Rick Perry's Century Council

And No Quote From Bell (0.00 / 0)

And not a single quote from Chris Bell or his campaign is mentioned in the DMN article.  Un-fucking-believable!

---

by: blank @ Thu Aug 17, 2006 at 23:30:03 PM UTC

No it's not (0.00 / 0)

The DMN broke the story -- notice the Wayne Slater by-line and the 1:20 posting time. Then the story was absorbed by the Associated Press (and changed up a bit) and ran in all the other papers.

Slater only quotes two folks -- Texans for Public Justice (campaign reform watchdog group) and the Perry camp. Quite likely that he either went to Public Justice for a quote since it's their area (or they helped with some research), and then he asked Perry to comment since it was really entirely focused on Perry. It's not like you see quotes from Strayhorn or Kinky in there. Now why is that?

Don't create reasons to criticize Bell...

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 05:38:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please (0.00 / 0)

"The lack of reasonable contribution limits allows this small group of wealthy individuals to buy special influence and play on an uneven playing field."

And yet Chris Bell hasn't minded taking some very large checks himself, has he?

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 07:33:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They all take some (5.00 / 1)

though none as much as Perry.

BTW, Bell's top donor has given him $171,900. Kinky's top donor has given him $851,000 -- NEARLY FIVE TIMES AS MUCH. So Kinky's actually taken even larger checks than Bell.

Don't be a hypocrite.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 07:46:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hypocrite? (0.00 / 0)

If you're going to propose limits on campaign contributions, why not set an example by not taking more than what you say you want the limits to be?

I think you have your hypocrites confused. I also think the proposed limits are more a matter of envy than real concern. 

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 21:19:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And... (0.00 / 0)

I am not defending the obvious "pay to play" rules that allow people to "pay to play."  Obviously both Rick Perry and Carole Strayhorn have done quite well by them. As have their largest campaign contributors. 

Yes, there should be limits.  My point is if you're going to propose campaign finance limits as a campaign issue, you should set an example. 

That would have had quite an impact on the voters if Chris Bell had said "I have proposed a limit on campaign contributions and have not exceeded that limit in my own campaign fundraising." 

But he can't say that, can he?

Smacks of when he took gifts as a city councilman and THEN proposed new ethics rules.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 21:28:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah whatever (0.00 / 0)

You don't care if your guy takes all the money in the world, yet you want to call Bell on the carpet. Hypocritical. Don't play stupid. Move on.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas @ Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 23:59:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Frustration with DMN (0.00 / 0)

My frustration was more with DMN than with Bell.  However, I did note the following:

1) I never saw Bell's campaign blog entry on the front page of his campaign site.  If it was there, then it wasn't there very long.  I don't think he made it a formal press resease either.
2) Had Bell's op-research group found this, or something like it, and made a press release on it earlier he would have likely gotten more free media on it.

I think he can still make some hay out of this story, and I hope he does.

---

by: blank @ Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 17:25:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perry Must Be Defeated (which means Kinky must go) (0.00 / 0)

Two thirds of Texas voters want to see Perry out of office, and I am definitely among that two-thirds majority.

With the goal of defeating Perry, I made time to meet Strayhorn, Bell, and Kinky personally at campaign stops, and I tried to select which candidate to support based on two criteria: (1) who would best support my values on issues important to me and (2) who would have the best chance of beating Perry.

While evaluating the candidates on the issues, one fact became apparent.  It was somewhat difficult to ascertain where Strayhorn stands on the issues because her positions on many issues have changed over the past few years and because her website isn’t particularly issue oriented.  It was comparatively easy to determine where Bell stands on many issues as a result of his tenure on the Houston City Counsel and as a Congressional Representative and because Bell’s website has a good deal of information on various issues.  It was most difficult to ascertain where Kinky stands on the issues because his positions have not been constant on many key issues and because Kinky generally gives either very general answers or jokes when asked serious policy questions.  Early in the campaign, Kinky suggested that he wouldn’t be trapped into taking stands on issues, but as his campaign has progressed, Kinky has answered more questions (but his positions still waiver back and forth with the wind on many issues).

Here is what I have learned about the three candidates’ stands on issues:

EDUCATION

Strayhorn supports a $4,000 teacher raise, reducing reliance on TAKS (formerly advocated larger role for TAKS), opposing private school vouchers (formerly supported), opposing college tuition deregulation (formerly supported) (and has endorsement of TSTA and TFT).

Bell supports a $6,000 teacher raise, reducing reliance on TAKS, adopting career technology training programs vetoed by Perry, opposing private school vouchers, limiting State Board of Education censorship of textbooks, eliminating tax on textbooks, opposing college tuition deregulation, expanding Texas Grant program for low-income Texas students with academic achievements who seek a college education they couldn’t otherwise afford.

Kinky supports a teacher raise (no amount specified), reducing reliance on TAKS, funding public schools by legalizing casino gambling, allowing corporate sponsorship of public school physical education programs.

HEALTH

Strayhorn favors restoring full collection of federal CHIP funds for underinsured Texas children (formerly advocated cuts in CHIP).

Bell favors allowing drug prescription to be filled from Canadian, expanding prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients without limitations imposed under current law, expanding stem cell research, restoring full collection of federal CHIP funds for underinsured Texas children.

Kinky favors expanding stem cell research, restoring full collection of federal CHIP funds for underinsured Texas children.

TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR

Strayhorn opposes (formerly supported).

Bell opposes.

Kinky opposes.

WAR

No position from Strayhorn.

Bell favors state funding for premiums on $250,000 federal life insurance policies for Texas National Guard soldiers serving in combat (rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record). 

Kinky support Bush’s foreign policy in the Middle East.

WAGES 

No position from Strayhorn.

Bell favors increasing minimum wage (and has AFL-CIO endorsement).

No position from Kinky.

ENVIRONMENT

Strayhorn favors promoting coal gasification alternative technology, restricting coal burning, improving Texas Commission on Environmental Quality enforcement

Bell favors reducing CO2 emissions by 80%, lowering mercury emissions from coal plants by 90%, improving Texas Commission on Environmental Quality enforcement, promoting coal gasification alternative technology, restricting coal burning, tightening regulation of air permits for plants and refineries, raising the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard to 10%, ending "grandfather" immunity from municipal regulations that protect the health and property of those near refineries, opposing acceleration of forest thinning projects, converting the state vehicles to green vehicles, providing incentives for green builders.

Kinky favors promoting wind, solar, and biofuels as alternative energy sources.

HOME OWNERSHIP

No position from Strayhorn.

Bell opposes insurance rate hikes, supports task force to instigate insurance rate rollbacks, supports audit of Texas Residential Construction Commission.

No position from Kinky.

IMMIGRATION

Strayhorn supports use of National Guard troops on US-Mexico border, opposes in-state tuition to Texas-born children of illegal immigrants.

Bell supports the McCain-Kennedy bill with pathway to citizenship, use of National Guard troops on US-Mexico border, opposes law requiring that  illegal aliens who seek hospital treatment be reported to INS (rated 0% by anti-immigration organization, indicating a progressive voting record on immigration).

Kinky supports building a border fence, supports the McCain-Kennedy bill with pathway to citizenship (formerly supported House bill which did not include pathway to citizenship), says “my immigration policy is ‘Remember the Alamo’” (formerly supported hiring Mexican generals to enforce border).

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Strayhorn supports maintaining legal right to abortion.

Bell supports maintaining legal right to abortion, repealing law requiring doctors to misinform women seeking reproductive counseling of false link between abortion and cancer, requiring that abortion laws must include exception to protect mother’s health (rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record).

Kinky supports maintaining legal right to abortion.

GAY RIGHTS

Strayhorn opposes right to civil unions.

Bell supports right to civil unions, co-sponsored the Permanent Partners Immigration Act.

Kinky supports right to civil unions.

Neither of these candidates reflects my own views of these issues perfectly, and I disagree with some portion of each candidate’s positions.  Measuring Strayhorn’s current views against my own, she would be a very distinct improvement over Perry, but I am troubled by the number of significant issues on which she has substantially changed her position.  Of three candidates, Bell has the most detailed positions and his views on these issues are generally nearest my own.  Finally, as compared to the other two candidates, Kinky’s views on these issues conflict most with my own views, and Kinky is the least specific of the three candidates.  Also, Kinky’s views conflict with mine on other issues which are important but I have not listed them above among my highest priorities (like the separation of church and state, for example).

Moreover, when researching these issues, it became apparent that Kinky hasn’t merely changed his mind certain issues (like Strayhorn has); Kinky has been dishonest or two-faced about some matters.  For example, Kinky has been dishonest about his prior votes in the 2000 election and the Texas constitutional amendment.  In contrast to Strayhorn, who now advocates in favor of issues she used to oppose, Kinky appears to simultaneously advocate different positions to different groups on issues like capital punishment, immigration, and reproductive rights.

Also, when researching Kinky’s statements on different issues, one cannot help but come across statements like (1) after losing an election where Kinky ran as a Republican, he said he was leaving "that worthless tar baby that is politics," (2) and said we should punish criminals by sending them to prison and making them "listen to a Negro talking to himself" and "Negro ... is a charming word," (3) and "I've been stoned a lot of times ... and I don't regret any of it ... I quit doing cocaine when Bob Marley fell out of my left nostril," (4) and "all of these politicians are afraid of offending Hispanics,” and (5) the Tejano protesters marching in favor of immigration reform were "half playing hooky."

After determining that Kinky’s views and his past statements poorly reflect the type of gubernatorial candidate I hope to support, I also considered which candidate is most and least likely to beat Perry.

Strayhorn presents a unique threat to Perry’s re-election.  When Perry and Strayhorn last ran for office, they appeared on the ballot together.  Strayhorn, not Perry, was the top vote recipient among all Republicans (she also received the most votes of any candidate for any office regardless of party affiliation).  Strayhorn captured 2,878,732 votes compared to Perry’s mere 2,632,591.  Not only does Strayhorn have proven appeal among Republican voters, she has some support from those who typically support Democrats, including the endorsement of the TSTA and the TFT as well as support from prominent Hispanic Democrats such as Tony Sanchez, Perry’s last Democratic opponent. 

In addition to these factors, Strayhorn has raised over $10 million to fund her campaign, and the majority of those funds will be spent on comparative advertising directed against Perry’s abysmal record as governor.  While Strayhorn’s support in the polls has been erratic and the trend has generally been downward, she has the campaign funds on hand to mount a substantial television advertising campaign to address that trend.

Bell also threatens Perry.  Several recent polls have identified Perry’s current level of support at 35% with a continuing significant downward trend.  This would be disastrous for an incumbent in most situations, but Perry is less threatened because the 65% of the vote which is currently “not Perry” is divided among three significant alternative candidates (plus Libertarian James Werner whose support is negligible).  Of all the candidates, Bell’s support is most consistently trending upward (most recent polls have identified Bell’s current levels of support between 18% and 21% and raising). 

There are two historical voting trends which strongly indicate that the upward trend of Bell’s support will continue to even higher levels. 

First, Perry, Strayhorn, and Kinky have very well established name identification among Texas voters.  Bell, on the other hand, is identified by less than half of likely Texas voters. We know from previous elections, once a candidate achieves a very significant level of name identification with a likely voter without achieving that likely voter’s support, it becomes substantially more difficult for the known candidate to win that voter’s support.  The fact that Bell has the most room to increase his name identification indicates that he also has the easiest task of building his support.  Moreover, we also know from past elections that Bell’s name identification will rise as the election nears as a result of the fact that Bell is the nominee of a major party.  Among likely Texas voters who can identify the names of all four main candidates, Bell is polling at 28% to Perry’s 32%, which is barely outside the margin for error.

Second, Bell (and Perry) will receive a boost from straight-party voting which polls undercount (people answering polls generally deny voting the straight-party ticket but past elections confirm that about half of Texas voters choose a straight-party ticket in a statewide election during a non-presidential year).  In recent non-presidential elections, about 23% of the Texas electorate has voted for the straight-party Democratic ticket (and about 28% have voted the straight-party Republican ticket).  Moreover, in recent past elections where the Democratic candidate has accepted the party’s nomination but essentially chose not to campaign, those types of statewide Democratic candidates have nevertheless received about one third of the vote (despite the fact that pre-election polling consistently identified levels of support much lower than 33% of the Texas electorate for such non-campaigning Democrats).  When statewide Democrats mount a campaign, they generally receive about 43% of the vote during non-presidential elections.  Undoubtedly, if Bell could achieve Democratic Party unity, he would easily win, but Strayhorn and Kinky will certainly disrupt the party unity for both Democrats and Republicans.

Kinky is a unique candidate.  Kinky’s support has polled between 11% and 22% in polls that were conducted contemporaneously so his levels of support are obviously difficult to measure and highly dependant on the poll’s method for identifying likely voters.  But the prospect for Kinky’s rise in the polls is not good.  Of all the major candidates, Kinky has by far the highest disapproval numbers.  Moreover, Kinky has very high name identification so his task of winning new supporters will be very difficult.

Kinky’s campaign looks to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s and Jesse Ventura’s campaigns as models, but those campaigns are substantially different from Kinky’s campaign. 

Schwarzenegger’s campaign differs from Kinky’s mainly in the fact that Schwarzenegger enjoyed the strong backing of the Republican Party as that party’s candidate (the California Republican Party and its prominent figures endorsed Schwarzenegger, including several other potential Republican candidates who dropped out of the race to avoid dividing the Republican vote).  Interestingly, Schwarzenegger’s campaign demonstrates how a minority party (whether Republicans in California or Democrats in Texas) can win a plurality election against a much stronger party (Democrats in California or Republicans in Texas) with strong party unity.  Because the multi-party Texas gubernatorial race will be determined by a plurality (the eventual winner will likely garner only 33% to 38% of the vote) just as the recent California election, Schwarzenegger’s model for minority-party triumph is more of a model for Bell’s campaign than Kinky’s campaign.

Ventura’s campaign differs from Kinky’s mainly in the differences between the manner in which Ventura achieved a third-party coalition and in the differences between Minnesota and Texas election law. 

Like Schwarzenegger’s Republican Party support, Ventura had the organized campaign support of the Reform Party (Ventura was the Reform Party’s nominee, not an independent candidate) which was by far the most significant third party in Minnesota with a substantial party infrastructure and network of campaign workers.  Moreover, Ventura won the support of the Libertarian Party and others who value the separation of church and state when he famously said that “organized religion tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business” and whereas Kinky has alienated that group by advocating prayer in school and posting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.  Ventura won with 37% of the vote by running under a coherent platform as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal in a state with about one third Republicans, one third Democrats, and a full third of the electorate as Reform Party members or other Independents.  In contrast, Kinky’s platform is not coherent (socially liberal on gay marriage and legalized casino gambling to alienate social conservatives, but socially conservative on immigration and school prayer to alienate social liberals), and Texas is more like 50% Republican, 35% Democrat, with only 15% independent.  Also, Minnesota’s minority vote is much smaller than the minority vote in Texas, and Kinky has irreparably handicapped his candidacy among likely minority voters with Kinky’s comments about “Negroes” and “tar babies” and politicians being “afraid of offending Hispanics” and saying the Tejano immigration protesters were “playing hooky.”  It is no wonder polls show Kinky with the least minority voter support of the candidates, and this problem with Kinky’s campaign cannot be fixed.

Yet perhaps the more important distinction between Ventura’s campaign and Kinky’s is the election law differences.  An Independent candidate’s chances of success are much greater in Minnesota due to Minnesota’s law allowing for voter registration at the voting booth on election day and Minnesota’s  public financing for state elections (which would minimize Kinky’s current status as the candidate with the least funds on hand).

In light of these factors, the conventional wisdom of professional election analysts from Kinky’s friend and “Texas Monthly” colleague Paul Burka, to Republican poll guru Mike Baselice, to the progressive Lone Star Project, to independent analyst Chuck McDonald all agree that Kinky will likely end up in the single digits on election day (and if he doesn’t, Perry will likely win by default).

Just as my analysis of the candidates’ positions on the issues led me to rank Kinky last among the candidates running against Perry, my analysis of the candidates’ chances of beating Perry also leads me to rank Kinky last among the candidates.

In light of these views, I am trying to broadcast information about Kinky which may (or may not) cause other voters to reach the same conclusion that I have reached.  Specifically, I have concluded that the anti-incumbent vote is very large, but it is not so large that it can be split by three alternative candidates who each attract a 15% to 25% following at the polls.  As a result, I think Perry will likely be re-elected with significantly less than 40% of the vote unless one of the candidate’s support drops into the single digits.  I hope offering the fact-based reasons for my rejection of Kinky’s candidacy may further that possibility (or maybe it won’t, but I will not see Perry re-elected while I stand idly by).

Vote for Strayhorn or Bell depending on who stands a better chance of beating Perry on election day.

---

by: stopkinky @ Fri Aug 18, 2006 at 17:46:31 PM UTC

Eva Braun (0.00 / 0)

A friend in Austin puts it this way. If Rick Perry is Hitler, why would anyone vote for Eva Braun? 

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:06:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Comparing Kinky to Eva Braun seems harsh but I guess I see where you are coming from... (5.00 / 1)

Kinky's the biggest advocate for Bush's militaristic foreign policy.

Kinky's far to the right of all other candidates on the separation of church and state.

Kinky's far to the right of all other candidates on immigration.

And Kinky has made many statements that have a racist or nationalistic tone.

Still, your comparison seems a little harsh.

---

by: stopkinky @ Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 13:04:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

The problem is I was comparing Carole Strayhorn to Eva Braun. Not Kinky Friedman. 

I have immense problems with Democrats who claim they want to get rid of the Republicans in office supporting Carole Strayhorn. Something wrong there.

I would vote for Rick Perry before I would vote for Chris Bell. But I would vote for Chris Bell before I would vote for Carole Strayhorn.  Does that clarify it a little better?

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 18:16:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I understand. You say Democrats shouldn't support Republicans like Kinky, Carole, or Rick. (0.00 / 0)

That makes sense.

Kinky, Carole, and Rick have all three run for public office in Texas as Republicans.

Kinky, Carole, and Rick all voted for Bush/Cheney in 2004.

Kinky, Carole, and Rick all have no proposals to raise the minimum wage, all three have no proposals to fix the "misinformed" consent abortion law in Texas, all three have no plans to reduce Texas homeowners' insurance rates, and all three have no respect whatsoever for the First Amendment's separation of church and state.

Here is the problem with your reasoning:  it seems unfair to lump ex-Republican Strayhorn in with ex-Republican Kinky. 

Strahyorn has the endorsements of TSTA and TFT, but Kinky doesn't have any labor endorsements at all so maybe some teachers might think that Strayhorn is a better alternative than Kinky.

Also, Strayhorn has not taken any position on the Iraq War, but Kinky has said that Bush is an "honorable cowboy" and Kinky supports Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East because Kinky thinks Bush has been doing a pretty good job overseas.  This might also be a basis for some anti-war voters to conclude that Strayhorn is a better alternative than Kinky.

Finally, Kinky has lied about his 2000 vote, but Strayhorn has just flip-flopped.

But you may have a point.  Democrats should probably vote for Democrats.

Independents should vote their conscience by selecting either Bell or Strayhorn.

---

by: stopkinky @ Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 19:39:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well.. (0.00 / 0)

Not to start a nuclear discussion or anything but I think Democrats should vote for Kinky.

In my personal opinion, he's the closest thing to a Democrat in the race. 

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 23:50:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Democrats-for-Bush, Democrats-for-War, Democrats-for-Bibles-in-Public-Schools (0.00 / 0)

should all vote for Kinky.

Kinky is to the right of Perry on immigration, on the separation of church and state, on privitization within the public school system, and in his support for Bush's war.

Kinky is the the right of Strayhorn on all of these same issues, plus he's worse on education.

Kinky is to the right of Bell on every issue except for Kinky's bold stance in favor of outlawing the declawing of cats.

The fact that you say Bush-lovin' Kinky is the closest thing to a Democrat in the field says a lot more about you than it does about Kinky or any other candidate in the race. 

---

by: stopkinky @ Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 02:50:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And who did Harris County Republican Party Honor? (0.00 / 0)

Who did the Harris County Republican Party honor in 2001?  Chris Bell.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 17:08:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Was it the guy who blew the whistle on Tom DeLay? (0.00 / 0)

If the Harris County Republican Party could look beyond partisanship and honor the life-long Democrat with a 100% pro-peace and 100% pro-choice voting record and who was the very same Democrat who blew the whistle on Tom DeLay all it confirms is that either (1) the Harris County Republican Party has more progressive values than you do or (2) you are once agains mistaken. 

Both possibilities seem equally likely.

---

by: stopkinky @ Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 22:24:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Harris County Republican Party (0.00 / 0)

You obviously are not real familiar with the Harris County Republican Party or you would know that everything they do is partisan and that they would never acknowledge "progressive values" as anything less than evil and contrary to everything they stand for.

Bell blew his own whistle far more than blowing the whistle on Tom De Lay. More on that scattered through the archives here. You might try searching through them. More on that, I should add, by not just me.  By others as well.

Some believe Chris Bell was honored in recognition of his conservative rather than progressive values, as reflected already by his voting record at Houston City Hall and later by his voting record in Congress, and because he was considering becoming a Republican and that both he and the Harris County Republican Party were "testing the waters" to gauge reaction to him as a Republican.

Early in his political career Chris Bell was a familiar face at Harris County Republican Party events. Always as the husband, of course. But most saw that he was also there as a politician.  And most believed, again, that he was "testing the waters" to gauge reaction to him as a Republican.

Presenting Chris Bell as a "true blue" Democrat just simply isn't reflected by his political career. Or by the numerous newspaper endorsements during the primary that stated quite simply that he would work well with the Republican legislature. There was a little hint there.  Most seemed not to catch it. 

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 00:16:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

On Chris Bell's Record, I Believe NEA, NARAL, AFL-CIO, SANE, etc. Over You (0.00 / 0)

You are clearly a crazy person.  I deduce this from the act that you would support the least progressive candidate running against Perry because you don't think Bell is progressive enough for you.  That is not clear thinking.

Bell's actual voting record is a much better indicator of Bell's record than your bile or the evaluation of the Harris County Republican Party.  You can check out Bell's record here:

http://www.ontheissu...

Lots of progressive groups rate Bell 100% or near 100% and lots of right-wing nuts rate Bell at 0% or near 0%.  It's good to know who you are keeping company with in your confusion about Bell.

PS  Say "hi" to the folks on the Swiftboat when you see 'em at your next anti-Bell rally!

---

by: stopkinky @ Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 16:36:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]