Capitol Annex is proud, after much research and thought, to offer our endorsements in the following races.

President of the United States: Hillary Clinton. Please see our previous endorsement in this race.

United States Senate: Rick Noriega. In the race for United States Senate, there is only one clear choice for Texas Democrats: Rick Noriega. Rep. Noriega brings to the race unique qualifications, both as a legislator and as a soldier, which no other candidate in the race offers. Noriega is the only candidate in this race who can and will defeat John Cornyn in November. Rick Noriega has both the grassroots support and appeal to truly make him the people’s candidate. Noriega’s record as a legislator stands out as well, and he has the qualifications and experience necessary for this race.

Texas Railroad Commission: Dale Henry. Even if we did not work for Mr. Henry, he would be the clear choice in this race. He possesses far more than the minimum experience necessary to do this job and do it well. In addition, he is the only candidate in this race who proposes real reform and change for the Texas Railroad Commission. His principal opponent, Art Hall has, as the Dallas Morning News noted, a “forum shopping” aspect to his candidacy and clearly is seeking the position merely so that he can use it as a stepping-stone to higher office. Additionally, he has no experience in the oil and gas industry although he does have some worrying ties to the industry.

Supreme Court of Texas, Place 7: Sam Houston. In this race, Houston, a longtime litigator and appellate attorney, is the clear choice. His credentials and qualifications are superior to those of his opponent. Houston will also help bring balance to a court that is sorely lacking and is presently dominated by right-wing justices who are looking out more for corporate interests than anything else.

Supreme Court of Texas, Place 8: Susan Criss. Again, there is a clear choice in a statewide judicial race. Susan Criss is by far the candidate best suited to this position. Although some major newspaper editorial boards have cited her opponent’s experience on an appellate court as a major factor in making their decision, we believe that is not necessarily an asset for Yanez. The Texas Supreme Court, with its significant backlog and seemingly institutionalized pro-corporate, anti-consumer mindset, needs genuine change. Criss, a state district judge who has held major corporations like British Petroleum accountable to Texas law in her courtroom by ensuring justice is done in accordance with state law when it comes to corporate abuses, is the right choice for Texas Supreme Court and exemplifies that change. Criss will provide a stark contrast to the typical appellate justices and appellate lawyers who often seek seats on the Texas Supreme Court. She has, in all areas, truly qualified for this post. For those who still believe that a justice with “appellate court experience” is a requirement on the state’s highest civil court, we remind readers that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, one of the most revered jurists in the nation if not the world, actually had no judicial experience when he took the job.

Congressional District 3: Tom Daley. Daley, an attorney who retired from the financial and software industry after selling a company he owned, is the clear choice in this race. Specifically, we like his desire to see Congress stop “coddling” major corporations and do more for small business and average Texans. Daley is the only candidate in this primary who can stand up to the winner of the GOP Primary in the November general election.

Congressional District 4: Valinda Hathcox. This was a difficult race but, in the end, we believe Hathcox is better qualified for this position. Although we like Melancon’s ideas and supported his run in 2006, Hathcox’s wealth of experience in government makes her better suited and a better choice for voters. Although the admittedly lackluster campaign she waged for Land Commissioner of Texas in 2006 was a consideration not in her favor, her resume, issue positions, and vision are, we believe, the best–especially in light of the fact that there is more than a small chance that the winner of the GOP Primary in CD 4 (likely Congressman Ralph Hall (R-Rockwall) could emerge from the primary bruised enough to be significantly threatened by a Democrat.

Congressional District 6: Steve Bush. The only Bush we’re likely to see on the Texas ballot for the foreseeable future that Democrats can support, Steve Bush, in spite of the famous name, is no relation to the Bushes that have worked to destroy state and federal government. Bush, a DFW metroplex criminal defense attorney, is the best qualified candidate in this race.

Congressional District 10: Dan Grant. There is perhaps no one race on the ballot in the Houston/Austin area where the choice could be more clear for Democrats. Dan Grant brings immense qualifications and far more to offer voters than his television personality opponent. Grant has a true vision for his district and our nation, and has a resume and credentials that any set of voters would be fortunate to find in a candidate. Too, Grant is the only candidate in this race who can–and will–beat the Republican incumbent in November. We urge readers to support Dan Grant.

Congressional District 19: Dwight Fullingim. Again, in the Democratic Primary, there is a clear choice. Fullingim, a retired communications and public affairs professional knows the importance of the ag economy to this district, and is well aware of the need for economic development in the district. He is best suited to take on the do-nothing Republican incumbent in November.

Congressional District 32: Eric Roberson. Roberson, an attorney, is the only candidate in the Democratic Primary who is both qualified and waging a legitimate campaign for the office. In a district that remains a tough win for a Democrat, Roberson is best suited to be able to capitalize on Dallas County’s bluing trend and provide a credible choice against the GOP incumbent in November.
Senate District 11: Joe Jaworski. Joe Jaworski is the clear choice in the Democratic Primary. He is qualified, credible, and has already shown that his issues will win over voters in the November general election against the GOP incumbent. We have said much about Jaworski in the past, and echo our sentiments that he has perhaps one of the best senate candidates we have seen in a decade to run in a contested race.

Texas House, District 17: Donnie Dippel. Although Mr. Dipple is a fairly recent convert to our side, his conversion is genuine, and he is the best choice for voters in House District 17.

Texas House District 20: Leonard Surratt. Surratt, a previous candidate for public office in California, is far and away the best choice for primary voters in this district. His opponent is literally a joke and a whack-job.

Texas House District 27: NO ENDORSEMENT. Capitol Annex, after much thoughtful consideration, declines to endorse either candidate in the Democratic Primary in this race. While Dora Olivo has a long-established record in the Texas House, it fails on key progressive issues, such as stem cell research, and has led many Progressives in the House to either support her opponent or remain neutral. Nevertheless, her opponent, Ron Reynolds, has baggage of his own, as we have noted on this blog before. While Mr. Reynolds has offered an explanation for his troubles with the state bar and promises to be more progressive on issues than Olivo, we simply cannot bring ourselves to offer him–or Rep. Olivo–our full support. We urge voters in the district to meet these candidates for themselves and make their own decisions.

Texas House District 36: Sandra Rodriguez. Sandra Rodriguez is the clear choice in this district. Craddick Democrat Kino Flores has, more than being a “Craddick D,” has simply failed to amass a voting record that is actually in the best interest of his district. It is time for Flores to go, and Sandra Rodriguez offers a fresh, new vision for this district.

Texas House District 37: Rene Oliveria. This race is a no-brainer. HD 37: Oliveria is the right candidate for voters in this district.

Texas House District 40: Aaron Pena. While we disagree with Rep. Pena’s votes for Tom Craddick as Speaker, we firmly believe that he remains the best choice for his district. See our previous endorsement.

Texas House District 43: Juan Escobar. Escobar is running against a pure plant of Tom Craddick and his allies (who also happens to be a tool of the uranium mines in the area and Texans for Lawsuit Reform).

Texas House District 46: Brian Thompson. In this district, State Rep. Dawnna Dukes faces her first credible challenge in years from attorney Brian Thompson. Dukes has been AWOL for key votes, and is a staunch ally of House Speaker Tom Craddick, to the detriment of the citizens in her district (and her own voting record). Thompson deserves and should receive the votes of Democrats in HD 46.

Texas House District 77: Paul Moreno. State Rep. Paul Moreno, the “Dean of the Texas House,” deserves re-election in this district against GOP-backed faux Democrat Marisa Marquez. Moreno has a decades-long record of accomplishment for the people of El Paso, and he is sorely needed in the Texas House.

Texas House District 104: Roberto Alonzo. Alonzo deserves re-election in this district.

Texas House District 105: Jim Rea. Rea is the better qualified person in this two-person primary to vie to see who will attempt to unseat one of the Texas Legislature’s worst pieces of GOP furniture in November.

Texas House, District 140: Armando Walle: Craddick D Kevin Bailey (D-Houston) faces a challenge from longtime Congressional staffer Armando Walle. Walle is not only qualified for this post, but is the better choice for voters as his ideals and positions are more in tune with the district.

Texas House, District 145: Carol Alvarado Former Houston City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado is far and away the best choice to take over from State Rep. Rick Noriega.

Texas House District 147: Garnet Coleman. There should be no question in voters’ minds that Coleman is far and away the best choice over the Craddick plant he is running against.

Texas House District 148: Jessica Christina Farrar. In this race, again, the choice is a no-brainer for voters. Farrar is not only eminently qualified, but her representation of this district far exceeds what her opponent could even hope to provide.

ADDITIONAL ENDORSEMENTS:

Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector: Diane Trautman

Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector: Glen Maxey

Dallas County Tax Assessor-Collector: Diana Lackey

Travis County District Attorney: Rosemary Lehmberg

District Attorney, 143rd Judicial District: Ron Acker

Dallas County Sheriff: Lupe Valdez

It is a difficult task, picking a person to cast a ballot for in the race for President. That task is made especially difficult for us since our first choice, John Edwards, has suspended his campaign and left the race.

We have toiled no small amount over which candidate we believe has earned our support. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) both have much to offer our party, our state, and our nation. In making our endorsement back in September, we noted:

As Texas Democrats who still believe strongly in the dream of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, we at Capitol Annex believe that John Edwards is best suited–and has the best vision and plan–to roll-back the eight years of destruction that has been done to the policies of the New Deal and the Great Society by the Bush administration.

Since Senator Edwards left the race, we’ve been on the search for the candidate we believe is best for Texas, and our nation. We’ve carefully examined both candidates, and find much to like about each. We also find some things lacking–such as the fact that neither candidate has truly picked up Edwards’ banner to bring forward the great social reforms we need for the 21st Century–such as a new ‘War on Poverty,’ and his “Smart Trade” policy.

In the end, our choice came down not to which candidate we believed had all the things we’d like to see in his or her platform (because neither does), but rather, which candidate we believe–once in office–will have the tenacity and determination to enact the progressive reforms this nation so greatly needs.

In making its endorsement for president in earlier this year, the Editorial Board of the Des Moines Register noted:

Beyond their personal appeal, the candidates have outlined ambitious policy proposals on health care, education and rural policy. Yet these proposals do little to help separate the field. Their plans are similar, reflecting a growing consensus in the party about how to approach priority issues.

The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces — from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America’s middle class to confronting global climate change?

The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.

For us, as it was for the Register, that candidate is New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Senator Clinton possesses the qualities we need most in a President right now. Senator Clinton has resolve and tenacity absent any other candidate in the field–Republican or Democratic. She will bring prosperity at home and peace and respect abroad.

It has been said, particularly by talking-head conservative pundits, that Senator Clinton is too polarizing, and that a Clinton presidency would propel Congressional control into the hands of the Republicans for the next half-decade. We don’t believe that. There will be no redux of the “Republican Revolution” as a result of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Americans have already seen the Hell that a Republican Congress (and Republican President) have put our nation through and we dare say that will be a road not taken in the coming decade.

We believe in Senator Clinton. And, we believe that Senator Clinton can bring our nation upward to great things.

A quick and dirty list of our endorsements is below. Refer to the linked posts above for the reasons behind our choices.

Prop 1: Yes

Prop 2: Yes

Prop 3: No

Prop 4: no position

Prop 5: No

Prop 6: Yes

Prop: Yes

Prop 8: Yes, with reservations

Prop 9: No

Prop 10: Yes

Prop 11: Yes

Prop 12: no position

Prop 13: No

Prop 14: no

Prop 15: Yes

Prop 16: Yes

As Texas Democrats who still believe strongly in the dream of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, we at Capitol Annex believe that John Edwards is best suited–and has the best vision and plan–to roll-back the eight years of destruction that has been done to the policies of the New Deal and the Great Society by the Bush administration.

Lyndon Johnson’s dream was, as John Edwards’ is, for One America. We believe strongly in this. Edwards believes we can end poverty in America in a decade. It is a lofty goal, and America needs leaders with lofty goals willing to do everything possible to achieve them.

Too, John Edwards’ positions on a wide range of issues are, we believe, appropriately progressive.  In particular, Edwards’ vision for protecting and restoring rural American resonate with us.  Issues like rural recovery, rural broadband, and rural lending policies–and Edwards’ vision in that regard–should resonate with many Americans.

And, though Hillary Clinton has for a generation been America’s leading voice on universal health care, we believe John Edwards’ plan for health care for all, with emphasis on taking on big pharma and big insurance, is right for the time in which we live.

Edwards’ “Smart Trade” approach to trade policy (which has helped him earn the support of several labor unions) is also something we sorely need. After more than a decade of seeing an economic decline as a result of trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and more, now is the time for a progressive approach to trade that helps keep American jobs in America and doesn’t serve to deflate American wages. Edwards’ support of the Employee Free Choice Act is also a major plus for him.

A couple of other issues relating to working Americans also make us believe John Edwards is the clear choice for America:

# Make Work Pay: Edwards will increase the reward for working by raising the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2012, tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for adults without children and cutting the EITC marriage penalty. In 2001, a $1 increase in the minimum wage alone would have lifted an estimated 900,000 people out of poverty. [Sawhill and Thomas, 2001]

# Protect Prevailing Wages: Edwards pledges to protect the Davis Bacon Act, which ensures that workers on federal construction projects receive the local prevailing wage. The Act prevents contractors from slashing wages in order to win federal contracts with low-ball bids. It was shocking when President Bush intervened to keep workers from earning a decent wage after Hurricane Katrina, but we must be vigilant every day against abuses.
# Help Families Save and Get Ahead: Half of American families say they are living paycheck to paycheck, and three out of 10 American workers have not been able to save a dime for their retirement. Edwards will crack down on abusive lenders by creating a new Families Savings and Credit Commission to protect families and with strong national laws against abusive and predatory credit cards, payday loans and mortgages. Edwards will create Work Bonds to help families save and invest, providing financial safety nets for hard times. Work Bonds, a new tax credit of up to $500, would help low and moderate-income, working Americans save for the future. [MetLife, 2003; Employee Benefit Research Institute, 2006]

Edwards’ environmental policies are also top-notch. Ending global warming in a generation; the New Energy Economy Fund; and promoting electric efficiency instead of generating more electricity and more are all worthy ideas that should be implemented.  In a state where new coal plants have caused significant controversy in recent years, the energy efficiency plan is especially important.

There are far more reasons to support John Edwards, and we encourage readers to go to his website and examine him as a candidate. We believe, when you do, that you will realize that John Edwards is best suited to restore the legacy of the Great Society and make America great once again.

MORE ON THE CANDIDATES:

South Texas Chisme Q&As: Boyd Richie•Glen Maxey•Charlie Urbania Jones•Lakesha Rogers

Burnt Orange Report Interviews: Boyd Richie•Glen Maxey

Candidate Websites: Glen Maxey•Boyd Richie

Each of these candidates brings something to the table of interest to Texas Democrats. Each is to be commended for their desire to serve our party. I am particularly impressed that this race includes a candidate under the age of 30 (Miss Rogers), regardless of prevailing opinion on her candidacy.

This is the most important race for Party Chairman our party has seen in its history. A decision on casting a vote in this race should not be taken lightly.

For Texas Democrats, this race boils down to selecting an individual that can bring our party back to its former glory. We need someone with the political accumen and guts of Lyndon Johnson, the populist appeal of Sam Rayburn, the eloquence of Barbara Jordan, and the grace and humor of Ann Richards all rolled into one.

Our party also needs someone who doesn’t just understand the important concepts like communication, fund-raising, grassroots training, Internet-based fund-raising and communication, candidate recruiting, sustained giving, messaging, diversity, voter databases and more. We need someone who has lived these things and who has practiced these techniques on a large playing field with a proven record of success.

Further, our party needs a leader who can motivate people to become further involved in activities. We need a leader who has the energy and time to dedicate to revitalizing our party. Texas Democrats need a leader who can put every candidate—from constable to Governor—on a level playing field with Republicans in areas from fund-raising to messaging.

For me, that person is Glen Maxey.

There has been much discussion in this race about Rep. Maxey and Mr. Richey, both of whom are considered the front-runners in this race. In some instances, the level of discourse has been high and appropriate; in other instances, the level of discourse has been terrible and would be more at home in the bottom of a city sewer than any conversation between people who call themselves by the hallowed name, “Democrats.”

That aside, I have probably read and studied more of this discourse than many have. In spite of the voluminous discourse on blogs and listservs, I fear that most delegates attending the convention this weekend will be fairly unaware of any of the candidates’ positions and backgrounds.

This is one reason I feel it is important to make an endorsement in this race.

This race is not only about who the best candidate is for the job of Texas Democratic Party Chairman. It is also about a major paradigm shift in our party that is a long time in coming and, in this writer’s opinion, sorely needed. I have no qualms with Chairman Charles Soechting. I have said many times I respect him and believe he has done good for our party. However, the longtime practice of having the same people within the party run things and make key decisions that affect us all must end.

It must end now.

It must end if we are to retake the Capitol. It must end if we are to correct the imbalance in our Congressional Delegation caused by Tom DeLay’s redistricting scheme. It must end if we believe in our vision of Turning Texas Blue Again and retaking courthouses, the Legislature, and our high courts. It must end if we are to have a true stake in the national party and in the nomination of future presidents.

I believe, in addition to meeting the party’s needs with regard to what kind of chair we need as discussed above, Rep. Maxey represents the start of a new era for Democrats and an end to the cliques and heavy-handed individuals who govern the party, the SDEC, and many of the party’s allied caucuses and organizations.

A Maxey Chairmanship will, in my view, serve to bring new people into the fold of our party and help bring about an even greater shift in party governance which will ultimately make our party great again.

I have no personal grievance against anyone holding any office I have mentioned above; I am aware, however, of dozens upon dozens of others who do. I am aware of many who view our party and the SDEC as being run by one or two cliques led by a handful strong, powerful—and, yes, talented—leaders.

These men and women have, indeed, served a mighty purpose for our party. They have led us through lean times, helped us remain relevant and vital, and helped us win some elections.

But, they have not led us to the Promise Land.

On Saturday, after a drought of more than two decades, the Dallas Mavericks made it into the final bracked of the NBA playoffs.

This coming Saturday, Texas Democrats can follow the lead of Mark Cuban’s Mavericks and work to end a drought of victories that has lasted so long that an entire generation of Texans has been born under the stars of the corrupt and oppressive Republican rule of the Bush-Perry-DeLay era.

Even some of our most revered operatives say we are in a fight for our lives to remain relevant. Now is our time to show Texas we are relevant. Now is our time to show Texas we are unafraid of the Republicans and will elect a Chairman who will help this state’s Democrats show Rick Perry and his cronies the back door to the State Capitol.

A lot has been said on this race—a lot. I’ve just added more to that. But, before I close, I do want to address one final issue that has baffled me.

People seem to believe that, because Glen Maxey—the candidate I endorse today—is a ‘consultant,’ he is somehow unfit to hold this job.

As one who has been a grassroots activist, county chairman, TDCCA officer, credentials committee member and campaign staffer let me tell you something: who do you think has engineered our victories? Who do you think has been behind the scenes of Take Back Texas—the movement that helped put Hubert Vo and others in the House and gave us our first net gain in the Texas House in more than a decade—and other party initiatives that have been a success? Who do you think has done a lot of our fund-raising? Who do you think has engineered voter data files? Who do you think does all this?

Was it Charles Soechting? Molly Beth Malcom? Boyd Richie? While Charles may have put the wheels in motion and made the decisions concerning how they would be funded, it was consultants who ran Take Back Texas. While Molly Beth Malcom helped ensure that the 2002 ticked looked good and had party backing while criss-crossing the state, it was consultants who engineered the message.

People hear the word “consultant” and they develop an instant phobia. But, I challenge you to look at campaigns—in Texas and anywhere else in the nation—and find more than a scant handfull of campaigns (Democrat or Republican) that won difficult, uphill races without the help of professional communication, messaging, and/or fund-raising consultants. The candidates can’t do everything any more than the SDEC can do everything, any more than the state chair can do everything. It takes professionals with specific knowledge to run some parts of the show from behind the scenes.
We as Democrats—myself included—talk constantly about the “grassroots,” and the “netroots,” and putting “people on the ground.” Who coordinates this? Who comes up with this? Who decides where to put people on the ground? All those decisions are made with the assistance of knowledgable people (sometimes they go by other names, but mainly, they are all consultants) who can look at a state, district, county or precinct and tell you “here.” It’s not rocket science, but it sure isn’t first grade math, either. Targeting and similar practices are a refined science, and it’s not just about counting votes.

So, don’t let the rhetoric in this race fool you. Make an informed decision for yourself. Look at the facts. Look at the experience of the candidates. Look at where we are as a party and where we need to go in the future. When you do, I believe you will come to the same conclusion:

We need Glen Maxey. We need him now.

Alvarado notes on her website:

In early 2005, I found myself with one of two choices for what role I would play in the future of this place I call home, Texas. The easy choice was to let someone else with more money, experience, and connections take up the task of challenging elected officials that have forgotten that they are elected by and accountable to the citizens that get out and vote.

Alvarado made the tough choice. While others may bemoan her lack of government experience over her challenger, former legislator and judge Ben Z. Grant. Those who have endorsed Grant have cited his experience, participation in the “Dirty 30,” and the fact that he is a veteran of public service as reasons for supporting him.

While Mr. Grant should be commended on making his run, this is a new era in Texas politics, and Texans Democrats need a new voice and new ideas to be part of our ticket.

In a statement at Texas blog Off The Kuff, Alvarado noted she is courting voters by offering that she will be accountable “only to the people:”

I have not tried to convert anyone from his or her political reference group. I have only offered everyone a place at the table if they would set aside politics as usual and instead consider that a candidate without connections and millions of dollars would be accountable only to the people.

Although Alvarado lacks experience in the legislative arena, I believe her message is one that can resonate with voters on both sides of the aisle this November. And, it’s a worthy one:

The “why” of my campaign is to put the people back in control of their government so that priorities are given to public education, healthcare, and a prosperous future for all. Tied to a prosperous future are all the issues that I have been informed about during my visits across the state. I have listened and I will continue to listen. As your lieutenant governor, no lobbyist will mute your voice.

I was honored to have had the privilige of being among the first voters in my part of the state—East Texas—to meet Barbara Radnofsky, get to know her, and hear her speak back in the summer of 2004. And, I was honored by being the first Blogger to break the news to the world back in 2005 that Barbara had ended her exploration and would, in fact, be a candidate for United States Senate.

I am honored today to tell you why I support Barbara Ann Radnofsky for United States Senate.

The first time I ever heard Barbara Ann Radnofsky speak, she was standing on a flat-bed trailer in a small town in rural East Texas as the keynote speaker for the opening of the Van Zandt County Democratic Party’s headquarters in 2004. She even took off her heels to make her ascent up to the trailer more swift. As soon as she took the podium, the crowd—myself included—were captivated by this intelligent, outspoken Houston attorney. She spoke passionately about healthcare and education. She touched on issues like foreign policy and veterans’ care. The speech had substance more like that of a sitting United States Senator than a political unknown testing the waters and exploring a statewide race.

I could talk to you all day about Barbara Radnofsky’s positions on healthcare, foreign policy, veterans’ affairs, and national defense. I could tell you about her positions on this or that. But, those are things I am going to encourage you to find out about on your own, by visiting her website, www.radnofsky.com. Unlike her run-off opponent, perennial candidate Gene Kelly, Barbara Radnofsky has something to say, and she’s saying it—all across the state.

What I want to tell you about are things you won’t read about on her website, and that you’ll only hear from people who have met her, spoken with her, or heard her address an audience of any size—from two to two thousand.

Barbara Radnofsky has a passion for the people of Texas. This was evident to me the first time I heard her speak. You don’t spend months exploring a race, traveling from city to city (and all the small towns in between) meeting people, shaking hands, and listening to the most basic of human concerns unless you truly care about the people of Texas. And, I can tell you: Barbara cares about Texas.

I don’t know how many of you have had the opportunity to meet Barbara Radnofsky, so I tell you this: if you meet her, you will be infected with the “disease” that sometimes those of us in politics get that is often jokingly called TB: True Beliverism.

Barbara Radnofsky will make you a true believer: in her, in her passion for the people of Texas, in her campaign, and in her vision.

And, from the minute she shakes your hand and starts talking to you about veterans’ affairs or education or healthcare, you’ll believe.

You’ll believe that Texas can be better.

You’ll believe that Texas doesn’t have to settle for second best when it comes to the care of our veterans in South Texas.

You’ll believe that one day, truly no child will be left behind.

You will believe that it is time to take a stand on issues that are important to us.

You’ll believe that Barbara Radnofsky is the one who will take a stand for Texans.

This may sound sappy to you or even hokey—perhaps the over-poeticized ramblings of one of those Texas Democrats who still believes in the good works of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the Great Society, and in the promise of progressive legislation like the Family and Medical Leave Act or healthcare reform.

But, as one Democrat to another, I feel compelled to tell you that Barbara Radnofsky symbolizes the best that our party has to offer: a strong, tough, intelligent candidate unafraid to tackle the toughest of issues, and go to bat for the people of Texas.

I have been priviliged not only to witness Barbara Radnofsky interact with regular people like you and I, but with the media. I was never prouder of a Democratic candidate than I was of Barbara Radnofsky when she visited the Tyler Morning Telegraph in January of last year. Since she was up in my neck of the woods and I formerly worked for that paper, I asked Barbara if she would like for me to go with her and introduce her around, and she did. When she was interviewed for a story that later appeared on that paper’s front page, she was marvelous. She cut through the journalistic rhetoric and questioning and got right to the point, telling her beliefs and why she believed as she did.

In that interview, Barbara Radnofsky wasn’t talking to a reporter. She was talking to the people. She communicated her message in such a way that, upon reading the printed version, it seemed to seamlessly cross through the “filter” of the reporter and editors and leap off the page and tell the voters: “This is what you’ll get from me. These are my positions, this is what I want to do, and I have a vision.”

Editorial boards across the state have commented on the uphill battle Barbara faces in November against popular incumbent Kay Bailey Hutchison. I’ve seen Kay Bailey Hutchison speak several times, and met her in person. There is a world of difference between Barbara Radnofsky and Kay Bailey Hutchison.

There is, in a word—compassion.

There is, in a word—grit.

There is, in a word—intelligence.

There is, in a word—understanding.

Compassion for people who are less fortunate than ourselves. Compassion for veterans. Compassion for all races and cultures.

Grit—the fortitude and determination—enough to make this race and give the people of Texas a choice, a real, live, hand-shaking, door-knocking, speech-giving choice.

An intelligent voice for a new and bright future emboldened by the promise that our country can be great once again.

A true understanding of Texas and its people and that what they need isn’t more party-platform rhetoric, but a real problem solver: someone to make us believe again.
Barbara Radnofsky is that person.

If you are upset about the state of our nation and our state, disenchanted with the political process, or don’t feel that your vote makes a difference, find out where Barbara is going to be speaking next, hop in the car and go see what she has to say. She will make you believe in the greatness of Texas again. She will make you believe in the greatness of our party. She will make you believe that Texans deserve better than the incumbent Senator hiding in her ivory tower or the perennial candidate sitting home in his recliner hoping his famous name pays dividends at the ballot box.

But, Barbara cannot get to Washington—or even on the November ballot—without our help. No candidate can meet every voter in Texas, but if Barbara could, I know she’d win so many over it’d be a landslide come November. But, before we can tackle Kay Bailey Hutchison, we’ve got to help Barbara win on April 11.

Please vote for Barbara Radnofsky on April 11. Encorage your friends, family, and co-workers to do the same. Tell them it is time to believe again.

I often wonder, as a blogger, what impact my words have on people who read them. It is my hope tonight that they have, in some small way, informed you about Barbara Radnofsky, and why she deserves our votes.

It turns out I am penning this on a historic night. As I was about half-way through this, a news alert flashed across my MSN Messenger telling me that U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay will step down, and cease campaigning for re-election. But, I truly believe that isn’t the most important “history” that can be made this year.

I believe the most important contribution that we can make to history this year is by making Barbara Radnofsky our party’s nominee for United States Senate. And, I believe that with all my heart.

In spite of the numbers, in spite of the polls, in spite of KBH’s massive war chest, I believe that, if we as Democrats give the people of this state the opportunity to view Barbara Radnofsky on a larger scale, that they will be impressed. And, I believe that, given a choice between more of the same and Barbara’s fresh, bold, new vision for the future, voters will make the right choice.

I still believe. I believe in Texas. I believe in BAR.

Governor of Texas: Chris Bell. This is an endorsement that I feel is of particular importance. Both major candidates in this race, Chris Bell and Bob Gammage, have excellent records of service to the people of Texas. Both are reformers, and both are fine people. However, I believe the race for Texas governor is about the future—not the past. While I believe Bob Gammage would make a fine governor, I believe Chris Bell would make a better one. Neither the attacks on Bob Gammage’s record nor on Chris Bell’s record have impressed me. Every Congressman has votes they aren’t proud of and every Congressman must vote their constituants once in a while even though it may be against what they believe in personally. I have no doubt that both Bell and Gammage are pro-choice, pro-education and pro-most everything else Democrats stand for. But, what sets Chris Bell apart is that, in my view, is that he’s a leader for a new generation of Texans. He’s a leader who’s fought the fight against Republicans in recent years as a public official. Chris Bell is the real deal. He’s not Rick Perry lite or an unprogressive Democrat. He knows what is wrong with Texas, and has a plan for how to fix it. I support Chris Bell for Governor.

Lieutenant Governor of Texas. Maria Luisa Alvarado.  I came dangerously close to making no endorsement in this race whatsoever. Before telling you why I support Alvarado, let me tell you why I almost made no endorsement in this race. First of all, though I have information about both candidates, I found it shocking that, given the importance of the web to campaigns today, that Ben Grant didn’t have any web presence whatsoever until recently. He now has a website. Second, with regard again to Judge Grant, it seemed as though his late entry into the race had more to do with helping other candidates win than with winning the race himself. Although his more recent comments are a departure from that, he does not seem to be as viable a candidate as I initially thought he was. Yes, he has mounds of experience, and, as a member of the Dirty 30, he’s a bona fide hero to millions of Texans, including me, but that doesn’t mean he’s a good candidate. With regard to Ms. Alvarado, I have extensive concerns about her underfunded effort, although she was working and had a website up months before filing. I decided to support Ms. Alvarado because I believe she has a reason for running more than just to support down-ballot candidates. From her website:

It is due to her analyses and critical thinking                about current issues affecting Texans and the lack of appropriate                response by state leaders that has challenged her to run for elected                office.

Granted, Ms. Alvarado has no experience as an elected official. But, neither did David Dewhurst before he became Land Commissioner. However, I do believe Ms. Alvarado has a desire within her heart to work for change in Texas. This does not mean I don’t have concerns about her candidacy which I’d like resolved: I don’t know her position on a woman’s right to choose, an important thing for the presiding officer of the Texas senate. However, I will vote for Alvarado in the Primary.

Attorney General of Texas. David Van Os. Although this is an unopposed race, I would feel remiss in not showing my strong support for David Van Os. Over decades of work, David has demonstrated that he has the qualities to be the People’s Lawyer.

Agriculture Commissioner. Koecadee Melton, Jr. This, too, was a difficult race to decide upon. Mr. Gilbert has experience as an elected official with the Walnut Springs WSC Board, while Mr. Melton has experience in the TxDOAg. I support Mr. Melton because I believe that his knowledge of the agency (having worked for Hightower) will enable him to better run the agency, and point out what the Republican Ag Commissioner, Susan Combs, screwed up and what her pre-ordained successor, Todd Staples (R-Palestine) will likely continue to screw up.

U. S. Representative, District 1. Duane Shaw. First, some concerns: Neither candidate has any information at their respective websites on whether or not they are pro-choice, and Roger Owen has little information about his positions at all on his site and both candidates seem to be doing a little pandering to the hyper-religious climate in this district. That said, I believe Mr. Shaw is the better candidate. In contrast to his opponent, he appears to have well-articulated positions on a number of issues including the war in Iraq and education. Furthermore, we believe his professional experience will be beneficial to the citizens of the First District.

U. S. Representative, District 7. David Murff. This district pitts two very desirable candidates against each other. Former school teacher Jim Henley and David Murff would both make fine Congressmen. However, Mr. Murff stands out to me. As a practicing attorney with involvement in the securities business, I believe that the variety of knowledge and experience (including military service) Murff brings to the table will be an asset to voters. Without reservation, I endorse David Murff.

U.S. Representative, District 10. Ted Ankrum. Though I admire the fisty, outspokenness of 95-year-old DeLay hater and candidate in this race Sid Smith, and the desire to be a “Sam Rayborn Democrat” serving the people of Paul Foreman, I believe Ted Ankrum has the experience and leadership ability to best serve the people of CD 10.

U. S. Representative, District 28. Ciro Rodriguez. I’ve previously endorsed Mr. Rodriguez in this race, so I won’t elaborate on it much except to say that the people of his district need his experience in Congress, and the people of Texas need a real Democrat who will stand up for the people of Texas. That Cuellar is endorsed by Club for Growth and other groups is very trubling, along with his record of failing to vote in the best interests of his district.

State Senate, District 19. Carlos Uresti. Having previously made my endorsement in this race, I’ll leave you with this: Uresti is a leader for the people of Texas who will stand up for what is best for his district. He won’t lock the Democratic Party in his trunk.

As you already know, we’ve informally endorsed Borris Miles, Ciro Rodriguez, Barbara Radnofsky, David Van Os and Carlos Uresti. We’ll be making endorsements in other statewide and regional races Friday. And, you’re welcome to leave your comments telling us what you think.

And…be prepared for at least two surprises in our endorsements at the state representative level…stay tuned!

All in all, there’s nearly $60,000 donated to Democratic candidates as well as over $200,000 to community groups and organizations [by Borris Miles] during a time when Borris wasn’t a candidate for anything … just a good citizen helping his community.

Amen to that. Help out Borris if you can by volunteering (I didn’t notice a contribution link on his site) if you are in that district. We’ll make him Capitol Annex’s first Primary endorsement. Actually second, I think we de-facto endorsed Ciro Rodriguez earlier. (That we support Donna Howard and Katy Hubener goes without saying.)