Nice Problem to Have, Part II

This is part II of looking at the nice problem to have: four good candidates for Texas Lieutenant Governor. I gave fair coverage to incumbent David Dewhurst in part I. Today I’ll cover more of what was said in Monday’s debate, and end with my recommendation.

The debate was set up with every question going to all four candidates, alternating who went first. Each answer got one minute. Then, in reverse order, each candidate got 20 seconds to rebut anything else that was said (or jut to add 20 more seconds of comments). And then, if something was said against a candidate during rebuttal, they would get an additional 20 seconds to respond.

David Dewhurst at Cypress Tea Party 11-2-2013
(photo by David Wilson)

A minute to answer any question is a recipe for sound bites. This was a particular disadvantage to Dewhurst, who likes to set up an answer with a story, and eventually get around to answering in full and in context. More than once his time ran out during the set up. He responded to a question about the use of the Rainy Day Fund in a way that caused the moderators to interrupt and repeat.

This past legislative session, $2 Billion was borrowed from the Rainy Day Fund for water projects throughout the state. This was a questionable use of the fund, because water needs are ongoing. But we’re in a long drought cycle, and getting a biennial legislature to budget for long-term, expensive water projects has proved undoable. So it was set up so the fund would be used, with a board overseeing projects, and with careful repayment to replenish the funds. So there were honest and sincere people on both sides. On this panel, if I understood right, only Todd Staples had been against using the fund (and that had been my preference as well), but that doesn’t mean the others are careless about using the fund.

Anyway, Dewhurst started answering the question saying, it’s rainy now, and he hopes it just keeps on raining. I think he was referring to the drought, not the title of the fund (except in an ironic sort of way), but the moderator assumed he had misunderstood. In an additional few minutes, I think he’d have gotten to the right point, but instead the interruption was unfairly embarrassing to him. The other answers concerned accountability, with plenty of oversight of the Texas Water Development Board, which the Lt. Gov. could appoint and watch.

The weirdest question of the night was whether these candidates for Texas Lieutenant Governor favored repeal of the 17^th Amendment to the US Constitution. That amendment, 1913, changed US Senators from being appointed by state legislatures to represent the state’s interests, to direct popular election. It had apparently come up in a previous debate in Clear Lake (south of Houston, near NASA). It’s an academic argument, not a serious or relevant one for a lieutenant governor. Personally, I’m for strong states’ rights, and I think weakening that a hundred years ago was the wrong direction. But I have a hard time picturing how going back would regain what was lost. I’m wary of state legislatures, which have also developed “progressive” mindsets over this century.

Todd Staples and Jerry Patterson were outspoken against any such scheme; they trust the people more than the legislators. Fine. But that also reveals that they don’t really understand the historical content of the question. Dan Patrick said he thought he understood where the misunderstanding came from—that discussion in a previous debate. He had said that the 17^th Amendment changed the way government worked. Power of the states was curtailed, and the federal government was empowered. It’s a historical view, but he’s not in favor of repeal. (In other words, pretty much what I think about the issue.)

Remember, Dan Patrick is a talk show host. He knows a broad variety of topics, including history, particularly in relation to government. This was an academic discussion question, irrelevant to the job these men are running for. But at this point Patterson stepped in and accused Patrick of changing his views according to the audience. Really? If Patterson had been my preferred candidate, I’d have cringed at that feeble attempt to use this as the old flip-flopping accusation. Instead, while I like Patterson a lot, I thought this attack made him seem desperate and petty.

Dan Patrick at Cypress Tea Party 1-4-2014
(photo by David Wilson)

Patterson did have a good answer to an outreach question. I think that’s been a good topic for him. He uses the word Tejano instead of Hispanic. Tejano is the historic word for the native Mexicans who became Texans along with the immigrated whites in the Mexican state of Tejas, the Texians; the Tejanos were part of the revolution for Texas Independence. There were nine Tejanos that died with Davey Crockett, Jim Bowie, and William Travis at the Alamo. They aren’t a separate people; they are Texan-Americans.

Patterson emphasizes that, when we state our conservative message clearly, Tejanos recognize what we have in common: they’re pro-family, pro-life. He does, however, take on the risky discussion about worker permits more loudly than border security. He suggests going to Tejanos for Patterson (which I found at votepatterson.com/tejanos)

I do agree with Patterson that outreach with a clear, conservative message will attract voters who have been told by media to be wary. That seemed to be what the other candidates wanted to say as well; we know conservative principles are the values of the majority of Americans. Patrick’s message went beyond Hispanics. He emphasized school choice, and mentioned a case where an African-American grandfather said he was offended to be told he has to ask permission where to send his grandson to school.  

Patrick had an additional argument when it comes to border control, which he has been hammering in his speeches lately as well. The problem isn’t people who come here for jobs; it’s violent criminals. There are 141,000 illegal violent criminals in our jails, put there over the past four years, charged with 447,000 crimes including 2,000 murders and 5,000 rapes. If you’re a law-abiding person, it doesn’t matter what you believe about immigration; you’re going to want to keep these violent offenders out.

Patrick was also strong in his plans for doing a better job as Lieutenant Governor. As Patrick said, “98% of what the Lieutenant Governor wants happens. As chairman of Education I decided what happened. Six democrats were chairmen of committees.”  He added that all the democrats were in favor of the recent big budget—a sign that it’s not what we want. He would remove the two democrats from the powerful Legislative Budget Board and make sure the Board was made up of conservatives, who could reliably come up with a budget we want.

There has been a sense that tantrums from the minority have affected leadership. (Remember the democrats who shirked their duty and ran over the border into Ardmore, Oklahoma, back around 2003, to avoid a debate and vote over redistricting?) It’s not the job of the majority to mollify the minority; it’s their job to get the people’s work done. And when the people continue to ask for the conservative principles that work, mollifying the minority does nothing but hinder us in that goal. Patrick pointed out that, when democrats were in power for over a century, they weren’t appointing republicans to chairmanships. Dewhurst failed in any attempt to rebut that argument, and Patrick delivered it at least three times Monday evening.

Staples pointed out that there are 31 members of the state senate, and there are 18 standing committees. With those numbers, it’s hard to avoid democrat chairs here and there. So he suggests fewer committees—streamlining, combining. Staples was very much about basics: low taxes, free-markets, strong values. He offers a “Contract with Texas” on his website covering ten major issues.

Concerning the influence of lieutenant governor, Patterson added that sometimes you have to play hardball, and if a bill isn’t moving, re-refer it to a committee that will get it through.

Dewhurst pointed out that the legislature is designed to have bills fail; it takes several sessions sometimes to move a bill through. Not complaining, just how it is. (Thousands of bills are filed per session, and only a relative handful pass. The budget is the only required item.) He did accurately point out that Texas is one of the three most frugal states, the best business environment, and in the past decade we’ve eliminated 51 state agencies. That’s not a bad record to rest on.

But with so many conservatives ready to step up and serve, Dewhurst’s record might not be enough.

Gonzalez flag from Texas War for Independence
photo from Wikipedia

I like Dan Patrick’s assertiveness. I like his insistence on getting the conservative work done—which the people want and expect—without letting moderates or minority democrats get away with calling you mean if you don’t play their way. We’re up against an unprecedented amount of federal government intrusion. Filing lawsuits is a necessary step, but I want someone who will just say no, will act on principle, and say to the federal government, as the Texas revolutionaries said to tyrants in their day, “Come and take it.”

Dan Patrick has strong support around here, his home turf, as you’d expect. We keep in touch with him and see what he accomplishes as he keeps his word. I don’t have a perspective of how well he’s doing across the state, but I hope he’s doing well, because I really do believe he’s the best candidate for the job. And finally I’m ready to say, I’m endorsing Dan Patrick for Lieutenant Governor.

Nice Problem to Have

Texas has a deep bench. All state level positions for a while now have been held by Republicans. And you can’t get anywhere unless you speak conservative. And if you speak conservative without living it, you’ll be found out.

Add to that, some top positions have been occupied for a while—ever since Governor George W. Bush stepped up (some Texans would say stepped down) to become US President. So there have been people building up their conservative skills in several other positions in this big state, and they’re ready to take the field. It’s a bit like a college football team with a second string better than most teams’ star players—and they’re all calling out, “Put me in, Coach!” (We voters are the coach.) It’s a nice problem to have.

The primary election comes up here in Texas on Tuesday, March 4^th. For you Texans, that means it’s also precinct meeting night, after the polls close. That’s one of the best places to get involved at the grassroots level. You’ll decide what you’d like to see in your state party platform, and you’ll choose delegates for the county/district convention, where those same things will be done for the next level up. (Yes, I did mention this last time around; thank you for asking.) For you people in other states, you probably have a primary coming up very soon as well. Your precinct meetings might be called something else, and they might be held separately from a voting day, but most places and parties have them in some form. So look it up, and then pass the word along to your friends.

Debate held Monday, January 20th, at King Street Patriots

One of the big races is for lieutenant governor, a rather powerful second-in-command position in the state. The slate of candidates for Texas Lieutenant Governor is down to four: incumbent David Dewhurst, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, and District 7 State Senator Dan Patrick. In different circumstances (not all against each other), I would probably be happy with any one of them. They’re all conservative, personable, articulate, good-humored, and effective over time with a strong record. They squared off in a debate here in Houston this past Monday, which I got to attend.

Maybe something should be said about why there is such a challenge for a relatively popular and effective incumbent. I’m guessing on this. Back in 2012 Lt. Gov. Dewhurst ran for the US Senate, Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s vacated seat. He lost to Ted Cruz. I think that was a surprise to him at a point in his career when logic said it was time to move up. Failing that, I think it was assumed by many he would run for governor, once Gov. Perry (who has been governor longer than any other in Texas history) announced he would not run again.

But after the confidence loss of the senatorial race, along with the announcement by the popular and effective Attorney General Greg Abbott that he was running for governor, Dewhurst seems to have decided to stay with the safer Lt. Gov. position. It’s just that, by the time he made that decision, there were a number of others who had been planning their futures based on the likelihood of a vacancy in the Lt. Gov. position. And even after it was known Dewhurst was staying, there was a sense that 14 years is more than enough for anyone; get out of the way! So the challengers went ahead as planned.

That Dewhurst senate campaign, in 2012, wasn’t particularly effective: too much attacking a noble and effective person, and too many formal settings, meaning debates and distance from the people. This time around he has surrounded himself with handlers who let him do better what works for him—talk one-on-one with people, in small groups, with individuals, unscripted. He’s charming in person. A couple of months ago he came to our little local tea party meeting. He asked if he could meet with leadership ahead of time, just sit around at a table and talk, for a full hour. Our tea party isn’t exactly full of titles. We have a president, who arranges speakers for our meetings and manages our email group and Facebook page. N one else has an official position. I’m just a faithful, longtime participant, and I’ve taken on some assignments from time to time. But I got invited to that meeting. He spent an hour with four of us, asking us questions about what was important to us, answering whatever he could. He connects very well in that kind of setting. Then he spent another half hour or so speaking to the whole group once they arrived. That was more of a stump speech, but he included Q&A time at the end.

I should mention that this was something like a visiting team disadvantage. Dan Patrick is our state senator. We have known him since he was just the guy on the radio (he owns local station KSEV and did a daily talk show, which he still does as time permits). Most of us decided to support him in his first run, in pre-Tea Party years. He has been much more responsive than his predecessor. My kids and I have met with him in his Austin office during legislative sessions. Without appointment there were a couple of times he stood with us in his foyer and answered anything we were concerned about for twenty minutes or so. He knows his stuff. He was effective this past session heading the education committee, and I’ve noticed as he has become more informed about homeschooling and more in favor of choice for parents. He’s the only candidate who doesn’t currently hold statewide office, but in our little corner of the state—which happens to be one of the largest and most conservative districts—he’s seen as practically heroic.

And it was in this setting that Dewhurst came and sat to talk with us. That was brave. And time-consuming. It was generous of him to come, and I wanted to be open to be persuadable.

He is tall and impressive in person. He seems much more articulate in an intimate setting than in a debate. He doesn’t seem slow of speech or slow of thought when he’s making a personal connection. And he does have a valid point that Texas has done very well, compared to the rest of the country, by moving more conservative over this past decade. And the worse the federal government is for the country, the better Texas looks.

Still, there are some specific issues we conservative Texans are concerned about: border security, low taxes, standing up against federal government intrusions. Federal regulations that prevent people from using their land and resources because there might be some lizard living on those thousands of acres, for example. Filing lawsuits against the federal government, by the dozens, has been the common practice. And while I think that is one direction to go, simply refusing to abide is sometimes what Texas should do. We did that in refusing to set up an Obamacare state exchange, for example. We’re trying to protect our own border, since the federal government fails to do so.

I want to give a fair representation of all of the candidates, including how they did in this debate, covering how they approach the issues. So we’ll do a part II tomorrow.

 

If you’re a regular here, you may have noticed that, after I came back from the holiday break, I’ve been writing just twice a week. I’m spending my other allotted writing time on a related writing project. But some weeks I may just have to write more. We’ll take it as it comes.

Texas Senate Race

Monday evening I got to attend the last debate between candidates for US Senate from Texas: David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz. Earlier I listened to a radio debate they’d had last week on the Matt Patrick Show. I’ve been leaning toward a candidate for a while, but I wanted to be fair and hear them, just to be sure. [The Monday night debate was filmed and moderated by KRIV, the local Fox TV station, and was presented at King Street Patriots. I haven’t found a full recording to link yet, however.]

Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst
photo from KSEV.com

Let’s start with this understanding: Texas is a conservative state. It hasn’t always been, but it finally elected a Republican governor in the early 1990s and hasn’t gone back, and the legislature has grown continually more conservative since that time. When I started going to Texas state conventions in 2004, most of what we heard was conservative, but mixed in was still a fair amount of “Let’s not be too extreme; we might not want to go that far.” No longer. The last couple of conventions, if anyone had attempted to give a “moderate,” squishy message, they’d have heard boos.

So if you have two candidates in a runoff election for the Republican candidate in Texas, you can be certain that all the words will be conservative. So, to know if they really mean it (and possibly both do), you need to know more of their background, their records, and their hearts—if you can sense that, which is why I wanted to hear them in person.

David Dewhurst has been around a while. He has been Rick Perry’s lieutenant governor since George W. Bush left the governor’s mansion for the White House. He’s done his job well enough. Texas has moved more conservative in that time. Our business climate is better than most states: no income tax, lower taxes and less strangling regulations. That’s why one of the biggest problems is dealing with surging growth while the recession slogs on with high unemployment (around 7% in Texas, lower than the rest of the nation, but still too high).

If you look at the last legislative session (2011), a lot of incremental pro-life legislation got through. And Texas is standing up to the federal government’s health care and other intrusions on our sovereignty. I had wanted a TSA anti-groping bill to go through, but it failed. At the time I believed it was David Dewhurst’s fault that it didn’t come up for final vote. But I am fuzzy on details now. It passed the state senate (where he is essentially the head as lieutenant governor, the way the VP is in the US Senate). It was in the state house where it didn’t come up for final vote. I wanted an answer about how that went down. I wanted to ask this question, but didn’t get a chance (and it didn’t come up during the two debates I heard):

I’m concerned about TSA’s infringement against our right to be free from illegal searches and seizures. What do you see that can be done about it at the federal level, and at the state level?

But I still don’t know their answers. Mostly I was satisfied with their conservative answers to the rest of the questions. Ted Cruz has the advantage of speech. Dewhurst speaks well enough, but he is likely to talk Texas slow, with stories to make a point, and maybe some generalities. He mentioned that he grew up with a stuttering problem, and while he has overcome that (I’d say beyond anything I could notice; I never knew this before), he says he’s a doer, not a talker.

Ted Cruz, a lawyer and former state solicitor general, who has helped argue for Texas on constitutional issues before the Supreme Court issues, is smooth and organized. He’ll answer a question with, “We’ll do these three things,” and then list them. So there are style differences. I can see how Dewhurst can be appealing, and why he’s been reelected without much of a fight. But I prefer Cruz’s style when there’s a “debate” with limited time, and we want to get the answers as efficiently as possible. It shows thoughts organized in a way that are likely to lead to measurable actions.

The two mostly agree on issues, as well as on many solutions. Both agree that immediate full repeal of Obamacare is a first priority—and neither of them like the phrase “repeal and replace.” Just repeal. Cruz said he would “keep not a single word of Obamacare.” Both agree that we need to use market reforms to keep Medicare and Medicaid from bankrupting us and enslaving future generations—but we need to keep our promises to those who need it and have gone through their working lives counting on the help.

Cruz made one of his lists about how to go about the needed reforms: allow insurance across state lines, encourage health savings accounts (that can be passed along to heirs), and de-link health insurance from employments, to make insurance portable—to empower the patient and disempower government.

Dewhurst is very a successful businessman—an oil-related business he built from the ground up and still runs. He grew up poor. His dad was killed by a drunk driver when Dewhurst was only three (he mentioned this more than once in the debate). His mother went to work, and taught him faith, integrity, truthfulness, humility, and hard work.

Cruz mentioned (only once, although it was also in his introduction) that his father escaped from Cuba at age 18, broke and unable to speak the language. But with hard work and perseverance he and Cruz’s mother were able to prepare the next generation for success in America.

Contention in this campaign, as well as during the debate, comes down to accusations against each other. I’ve heard many (many times) of the Dewhurst-approved ads claiming Cruz is crooked, un-American, chooses to advocate for the wrong side (a Chinese-owned company in a case against another Chinese-owned company, if I understand correctly). Cruz was effective when he held up a campaign card, right after telling us about his father’s ordeal in coming from Cuba, and told us to imagine how his father felt when he recently received that card in the mail and read on the back that his son was un-American. Dewhurst said it didn’t say that, but, really, I’ve heard the ads and probably seen those very leaflets: the wording might not be exact, but the implication is clear. That is what Dewhurst was saying.

The kerfuffle the other way was about Dewhurst’s position on immigration and whether he had ever been for amnesty. There was, according to Cruz, a speech Dewhurst gave, I think in 2007, where he said he could support a guest worker program (which isn’t exactly amnesty, but he was talking about creating a legal pathway for those already here, so Cruz has a point). Cruz pointed out the inconsistency, such as it is, and cited Dewhurst’s Lieutenant Governor website as the source with the speech. And then suddenly the speech was no longer there at the previous link. Cruz said Dewhurst must have removed it for political reasons. Dewhurst, while claiming his position has always been consistent, only argued that the speech was not taken down in response to the ad but had been archived a year prior.

Cruz has also claimed that Dewhurst shouldn’t take credit for as much budget success as he has claimed, that some of it is “smoke and mirrors.” This raised the ire of Sen. Dan Patrick, who said the claim maligned the entire legislature, which had done remarkable work and made real budget cuts. Patrick may be right. It is difficult to get traction when coming up with negatives in either record, but at least Cruz has been attacking record rather than character.

This is the worst these two can dredge up; clearly this isn’t Chicago. In the dirty ads contest, I’d say Dewhurst has thrown the most mud. And while negative campaigning in general does work, it also works at the risk of making both sides look bad.

One question was, “Will you keep your promise to be conservative after the election,” and I liked Cruz’s answer, and I’m sorry I didn’t write fast enough for an exact quote. He said yes, but then everyone would say that. So it’s like his father said about being Christian; make sure there’s enough evidence to convict.

I am persuaded to vote for Ted Cruz. I think they are both conservative enough. I think Dewhurst believes he is conservative, but possibly in the way Rick Perry believes he is conservative. Conservative—as long as the support of the people and the legislature make sure they’re conservative. And then they get credit for being kept in line. When I heard Ted Cruz talk about the Constitution, and arguing for our God-given rights, I believed he understood the philosophy of conserving our founding documents.

There isn’t much opposition from the Democrat (unknown to me at this point, until I eventually look up who it is). So it is generally believed this runoff election will decide who will be the next senator from Texas. Early voting is currently underway through Friday. And election day is Tuesday, July 31^st.

Texans Over the Top

This image available as bumper sticker here.

Yesterday was the primary election in Texas. And we Texans got the historic opportunity to put Mitt Romney over the top, officially onto the GOP ballot for president. Nice to have the opportunity. 

Another somewhat historic moment of the evening was the relative success of Ted Cruz for Senator, getting into a runoff election with the likely candidate, David Dewhurst. Dewhurst has been Lieutenant Governor since Rick Perry became governor (more than a decade). So his name recognition is off the charts. In addition, he is independently wealthy. If I understand correctly, if he is elected, he will then be the wealthiest US senator—in the range of beyond John Kerry (who has an unknown number of homes, but several times more than Mitt Romney owns). So Dewhurst has not had to rely on fundraising to finance an exorbitant political campaign. He has spun that as “not beholding to any special interest groups,” which is good spin, but implies that no one who isn’t independently wealthy should be elected, and that isn’t exactly the American way.

The voting day tally was Dewhurt 45.86% and Cruz 43.62%. The runoff happens if no candidate reaches 50%, so that in and of itself was a feat. The overall count was lower, because early voting goes on for two weeks in Texas, and the counts are separate and then combined. The trend on election day was much closer than in early voting, which means there is momentum for Cruz. Also, when you consider that those who are voting merely on name recognition—the less informed and less passionate, and presumably less conservative, voters—may not show up for the runoff election, that is an additional plus for Cruz.

There’s a good summary of the situation here.

If you’re into data for fun, here are a couple of sources.

·        Decision 2012 MSNBC.com: You can get the county results for each state, and also demographic data when they did surveys in various states (not Texas, as it was decided at that point). It’s a good graphic representation of county-by-county results.

·        Real Clear Politics: This is the delegate count, which has been the scorecard up until now to see progress toward the nominee. RCP also has a lot of other polling data, including their daily average of polls. Sometimes you can go deeper and find out who was polled: registered voters means more accuracy than simply adults; likely voters (have voted in recent elections) means more accuracy than registered voters. Interestingly, lately Romney has been doing considerably better in likely voter polls than in registered voter polls; I hope the more accurate polling is more predictive, although this is still very early in the overall campaign (even though we’ve been dealing with this election for more than a year already).

·        HarrisVotes.com: This is the county site for Harris County, containing Houston and surrounding areas. I expect other counties to provide similar information. There are also archives for past elections, so you can dig into data to your heart’s content. After the immediate results are shown at news sites and in newspapers, what you want to know may disappear without an actual data source like this.

If you’re in Texas, put July 31^st on your calendar; that’s the runoff election. There will be just a week of early voting, July 23^rd through 27^th. Remember that for early voting you can vote at any voting location, but on election day, you must vote at your precinct location. Look that up (at HarrisVotes.com), because it may be that fewer locations will be used.

Between now and then—and on up until the November election—this is the time to get engaged. Commit to candidates, support with money, time, yard signs, etc., where you can. And persuade any persuadable friends to make choices that will support our Constitution and therefore our freedom and prosperity.