Greg_Groogan's Blog

500 - that's how many Texans were part of a Rassmussen survey that inspired the pollster to declare incumbent U.S. Senator John Cornyn "vulnerable."

The findings darn sure caught our attention. The May 1st gauge has Cornyn just three percentage points ahead of Democrat Rick Noriega, an Afghan War veteran and state lawmaker, little known outside the city limits of Houston.

With limited name ID and no personal fortune to tap Noriega's task of of unseating Cornyn seems gargantuan in a state that hasn't sent a Democrat to the Senate since Lloyd Bensten.

But the answers of Rasmussen's 500 scientifically selected respondents could just be the kind of spark that can ignite a smoldering insurgency.

The "within striking distance numbers" would seem to be the kind of data Lt. Col. Noreiga's folks can take to big donors here in the Lone Star State and across the country.

The demographics are compelling - Noreiga is a slam dunk to get the lions-share of the Texas Hispanic vote. That's a no-brainer. But Noreiga should also harvest the down ballot benefit of an enormous African-American turn-out drawn by Barack Obama at the top of the ticket.

Consider also that Noreiga, the moderate, probably has more in common politically with John McCain than with the left leaning Senator from Illinois. (Noriega may disagree, but not to vehemently).

It's the kind of positioning that could draw plenty of independents in the "mushy middle" of the Texas electorate, folks looking for a change and comfortable with the idea of a Senator from each party representing the Lone Star State. These are some of the same voters that could comfortably vote McCain for president, Noriega for senate.

What Noreiga doesn't have is much notoriety and that's why money will be so critical. TV ads - lots of TV ads.

John Cornyn will have plenty of bank and a well organized party machine backing him. But he's also been at the helm as foreclosures escalate, rising gas prices eat up a bigger chunk of paychecks, immigration remains an intractable mess and American blood continues spilling in Iraq, for reasons that elude many here at home.

We may well look back at the 500 as nothing more than a foot note.

But maybe not.

 

Oddsmakers rate Hillary Clinton's chances of grabbing the Democratic nomination as a longshot.

 Regardless of how much damage the former first lady does to the political party she claims to love - it's unlikely she'll quit, particularly if she manages to win in Pennsylvania.

 This insistence on fighting to the bitter end is exacting a painful political price of one of the New York Senator's most loyal lieutenants.  

I'm talking about Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.

An early, vocal and tireless supporter of the presumptive favorite, Jackson Lee admits she was among those convinced the nomination would be wrapped up well before March.

Instead, Jackson Lee found herself campaining in her home state AGAINST the most formidable African-American presidential candidate in American history .

At the Democratic Senatorial convention she endured a barrage of boos and catcalls from folks who once counted themselves her loyal constituents.

She responded with courage and poise. But you just know it hurt and hurt bad.

80 percent of the delegates voted for Obama and many deeply resented the Congresswoman's refusal to reflect the clear preference of those she represents.

The hard feelings have spawned plenty of speculation that Jackson-Lee is now vulnerable to challenge.

Scuttlebutt has it two (and perhaps more) attractive candidates are actively organizing.

Which brings us back to Senator Clinton's desire to slug it out, as they say," 'til the last dog is dead."

The hard fact is Jackson-Lee may become collateral damage. What she desperately needs to do (and likely wants to do) is shed herself of obligation to Hillary and get to work for Team Obama (albeit a good bit late). The sooner, the better.

If past performance is any indication - Jackson Lee will be relentless. What better way to close wounds and dim memories of a high percentage play that went south.

I'm guessing the fallout would be even worse if Clinton completes an unlikely end-run with super delegates. Outrage in Jackson Lee's district (and across the country) would be swift, fierce and lasting.

No, at this point, the best possible political scenario for Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee is for her candidate to surrender.  

One wonders if the Senator from New York cares that every additional day she answers the bell, it's Jackson Lee enduring the punches ? 

 

Better than 70% of Americans believe politicians lie about their accomplishments.

It's a conclusion THEY come by honestly.

I reported the Rasmussen Report findings and provided two examples of truth-challenged politicians seperated by 15 years in an effort to provide context.

In 1992 as a protege of Governor Ann Richards few had brighter political prospects than Texas Railroad Commissioner Lena Guerrero.

But then her political opponents first uncovered than strategically leaked the fact that Guerrero's claim of having graduated from University of Texas ( Phi Beta Kappa no less) was a lie.

Despite a hasty resignation and an earnest apology the public career of the talented woman from the Rio Grande Valley was crushed and crushed for good.

Fast forward to the rough and tumble run for the presidency in 2008.

One time frontrunner Hillary Clinton claims, repeatedly to have landed in Bosnia under "sniper fire" and scampered to safety.

Noone even questioned what the heck she was doing landing an aircraft carrying her teenage daughter anywhere near hostile gunfire.

Video tape and a slew of eye-wittnesses have since confirmed the extraordinary degree of exaggeration committed by the former first lady.

At first, she blamed the mistake on fatigue. That lasted until the same peril-filled account was recalled at other campaign events.

Did the lie end her career ? Hardly. Damage sure, but the story lasted only a few news cycles.

Could it be the Rasmussen numbers explain why ? They tell us Americans have come to expect their leaders to play fast and loose with the facts. Hillary just confirmed what they already believed.

And so the candidate stumps on. Worst case scenario - a return to the United States Senate and perhaps another shot at the big prize in 2012. 

Lena Guerrero should be so lucky.

    

As I was logging political highlights I came across this soundbite from Hillary Clinton at a Democratic debate last November.

"For him(John Edwards) to be throwing this kind of mud and making these charges really detracts from what we're trying to do here tonight."

Off the top of my head, since that night Hillary Clinton or representatives of her campaign have launched the following wet dirt at challenger Barack Obama.

1. Obama will be a weaker candidate because of his self-confessed drug use as a young man. (Clinton's New Hampshire Co-chair)

2. Obama made big bucks lawyering for a Chicago "slum lord".

3. Obama is a plagiarist who rips off the speeches of political allies.

4. Obama has broken federal election rules and should be "ashamed".

5. Back to the drug abuse well with surrogate Robert Johnson saying to a pro-Clinton crowd "Obama was doing something in the neighborhood he shouldn't of been doing"

6. High ranking Clinton campaign supporter Geraldine Ferraro's sudden revelation that if Obama were white or a woman he wouldn't be in position to win the nomination.

7. "Not as far as I know." Clinton's nuanced response when asked if she believes suggestions that Obama is a closet Muslim.

While Obama campaign has tossed back a few stones of it's own there has been no use (that I can recall) of  truly muddy Ammo like:

Questionable, enormously profitable Arkansas commodity trades

Whitewater

Travelgate

Vince Foster's suicide

Character assasination of women linked to the former president

Obama has apparently chosen to leave this well trodden turf in the dark corner of history's closet where most have decided it belongs.

 One has to wonder if the the candidate whose "tested and ready" but trailing would excercise the same restraint ?

The term "kitchen sink" comes to mind. Going negative helped the former first lady win Texas and Ohio.

 The clock is ticking.

 

 

 

Train Wreck. That's what many Democrats are deathly afraid of if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama stand in the middle of the ring pounding each other for a few more months.

Only one can recieve the coronation. Only one can go on to compete for the grand prize.

Hillary went ugly in the final four days before ST-2. It worked ...and  that means there's more to come.

Obama has promised to retaliate.

The pounding could indeed polarize the party. If the nomination gets brokered - healing won't be quick and for some, even possible.

Some analysts say this is acutally healthy - more issue based debate, more media coverage.

I don't buy it.  Their platitudes of public respect and affection for one another ring hollow. The same game of "gotcha" the Clinton's are so fond of criticizing when practiced by reporters, is a tactic they have no problem employing themselves when it suits their purpose. Hypocrisy ? Make your own call.

What would make it all go away in a giant Democratic group hug ?

A high-stakes game of winner-take-all  Rock-Paper-scissor,. with the loser altruistically stepping aside.

Fat chance.

 What's more likely - a star-chamber session in which Mr. Obama at some point is promised the nomination somewhere in the future along with the unshakable support of the party elders. Senator Clinton who claims "she's tested and ready" will offer her younger, less seasoned VP the guidance he'll need..and of course her blessing.

You want real change Barack ? They'll suggest, "Jump on board, and maybe just maybe, a Democrat can command for the next 16 years." 

All you have to do is fall on the sword for the team - and fall in line.

Possible ? I guess anything is possible.

 

 

 

 

Draw a line starting five miles south of San Antonio extending west to the Mexican border and east to to the Gulf.
I'm not a census taker but my educated guess as a journalist and a Texan is that African-Americans comprise less than 2% of the population of South Texas.
The point of this excercise. A good chunk of Texas' Mexican American population has little or no contact with African Americans. This abscence of intermingling offers a partial explanation as to why Hillary Clinton will recieve 75 percent of the Democratic vote in this region of the state.
University of Houston sociologist Nestor Rodriguez confirms the seperation, sub-surface anti-black sentiment and the sizable disadvantage it's produced for Barack Obama. In combination with the "comfort" factor of Hispanics long association with the Clintons - South Texas will vote heavily for Hillary. Just how heavily could be the key to capturing the state.
African-Americans in the state's major urban areas will vote just as heavily for Obama. There's a chance when all is said and done that the two groups - Clinton supporting Hispanics and Obama supporting Blacks could essentially cancel each other out. That would leave the decision in the hands of white party regulars, left leaning independents and the wild card, a yet to be determined number of Republicans who meddle in the enemy primary.

It's gonna be fun to watch - especially that funky caucus process. Look for things to get heated if precinct votes are tight - and by all indications, they will be.

Some call it a "softball" - a question tossed slowly into a politician's wheel-house so they can CRUSH an opponents position or action.

Today on the trail with Mike Huckabee I made referenece to John McCain's recent flub when he insisted he was a "proud, LIBERAL, conservative republican".

The former pastor took a pass - saying he didn't want to find fault with "slips of the tongue" (even the freudian kind) because others would certainly do the same when he botched a line.

So what do you think - is the good former governor living by the Golden Rule or is he angling for a veep-slot and just making nice with the inevitable nominee ?

 

 

 

There's an old saying valiant losers use to offer themselves consolation.

"I didn't lose....I just ran out of time."  Had Hillary Clinton held on to what was once a monster lead in Texas, the previously mentioned phrase could have easily been  used and used fairly by Barack Obama.

But turns out Barack WILL have enough time. Our Rassmussen poll indicates the Illinois Senator has caught the former first lady here in the Lone Star State.

Understand this, if Obama's run is truly an irresisistable force both Clinton's high-powered number crunchers and her politically astute husband ALREADY know it.

I've spent enough time with insiders on major campaigns to know - they often know - long before we do.

Watch the one-time frontrunner closely over the next couple of days - if she dons a grind-it-out fight to the finish game face, chances are she understands her fate and is already thinking about what, if anything, she needs to do next.

But if there's a prayer of a photo finish - she'll be spending every available resource to pull off a win, including a partial triumph in the funky Texas Caucus process.

Just my opinion. Blogs are great that way.

 Hillary could sure use George Parr, in South Texas. A boss shrewd enough to scrape up enough voters, living and date, to off-set whats happening for Obama in the state's big cities. 

 

Rows to hoe don't  get much tougher.

Hillary Clinton needs a Herculean effort to de-rail the O-train - O as in Obama. It's pretty much common knowledge now that electoral surival for the Senator from New York demands a big victory in Texas.

Can it happen ? Yes. Will it ? I'm guessing not.

Senator Clinton will need an inspired performance in Thursday's Austin debate. If she attacks too hard she runs the risk of looking desperate. If she chooses to dwell on previous themes with nothing new she will do her cause little good.  There's precious little middle ground here - and Clinton has to find it, own it and establish the foundation of a desperately needed reversal of fortune.

Hillary Clinton also needs to hold the lion share of the Lone Star State's Hispanic voters - potentially 36% of the available ballots.

That's doable in South Texas and El Paso - but in the major population centers Houston, DFW, San Antonio and Austin - reporters are sensing drift among Hispanics - drawn to to Obama's bright star and the momentum of his ten consecutive primary wins.

Cocaine use, alleged plagerism, lawyering for slum lords - the Clinton camps negative attacks have all bounced- off Barack.

One wonders whether the former first lady has more devestating ammo to launch - and perhaps more critically - the inclination to use it .

 

 

 

 

 

IS EXPECTED. Having vaulted to the the top of the Republican heap in Iowa, the genial ordained Baptist minister and former governor of Arkansas will now face an ordeal reserved for frontrunners. Scrutiny ? You better believe it and when it gets down to the lick-log there's plenty to look at in Huckabees past.

For instance I'd like to ask him why he reportedly ordered the hard drives of 83 state computers and four servers destroyed as he left office in Arkansas. Was there something to hide ? His critics suggest plenty. 

I'd like to know more about Huckabee's role in the parole of a convicted rapist who upon release raped and killed again. He's denied involvement, but his critics say there's plenty of evidence he played a big role in the release.

According to a Little Rock newspaper Pastor Huckabee was sanctioned for ethics violations at least five times. The same paper says back in the early 90's Huck wrote himself a paycheck from campaign funds as his own political consultant and had sticky fingers when it came to thousands of dollars worth of furnishings at the governor's mansion.

There's more....enough for those who covered Huckabee's years of public service to warn voters not to judge a book by it's aw-shucks cover.

Huckabee may have strong answers for these and other concerns. The point is - as a serious player he must now answer, something he largely avoided in his months as an apparent also ran.

That's the process. Ask Rudy, whose been wrung through the wringer (and it ain't over).

 

 

I've taken a little break from blogging...but it's time to get back in the game.

The struggle is heating up. Stretch run, you could call it, in the pitched battle that is the primaries.

Just watched tape of Oprah stumping for Obama.

If ever there was a "civilian" endorsement to be envied by those unfortunate enough to be passed over - Oprah's public blessing is certainly it.

But will it make a difference ? Do people really value an entertainer's personal opinion so highly they are willing to offer their own vote as a sort of homage ?

Perhaps.

Some may think it's as good a reason as any. Much of what Ms. Winfrey has touched has turned to gold.

But Can Oprah "magic" erode a 20% gap in the polls ?

It will be fascinating to see in coming weeks if her there are indeed limits to the power of her persuasion.

 

   

The latest edition of a Texas exclusive Rasmussen poll asked a question that goes something like this "If a police officer makes a traffic stop and the driver is an undocumented immigrant, should that person be deported ?"
Without revealing what the numbers were I guess most of you can guess what a majority of folks in Texas would say.
While reporters arn't supposed to reveal personal opinions (oh yea, we've got them), it's likely you could have counted me among those who would say, "hey, they broke the rules, took the risk and came here the easy way while millions stand in line trying to do it right."
Hours after reading the question and preparing for a report on the results I picked up my three year-old daughter and went to the grocery store. As i stood in the check-out line I came in contact with another father accompanied by his tiny daughter.
Call It racial profiling if you wish, put based on 21-years worth of reporting and a good bit of life on the Texas border, I made an educated guess that my fellow parent was probably one of the millions who crossed for opportunity the only way he knew how.
Right or wrong, I progressed to what I see as the far more important hypothetical. What if five minutes from now this young man, clearly adored by his daughter, was stopped by authorities for a bad tail-light, identified as undocumented, cuffed and hauled away in front of his little girl ? Seperated, perhaps, forever.

I wasn't okay with that.

Maybe because in the few moments I watched them together, I wittnessed the same love, the same desire for a secure and nurturing home, the same hope, that's at the core of my own life.
I did not see a person whose first contact with America was to break its law by entering illegally. I did not see a person who can rely on free emergency medical care funded by my tax dollars. I did not see a laborer undercutting the wages of the native born by his willingness to work for less.
What I saw was a father, devoted to his daughter and a little girl who looked at her daddy the same way my 3-year-old angel looks at me.

Talk about your wingman ! Anyone else see Bill Richardson swoop-in to shield frontrunner Hillary Clinton from the Obama/Edwards onslaught ?

"I'm hearing this holier than thou attitude toward Senator Clinton," chided the New Mexico Governor, further scolding,

"It's bothering me because it's pretty close to personal attacks we don't need."

Who does Richardson think he's kidding ? With almost no chance of winning the nomination himself  it's certainly not beyond the realm of the possible that he's getting a head start on the paegent to be the former first lady's number two.

And why not ? If, as the only hispanic in the presidential field, he can deliver a latino vote landslide, maybe Clinton/Richardson makes sense.

Toss in his foreign policy experience, years as a chief executive (albeit of a not-so-populous state) and ties to the previous Clinton administration and it's conceivable Richardson is on a short-list.

Or maybe not. 

Regardless, one veteran political activist tells me, Richardson's reluctance to mix it up with Hillary has been obvious.

Never more so than in the latest debate. 

  

  

 

This post has been edited by an administrator

All three leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination promise to block renewal of the tax cuts pushed through by the Bush administration during the Texan's first term.
The argument from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards is basically two-fold.

Number one - they disproportionately favor the wealthiest folks in America.

Number two - with war-driven deficits and 47 million citizens without health insurance the nation cannot afford to allow the affluent to keep more of what they make.

Republican Congressman Ted Poe says that kind of thinking is a sure fire recipe for economic recession.

Republican Congressman Kevin Brady says a return to pre-Bush tax rates would cost the average Texas family more than $3,000 a year.

Critics call the various plans set out by the top democratic presidential campaigns nothing short of "wealth redistribution"

Others have suggested increases in the capitol gains tax will have a chilling effect on the already volatile stock market.

So what do you think ? Should the "haves" hand over more to help the "have nots" ? or as Congressman Brady has suggested,
should government tighten it's own belt and re-direct the revenue it already receives to the needs that are most critical?

 As I decide what to cover in this presidential scramble, the all--consuming quest to pile up the biggest pile of cash consistently makes me yawn and heightens my general cynicism about this imperfect process.

 Sure, it's the juice that keeps the combatants in the field, and  the spinmeisters yakking, but what bugs me is how MUCH attention the quarterly fundraising figures have been given and generally how little attention was paid to candidates reaction tof ISRAEL BOMBING SYRIA.

 The attack came hours after a suicide bomber in the Israeli city of Haifa claimed 18 lives. The Isreali's struck back at what they claim was a terrorist training camp, deep inside Syria.

 What I found fascinating in the aftermath was Senator Hillary Clinton's strong and vocal support of the Israeli COUNTER-STRIKE and the suggestion that the Syrians were working on their own nuclear facility which leaders in Tel Aviv had every right to knock out.

 In a political world, where every statement by those seeking power is dissected and chewed over for a telegraphed message - some are suggesting the Democratic frontrunner  has just issued  the green light  for Isreali  pre-emptive airstrikes against nuclear weapons facilities in Iran. That is, if she becomes America's president.

Any thoughts ?