Beto O’Rourke: It Wasn’t About Drugs

Texas congressional candidate Beto O'Rourke (D).<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/betoforcongress/7301970726/sizes/z/in/set-72157629968470182/">Beto for Congress</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Of the 133 incumbent congressmen who have faced primary challenges from non-members so far in 2012, 130 of them have won. On Tuesday, former El Paso city councilman Beto O’Rourke scored one for the challengers when he knocked off eight-term Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes. It was close—O’Rourke avoided a runoff by just 213 votes—and not entirely expected. As one political consultant told the El Paso Times, “Usually you have to have a gay sex scandal or a federal corruption indictment for an incumbent to lose.” Observers, myself included, framed the race in part as a referendum on the Drug War, because of his and Reyes’ contrasting viewpoints on federal policy. But in an interview on Wednesday, O’Rourke sought to define the victory in more conventional terms.

“What’s interesting is you guys always pick marijuana—I think, frankly, because it’s sensational and it’s kind of exciting to people,” O’Rourke says, referring to my profile of the race and a similar piece in the Huffington Post. “It has not once been an issue of any significance at all. Call 100 El Pasoans and you might find two or three who made their decision based on that issue.” Instead, he says, he won by emphasizing a bread-and-butter economic agenda. “They were the issues that you might not be surprised but are the same anywhere,” he says. “We have 10 percent unemployment [and] more than 30,000 people out of work. We have a V.A. that is supposed to serve nearly 80,000 veterans. It was recently ranked the worst in the country. People can’t get in to see the doctor; they can’t get the care they deserve. We need a full service V.A. hospital.”

But the idea that the War on Drugs could be a non-issue in the primary is itself noteworthy. For years, drug policy has been a third rail, and O’Rourke hopped all over it. It’s the subject of his 2011 book, Dealing Death and Drugs, and was the impetus behind his only major showdown with Reyes prior to campaign—the congressman’s behind-the-scenes efforts to scuttle a city council resolution calling for a re-examination of the War on Drugs (as detailed in my earlier piece). Reyes tried very hard to make O’Rourke’s views on marijuana a factor in the race, but it didn’t catch.

“What [Reyes] did, as you know, is took a principled position that many of us have in this community about the fact that the Drug war has failed us and particularly failed Ciudad Juarez and our effort to find something better for everyone who’s affected by this failure, and made it about ‘Beto wants your kids to take drugs,’ ‘Beto wants to legalize drugs,'” O’Rourke says. “One of his surrogates who stood in for him at a debate said that I wanted to legalize crack cocaine. So he tried to but people are smarter than that, the voters are smarter than that and they see through to what the real issues are…”

O’Rourke’s campaign had some help in the final week of the campaign from the anti-incumbent super-PAC, Campaign for Primary Accountability, whose attack ads Reyes blamed for his defeat. O’Rourke demurred when asked about the group’s influence, noting that exit polls conducted during early voting—before the CFPA revved up its ad campaign—showed O’Rourke beating Reyes at a clip nearly identical to the final margin. Still, in a race that close, the PAC didn’t need to move mountains—only a couple hundred votes.

O’Rourke will face businesswoman Barbara Carrasco, the Republican nominee, in the November election, but he’s widely expected to cruise to victory in a district that gave 66 percent of the vote to President Obama four years ago.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate