This post is long, but important for anyone who wants a better look at the conventional wisdom out there in the Texas House. The three topics of this post are:
Paul Burka
Bob Perry
Karen Hughes
Without further ado...
Despite what Burka wrote, Republican Party runoffs are not indicators for Democratic performance in November
I'm not a huge fan of Burka's analysis of House races. He often misses the ball, as he himself admitted Tuesday night after results from the primary runoffs started to come in. From his post, titled, "Better Luck Next Time":
I made a lot of calls yesterday about these races and got a lot of information. Most of it turned out to be wrong.
Gracious, humble. I appreciated it. But then, just twelve hours later, we get a post called "Storm Warnings for Democrats" and this nonsense:
The message sent by voters in the Republican primary is that they have little use for establishment politicians...All of the energy right now is being supplied by angry Republican voters who can’t wait to get to the polls and kick out incumbents.
Democrats should be very worried about this political climate.
Now, Paul has a pretty strong history of Democratic doom-and-gloom. He's predicted Democrats would lose House races in the '06 cycle. (Wrong.) He predicted Democrats would lose House races in the '08 cycle. (Wrong.) He predicted Craddick would reatin his Speakership in 2009. (Wrong). So I'm not really shocked or surprised about his doom-and-gloom predictions. But I do have to ask this question:
How are Republican Party primary runoffs any indication of how Democrats are going to perform in November? Especially when you consider the following runoff...
"Tea Party" Republican Charles Perry Received $20,000 from Millionaire Republican Donor, Bob Perry
One of the races Burka pointed to was the Delwin Jones race, where Charles Perry won handily. Jason Embry and Tim Eaton with the Statesman, in writing about the Tea Party in yesterday's paper ("A year later, Tea Party has evolved into a political force"), also pointed to the Delwin Jones race as an example of conservative anger taking hold. Ross Ramsey, writing in the Texas Tribune this morning, did the same.
No Democrat would ever get away with claiming they are a "grassroots activist" candidate if they took tens of thousands of dollars from a prominent trial lawyer. But that's basically what the conventional wisdom is right now -- somehow Charles Perry is a Tea Party guy. Go figure.
Karen Hughes Comments on House Republicans Pledging Against Joe Straus
Karen Hughes, who is the communications advisor for Speaker Joe Straus, commented on the idea that State Senator Dan Patrick group and 44 House Republicans are attempting to start an anti-Straus group with their Independent Conservative Republicans of Texas. Hughes, saying she read BOR, comments below:
In the video, Karen Hughes mentions the following:
[Speaker Straus] was not aware, however, that there was going to be a process that would invite some and not invite others. And I think a lot of some of the other mebmers of the House, who feel they are very conservative as well, who weren't invited were a little distressed to find out. It sort of seems a little undemocratic that -- who decides this? One person decides if you're conservative or you're not...
I think it, understandably, has caused some consternation in the House. I think as a legislative strategy, though in the room who worked in the Legislature, will know that not including members of the Calendars Committee or the Appropriations Committee is probably not a smart legislative strategy if you're interested in getting your legislation heard in the House of Representatives.
Perhaps a not-too-subtle pushback on Senator Patrick and the 44 House Republicans. There is absolutely division among House Republiacns -- Hughes acknowledges that in her own remarks -- and anyone who thinks that the division will go away soon is absolutely going to miss the point.
Those are my takeaways from this week's Republican Party primary runoffs. Please share any thoughts, additional observations, and other inisights in the comments below.
What do Harvey Kronberg, Paul Burka, Kirsten Gray and I have in common? We're all speaking today at the UT Undergraduate Writing Center's "After Hours" panel on political writing this very afternoon at UT.
The Undergraduate Writing Center (UWC) is a wonderful resource for UT students to gain substantial help on their written work. Back in my former life as a PhD student, I worked there for a few semesters and really enjoyed the experience. Fun to be heading back as some sort of dubious expert! I feel a bit like the under-card on this all-star line-up, but promise a few wild 'n crazy blogger anecdotes in return.
If that isn't enough to entice you, there will be free refreshments.
UWC After Hours: Political Writing
When: Fri, Feb 19th, 2010, at 4:30 PM.
What: A panel discussion featuring political writers Paul Burka of Texas Monthly, Kirsten E. Gray of the Texas Democratic Party, Katherine Haenschen of Burnt Orange Report, and Harvey Kronberg of The Quorum Report.
The authors will discuss their work, their writing process, and how they became political writers.
The UWC After Hours offers local writers a forum to talk about their writing process and provide advice for students and members of the community. These events are free and focus on various genres of writing. Past events have featured screenwriters, children's book authors, travel writers, and sports writers, among others.
Where: Joynes Reading Room, Carothers Dormitory, UT Campus (25th St. and Whitis)
Free and open to UT students/faculty/staff and members of the public.
In response to a recently released University of Texas poll that showed Rick Perry with a 12 point lead in his Republican primary against Kay Bailey Hutchison, Phillip chose to highlight his theory, "Rick Perry will continue to succeed -- both financially and in the polls, despite his massive failures -- in a Republican primary race, because the Republican base celebrates and desires the failure of government."
Paul Burka had a different response: Senator Hutchison isn't campaigning well.
I find Perry's lead to be quite believable. Hutchison is running the worst campaign imaginable. She has essentially abandoned the field to Perry. She has been invisible. Perry gave her a softball by fighting for the extension of privatized toll road agreements in the special session - a heaven-sent opportunity - and she just watched it go by. I think her team is not first-rate talent, and I think they are letting her do what she wants to do instead of telling her what she needs to do. Part of Perry's lead is due to his ability to exploit Republican voters' anger at the federal government, but part of it is due to Hutchison's complete absence from the fray. What we have seen is voters defecting from being for Hutchison to being undecided. Hutchison has a long way to go before she is an effective candidate. I keep hearing stories like the one out of the Dallas area, where legislators who attended a meet and greet with Hutchison were appalled at her lack of knowledge of state issues.
Mr. Burka is probably not the only one to see the primary campaign like this. With Governor Perry already campaigning like a cyborg, Kay Bailey easily fades away in the news cycle.
When will she realize this? For her, the advantage of resigning from her Senate post at an early date has always been so she can actively campaign for Governor. If the critiques brought by Mr. Burka persist, we might see that resignation soon.
Late in the session, I had an online exchange with Texas Monthly's Paul Burka regarding the fight over voter suppression/voter I.D. In the course of that argument, Burka mocked concerns over fundamental voting rights. "Principles, Schminciples," he said, leading TM's president, Evan Smith, to refer to his lead political writer as "Mr. Schminciple."
I bet Burka would like to take back that comment, betraying as it does the emptiness of a focus on process. Burka loves politics, as do I. But I love it because it's full of people and it's about people, whether they live or die or get an education or an opportunity to succeed. Burka loves the mechanics of politics. In Burka's world, end results, as measured by the lives of Texans, matter little so long as the proper form is followed.
Burka is not alone in his approach. Many experienced and inexperienced political journalists believe a focus on process guards against bias in their reporting. Also, Burka writes in good faith. I just disagree, and I think the issue at stake is a critical one.
Post-session, legislators are waiting breathlessly for TM's infamous Ten Best/Ten Worst list of legislators. While they wait, I wonder if they could answer the question, ten best and ten worst at what exactly?
I respect Burka's experience, and the online reporting of Burka and his colleague, Patricia Kilday Hart, was terrific. But over the years Burka has reduced the Ten Best/Ten Worst to a hollow ritual.
If Burka reported on the 10 best or worst surgeons in Texas, he wouldn't give much attention to the patients who lived or died. Instead, he'd hold forth on operating room technique. We'd learn who had scalpel envy, whose surgical team had the most panache.
Now, it's true that Burka will be especially kind to the surgeon with polished scalpels who is lucky enough to save a patient. And Burka's wrath will come down on bumbling fools who can recite the Hippocratic oath backwards but kill patient after patient with rusty saws.
It's in the non-obvious middle ground that Burka fails. The legislator who puts principle over process precisely because he or she is concerned about saving lives - that person scores low on the Burka scale. There's a particular group who also is uneasy around this kind of person - lobbyists. Lobbyists adore, how shall we put it, "flexibility of conscience."
It's the attachment to the ideals of process that leads to legislative cowardice and failure. It has proven impossible in Texas to fix public education, build roads, make college affordable, and get health care to kids. You know why? Because "process" is the last refuge of scoundrels.
Unsurprisingly, sacrificing principles to process gives an enormous advantage to the unprincipled.
The good news is that voters know all this in their guts, and that's one reason why Burka's Ten Best/Ten Worst makes little difference in campaigns. Sure, people have attacked their opponents unlucky enough to have the scarlet W for Worst sewed to their jacket. And the gold B for Best finds its away into the lucky winners' ads. It's like checking off a box, and voters aren't moved either way.
For voters, what's it really mean? Again, ten best or ten worst at what exactly?
Being best at the process that has led Texas into its current mess can't really be much to brag about.
No two words ever summed up Paul Burka better than two he offered last week: "Principles, Schminciples."
While "reporting" on voter ID over the last few days, Paul Burka has become the stenographer for the Republican Party of Texas. Following one of his rants on voter ID, Democrat Glenn Smith -- who has posted a few items of his own here on BOR over the last few days -- correctly pointed out that Burka is lambasting Democrats for standing up for our principles on voter ID; which is the same thing Republicans are doing.
Principles, schminciples. This is about public opinion. The Democrats are on the wrong side of public opinion and they’re behaving like children. That is not a good combination.
The "wrong side of public opinion" for standing up against voter suppression? And we're not even the ones who have to call it voter suppression -- Burka did it himself not more than a month ago, in his piece for Texas Monthly, "Manic Suppression."
What started out as a fear that hordes of illegal immigrants would descend on the polls—a ridiculous scenario, since illegal immigrants want nothing to do with official government activities—has now become voter suppression, pure and simple. [...]
Voter ID is a terrible idea, bad for democracy and mean-spirited to boot. We can only hope it won’t soon be the law in Texas.
So what has happened to that "we can only hope" over the last month? Politics, my friends. Politics. And if there is one thing that Burka will place over "voter suppression, pure and simple" it is politics. Because he is not a reporter; he is not a party advocate; he is not a policy expert; he is not a Democrat; he is not a Republican. Paul Burka -- as soon as there is any partisanship -- forgets that he is one of the brightest political reporters in the state, and becomes that guy sitting at the horse track, eating bags and bags of peanuts, yelling at the horses and jockeys at how they are all doing it wrong.
The Democrats’ problem in Texas is that although the favorable/unfavorable view of the Republican party has declined from 62/26 in 2000 to 45/42 in 2008 (Texas numbers), the Democrats can’t close the deal with these disaffected voters. Their party’s favorable/unfavorable numbers have hardly changed over the last eight years. This juvenile display is not going to help.
If voter ID is going to be defeated, House members will have to be the ones to do it. This puts new Republican speaker Joe Straus, who supported voter ID in 2007, in the hot seat.
If they walk on this issue, they will do harm to their party. It makes no sense to go nuclear over an issue on which public opinion is 70% against you. And that number will climb if the D’s walk.
Straus’s speakership is at risk on this bill. He could face a revolt from Republicans if he cooperates in killing it or a revolt from Democrats if he aids its passage and sends it to a conference committee with the Senate, where he will be subject to enormous pressure from Perry, Dewhurst, and GOP donors.
I don’t know whether a photo I.D. requirement will reduce Democratic voting, but it appears to Democrats as if Republicans think it will, and that is why the battle is raging.
The Democratic trend in urban and suburban Texas continues, making voter ID an issue not only for Republican primary voters but also for Republican legislators themselves as they face electoral battles with a reinvigorated and well-financed Democratic opposition.
Why has Burka ignored everything he wrote a month ago? Why is he now constantly calling out the Democrats and posting Republican talking points? Why isn't he putting pressure on Straus -- which is where he said it belonged a month ago -- and focusing his ire on Democrats?
Key Point: JD Granger has a history of controversial political appointments at the behest of his mother, and Congresswoman Granger has not yet announced who she will endorse in the upcoming Republican primary between Governor Perry and U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Perry appointing JD Granger to try and get mother Granger's endorsement is not only possible -- it is very, very likely. The question is: would it work?
Mr. Curry is likely among the longest-serving criminal district attorneys in Texas history, according to incomplete records from the Texas District & County Attorneys Association, spokeswoman Sarah Wolf said.
According to the Texas constitution, Mr. Curry’s replacement will be appointed by the governor to serve until the next election.
"The governor is going to have to think about his own upcoming race and what will help him in the long run," said Fort Worth attorney Greg Westfall, former president of the Tarrant County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. "The fear is that it will be a political appointment, not a merit-based appointment."
Perry will "appoint a replacement upon completion of the process of fielding and interviewing potential replacements," said Allison Castle, spokeswoman for the governor.
One of the major and most likely names on the list is that of Republican JD Granger, son of Republican U.S. Congresswoman Kay Granger. JD Granger has a history of controversial political appointments at the behest of his mother, and Congresswoman Granger has not yet announced who she will endorse in the upcoming Republican primary between Governor Perry and U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Perry appointing JD Granger to get mother Granger's endorsement is not only possible -- it is very, very likely.
The water board likes a close-knit familial group, as seen in its relationship with U.S. Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth, foremost proponent of the plan, and her son, J.D. Granger. Congresswoman Granger has led the drive to secure federal funding for the project. J.D. Granger is executive director of the Trinity River Vision Authority, which was created by the water board to oversee development of an 800-acre commercial and residential project. Some long-established businesses, particularly on the north side of town, will be uprooted by the plan.
Granger was appointed — without a search — to his $100,000 a-year job by the water district’s general manager, Jim Oliver. Following his boss’ example, Granger chose Eppstein without a formal search, and the authority’s board rubber-stamped the Eppstein contract.
Yes, JD Granger was hired without any official job search...and wait, Eppstein contract. That wouldn't be Bryan Eppstein, would it, the same Hutchison campaign spokesman that has worked directly with Congresswoman Kay Granger? Yes, yes it is. The blog Texas Watchdog ties it all together:
For example, two years ago, he helped elect Jim Lane and Marty Leonard to the Tarrant Regional Water District Board. Soon after, the board turned around and gave Eppstein two no-bid contracts for crafting a public relations strategy for its half-billion dollar plan to redirect the Trinity River as it meanders through downtown Fort Worth.
If only the back scratching stopped there. Richard Connor, who has skillfully dissected the board’s Trinity River plan for the Fort Worth Business Press, has unravelled the knot of ties Eppstein has to the deep-pocketed public agency. For example, Eppstein has worked on the political campaigns of Congresswoman and former Fort Worth Mayor Kay Granger, who just helped nail down federal funding for the project.
And guess where the congresswoman’s son, JD Granger, works? Try the Trinity River Vision Authority, which was conceived by the water board to oversee the massive public works project. As Connor reported, the boy Granger turned around and chose Eppstein for a PR gig without so much as a formal search.
So -- the million dollar question, of course -- is Perry going to appoint JD Granger to try and gain favor with Congresswoman Kay Granger? Is such an appointment enough to over-shadow the fact that Eppstein, who has worked with Congresswoman Granger in the past, is also a spokesman for Hutchison?
Or does Perry appoint someone else -- is the calculation that he won't get Congresswoman Granger's endorsement, and he would do better to appoint a different Republican that could do well in what will most certainly be a competitive race in 2010?
And do the people of Tarrant County even have a chance of a non-political appointment? Or are they stuck in scratch-my-back hell for another public official? We know that Eppstein got smacked down by the defeat of Republican State Senator Kim Brimer by Democrat State Senator Wendy Davis last November. Tarrant County would seem to be rebuking the status-quo back-scratching that Republicans like Granger (both mother and son) and Eppstein have been practicing all these years. Does that matter at all to Perry? (99% chance the answer is no, but still worth asking).
I don't know the inner-workings of the Republican primary race as well as someone who has lived and breathed Republican politics over the last few decades. I hope to gain insight from the Dean of the Texas blogosphere, Paul Burka, who is much more informed about the insides of the Republican Party than I am. Unless he's covering a Speaker's race, of course. (Ba-zing!)
What will Perry do? What's the calculus? Feel free to comment below...
Read the April 2009 edition of TX Monthly. Paul Burka's column "Manic Supprssion". It's a great article. Below are some quotes from Burka's article.
Also, Deece Eckstein and David Kobierowski will have a one hour interview with Paul Burka on 91.7FM KOOP Radio or www.koop.org today, Fri., March 13th, 2:00pm-3:00pm.
Some quotes from Burka's "Manic Suppression" article:
Voter ID is a terrible idea: Bad for Democracy and mean-spirited to boot. Let's hope it doesn't become law in TX.
Voter ID is now a matter of Republican survival.
What started out as a fear that hordes of illegal immigrants would descend on the polls - a ridiculous scenario, since illegal immigrants want nothing to do with official government activities - has now become voter suppression, pure and simple.
There are two things wrong with laws that require voters to produce a picuture ID in order to be able to cast a vote: no credible evidence that voter fraud is widespread and plenty of credible evidence that such a law will reduce minority turnout by about 3%.
The reason why so little evidence of fraud can be found is simple: There's no incentive for voter impersonation.
This is a great article (3 pages printed out, and worth the read). I hope y'all read it. What's really scary is that the only area the voter issue do exist, such as with absentee voting or registering to vote, this law doesn't even deal with.
Why is the TX Legislature wasting valuable time and taxpayer's money on this issue?? This is very unfortunate. We have real issues to deal with...our economy, our health care crisis, our education crisis. And they're going after a problem that does not exist. Very unfortunate.
Again, we'll have Paul Burka, author of this article, TX Monthly, on our radio show "TX Politics Today" on today (Friday, March 13th), for a one hour interview, 2:00pm-3:00pm, 91.7FM KOOP Radio or streaming live at www.koop.org to dig into Voter Suppression. We'll dig into the issue in detail, including the politics of this.
Straus (not filed yet) brings impeccable Republican credentials to the table. If he were elected, there would be no retaliation by the Republican estblishment against the members who voted to defeat Craddick, because the Strauses ARE the establishment. He is probably the most moderate Republican in the House. Good for Democrats. Bad for conservatives. Straus has a great political future, but speaker in 2009 is too much too soon.
But events may have overtaken the Democrat-ABC coalition that has 75 votes against Craddick. Gattis’s candidacy for speaker provides members with a chance to realign in coalitions FOR someone instead of merely against. Suddenly the timing is off for the ABCs. Their announcement of a candidate won’t come until the end of the week, and in the meantime Gattis can be adding to his list of supporters, currently reported to be three (Kolkhorst, Hamilton, Harless).
That is how many members appear to be committed to a course to elect a new speaker. It’s the 64 Democrats plus the 11 members of the ABC coalition (some of whom are not hardcore ABCs) plus the Gattis 4. It’s time to count Smithee in this camp, judging from his public remarks about the state of the House. That’s 80. What does this mean?
What it does not mean is 80 votes against Craddick for speaker. Depending upon how the speaker’s race develops, some of the R’s could end up with Craddick.
Didn’t the ABCs forget what their main objective was, which was getting rid of Craddick? This opens the door for Craddick. Maybe I’m totally wrong. I’ve been out of the picture all day, wrapping up a story on the governor’s race under a deadline...
But if this goes south, and Craddick somehow survives, this will be one of the ghastliest mistakes I have ever seen in Texas politics.
----------------
Between December 24 and today, I didn't post a lot. Part of the reason was because when news moves so fast, I don't think writing about things I don't know is very responsible. The only post I did write was focused on broader discussions of Speaker dynamics. But at that point, the real developments were private, and trying to pretend otherwise and guess wouldn't have done much good.
Good news analysis finds a way to use facts and research to create a thesis. That's what I worked on back on November 13, when I wrote my original post: "Speaker's Race: Not Craddick - 74, Craddick Ceiling - 63." In that post, I laid out a list of names of those who were previously publicly for or against Craddick.
Was it the perfect way to count names? No. But I think it's better than listening to rumors, that's for sure. And in the end, it turned out to be more accurate -- because common sense just prevailed. This is what I wrote:
The numbers just aren't there. As I'll detail below -- complete with sources and everything -- there are 74 public opponents to Tom Craddick. Additionally, there are at least 13 publicly "toss-up" Members that have not declared whether they support Craddick or not, though most have indicated they do not want a return of Tom Craddick's style of leadership.
That means there is an easy path to 80 (if you evenly split the "toss-up" Members) for no support of Craddick.
The likelihood that Speaker Craddick would retain all 63 "public" supporters is ridiculous. Because there is no recent "public" information on who those 63 Members may or may not support, I give them all to Speaker Craddick. But doing so is extremely generous -- it is much, much more likely that he has only 1/2 or, at best, 2/3 of that support.
The criticism was always that "anybody but Craddick isn't a candidate." While an accurate criticism, that didn't mean my entire method for public accountability was ridiculous. And as I wrote in the only post I wrote over the last couple weeks, there are many barriers and obstacles that must be overcome in order to build legitimacy and support and create the organizational capacity necessary to enter and win a Speaker's race. We just have to have the patience to let them play out.
Straus now has 92 names of support. Once the dominoes get moving, the move quickly. Why? Because in the end, legislators are much more like you and me than anything else. They are humans that want to understand their environment, do what's best for them and what's best for their constituents. Sometimes that means acting with great leadership -- as Rep. Dunnam, Coleman, and Gallego did over the last few weeks, months, and years. Sometimes itmeans hanging back, and being the "clinching" move.
In either case, it requires patience and an understanding of the environment you operate in. For us at BOR, that means fact-based reporting, original analysis, and knowing when to avoid speaking/writing just because. That's a principle all at BOR believe in, and something we'll continue practicing throughout the legislative session and city council races over the next five months.
Eileen Smith, of Texas Monthly, interviews Paul Burka, also from Texas Monthly about the BOR analysis of the TX Speaker of the House Race.
Burka on BOR's analysis of the TX Speaker's race:
"BOR did a great job, good research, but a little bit of a naive feel because it's a mathematical model of a speaker's race, but you can't do it because right now there is no speaker's race, only one candidate".
That one candidate that Burka is referencing is obviously Rep. Tom Craddick.
Here's the link to the full 8+ minute video at BurkaBlog, titled "You're Nobody Till Somebody Loves You", Fri., Nov. 14th, 08'. There's a lot more juice to this and y'all should check it out. If below link does not work, do a search for "burkablog" at the texasmonthly.com site. Here's the link to the 8 min. video:
I attended the Center for Politics and Governance Forum today (Thurs., Nov. 6th, 08') at UT, Austin. Below are some of my notes from the speakers and panelists, as well as comments from audience members, and some of my own.
I interviewed Houston Mayor Bill White and found him to be refreshing to speak with. Personable, compassionate, genuine, and he wants to make things happen. Bill gave a speech that was down-to-earth just before I spoke with him. He had a great line about true leaders, that leaders "have a responsibility to inspire people to want to get involved in the process and (political) system. To inspire them to want to do the right thing". He talked about education and how's it's everyone's responsiblity while explaining how he and his wife visited highschool drop-outs in their homes to help them get back into school. White also talked about a a very successful 6 week summer education program he and his wife started during the summer to help students stay educated instead of getting in trouble during their summer off.
During my brief intereview with Mayor White, I asked him if he's going to run for state office, and he said "most likely". I than asked Governor or Senator? And he didn't answer that question, but did go into detail about a number of important issues in the state of TX, especially Energy.
I very much enjoyed White's speech and speaking with him one-on-one. No ego, genuine, and it was clear that he means business.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst: While commenting about Obama's Presidential victory, Dewhurst said "Presidential elections are about reactions to the past and vision for the future"... I agree!
Dewhurst said "greed went rampant" while talking about our Economy, and added that "even Greenspan apologized for not providing enough oversight to the market".
Dewhurst was proud about his role in championing Education and committed to "continue to raise teacher's salaries and end teaching to the TAKS tests". Dewhurst also talked about Health Care, commenting that we spend too much money on Health Care in the US, the 2nd most of any country, adding "but I'm not recommending Universal Health Care".
Dewhurst gave a very safe speech, covering Edu, Health Care, and the Economy.
A number of audience members privately commented to me that it was one of the most boring speeches they've ever heard...one woman said "it's amazing that he can speak for over 20 minutes and say nothing". I wouldn't go that far, but he certainly didn't say anything groundbreaking. And being that it was our "keynote", I would have enjoyed something more captivating.
TX State Rep Sylvester Turner was on a panel and contrast to my comments above on Dewhurst, he was a real crowd-pleaser...Turner said he's running for the Speaker's race and he received a great applause from the audience when he compared the changing political climate in TX to a "cool breeze coming from the North East to TX"...the crowd loved this analogy, explaining how the cool air is mixing with the "hot air of TX" to turn it a cool blue.
TX Sen. Kirk Watson got the crowd laughing with his comment "we had two hurricanes in TX, Ike and Lehman Brothers". Watson also talked about how critical redrawing of the Congressional lines will be in 2010. Watson joked that the agreement before the last TX legislative session was to "stop the diversions", but that the lege still had over $1.6B of diversions, a 15% increase from the previous session! Watson also said Climate Change needs to be an issue, that "TX is the #1 state in the country producing Carbon".
Sen. Florence Shapiro talked about Education alot...and then talked about Education a little more, and then talked about Education some more to wrap it up.
TX State Rep Scott Hochberg, who also said he's running for Speaker, commented on how the Speaker's performance needs to be improved.
One of the panelists said that "70% of unmarried women in TX voted for Obama".
Burka made the comment that "the average age of the Republican Party has gone from age 42 to 56 in recent years".
The panel was asked if Gov Rick Perry is really running for reelection...and most said "he says he is, and I do believe he's honest"...but it was clear that they have their doubts. But they all felt that Kay Bailey Hutchison is running.
TX Monthly's Paul Burka commented on Kay Bailey Hutchison saying that "Kay is typically risk averse. But she did vote for the bailout and for SChip, so it'll be interesting to see how Perry uses that against her if they run head-to-head"...Burka went on to say "this would be a tough, bitter fight. Does Kay have the stomach for a tough/bitter fight? Maybe. Does Rick? Yes".
Bryan Eppstein, TX based Republican consultant and pollster gave a few poll#'s showing that Kay Baily is beating Perry...and commented that "Kay Bailey will win against Perry"...Burka was not so sure.
While talking about state-wide races and "up-and-coming Dems", Kelly Fero throughout Donna Howard's name, and a few folks in the audience immediately clapped.
The big topics were the speaker's race and the Gov's race.
Burka recommended that Mayor Bill White should run for US Senator and not Gov (Kay Bailey's open position, assuming she runs for Gov).
