Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jomentum's Dem seat - a lesson from 1960s' Blue Texas

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 09:22 PM
Original message
Jomentum's Dem seat - a lesson from 1960s' Blue Texas
Edited on Thu Jul-13-06 09:27 PM by UTUSN
I heard formerly young/rising-star Dem Ben BARNES in a radio interview plugging his recent book. He drew parallels in the Joementum battle to 1960 when the Liberal wing of TX Dems sat out the primary because the Dem was a Conservative Dem, the thinking going that they could allow John TOWER to win then beat him in the next election. Wrong. He made the point that the Joementum scenario is shaping up the same way.

This is the same Ben BARNES who, as the youngest LT Governor, got Shrub his coveted National Guard slot, as a bipartisan favor. Before I read Howard ZINN, I would have thought of BARNES as just another good Dem. ZINN made the point that Dems from Grover CLEVELAND to CARTER and CLINTON have succeeded by reassuring Big Business that there would be NO CHANGE in the government's intervention in the business climate, that is, NO CHANGE from the Repuke's policies. At the end of the interview, BARNES delivered a peroration on how the Democratic Party can come back from the dead, which was, he said with no-ZINN-consciousness, to reach out to the business community and assure them of friendly intentions.

*******QUOTE*******

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/21/001022.php

Co-authored with Lisa Dickey, Ben Barnes’ Barn Burning, Barn Building is a tale of the fall of the Texas Democrats from almost complete control of the state to the status of a minor party and links that to the fall of the national party. "Where once the names Johnson, Rayburn, and Connally were synonymous with political power, the 21st century brought us Bush, Rove, and DeLay."

Democrats are still asking, "How did we get to this point?" ....

But by 1960, when there was no external enemy against whom to rally the troops, the internal dissention flared. The two factions - liberals versus moderate/conservatives - had maintained an uneasy alliance, "but absolute power is a dangerous thing."

A major rift occurred in 1952 when conservative Texas Democrats suddenly found themselves more in alignment with Republicans than their own party. Then Texas Governor Allan Shivers, furious over the Truman’s administration’s position on mineral rights issues in the Gulf Of Mexico, started "Democrats for Eisenhower in 1952 and '56." The state twice voted for a Republican president. ....

"This was the essential mistake the Texas Democratic party made during these years... They’d start to devour each other in fits of spite, allowing the Republicans to gain vital footholds in the state," such as the election of Republican John Tower as a Texas Senator and the beginning of the exodus of Texas conservative Democrats to the enemy. ....

Connally became a Republican, partially to run for president but also because of his disgust with the ’72 convention that nominated George McGovern. ....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Yarborough

Ralph Webster Yarborough (June 8, 1903 – January 27, 1996) was a Texas Democratic politician who served in the United States Senate (1957 until 1971) and was a leader of the progressive or liberal wing of the Democratic Party in Texas in his many races for statewide office. As a U.S. Senator, he was a staunch supporter and author of "Great Society" legislation that encompassed Medicare and Medicaid, the War on Poverty, federal support for higher education and veterans. He co-wrote the Endangered Species Act and was the only southern senator to vote for all civil rights bills from 1957 to 1970 (including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act). Yarborough was known as "Smilin' Ralph" Yarborough and used the slogan "Let's put the jam on the lower shelf so the little people can reach it" in his campaigns. ....

Running for governor
Ralph Yarborough was urged to run again for state attorney general in 1952, and he planned to do so until he received a personal affront by Governor Allan Shivers who told him not to run. Out of spite, Ralph Yarborough then ran in the primaries for governor in 1952 and 1954 against the conservative Shivers, drawing support from labor unions and liberals. Yarborough denounced the corrupt "Shivercrats" for veterans' fraud in the General Land Office and for endorsing the Republican Eisenhower/Nixon ticket for President instead of Democrat Adlai Stevenson in 1952. Shivers portrayed Yarborough as an integrationist supported by communist labor unions. The 1954 election was particularly nasty in its race-baiting by Shivers as it was the year that Brown v. Board of Education was decided, and Shivers made the most of the court decision in order to play on voters' racism. In one particularly odious episode, a black man was hired to drive around East Texas in a Cadillac full of Yarborough stickers and to be obnoxious and insult gas station attendants as slow. The man would say he was busy and had to hurry "to work for Mr. Yarborough." Yarborough made it to the primary runoff and came surprisingly close to beating Shivers despite receiving almost no newspaper endorsements, being out-fundraised, and being the target of nasty attacks. ....

Losing the position
In 1970, South Texan businessman and former congressman Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr.. won an upset victory against Yarborough in the Democratic primary when Yarborough was focusing on the general election. Bentsen played on voters' fears of societal breakdown and urban riots and made an issue of Yarborough's opposition to the Vietnam War. Yarborough was an antique out of place in the modern era he claimed. Said Bentsen, "It would be nice if Ralph Yarborough would vote for his state every once in a while." Bentsen went on to win the general election against George H.W. Bush.

In 1972, Ralph Yarborough made a comeback effort to win the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senator as a challenger of Republican Sen. John Tower. Yarborough won the first round of the primary, coming short 526 votes of a full victory. Again, Yarborough suspected vote fraud from the conservative wing. He lost in the primary runoff to Barefoot Sanders in an anti-incumbent sweep after the Sharpstown Bank-stock Scandal despite neither being an incumbent nor involved at all with the scandal. It was Yarborough's last run for office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tower

Johnson became Vice President for John F. Kennedy, and Governor Price Daniel, Sr., appointed fellow Democrat William A. Blakley of Dallas to the seat, pending a special election to be held in May 1961. Blakley, a conservative Democrat, had also been appointed by Daniel in 1957 to succeed Daniel in the Senate when Daniel became governor. Considerable numbers of liberal Texas Democrats opposed the conservative (DEMOCRATIC) Blakely and did not turn out to the polls. The conservative vote was divided. Texas conservatives, traditionally "Yellow Dog Democrats," had already voted for Republicans in the 1950s, when Democrat Governor Allan Shivers had aligned with Dwight Eisenhower over the national Democratic candidate Adlai E. Stevenson.

In his second Senate campaign in a matter of months, Tower charged that the national Democratic Party, represented by John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, was far to the left of typical Texas Democrats. The initial round of voting in the special election gave Tower 327,308 votes (30.9 percent) to Blakely's 191,818 (18.1 percent). ... ....

********UNQUOTE*******


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. The demographics of Texas then and Connecticut now put distance
between the analogy.

The South was much, much more solidly Democratic then. Connecticut is already way more blue than that.

Lamont is a deeper shade of an already-blue state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. The Lib wing of the TX Dems of back then were as blue as today's
Blue. I purposely included YARBOROUGH's record to show that. I'm not EQUATING TX and CT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. I think the liberal wing of any state's blue is always blue. But the
State of Texas was only narrowly Democratic, let alone a liberal blue, by the midpoint of JFK's term.

The Houston CHRONICLE ran a brief synopsis of the Kennedy visit to Texas in 1963:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/first100/1055948.html

--in a Sept. 2001 issue. Mention is made of Kennedy's warm reception by the people of Dallas but cites a poll showing that had the election been held that fall, Goldwater would defeat Kennedy in Texas 52-48.

Today that number would be a generic Republican far ahead of any liberal Democrat.

Up in Connecticut right now, it may be that Lieberman holds on and wins the primary, or loses the primary to Lamont and wins in the general. But it could also be that in very blue and very contemporary Connecticut, Lamont upends Joe and goes on to win in the general himself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Once again, I'm not talking about how Blue-or-not the WHOLE of TX was
There couldn't be anybody Bluer than YARBOROUGH, re-copying his record from above:

*************QUOTE*********

he was a staunch supporter and author of "Great Society" legislation that encompassed Medicare and Medicaid, the War on Poverty, federal support for higher education and veterans. He co-wrote the Endangered Species Act and was the only southern senator to vote for all civil rights bills from 1957 to 1970 (including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act).

********UNQUOTE*******
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Yarborough ran on a statewide ballot. I AM talking about how blue
Texas was, and how blue Connecticut is.

I know Yarborough's record and it almost cost him his seat.

I also know Lieberman's record and he's under a serious challenge for that seat as a result of that record.

Why are you zeroing in on Yarborough only when senators are statewide ballot candidates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I think that this is a real issue here
People are unhappy and hunger for change. No about of bullying is going to change that. People
are not going to stay the course. We don't want a war based on a lie, and we don't want snooping and torture and reckless spending at the expense of the old and the poor and we
want the Gulf Coast fixed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Well, Lieberman and Collins have done fairly well on the Gulf Coast.
Better than many other senators of both parties.

The war is a huge motivator for a lot of voters, but not for every single voter. Lieberman is still polling ahead of Lamont in Connecticut.

If Ned wins, and I hope he does, it will be a great triumph, but not a triumph easily won. He's behind now. He could catch up. But it isn't going to be easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-14-06 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
18. I hope he wins
I really want a Democratic Party to be pro-active again and not the jellocrats!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ringo84 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. Re:
Lieberman is a vulnerability in the party. We ought to reach a consensus and give him his walking papers. I'm tired of hearing from him - especially as DEMOCRATIC Senator Lieberman.
Ringo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. In 1960 Kennedy chose LBJ as his running mate, and carried Texas.
The famous quote to LBJ from that set of circumstances was (paraphrased), "If you don't run with Jack Kennedy, Dick Nixon will be the next president."

That suggests to me a certain iffy quality to the Democratic south. I don't believe I would consider Texas of that era -- and certainly not of 1972 -- to be the demographic equivalent of today's more liberal blue.

The Kennedy re-election campaign was already experiencing misgivings on the part of many Southern Democrats. Jack Kennedy was never that popular south of Baltimore, MD.

So I'm not getting the Lieberman connection here at all.

I grant you that I'm missing something. I read your post carefully the first time. Put me in the light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. It ain't JFK's choosing, but rather LBJ's accepting the VP slot
Edited on Thu Jul-13-06 10:31 PM by UTUSN
that is the point. BARNES pinpoints THAT (LBJ's accepting under JFK) to be the turning point toward Dem demise. See the quote in the o.p. where CONNELLY turned Repuke from disgust that McGOVERN was the nominee in 1972 (besides CONNELLY's personal ambitions).
*********QUOTE*********
from the 1st link above:

Johnson accepting the number two slot turned out to be "so divisive, in fact, that some have argued that the downfall of the Texas Democratic party can be traced to that moment." Johnson’s allies as well as many others couldn’t believe that he would support someone perceived as so liberal; in addition, they didn’t think Kennedy had a chance of success.

The Kennedy/Johnson victory didn’t help, although it temporarily covered over problems as the Democrats nationally and in Texas dominated the political landscape. But the underlying issues were growing more divisive.

*************UNQUOTE************

As for the Connecticut connection, I repeat, BARNES talked about it. The interview was several days ago and I haven't had time to dig up these links that give background (as opposed to what BARNES specifically said). Perhaps the topics I'm shooting for are more general than the specificity of Connecticut: How the Dems lost sway by polarization. How the Lib wing sat out voting for a Conservative Dem, thereby planting a Repuke for years to come. It's been floated here whether to sit out the general election if Joementum wins the primary. Or just plain history. Most of every generation thinks today is unique.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I understand the point made about the divisiveness that grew between
Johnson and Kennedy. I understand that it was both personal and party-wide political.

But objection to the Civil Rights support the Kennedys gave was far more divisive and visceral an objection by Southern voters.

And was the very basis of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" a couple of years later. It was a strategy that was wholly and purposefully divisive and would not have succeeded as it did had the division over race not been there in the first place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Not talking about division between JFK/LBJ. Am talking about
division between Lib and Conservative/Mod Democratic Party WINGS. And re: your other post on CONNELLY and McGOVERN: That's the rub. I want Democratic Party candidates who can and will WIN. I share the idealism of our candidates who have LOST, but if they LOSE in this winner-takes-ALL their ideals won't matter ONE WHIT. I voted for McGOVERN, but also wrote his campaign a pitiful, solitary letter begging him to withdraw and allow somebody to run who could BEAT NIXON. Too bad I lost the reply, which appeared to have his original signature. He said something like, "I think I understand the issues and that I have a chance to win... "

All of the dudes in the second row below were better, smarter, more ethical, more humane, more idealistic than the Repukes who beat them. The policies of the ones who LOSE are ZILCH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Freeze-frame the debate on factions. I've understood them for
several decades.

My response was to the comparison between Texas in 1960 and 1970 and Connecticut and Texas now.

Factions are ALWAYS present, or in any case, rarely absent. Primaries are in place in part to determine the candidate who will represent the party in a given race. It might be a town council race or a statewide race.

Factions weigh in, organize, advertize, mobilize, and the election is held. If it is especially fractious, some voters sit it out. That's the system. I don't argue that it's perfect, but it's the one we use at the moment.

In Texas, Austin was prepared to go for John Kennedy with no reservations in 1964 over Goldwater but the rest of the state was tilting very strongly and discernibly toward Goldwater. Hence JFK's campaign trip to Texas.

By this time the entire South was very divided and the Democratic Party itself was not at all enthusiastic about civil rights legislation supported by John Kennedy. LBJ had to claw to get this legislation through. It happened, but at a cost. His own comments on those bills were graphic and coarse, and institutionally racist, and in his words (paraphrased): "I think we just lost the South to the Republicans for the next several generations."

He was right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. 'enjoyed your including Connelly in the passage there...
Just my take, but I never ever felt John Connelly had the eggs to stand up for his party. McGovern deserved better than he got and people like Connelly jumping overboard were the bigger part of the problem.

It wasn't a nice thing to do, but I rejoiced when Connelly, after abandoning the Democratic Party, got destroyed at the Republican convention when he sought the nomination. All that money and bluster got him 1 delegate vote. Big whoop.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SensibleAmerican Donating Member (460 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Bush almost beat Yarborough in 1964
It was only because of Lloyd Bentsen's upset win that Bush did not win in 1970.

Ben Barnes doesn't understand that Texas did not become Republican because of the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. Rather, this state became Republican because the liberal wing of the Democratic Party didn't adapt to Texas as it was able to do in other states like Arkansas and West Virginia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
n2doc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
16. I am so F**king tired of this crap
God F**king DAMMIT. JOE F**king LIEBERMAN DOES NOT have a god given right to be Senator. And the people of Connecticut DO NOT have to be stuck with him or have the seat go to a republican. They can vote Joe OUT and put in Ned IF THEY SO CHOOSE. And frankly there are way too many Democrats who wish that they did NOT HAVE A CHOICE. If Joe wins the primary, we support him. If he loses, we fight against him or anyone else who is opposing the Democratic nominee. Let Democracy function, for a friggin' change! Have some faith, people- are we so afraid that we have to blindly support the enablers of war criminals?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
17. What of Barnes' premise that Lieberman-Lamont is "shaping up the
same way" as Yarborough's campaign...

I'm not seeing that.

It's not shaping up that way at all.

Schlesinger is going to be whomped and whomped good. Democratic candidates for Senate are well positioned in Connecticut. We have no idea what percentage of eligible Democrats will participate in the primary, or in the general election.

My guess is that while some people will be on vacation, quite a few others will not be and plan to vote for either Joe or Ned.

I'm kinda hoping a majority of them choose Lamont.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC