My colleague Heather has posted on her blog about changes that are needed in the governor's office. Heather welcomes Kay Bailey Hutchison to the governor's race, and expresses her intent to support KBH for governor. Mostly, Heather wants Rick Perry out of the office, and suggests that term limits are needed for the position. I could not agree with you more Heather! Not only do we need term limits for statewide offices such as governor, but we need term limits on every elected position in government, whether it's local, state or federal.
Does anyone out there still believe we have a representative government that serves the will of the people? I sure don't. We have a government made up of elected officials who are power-hungry, self-serving and out to make a career out of "public service." A lack of term limits encourages this. Candidates for elected office run on a platform of promises: If you elect me, I will be the true representative of your interests! What choice do we have but to vote for them and hope for the best. So we elect them, and once they take their seat, whether it's the state legislature or the US Congress, they become part of the problem. Their decisions are based on what will get them elected the next time around. Once they have some power, they seem willing to do whatever it takes to hold onto it, all the while feathering their nests with the perks that come with the job. Some corporate-sponsored private jet travel here, some campaign contributions from lobbyists there, while becoming further out of touch with their constituency. They can't be there for important votes that affect our lives, but they never fail to show up to vote themselves a pay raise.
Our government exists to serve the people. The framers of our system of government never envisioned the career politician of today. Public servants were meant to go to Washington, or to the state capitol, serve their families, neighbors and communities, then return home and go about their business, while some other citizen took on the temporary role, and so on. I am convinced that the framers of our Constitution never saw a need for term limits, but if they had known we would end up with the system we have today, they would have written them in. The problem we face today is that the elected officials and legislators we need to impose term limits on are the very people who would need to vote the limits into law in the form of a constitutional amendment. Widespread support for such a measure is unlikely, as current seat holders are unlikely to vote in favor of something that puts them out of a job.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Run Bill, Run!
Bill White, current three-term mayor of Houston, announced last week that he has scrapped plans to run for Kay Bailey Hutchison's yet-to-be-vacated Senate seat, and has decided instead to run for governor of Texas. As a newcomer to Texas, I have only recently become familiar with Bill White. I read a fascinating and impressive profile of him in Texas Monthly that turned me into an instant fan.
Bill White posted a video on line in which he lays out the issues he plans to focus on in the campaign:
What a breath of fresh air versus the politics as usual that we've seen recently from the other serious candidates running for governor. White refrains from attacking other candidates, directly or indirectly. The only allusion he makes to other candidates or the race itself is when he predicts that negative ads will be forthcoming from his opponents.
Rather than attacks or political posturing, White gets right down to some substantial issues in this short announcement video. His overall point is that he wants Texas to be a leader in innovation and opportunity for the rest of the nation. He mentions several obstacles to achieving this, that presumably he would address as governor: Texas' high dropout rates, increasing insurance and utility costs for Texas families, lack of health insurance for kids, and higher-education tuition increases. I'm left wondering, however, how much of this White can address if he is elected to the position of one of the weakest governors in the nation. I wonder also whether White can successfully make the adjustment from his current position as a strong mayor, to that of weak governor.
As neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I tend to vote based on the merits of an individual candidate. Bill White's record as mayor of Houston is more impressive to me than anything I've seen from the other candidates for governor. Considering the dismal record of Democrats vying for statewide office in Texas over the last 15 years, White's chances don't look very good. Bill White has my vote, and if he can win over enough of the non-affiliated voters like me, who now make up the majority of the Texas electorate, maybe he'll have a shot after all.
Bill White posted a video on line in which he lays out the issues he plans to focus on in the campaign:
What a breath of fresh air versus the politics as usual that we've seen recently from the other serious candidates running for governor. White refrains from attacking other candidates, directly or indirectly. The only allusion he makes to other candidates or the race itself is when he predicts that negative ads will be forthcoming from his opponents.
Rather than attacks or political posturing, White gets right down to some substantial issues in this short announcement video. His overall point is that he wants Texas to be a leader in innovation and opportunity for the rest of the nation. He mentions several obstacles to achieving this, that presumably he would address as governor: Texas' high dropout rates, increasing insurance and utility costs for Texas families, lack of health insurance for kids, and higher-education tuition increases. I'm left wondering, however, how much of this White can address if he is elected to the position of one of the weakest governors in the nation. I wonder also whether White can successfully make the adjustment from his current position as a strong mayor, to that of weak governor.
As neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I tend to vote based on the merits of an individual candidate. Bill White's record as mayor of Houston is more impressive to me than anything I've seen from the other candidates for governor. Considering the dismal record of Democrats vying for statewide office in Texas over the last 15 years, White's chances don't look very good. Bill White has my vote, and if he can win over enough of the non-affiliated voters like me, who now make up the majority of the Texas electorate, maybe he'll have a shot after all.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Rick Perry, International Man of Mystery
My colleague Jen has posted an interesting and informative editorial about Rick Perry's super-secret travel bills. Jen criticizes Perry for spending taxpayer funds to travel to various places in the United States and abroad. Jen's main concerns seem to be that these trips may not be necessary, and that Perry refuses to make the details of his travel expenses available to the public. The editorial contains several links to news stories about the issue that I found to be just as interesting and informative as the original post. I highly recommend reading the post and the linked articles. Of course all Texans should be aware of how our taxes are being spent, but we should also be concerned about how our current governor makes decisions.
I have been critical of Rick Perry's decision-making process on my blog in the past, and the more I read, the more critical I become. I understand and acknowledge that part of the job of the governor of Texas is to represent Texas to other other governments, and to encourage business growth in Texas. If campaign contributors, business interests, or friendly governments want to sponsor the governor of Texas as he or she travels on Texas business, I'm all for it. I'm even willing to pitch in taxpayer money for the governor's necessary security detail. But if I'm helping to pay for the trip, I believe I (and every other taxpayer in Texas) have a right to know what business the governor is conducting, and why. I agree with Jen that the Perry camp has a responsibility to disclose that information, and they should be happy to do so, if they are conducting legitimate business on behalf of the state of Texas. The fact that Perry does not want to share the info (and that legislation has been speedily passed to allow him to keep his secrets) makes me very suspicious about the true nature of these trips.
I get the feeling that Rick Perry is far more concerned with running for re-election than actually doing the job of governor these days. Jen talks about a recent trip to Israel that may or may not have had anything to do with actual necessary business for Texas. I actually saw Rick Perry when he was on a similar trip over the summer. Okay, it wasn't as expensive and lavish as his trip to Israel, but I think the principle is the same. My son studied Texas history in 4th grade last year, and couldn't wait to see the Alamo live and up close. We took him in June, and just happened to be there on the same day that Rick Perry was there, giving a short speech and signing what his campaign website called "critical legislation" concerning eminent domain. Well, as we all know from our text book, no legislation requires the governor's signature, least of all a proposed constitutional amendment. It was political theater designed to garner attention and publicity for Perry the candidate for re-election, not necessary business for the governor of Texas. It was only a short trip to San Antonio, and the state troopers on hand to protect the governor probably didn't require overtime pay or a hotel stay as they did in Israel, but taxpayer dollars were no doubt spent on the completely unnecessary trip.
It seems clear to me that how he chooses to handle the travel situation is yet another example of Rick Perry doing what's best for Rick Perry, rather than what's best for Texas.
I have been critical of Rick Perry's decision-making process on my blog in the past, and the more I read, the more critical I become. I understand and acknowledge that part of the job of the governor of Texas is to represent Texas to other other governments, and to encourage business growth in Texas. If campaign contributors, business interests, or friendly governments want to sponsor the governor of Texas as he or she travels on Texas business, I'm all for it. I'm even willing to pitch in taxpayer money for the governor's necessary security detail. But if I'm helping to pay for the trip, I believe I (and every other taxpayer in Texas) have a right to know what business the governor is conducting, and why. I agree with Jen that the Perry camp has a responsibility to disclose that information, and they should be happy to do so, if they are conducting legitimate business on behalf of the state of Texas. The fact that Perry does not want to share the info (and that legislation has been speedily passed to allow him to keep his secrets) makes me very suspicious about the true nature of these trips.
I get the feeling that Rick Perry is far more concerned with running for re-election than actually doing the job of governor these days. Jen talks about a recent trip to Israel that may or may not have had anything to do with actual necessary business for Texas. I actually saw Rick Perry when he was on a similar trip over the summer. Okay, it wasn't as expensive and lavish as his trip to Israel, but I think the principle is the same. My son studied Texas history in 4th grade last year, and couldn't wait to see the Alamo live and up close. We took him in June, and just happened to be there on the same day that Rick Perry was there, giving a short speech and signing what his campaign website called "critical legislation" concerning eminent domain. Well, as we all know from our text book, no legislation requires the governor's signature, least of all a proposed constitutional amendment. It was political theater designed to garner attention and publicity for Perry the candidate for re-election, not necessary business for the governor of Texas. It was only a short trip to San Antonio, and the state troopers on hand to protect the governor probably didn't require overtime pay or a hotel stay as they did in Israel, but taxpayer dollars were no doubt spent on the completely unnecessary trip.
It seems clear to me that how he chooses to handle the travel situation is yet another example of Rick Perry doing what's best for Rick Perry, rather than what's best for Texas.
Monday, November 23, 2009
TX Governor's Race Heats Up
Last Friday, the race for the Republican nomination for Governor got significantly more interesting with the launch of dueling television ads by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and current Governor Rick Perry.
Hutchison's advertisement plays up her commitment to the people of Texas, and seems to attempt to address the question of why she has yet to resign her Senate seat, as she promised she would, to focus on running for governor. Take a look at the Texans for Kay ad:
Governor Perry's first campaign ad focuses on the ways in which he and his administration have improved conditions in Texas. Here is Perry's "Texas Values" ad:
Hutchison has some explaining to do, and it makes sense that she would choose to speak directly to the voters in Texas and address the reasons why she has chosen not to vacate her Senate seat at this time. Governor Perry is trying to get rehired for the same job, so it seems logical that he would point to his accomplishments, and let the people of Texas know that they can expect more of the same if they choose to re-elect him. In this regard, the candidates are taking different approaches in these first TV spots. Based on these two initial ads, however, I see the lines blurring between these two candidates.
Hutchison and Perry both take the approach of "Washington Bad, Texas Good." Perry attacks Washington (Deficits! Pork barrel spending! Debts! Oh my!), but he's really aiming for Hutchison. When the voice over intones, "Washington gives us politics" it's a picture of KBH that flashes on the screen. What does the situation in Washington have to do with the Texas governor's race? Nothing really, unless your opponent works there. Are we to believe that KBH is responsible for the mess in Washington? I think that's what Rick Perry wants us to think.
KBH is having none of that. She's not part of the problem in Washington, she's part of the solution. She wants you, Texas voter, to know that she is the only thing standing between Texas and total annihilation by the federal government. Okay, maybe that's a tad dramatic, but Hutchison uses her ad time to explain that she simply cannot leave the Senate while the threat of "government takeover of health care" continues. She also points out that she is doing this despite the risk it poses to her own "political future."
These first two ads do little to distinguish these candidates. Both are covering similar ground, and both attempt to convince potential voters that each is the true representative of conservative Texas values. The candidates take slightly different approaches, but the messages end up sounding awfully similar. While Perry does point out some of his successes as governor, I found that his attacks on KBH via attacks on Washington overshadowed those messages. I look forward to seeing these candidates turn away from tired messages about the evils and failures of Washington, and get down to the issues that actually pertain to the state of Texas and the office of governor.
Hutchison's advertisement plays up her commitment to the people of Texas, and seems to attempt to address the question of why she has yet to resign her Senate seat, as she promised she would, to focus on running for governor. Take a look at the Texans for Kay ad:
Governor Perry's first campaign ad focuses on the ways in which he and his administration have improved conditions in Texas. Here is Perry's "Texas Values" ad:
Hutchison has some explaining to do, and it makes sense that she would choose to speak directly to the voters in Texas and address the reasons why she has chosen not to vacate her Senate seat at this time. Governor Perry is trying to get rehired for the same job, so it seems logical that he would point to his accomplishments, and let the people of Texas know that they can expect more of the same if they choose to re-elect him. In this regard, the candidates are taking different approaches in these first TV spots. Based on these two initial ads, however, I see the lines blurring between these two candidates.
Hutchison and Perry both take the approach of "Washington Bad, Texas Good." Perry attacks Washington (Deficits! Pork barrel spending! Debts! Oh my!), but he's really aiming for Hutchison. When the voice over intones, "Washington gives us politics" it's a picture of KBH that flashes on the screen. What does the situation in Washington have to do with the Texas governor's race? Nothing really, unless your opponent works there. Are we to believe that KBH is responsible for the mess in Washington? I think that's what Rick Perry wants us to think.
KBH is having none of that. She's not part of the problem in Washington, she's part of the solution. She wants you, Texas voter, to know that she is the only thing standing between Texas and total annihilation by the federal government. Okay, maybe that's a tad dramatic, but Hutchison uses her ad time to explain that she simply cannot leave the Senate while the threat of "government takeover of health care" continues. She also points out that she is doing this despite the risk it poses to her own "political future."
These first two ads do little to distinguish these candidates. Both are covering similar ground, and both attempt to convince potential voters that each is the true representative of conservative Texas values. The candidates take slightly different approaches, but the messages end up sounding awfully similar. While Perry does point out some of his successes as governor, I found that his attacks on KBH via attacks on Washington overshadowed those messages. I look forward to seeing these candidates turn away from tired messages about the evils and failures of Washington, and get down to the issues that actually pertain to the state of Texas and the office of governor.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Is KBH a RINO?
I found this blog editorial from Texas Fred so disturbing, I felt I had no choice but to write about it. This opinion piece, written by Fred himself, is a reaction to a recent report out of Washington, DC, about Kay Bailey Hutchison's recommendations for the US Attorney post in San Antonio. Fred seems to aim his piece squarely at those Texas conservatives who might be undecided about which Republican gubernatorial candidate to support in 2010. Fred is not undecided: he wants his readers to support Rick Perry.
Fred references an article explaining that Senator Hutchison submitted two suggestions for the post to the White House, and one of the suggested candidates, Robert Pitman, is openly gay. According to the article, Pitman is also a highly regarded career prosecutor and judge. The author of the post, who describes himself in his blog profile as a "highly opinionated blogger" who "does not play the PC game," skips right over the highly regarded part, and chooses to focus his rant entirely on the openly gay part. Specifically, the author attacks Hutchison for having the temerity to even suggest a gay person for the job. Fred also piles on Republican Senator John Cornyn for the same affront to Texas conservatives, but focuses primarily on Hutchison, labeling her a RINO (Republican in Name Only) who is "out of touch" with both Texas and conservatism. After all, John Cornyn is not running for governor; Kay Bailey Hutchison is, and the author clearly does not want her elected to the position. As Fred states toward the end of his post, "I would say, at this point in time, the Governors race in Texas is Rick Perry’s right about now. His opponent is doing everything she can to hand it to him in a gift wrapped package!"
This blogger seems to represent an extreme far-right conservative Republican point of view. He seems personally offended (and offended on behalf of other Texas conservatives) that Hutchison would take an action that he views as pushing a homosexual agenda, and then expect to be supported by Texas conservatives in the 2010 election. Not only does he want her to lose the race for governor, he also wants her out of the Senate for good.
After reading this opinion piece, I was so angry that I had a difficult time organizing my thoughts to write about it. Trust me when I say you do not want to read my first draft, which was equal parts vitriol and sarcasm. My reaction stems from my own frustration with the current two-party system that dominates politics. There is no mainstream home for someone like me who is an economic conservative and a social liberal. Kay Bailey Hutchison's attempts to open the Republican Party to those of us who are not religious conservatives gives me hope; but then I read something like this that represents such an extreme and non-inclusive point of view, and my hope diminishes.
In this case, I believe the author of this post is advocating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which I really hope will be illegal in every part of this country sometime very soon. How does Fred know that Pitman is a bad choice for the job of US Attorney? He doesn't, because he hasn't bothered to find out. Fred fails to address Pitman's qualifications for the job, and chooses instead to simply dismiss him as an inappropriate candidate solely on the basis of his sexual orientation. This seems like shaky ground from which to launch an attack on Hutchison's qualifications for the job of governor of Texas. How do I as a reader know that Fred hasn't also failed to do his homework on Hutchison and Perry? I suspect he may have jumped to conclusions about these candidates also. This makes me question Fred's qualifications for the job of critic. And I don't even care about his sexual orientation.
Fred references an article explaining that Senator Hutchison submitted two suggestions for the post to the White House, and one of the suggested candidates, Robert Pitman, is openly gay. According to the article, Pitman is also a highly regarded career prosecutor and judge. The author of the post, who describes himself in his blog profile as a "highly opinionated blogger" who "does not play the PC game," skips right over the highly regarded part, and chooses to focus his rant entirely on the openly gay part. Specifically, the author attacks Hutchison for having the temerity to even suggest a gay person for the job. Fred also piles on Republican Senator John Cornyn for the same affront to Texas conservatives, but focuses primarily on Hutchison, labeling her a RINO (Republican in Name Only) who is "out of touch" with both Texas and conservatism. After all, John Cornyn is not running for governor; Kay Bailey Hutchison is, and the author clearly does not want her elected to the position. As Fred states toward the end of his post, "I would say, at this point in time, the Governors race in Texas is Rick Perry’s right about now. His opponent is doing everything she can to hand it to him in a gift wrapped package!"
This blogger seems to represent an extreme far-right conservative Republican point of view. He seems personally offended (and offended on behalf of other Texas conservatives) that Hutchison would take an action that he views as pushing a homosexual agenda, and then expect to be supported by Texas conservatives in the 2010 election. Not only does he want her to lose the race for governor, he also wants her out of the Senate for good.
After reading this opinion piece, I was so angry that I had a difficult time organizing my thoughts to write about it. Trust me when I say you do not want to read my first draft, which was equal parts vitriol and sarcasm. My reaction stems from my own frustration with the current two-party system that dominates politics. There is no mainstream home for someone like me who is an economic conservative and a social liberal. Kay Bailey Hutchison's attempts to open the Republican Party to those of us who are not religious conservatives gives me hope; but then I read something like this that represents such an extreme and non-inclusive point of view, and my hope diminishes.
In this case, I believe the author of this post is advocating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which I really hope will be illegal in every part of this country sometime very soon. How does Fred know that Pitman is a bad choice for the job of US Attorney? He doesn't, because he hasn't bothered to find out. Fred fails to address Pitman's qualifications for the job, and chooses instead to simply dismiss him as an inappropriate candidate solely on the basis of his sexual orientation. This seems like shaky ground from which to launch an attack on Hutchison's qualifications for the job of governor of Texas. How do I as a reader know that Fred hasn't also failed to do his homework on Hutchison and Perry? I suspect he may have jumped to conclusions about these candidates also. This makes me question Fred's qualifications for the job of critic. And I don't even care about his sexual orientation.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Which comes first: Texas or Perry?
A recent editorial in the Austin-American Statesman attempts to address the question of where Governor Rick Perry's priorities lie. Is he fully committed to upholding his oath of office, in which he swore to "preserve, protect and defend" the laws and people of Texas? Or is he more concerned with protecting his own self interests? The author, Boyd Richie, who is the chairman of the Democratic Party of Texas, clearly has a specific idea about the answers to these questions. Richie no doubt will be pulling for the Democratic nominee for Governor during the next election, and seems to aim his editorial at voters who may be on the fence about whether to re-elect Perry in 2010. The central point of Richie's editorial is that Gov. Perry has repeatedly put his own interests ahead of what's best for Texas. He supports his point primarily by analyzing Perry's recent handling of the investigation into the Cameron Todd Willingham arson case. Richie outlines compelling evidence of Perry's mishandling of the situation in a clear and logical fashion. Having read multiple articles on this case myself, and having seen Governor Perry stumble his way through questions put to him by a television reporter about the case, Richie's arguments ring true with me on this topic. Richie brings up other examples of Perry's attempts to cover up incidents that might make him unappealing to voters -- such as the child sex abuse scandal at the Texas Youth Commission, and the Corpus Christi State School "fight club" scandal -- to establish that Perry has a history of sweeping things under the rug when to do otherwise would be hurtful to him personally and/or politically. Overall, Richie has crafted a well-researched editorial, has supported his points with compelling evidence, and has succeeded in convincing this independent-thinking Libertarian that he's right about Rick Perry.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Williams poised to make history
With political races starting further and further in advance of the actual election these days, you've no doubt heard about Kay Bailey Hutchison's plans to run for governor of Texas. In an interesting twist to what is sure to be an entertaining race, her would-be opponent, current Governor Rick Perry, will be choosing her replacement to serve out the remainder of her Senate term. Adding to the drama are the behind-the-scenes politics currently underway regarding who Perry will choose. This article from Saturday's Houston Chronicle is worth reading not only to stay informed about the process for choosing your next United States Senator, but also because the front-runner seems to be Michael Williams. Williams is the current Railroad Commissioner, and should Perry select him for Hutchison's seat, will become the first black U.S. Senator from the state of Texas, and one of only two African Americans in the entire Senate. If he is selected, Williams and Texas will make history, but, in this case, it will not be due to choices made by voters at the polls. Would that diminish Williams' achievement? Can Texas claim that we've turned a corner and become "post-racial Texas," to borrow the term being applied to the United States in the wake of Barack Obama's election? Is Williams the best person for the job, or is appointing Williams merely a tactic in Perry's re-election campaign? These are some of the questions this article raises for me, and I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
