David Rushing update

Well, the good news is that the Chron finally addressed the David Rushing issue. The bad news is that they did so in a completely candy-assed way.

What they did was print three letters to the editor which one assumes are supposed to give some “balance” to Rushing’s viewpoint. The letters themselves…well, see for yourself. Here’s Letter Number One:

Old politics won’t work

Regarding David Rushing’s Nov. 19 Outlook article, “Political Poison: How John Sharp killed the Texas Democratic Party”: Rushing must not have been paying attention during the last election because Ron Kirk and Tony Sanchez won their primaries.

Does he prefer a return to the old “Dixiecrat” Party of George Wallace, where only white Protestant males need apply? This thinly veiled racist appeal to the politics of old just won’t work. Here’s a novel approach: Why not change the message?

The concerns of conservative and moderate Democrats have been ignored and replaced by those of the radical left. It’s small wonder the Republicans continue to gain more votes in Texas.

David R. Martinez, Houston

Does anyone understand the point this guy is trying to make? He starts off disputing Rushing’s thesis, then he recapitulates it. And what’s up with this assertion that the state Democratic Party has been taken over by “the radical left”? Anyone who thinks John Sharp and Ron Kirk are radical anything probably thinks Tom DeLay is a mainstream moderate.

Moving on to Letter Number Two:

Not over white voters

David Rushing is misguided if he thinks Texas Democrats failed because they lost white voters. Remember college history: In wartime, a president’s party usually wins most elections. Saying that Texans will not support an inclusive party makes them appear racist.

Michael Whitlock, Stafford

Unfortunately, the Democrats did fail with white voters, and this was a major factor, probably the biggest factor, in their defeat. Only Sharp drew better than 30% of the Anglo vote. Back in March, after the primaries, the hope was that they could get at least 35% of the Anglo vote – they needed that much to be competitive. 35% of the white vote would probably have carried Ron Kirk to victory, and would have made the Sanchez-Perry race much closer.

There’s no question that the ticket did poorly with white voters. It was not, as Rushing contended, because the Democrats were “openly hostile” towards them. You can’t counter one wrong fact with another and hope to win the argument.

On to Letter Number Three:

His bias was obvious

When I looked up David Rushing’s credentials, I learned he is a long-time member of the Young Conservatives of Texas and that this organization is powerful in state universities and very influential with Gov. Rick Perry.

How many people read Rushing’s article and thought it was unbiased?

Geraldine Allen, Sugar Land

Finally, the crux of the matter – the fact that Rushing attempted to pass himself off as impartial or possibly sympathetic to the Democrats. He deliberately misrepresented himself in his byline, and in doing so gave a distorted picture of his perspective. This is the only letter that really matters, and it gets printed last. Jeebus.

It’s stuff like this that makes people across the political spectrum dislike and distrust our hometown paper.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
This entry was posted in Election 2002. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to David Rushing update

  1. Chron Adds to Rushing-Mania

    Off the Kuff Kuff recaps the Chron’s “balance” on the Rushing op/ed … I can’t add anything more than saying:

Comments are closed.