukee has this advice.

You can't spend all your money on television. You've got to spend it on the ground, that's the most important thing to take away from Wisconsin. Investing on the ground more Democratic voters the polls. Even if it wasn't quite enough, people have to realize that's where you begin. That's how you build the base for winning next time.

Democrats in Texas may not always have a reason to celebrate but that won't stop them from partying like its 1999. Those were the good old days when Democrats still controlled the house and were just one shy of the Senate.

Thursday, June 7

6:00pm - 2012 State Convention Kick-Off Reception Hilton of the Americas, Grand Ballroom 1600 Lamar St Houston, TX 77010 

*Tickets are available in advance or at the door for $65.

7:30pm - Legislators & Labor Unite for the Democratic Party Reception  at CWA Hall (1730 Jefferson, Houston, TX) 

8:00pm - Sen. Royce West & Rep. Senfronia Thompson Reception (Grand Ballroom KL)

8:00pm  - HDCC Reception at St. Arnolds Brewery (2000 Lyons Ave, Houston, TX)

Friday, June 8 

11:00am - Capital Area Democratic Women and the National Women's Political Caucus honoring Sissy Farenthold (the ladies room hospitality suite Hilton Americas hotel) 

9:00pm - 5th Biennial Blogger's Caucus (Club Curve 430 W. Main)

 9:00pm  - Keynote After Party at House of Blues with Special Guests Mayor
Julián Castro and State Representative Joaquin Castro (1204 Caroline St, Houston, TX).

*Registration required

Saturday, June 9 

8:30am - Lady Bird Johnson Breakfast (Hilton Hotel Grand Ballroom)

*Tickets are available in advance or at the door for $50. 

Democrats in Texas may not always have a reason to celebrate but that won't stop them from partying like its 1999. Those were the good old days when Democrats still controlled the house and were just one shy of the Senate.

Thursday, June 7

6pm - 2012 State Convention Kick-Off Reception Hilton of the Americas, Grand Ballroom 1600 Lamar St Houston, TX 77010 

*Tickets are available in advance or at the door for $65.

7:30pm - Legislators & Labor Unite for the Democratic Party Reception  at CWA Hall (1730 Jefferson, Houston, TX) 

8pm - Sen. Royce West & Rep. Senfronia Thompson Reception (Grand Ballroom KL)

8:00 pm  - HDCC Reception at St. Arnolds Brewery (2000 Lyons Ave, Houston, TX)

Friday, June 8 

 9:00pm  - Keynote After Party at House of Blues with Special Guests Mayor
Julián Castro and State Representative Joaquin Castro (1204 Caroline St, Houston, TX).

*Registration required

Saturday, June 9 

8:30am - Lady Bird Johnson Breakfast (Hilton Hotel Grand Ballroom)

*Tickets are available in advance or at the door for $50. 

Surrounded by the world's largest arms manufacturers, Austin's own Alex Jones led hundreds of protesters over the weekend at this years Bilderberg conference in Chantilly, Virginia. Alex has done his part to keep Austin weird having become an international icon for conspiracy theorists. The annual Bilderberg conference started in 1954 in Holland and was so named for the hotel where Europe and North America's most rich and powerful first officially gathered to discuss global matters "off the record". The event has become a Super Bowl of sorts for anti-globalist protestors because of its high profile guests and secretive nature. 

The official mission statement of the group is to assemble "leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic" to discuss "common problems of critical importance". Their website also lists a host of broad issues as topic discussions from previous conferences. Activists claim the group is in violation of the Logan Act, the law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. The law requires the infringing negotiations to specifically be, “in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.” Because it is a private group it would be almost impossible to prove (or disprove) such a claim. According to Bilderberg's website "About one-third [of attendees] are from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labour, education and communications." They go on to say, "Participants attend Bilderberg in a private and not an official capacity." Those skeptical of the group’s influence point to a long list of relatively unknown political figures that rose to prominence shortly after attending the conference. Some of their alum includes Bill Clinton in ‘92, John Edwards in ‘04 and Tony Blair before becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Protesters were concerned that this year’s agenda items included picking Romney’s running mate and ultimately the next President of the United States. The fact that the conference was held in the same location in 2008 where Obama and Hillary Clinton were thought to have been guests after ditching the press corps doesn’t help to dispel any rumors.

A combination of secrecy and a strong distrust of government and big business provide the perfect opportunity for theorists imagination to run wild, but its no conspiracy that the rich and powerful want to gather privately to talk with other rich and powerful people. Those who receive an invitation to the Bilderberg conference tend to be well within the 1% of money and influence and if private jets and resorts are any indication - the wealthy really value their privacy. Instead of just protesting the “elite”, maybe we can learn something from them. Having more private conversations with our peers, encouraging them to be politically engaged and aware of their role in the market place is our best opportunity to have real influence over the system.

Surrounded by the world's largest arms manufacturers, Austin's own Alex Jones led hundreds of protesters over the weekend at this years Bilderberg conference in Chantilly, Virginia. Alex has done his part to keep Austin weird having become an international icon for conspiracy theorists. The annual Bilderberg conference started in 1954 in Holland and was so named for the hotel where Europe and North America's most rich and powerful first officially gathered to discuss global matters "off the record". The event has become a Super Bowl of sorts for anti-globalist protestors because of its high profile guests and secretive nature. 

The official mission statement of the group is to assemble "leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic" to discuss "common problems of critical importance". Their website also lists a host of broad issues as topic discussions from previous conferences. Activists claim the group is in violation of the Logan Act, the law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. The law requires the infringing negotiations to specifically be, “in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.” Because it is a private group it would be almost impossible to prove (or disprove) such a claim. According to Bilderberg's website "About one-third [of attendees] are from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labour, education and communications." They go on to say, "Participants attend Bilderberg in a private and not an official capacity." Those skeptical of the group’s influence point to a long list of relatively unknown political figures that rose to prominence shortly after attending the conference. Some of their alum includes Bill Clinton in ‘92, John Edwards in ‘04 and Tony Blair before becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Protesters were concerned that this year’s agenda items included picking Romney’s running mate and ultimately the next President of the United States. The fact that the conference was held in the same location in 2008 where Obama and Hillary Clinton were thought to have been guests after ditching the press corps doesn’t help to dispel any rumors.

A combination of secrecy and a strong distrust of government and big business provide the perfect opportunity for theorists imagination to run wild, but its no conspiracy that the rich and powerful want to gather privately to talk with other rich and powerful people. Those who receive an invitation to the Bilderberg conference tend to be well within the 1% of money and influence and if private jets and resorts are any indication - the wealthy really value their privacy. Instead of just protesting the “elite”, maybe we can learn something from them. Having more private conversations with our peers, encouraging them to be politically engaged and aware of their role in the market place is our best opportunity to have real influence over the system.

Democrats will officially nominate Barack Obama for a second term this September in North Carolina. That state just passed a Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage just one day before the President announced his support for marriage equality.  Some question how this issue will affect his reelection chances or whether African American's would support him at the same enthusiastic 91% they did in 2008.

There is some credit to this concern. Older church-going African Americans are a significant voting block in Democratic politics and in California, African Americans supported Prop 8 (the ban on same-sex marriage) at 70%, while in North Carolina Black pastors were a major organizing force behind the ban. For Obama to lose traction with these same voters they would still have to find a viable alternative in Mitt Romney. If African Americans choose to stay home altogether it could make winning Southern battleground states like North Carolina, Virginia and Florida more difficult but even then the latest polling shows Obama with a solid lead in what matters most - electoral votes. Even still, Black voters, like voters in general, have evolving views on same-sex issues. A poll by Public Policy Polling tracking the Maryland referendum to uphold same-sex marriage found "a significant increase in support for same-sex marriage among African American voters following President Obama’s historic announcement."  Pastor's who speak of social justice but use terms like "traditional definition of marriage" should be reminded that it was only in 1967 (six years after Barack Obama was born) that the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage.

This is a "right side of history" moment and leaders in the faith community have their own defections to worry about. A recent Pew Research poll showed that 44% of US adults have changed the faith of which they were raised or left organized religion all together.  According to ABC News the number of Americans identifying as Christian has fallen 10 points in 18 years to 76% while the number who say "no religion" has risen to 15%. There is a clear generation gap but there also is a connection between the decreasing influence of churches and the positions they espouse on social issues. Harvard professor Robert Putnam, who conducted the research on behalf of Pew had this to say, 

"Many of them are people who would otherwise be in church," Putnam said. "They have the same attitudes and values as people who are in church, but they grew up in a period in which being religious meant being politically conservative, especially on social issues."

Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of "intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views," and therefore stopped going to church.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would not extend that requirement to churches. Its common for the line separating church and state to be blurred during election season but preachers who use their sermon to openly speak out against the government recognizing same-sex marriage don't just potentially offend their congregation but cross the line into pure political speech. There is no doubt that the President's opponents will see this as an opportunity to literally demoralize a portion of his base but what's less likely is that we will see Black leaders and voters abandon the president over this issue and start campaigning for Romney. What will be more interesting to see is how religious leaders deal with the rapidly changing views of their followers on social issues.

Internet users are a sleeping giant when it comes to changing public discourse and even less engaged when it comes to individual politicians. They have the advantage of freely spreading content across personal and public networks and some viral campaigns have proven the ability to genuinely raise awareness of an issue. But, notoriously short attention spans and the inability to harness those virtual connections, make manifesting online outcry into electoral success harder to come by. An unlikely set of coalitions brought together by their love of internet “freedom”, are trying to change that by targeting Republican Congressmen Lamar Smith. College students, Tea Party Activists, tech companies and “the internet” have focused their ire on the author of the Stop Online Piracy Act, a controversial bill that pits corporations and content owners like Sony and ESPN against media sharing platforms and technology developers like Reddit and Google.

The umbrella group Alliance for Internet Freedom started as a one stop fundraising apparatus for tech companies concerned about SOPA's unintended consequences on the internet but has become a magnate for those who oppose Smith for a wide variety of mainstream issues. The Alliance’s most vocal group and the bill’s most prominent foe, Test PAC, was reddit users’ answer to what they see as an attack on creativity and the freedom of information available on the internet. Their efforts were effective in getting the bill tabled but they have pledged to oust Smith over trusting that the bill won’t find its way to the House floor. Even with anti-incumbent sentiment still looming large in most conservative corners of the country replacing a well-funded politician in a safe district is proving much more difficult than defeating a simple piece of legislation. The biggest obstacle is finding a credible challenger to coalesce these efforts around. The district only includes parts of liberal Austin so despite mounting opposition from the left the best odds of defeating the 25 year incumbent is in the Republican primary on May 29th.

That brings us to his primary challengers. Both are attacking the incumbent from the right though neither has the type of funds necessary to mount a real challenge on the airwaves or reach the rural conservative voters who may be sympathetic to their message. According to Opensecrets.org Lamar Smith has raised more than 5 times his closest competitor Richard Mack. Mack is a former Sheriff from Arizona with strong Libertarian sympathies and Tea Party credentials. His younger less experienced challenger Richard Morgan is a software engineer using SOPA to frame Smith as a "big-government Republican" threatening "individual liberty and discourag[ing] job growth and free enterprise in America,”.

The oft-progressive technology industry has chosen a more politically savvy route of attacking Smith by portraying him as aligned with big Hollywood entertainment over “the people” who elected him. The finance reports back their claim. Opensecrets.org reveals Smith’s top donors come from the entertainment industry followed closely by the computer and Internet industries. The Alliance has a goal of raising over $500,000 to discourage Smith’s base from turning out on his behalf May 29th.

Its unclear but likely these groups will continue their assault on Lamar after Tuesday. If he sails past his primary without a run-off he will likely face an underfunded challenge in November. It will also challenge the internet community to remain a sustained force in electoral politics and not just an angry political flash mob.

Internet users are a sleeping giant when it comes to changing public discourse and even less engaged when it comes to individual politicians. They have the advantage of freely spreading content across personal and public networks and some viral campaigns have proven the ability to genuinely raise awareness of an issue. But, notoriously short attention spans and the inability to harness those virtual connections, make manifesting online outcry into electoral success harder to come by. An unlikely set of coalitions brought together by their love of internet “freedom”, are trying to change that by targeting Republican Congressmen Lamar Smith. College students, Tea Party Activists, tech companies and “the internet” have focused their ire on the author of the Stop Online Piracy Act, a controversial bill that pits corporations and content owners like Sony and ESPN against media sharing platforms and technology developers like Reddit and Google.

The umbrella group Alliance for Internet Freedom started as a one stop fundraising apparatus for tech companies concerned about SOPA's unintended consequences on the internet but has become a magnate for those who oppose Smith for a wide variety of mainstream issues. The Alliance’s most vocal group and the bill’s most prominent foe, Test PAC, was reddit users’ answer to what they see as an attack on creativity and the freedom of information available on the internet. Their efforts were effective in getting the bill tabled but they have pledged to oust Smith over trusting that the bill won’t find its way to the House floor. Even with anti-incumbent sentiment still looming large in most conservative corners of the country replacing a well-funded politician in a safe district is proving much more difficult than defeating a simple piece of legislation. The biggest obstacle is finding a credible challenger to coalesce these efforts around. The district only includes parts of liberal Austin so despite mounting opposition from the left the best odds of defeating the 25 year incumbent is in the Republican primary on May 29th.

That brings us to his primary challengers. Both are attacking the incumbent from the right though neither has the type of funds necessary to mount a real challenge on the airwaves or reach the rural conservative voters who may be sympathetic to their message. According to Opensecrets.org Lamar Smith has raised more than 5 times his closest competitor Richard Mack. Mack is a former Sheriff from Arizona with strong Libertarian sympathies and Tea Party credentials. His younger less experienced challenger Richard Morgan is a software engineer using SOPA to frame Smith as a "big-government Republican" threatening "individual liberty and discourag[ing] job growth and free enterprise in America,”.

The oft-progressive technology industry has chosen a more politically savvy route of attacking Smith by portraying him as aligned with big Hollywood entertainment over “the people” who elected him. The finance reports back their claim. Opensecrets.org reveals Smith’s top donors come from the entertainment industry followed closely by the computer and Internet industries. The Alliance has a goal of raising over $500,000 to discourage Smith’s base from turning out on his behalf May 29th.

Its unclear but likely these groups will continue their assault on Lamar after Tuesday. If he sails past his primary without a run-off he will likely face an underfunded challenge in November. It will also challenge the internet community to remain a sustained force in electoral politics and not just an angry political flash mob.