August 04, 2005
Dan Barrett in HD97

Moving back to Texas, Damon brings the news that Fort Worth attorney Dan Barrett will challenge Anna Mowery in HD97 in 2006. That district doesn't stand out as being particularly swingy, but that's all right. Tarrant is easily the most Republican of the six big urban counties, and it's going to need a lot of strong challenges by good candidates for that to change. Mowery won with 67% in 2002 and 63% in 2004, both times against Nancy Stevens, so at least the trendlines are pointed in the right direction.

It's interesting, by the way, to compare the overall giddiness and optimism that resulted from Paul Hackett's close loss to the pessimistic reactions in the comments of Damon's post to Barrett's announcement. The district's too unfavorable, the incumbent's not so bad, and (my favorite) the challenger's just an eeeevil trial attorney looking to raise his profile on campaign money. We Run Everywhere proponents still have some work to do, don't we?

Posted by Charles Kuffner on August 04, 2005 to Election 2006 | TrackBack

Sorry I thought the blog said"knowledge is good in the reality-based community. The current incumbent will not be beat in that district. A former school teacher, past Republican party chair. She will have 50 members of the Rep. womens club out twice a week. his website, all he has done is trial lawyer stuff, no chamber of commerce, no other cultural involvement, no real volunteer efforts.

I'm the one who said he will raise money to get his name out and hope that in turn helps his law practice...meanwhile he takes up funds and time from other candidates that may have a chance. PS I'm no Mowery fan, I cannot think of one thing she has accomplished while in Austin. That also means she has not pissed anybody off enough to go after her alone.

Posted by: Dos Centavosforu on August 4, 2005 6:54 PM

So what are you advocating, then? A free pass for Mowery, who can then let all those Republican women's club ladies work on Goodman and Zedler's campaigns? If what you want is a different opponent for Mowery, that's fine, but you'll have to do a lot better than that to convince me that Barrett won't do. What else have you got?

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on August 4, 2005 7:23 PM

Dos' sargument is the same as the "geniuses" at the Texas Trial Lawyers, who think anyone who runs for office depends solely on their funding. Barrett is a successful attorney who has made it clear he plans to pay for the majority of his campaign. Kuff makes the logical argument here.

Posted by: Cafe Tortoli on August 4, 2005 9:25 PM

First of all show me a reason someone should support Barrett, I"m a Demo doesn't work in a 60-65% Republican district. He has done, according to his own web page, nothing other that serve on legal panels. At least the last Democratic candidate, Nancy Stevens was involved in MHMR issues. Second what someone says they will spend is almost as good as what someone promises to give, show me the money. Finally, if you know the Legislature, don't ever, ever put Toby Goodman in the same league with Mowery or Zedler. If Toby ran for Speaker he would have a majority of the Demos votes. This is just reality.

Posted by: Dos Centavosforu on August 5, 2005 12:03 AM

First of all, you made a serious allegation. Here's what you said, from the BOR comments:

Has no one figured out, this allows [Barrett] to get his name out in public at the expense of campaign contributions to futher his law practice with no chance of winning.

Do you have any evidence to back that up, or do you just dislike Dan Barrett for some not yet articulated reason?

Second, I don't really care how popular Toby Goodman is with his peers. He's a vote for Speaker Craddick. Nothing gets better in the House under this Speaker. Goodman won by 5000 votes in 2004. Unless he goes public with his support of, say, Pete Gallego for Speaker, he's a target.

Third, you haven't shown me any reason why I shouldn't support Barrett. It's certainly possible he'll be a lousy candidate, but so far all you've done is make accusations.

If someone else wants to join in the race for the nomination in HD97, that's great. The more, the merrier, and may the best person win. Frankly, the original point of my post was simply to pass along the news of his entrance into the race, not to cheerlead for him at the expense of any potential subsequent challengers. So I ask you again: If not Barrett, then whom do you want? And what happens if that person doesn't enter?

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on August 5, 2005 10:25 AM

I don't have any reason to like or dislike Barrett, never heard of him. I just believe the idea of using what scarce funds any Demos may have and to put them into a District that is not winnable, is a waste. Why not use them to bring back a few Demos that lost close races last election. Goodman a vote for Craddick, why is he no longer a Chair? His pledge came long after a number of Democrats had secured Craddicks Speakership. Finally you ask Goodman to pledge to Gallego or face the wrath of the Democratic Party ( In Tarrant County Democrats now hold two State Rep seats, no Senate seats, no Congessional seats, not a single judgeship, one County Commissioner and maybe a Constable). That should scare anyone. Maybe someone should ask Rep. Gallego or Dunham if they think thats where Demo dollars should be spent.

Posted by: Dos Centavosforu on August 5, 2005 11:42 AM

Mr. Dos Centavosforu,

An important effect of running in all single-member districts is that you marginally increase your party's total vote in each district, and these marginal increases can be targeted and aimed at ahead of time, and made to fit into an overall strategy that helps your candidates with better odds in interlocking districts, as well as on the statewide level.

To a surprising extent this is also more about shoe leather than about money ... personal door to door in heavy-advantage precincts is still the most effective turnout motivator anyone has come up with.


Posted by: ttyler5 on August 5, 2005 7:20 PM

She will have 50 members of the Rep. womens club out twice a week.

This is exactly why we should contest this seat. If we don't contest this district, Mowery's resources will be poured into a swing district. We either try to keep her resources in her district or we fight them elsewhere.

Also Soechting and Brender aren't going to suddenly dump lots of money into 97. In fact, Brender has a reputation for being too hesitant to put resources in races he doesn't think he can win.

Furthermore, I think SD10 might be a reasonable target as early as 2008. Hill (or was it Hall?) did not run a real campaign and still broke 40%. There's a growing latino population, and George Bush will not be at the top of the ticket. However, to make this seat viable, we need to run good races in the house districts that comprise of SD10 in 2006.

Posted by: blank on August 6, 2005 2:00 AM

Damn all you guys are right....Tarrant County will soon be a Democratic County, Demos have enough money and workers to fund and support a candidate in every district and by running candidates in all state election spots will only help the Demo. Party in increasing turnout. Better get ready for another tough winter. There is no swing district now in Tarrant County and look at Art Brender's track record, has he elected one new Demo anywhere since he has been there, anyone???? Yet he will be reelected County Chair, bang the drum and lose races again.

Posted by: Dos Centavosforu on August 6, 2005 11:05 PM

Hi...I would love to know more about attorney Daniel Barrett and his upcoming campaign. I look forward to learning more about what the candidate has to offer.

Posted by: Dawn Carter on August 4, 2006 4:00 PM

I am quite curious about Dan Barrett. I see that George Parker Young is his treasurer. That is certainly an interestig choice. The last time I was George in politics, he was introducing around Pete Sessions for his first run in Congress. In addition, George (I believe) was on staff for John Tower right after he draduated from college.

Is Dan Barrett the 97 candidate the same Dan Barrett that is or was married to Sherry Hill the Republican judge in County Criminal Court #1? There is a startling lack of personal information on his website.

Posted by: Elaine Bower on October 3, 2006 10:40 AM