The Texas Governor’s race has been going on for about six years now. In 2006, Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchinson were set to face off for the position of Governor. At the time, Hutchinson’s advisors told her that she would be unsuccessful, and that she would be able to hold on to her Senate seat if she ran for another term. So, Perry was left with a primary full of fringe candidates, and a bruising general election with significant votes siphoned off by former-Democrat-former-Republican-now-independent Carole Keaton Stuart McClellan Rylander Strayhorn. Perry’s 39% showing in a field of 4 managed to gain him a win, but showed him vulnerable.
Since then, Perry has made a number of missteps that have increased his vulnerability. He doggedly supported the Trans Texas Corridor, which opponents have turned into a rallying cry for eminent domain reform. He signed an order mandating 13-year-old girls receive a vaccine for a cancer that stems from sexual activity, which, fortunately, was overturned by the State Legislature. He backed a controversial tax-swap whose benefits were not fully realized due to the machinations of local appraisal boards. And at a rally in Austin, he obliquely mentioned the word secession. The secession quote has been mostly taken out of context, but it still gave an opening for his adversaries.
In addition, there are some situational issues that run against Perry. The Speaker of the Texas House is no longer a platform-believing Republican. Instead it is a moderate Republican who was mostly elected by Democrats. The Federal health-Care plan raised so much ire that ordinary, un-involved people started to take to the streets in protest, and those protests have had a “throw all of the bums out” tinge to them. Finally, Perry has been in office longer than any other Texas Governor. Although there are no term limits in the Texas Constitution, there is a feeling that in a state as large as Texas, surely there is more than one person who is qualified to hold that office.
On the positive side, Perry’s track record has been remarkable. Texas has maintained a surplus every year he has been in office, after inheriting a twelve-billion-dollar deficit. Texas has passed more Pro-Life and Pro-Family legislation than any other state in the union. Texas has spear-headed tort-reform that stopped the exodus of health-care professionals, and instead caused a huge influx of new doctors. And when the misguided federal policies enacted by Democratic Congresses over the passed 20 years finally came to a head causing economic melt-down in most of the country, Texas was the last state to feel the effects, and has begun recovery before the rest of the nation.
On balance, the Hutchinson team feels that Perry’s negatives will outweigh his positives with the voters of Texas. But Hutchinson has a number of mill-stones around her neck as well. One is a vote in 2003 where she voted to re-affirmed Roe v. Wade as an appropriately decided case that secures an important Constitutional right. Another is her vote for the Troubled Assets Recovery Plan (TARP). Finally, her record of constituent services for active-duty and veteran servicemen is abysmally poor. As such, she lacks significant support from pro-life activists, from veterans, and from the “tea party” protesters.
Since announcing her run, there has been rampant speculation that Hutchinson would resign from the senate to campaign for Governor full-time. Her most recent promise is to resign “after the primary”. There are a half-dozen people campaigning for her seat, but as there is no vacancy, there is no date set for the special election to fill her seat. This has left a number of very qualified candidates in limbo. For example, former solicitor general Ted Cruz had planned to run for Attorney General. Attorney General Greg Abbot had planned to run for Lieutenant Governor. And Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst had planned to run for the US Senate in the seat vacated by Kay Baily Hutchinson. But until she decides to keep her promise and resign, those candidates are running for their current offices.
Into the mix, a seemingly fringe candidate has risen to popularity. Debra Medina has no significant executive experience. She has little in the way of political accomplishments. She was best known for suing the Republican Party in an attempt to change the long-established order of the State Convention – a suit that was declared frivolous. She also worked on the Ron Paul for President campaign in 2008, which netted less than 5% of the statewide vote.
The centerpiece of her campaign – a tax swap replacing property taxes with an expanded sales tax – was not drafted by her. Instead, it was developed by Jerry Mikus, who ran in House District 50 in 2008, assisted by Brian Russell, who is currently running for State Board of Education Place 10. Jerry was able to convince a large number of Republican House challengers to campaign on that platform, and it was adopted as one of the planks by the Texas Conservative Coalition in their 2008 Pledge with Texans.
Debra Medina has a number of additional negatives. She is in favor of legalizing drugs. Her campaign has been almost completely “anti-incumbent” and not at all positive. And her campaign is widely supported by people whose behavior can only be described as “thuggish”. Finally, she has stated that if she loses, she will likely not support the eventual Republican nominee.
In summary, there are three candidates in the Republican Primary, all with a significant number of negatives, and only one with a proven track record in executive office. Fortunately, all of them are vastly better than the socialists running in the Democratic Primary. It is a pity that in a state as large as Texas we could not field an experienced candidate with fewer negatives.
The Trans Texas Corridor is a decidedly positive thing. Think about it. With Texas growing by tens of millions of people, we’re building the roads one way or another, so I would rather have private enterprise pay the state for the right to build and maintain them. Texas then takes that money, puts it into a trust fund, and pays for future transportation projects with that money. Opposing that project is thoroughly idiotic and completely UN-conservative.
Conservatives prefer the private sector over government workers. Privatization.
There’s no such thing as a free lunch. We either have to raise taxes, privatize, or go into debt (or not build roads at all). My choice as a fiscal conservative is not even a difficult one. Build the infrastructure, and let private entities pay for the privilege of doing so. Then take that cash and build the “free” roads.
I absolutely agree that the Trans Texas Corridor is a good thing. However, it is still a political liability due to the way it has been mis-characterized by its opponents.