David v. Goliath in Texas & Kentucky

The Texas Observor has an excellent article on the David v. Goliath senate race of Rick Noriega (D-TX) vs. Sen. John "Corndog" Cornyn (R-TX). There are enough similarities between that race and Andrew Horne's challenge to Obstructionist-in-Chief Mitch McConnell (R-KY), that the Horne campaign and KY Democrats would do well to read the article. Noriega is the grandson of Mexican immigrants, a state legislator, and a National Guardsmen who worked his way from private to Lt. Col. and has been to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Horne is a retired Lt. Col in the Marines who served in Kuwait during Gulf War I and Iraq in the current invasion/occupation. Both men are facing pro-war chickenhawks who have never spent a day in uniform and who are receiving less than stellar approval ratings for the first time in their senate careers. Both are grassroots campaigns against big money incumbents.

Texas is, perhaps, a "redder," or more Republican state than Kentucky, although Texas Dems are hungry and if the Hispanic base is mobilized in large numbers, Cornyn's virulent anti-immigration policies could haunt him. But Cornyn is a relative newcomer to the Senate, whereas, McConnell is the powerful Senate Minority Leader (Obstructionist-in-Chief) and has a history of eating opponents for breakfast. Both campaigns will have to prove to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee that they are strong enough for the DSCC to risk national money to help even the playing field. Kentucky is a smaller state than Texas and so statewide commercials will be less expensive for Horne than Noriega, but, again, Cornyn is not the powerhouse that McConnell is.

There are symbolic, psychological reasons for both campaigns to appeal to national Democratic donors: Texas is the home of George W. Bush and Cornyn is one of his cronies--aided into each office he's held by W's own campaign successes and even by personal advice from Bush guru Karl Rove. Taking out Cornyn, even in a year in which no one in the Bush family is on the ticket, would be an incredible coup: it would show the sinking the popularity of Bush even in his home state and the drag his low popularity is having on the entire GOP. A Noriega victory would reinforce Democratic outreach to Hispanics, especially in the Southwest where Democrats are growing with the increasing Latino population. It would bolster national Democratic stands on the war, immigration, and economic populism.

Likewise, the national party knows just how devastating it would be to the GOP if the powerful Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, would lose. Republicans flooded South Dakota with money in order to defeat the popular Tom Daschle (D-SD), then the Senate Minority Leader--knowing that Daschle's loss would be worth 3 other senators to Democrats. The DSCC would love to return the favor. Both Horne and Noriega would bring fresh blood to the national party. Both would reinforce DNC chief Howard Dean's "50 State Strategy" for regrowing and rejuvenating the Democratic Party--a strategy which has been working since 2004.

And both are military veterans against the Iraq war. Since 2006, Democrats have worked hard to recruit candidates who are anti-war veterans. This strategy has done several things: 1) It has begun to increase the number of U.S. Representatives and Senators with military experience--something once common, but increasingly rare since the end of the Vietnam War, the end of the draft, and the rise of the all-volunteer, professional military (which has often meant a "poverty draft." Today's military is disproportionally staffed by racial and ethnic minorities and, while those from wealthy families were always a minority, today their presence is even rarer). It is much easier for lawmakers to be militaristic when the results of such hawkishness are unlikely to affect them or their families personally. 2) Because this kind of recruitment has been a specifically Democratic strategy, more of the newly elected veterans are Democrats. And since these are veterans who oppose the continuation of the Iraq occupation, they are changing the perception that Democrats are "weak on defense," and that Democratic moves for diplomacy or peacemaking are signs of "defeatism," and a "blame America first" attitude. Those have been standard GOP talking points since the 1980s, but candidates like Noriega and Horne, facing "chickenhawks" like Cornyn and McConnell (chickenhawks who also have a record of voting against proper equipment and armor for the troops early in the war/occupation; voting against veterans' benefits; voting against combat and hazard pay and benefits for reservists being used for frontline troops in Afghanistan and Iraq; voting against Sen. Jim Webb (D-V)'s bill that would force longer homefront stays for rest, retraining, equip renewal, etc., before new deployments back in war zones) are making it harder for the GOP to win with those talking points. When a pacifist (or near-pacifist) like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), or even a pacifist like myself with a military background 20+ years ago, but no combat experience (thank God!) tries to argue for diplomacy and peacemaking in a post-9/11 world--we have a hard time getting a hearing in many parts of the U.S. (although not as hard a time as 2001-2004!). But if combat veterans, especially veterans from the current mess, make those same points, they don't encounter the automatic mental defenses. They can get a hearing.

Noriega and Horne: Two Davids in red states taking on GOP Goliaths. But nobody really likes Goliath, anyway. Will Texans or Kentuckians join our Davids? Time will tell, but I hope so.