Elisa Chan, bigot

The San Antonio Express-News ran an exposé on a member of the City Council there, Elisa Chan, on awfully homophobic comments she made while under secret recording. The recording is from May and involves Chan’s opposition to the city’s proposed non-discrimination ordinance.

For those not familiar, the City of San Antonio is debating an ordinance that would add both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the city’s non-discrimination laws, adding the categories with protected classes such as race, sex, religion and disability (among others). The ordinance was perhaps most controversial for awhile when it included a clause that would have prohibited the holding of public office for those found guilty of violating the ordinance. That clause has since been removed, because, to be fair, we do have a constitutional right to be bigoted (see: “Westboro Baptist Church”). After the revision, some major figures in the evangelical community gave their full support to the bill.

The specific calumnies do not deserve the honor of being reprinted, because they are totally without substance. What is important to know is that, when the eyes of the public were away, Chan revealed her untethered hatred for the LGBT community, and then, perhaps more offensive, formulated ways to veil this hatred as a policy disagreement with the ordinance. Chan discussed, at length, her intention to write an op-ed in the Express-News explaining her opposition to the ordinance. Her candid hatred, however, would not be included.

The Mayor of San Antonio, Julian Castro, pulled no punches when rightly criticizing Chan for her hurtful, defamatory remark. As the Mayor stated on his personal Facebook account:

Councilwoman Chan’s remarks were hurtful and ignorant. They do not reflect the views of the overwhelming majority of San Antonians. Ours is a city that respects and appreciates all people.

These sorts of opinions are the exact reason why a non-discrimination ordinance protecting LGBT is completely necessary. Sadly though, it is the reason why homophobia may continue being an ugly part of our lives well into the future.

Homophobia is not like racism. In fact, the two types of prejudice could not be more different. Prejudice exists in two different forms: institutional and overt. In years past, overt racism existed quite extensively. Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act, overt racism all but disappeared except for a few unfortunate pockets in the South. Institutional racism, however, has persisted.

Now, as being gay is becoming more and more accepted within our culture, overt homophobia is rapidly diminishing, making comments like Chan’s all the more controversial. Institutional homophobia, however, is becoming non-existent. This is because, no matter what you do, no matter how you raise your family, no matter who you associate yourself with, the rich and powerful could have a gay son or a lesbian daughter.

To be blunt, Republican Senators (like Rob Portman) have gay sons, but not African-American sons. This will cause institutional homophobia to disappear within a generation or two while institutional racism (unfortunately) will persist.

When it comes to overt prejudice, the opposite is true. As big of a scandal Chan’s comments made, if she would have been this racist, she would have already resigned. Racism in public is still much more controversial than public homophobia. This is because racism is guided by culture, whereas homophobia is guided by religion, and culture is much easier to change.

I get this inkling when I see polls that say 58% of Americans support gay marriage, whereas 37% of Americans believe being gay is a horrible, horrible sin. That 37% is motivated by religion, and will be very hard-pressed to change their minds.

Gay marriage will most definitely be inevitable, but I fear nationwide acceptance will not. People like Elisa Chan sadly remind me of that.

Burnt Orange Report has more.

Wendy and Julian

The Austin American-Statesman reports that Wendy Davis, who just announced on Monday she would only run for re-election or Governor, will be making an announcement on the Governor’s election “in a couple of week.”

The phrasing of this announcement is somewhat peculiar, and it gives me the strongest inkling yet that Davis will end up running for Governor. Nobody gives a speech to announce they’re not going to do something. For example, among the many candidates who were rumored to be considering a run for Comptroller was Christi Craddick, a Railroad Commissioner and former Speaker Tom Craddick’s daughter. When she recently noted she would not be running for that position, there was no speech, no announced, absolutely no pomp and circumstance. Instead, she simply disclosed the detail on Facebook.

This is why I am now convinced, more than ever, that Davis will run for Governor. There is no way that, with the amount she has been frankly speaking on the topic, that Davis still hasn’t made up her mind. I take it she has made up her mind, meaning that if she had made the decision to not run for re-election, she would have already let that leak to the press. But perhaps we are just overanalyzing this.

In other news, the San Antonio Express-News reports that Julian Castro, the Mayor of San Antonio, will be going to IOWA. Specifically, he will be headline a “Steak Fry” put on by Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa’s Democratic Senator. In 2006, the event was headlined by an individual who had also keynoted at the most recent Democratic National Convention: Barack Obama. As the Express-News explains:

In 2006, then-Sen. Barack Obama headlined the event. He told the New York Times at the event that he wasn’t running for president, a seat he would secure two years later. Two years before, Obama was catapulted into the national conscience when he presented the 2004 keynote address at the DNC.

I, for one, think there is about a 0% chance of Julian Castro running for President in 2016–maybe Hillary Clinton’s running mate. That being said, there are some significant other reasons Castro would be going to the Hawkeye State. I was going to delineate them, but but Cal Jillson of SMU, speaking in the Express-News article beat me to the point:

“When you get Cruz going to South Carolina, New Hampshire and also Iowa, that is an indication that he’s at least laying the groundwork for a presidential run if circumstances seem favorable in 2016,” Jillson said. “That’s not what Castro’s doing. What he’s doing is going to a highly visible event in one of the early states in the presidential selection process but not for the purpose of touting himself.”

It is important, however, to note that the DNC was not a one-time deal for Julian Castro and the national spotlight.

Annise Parker is not running for Governor

In case you were wondering. The question has been coming up, first in January and later in July, after her name popped up –along with that of Julian Castro, Wendy Davis and Bill White– in PPP polls for upcoming Statewide elections.

Somehow, amidst the rancor over HB2 and the drama over Campaign finance reports, I missed a tweet by the Mayor stating:

“LOL. I appreciate the encouragement to run for Governor, but I have the best job already and hope to keep it for 2 more years.-A.”

This does not come as a surprise to me, nor should it to really anyone. Parker is very obviously running for re-election, a race that will last until the middle of December if there is a runoff. If she were to run Statewide, it would require filing the signatures for the primary ballot about the same day as her third inauguration. There are some pretty outlandish politicians in Houston who would have the unmitigated temerity to do something like that, but Parker is not one of them.

I would feel like a bit of a schmuck if I wrote an entire post on how Parker isn’t running for Governor, because it is sort of like those headlines which triumphantly state that rain causes flooding: this shouldn’t be news to anyone. Instead, I’d like to read the tea leaves for what Parker’s future will look like.

I tend to think there is a very good chance (+90%) Parker will be re-elected, so this occupies her through January of 2016. She will be 59 at that point, and in no hurry to retire. The timing gives her a variety of options going forwards. First, as I predicted long ago, I think there could be a chance Parker will run for the House of Representatives, specifically Sheila Jackson Lee’s seat (though I doubt the two would actually run against each other). SJL will have been serving for 20 years by that point, though she will still be comparatively young.

The Congress option would probably be the only option where Parker would go straight into something else, politically speaking. Otherwise, she would most likely spend at least a year on a private company’s payroll, doing consulting or what not. She will have been on a civil servant’s salary for 18 years by 2016, she may want a change of pace.

Second, if Hillary Clinton runs (which I think she will) and wins (which I also think she will), Parker could easily get a job in the new Administration doing something. Again, this would be a good end-path for the Mayor.

Third, there is certainly still a chance Parker would run Statewide in 2018. Governor is probably not the most likely possibility, as I would put my money on Comptroller. The only problem with this, as I wrote back in August, is that Parker is liberal and lesbian, not the old, White, moderate man that Democrats in this State love to nominate. The African-American Democratic political community in this State has an unfortunate homophobic streak, which could complicate primary efforts. It would be a stretch, to say the least, to find Parker doing well on a Statewide ballot any time soon.

But the biggest priority right now is 2013.

Meet the New Boss

Same as the old boss.

Perry

Adios mofo.

The Texas Tribune, along with the entire Twitterverse, reported the news shortly after 2PM that Rick Perry would not be running for an unprecedented fourth full term in 2014. The news leaves the field wide open, and essentially gifts the post to Attorney General Greg Abbott.

Unfortunately, I did not get to livestream the speech. But from what I understand, Perry bragged about both his record as Governor and the so-called “Texas miracle.” He then said something along the lines of “the time has come to pass on the mantle of leadership.”

Perry made no comments on his intentions for the 2016 Presidential election. It is worth stating that what finally convinced me that Perry would not run was a tweet by Dan Patrick. I get the feeling that he wasn’t supposed to leak that information this morning.

The gubernatorial election is made much more clear by this announcement. When it comes to the Republican primary, there are three candidates: Greg Abbott, Larry SECEDE Kilgore and Tom Pauken. Kilgore, as you may recall, is the Klansman Theocratic secessionist. Pauken, a former Texas GOP Chairman and Texas Workforce Commission Chairman, is a little too reasonable to win a Republican primary.

Attorney General Abbott is the natural selection. This much is somewhat clear. Accordingly, the question shifts to who the Democratic candidates (and eventual nominee) will be.

First and foremost is Wendy Davis. The good Senator, as many may recall, recently reversed her longstanding pledge to not run. She is “open” to the idea, to be exact. Now that Perry is out, we may hear more in the next couple of weeks. Davis only trails Abbott by 8 points in recent polling, which is by far the smallest deficit of any of the possible Democrats mentioned.

The problem with those polls, of course, is who they mention as candidates. Julian Castro and Annise Parker are definitely not running. Bill White is another issue, as many (especially in Austin circles) believe he will run if no other candidate is found.

The other candidates that have been mentioned are State Rep. Mike Villarreal, State Rep. Rafael Anchia and State Sen. Kirk Watson. The former two have already specifically taken themselves out of contention. Watson must run for re-election next year, and BOR was really wrong about this exact thing in 2010, so I do not think he is a viable candidate.

That leaves Kinky Friedman. Color me excited. While at one point he might have been the best known Texas Democrat, times have changed. As I stated a few days ago, Wendy Davis, win or lose, needs to run in order to be the “the Texas Democrats’ Barry Goldwater.”

Eye on Williamson and Burnt Orange Report have more.

Senate & Presidential polls

Public Policy Polling, fresh off of crushing the hopes & dreams of Wendy fans a few days ago,  has released a new poll aimed at the Senate & Presidential elections. Luckily, in this poll, the Democrats have retained the same deficit, instead of growing it. Like my previous analysis of these polls, let us go forth and analyze below:

3. John Cornyn v. Julian Castro
50% Cornyn
37% Castro
+6 R

4. Cornyn v. Wendy Davis
48% Cornyn
40% Davis
+3 D

5. Cornyn v. Annise Parker
49% Cornyn
36% Parker
+2 R

6. Cornyn v. Bill White
47% Cornyn
40% White
+4 R

14. Hillary Clinton v. Chris Christie
38% Clinton
47% Christie
+12% R

15. Clinton v. Rick Perry
48% Clinton
44% Perry
+4% R

16. Clinton v. Jeb Bush
43% Clinton
46% Bush
N/A

17. Clinton v. Ted Cruz
44% Clinton
49% Cruz
N/A

In case it is not apparently obvious, the emboldened lines of text represent the change in voter preference since the January poll.

This poll tells me a number of things. First and foremost, the poll is significant for the 2016 Election because of who they select as the sample candidates. Like the January poll, John Cornyn is the only listed Republican for the Senate and Castro, Davis, Parker and White are the four candidates for the Democrats. Additionally, Hillary Clinton is the only listed Democratic presidential candidate. The real change is in the Republican Presidential contenders. Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Marco Rubio were the only Rs mentioned in the January poll. Since that time, Rubio has been axed, presumably because of the immigration screw-up and Poland Springs product placement. Added to the list have been Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz.

Again, I get the feeling that PPP has absolutely zero faith in the ability of the Texas Democratic Party to nominate anywhere near a competent candidate. This is because they again have refused to poll Texas Democrats on their preference for the high offices, both Senatorial and Gubernatorial.  Julian Castro, Wendy Davis, Annise Parker and Bill White have been mentioned as possible Democrats for the fourth statewide poll, but no one has any idea which one is preferred by local progressives.

Wendy Davis again improves her standing among the Texas electorate, being the only Democrat to improve her standing since the January poll. John Cornyn improved his overall position against all the other candidates, albeit by negligible amounts.  Hillary Clinton lost ground in both polls that there were precedents therefor. While she lead in all three January polls, she led in just 1/4 this time. It is worth stating that she lead Rick Perry in that poll.

I have been stating for a while that, as Barack Obama descends into the land of the lame ducks, the Hillary haters will come out in full force. It was somewhat ludicrous to ever think Clinton could win in an uber-landslide in 2016. If she runs, she would most likely win, but because she would win Ohio, Virginia and Florida, not because she would win Texas & Arizona.

Finally, the poll asked if Texans support gay marriage and universal background checks. 72% support universal background checks, while only 34% support gay marriage, respectively. Neither of these numbers are very surprising, but it is worth stating that the gay marriage number is actually one digit lower than in January. Opinion polls on this issue usually vary somewhat significantly between polling companies, so I am not inclined to compare the number to other polls released. The number is 5% higher than a 2011 poll from PPP, though.

This is somewhat choppy and unorganized, sorry.

Reality Check

Immediately following Wendy Davis’ epic filibuster, the dominant buzz throughout the State revolved around her gubernatorial intentions. Unfortunately, she will probably do just as poorly as every other Democrat. Public Policy Polling, which is affiliated with Democratic groups but usually is somewhat accurate, has put out a sobering poll for the Democrats’ prospects, irrespective of if Rick Perry will choose to run for re-election. The results were as follows:

1. Rick Perry approval
45% Approve
50% Disapprove

7. Perry v. Julian Castro
50% Perry
43% Castro

8. Perry v. Wendy Davis
53% Perry
39% Davis

9. Perry v. Annise Parker
52% Perry
35% Parker

10. Perry v. Bill White
50% Perry
40% White

11. Greg Abbott v. Castro
48% Abbott

34% Castro

12. Abbott v. Davis
48% Abbott
40% Davis

13. Abbott v. Parker
50% Abbott
31% Parker

14. Abbott v. White
48% Abbott
36% White

15. Second Special Session approval
43% Approve
44% Disapprove

16. Filibuster approval
45% Approve
40% Disapprove

17. SB5/HB2/SB1 approval
20% Approve
28% Disapprove

The poll does not include a question about a Republican Primary or a Democratic Primary. That bugs me to no end, though in the past Perry has outdone Abbott in these polls. When it comes to these eight races, they are the identical candidates that PPP discussed in a January poll. In that poll, White had a 3 point lead over Perry. Now he has a 10 point deficit. In fact, in all eight races, the margins shifted heavily to the Republicans.

Perry v. Castro, January +5% R
Perry v. Castro, July +7% R
Abbott v. Castro, January +10% R
Abbott v. Castro, July +14% R

Perry v. Davis, January +6% R
Perry v. Davis, July +14% R
Abbott v. Davis, January +12% R
Abbott v. Davis, July +8% R
Perry v. Parker, January +7% R
Perry v. Parker, July +17% R
Abbott v. Parker, January +12% R
Abbott v. Parker, July +19% R
Perry v. White, January +3% D
Perry v. White, July +10% R
Abbott v. White, January +7% R
Abbott v. White, July +12%

The Democrats did worse in all of these polls except one: the Abbott/Davis campaign. Davis actually does 4 points better in July. Interestingly, Davis is also the only candidate who does better against the Attorney General than the incumbent Governor. Bill White suffered the biggest drop, by far, in his race against Perry.

One excuse that I immediately thought of in an attempt to spin the poll results was that it was started before the filibuster took place. Sadly, this is not the case. Polling did not begin until last Friday. Accordingly, when one digs deeper into the number, it becomes apparently obvious what has happened. Because of all this SB5 stuff, Perry has revitalized his base. The Religious Right, which rode him back into office in 2010, is coming to the rescue again.

Off the Kuff and Texas Leftist both have more on the poll itself, and what not. This is making me a little bit to upset to write coherently, but I would like to discuss some of the implications of Wendy Davis’ candidacy that still exist. Bear with me, I might get a little bogged down in the minutia.

At a certain point in the 1960s, the Republican Party realized that they could not keep nominating liberals in the style of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt for President. You see, while the traditional liberal who would fight for the marginalized was originally a Republican, at some point following the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt convinced the American people that the Democratic Party was the party of liberals. Following the Great Depression and World War II, most Americans were liberals, so the Democrats won most Presidential elections and had a lockjaw on Congress. The GOP, wanting to get in on this, would nominate liberals like Thomas Dewey. Nelson Rockefeller also ran a painful number of times. But here’s the thing, when the American people wanted to vote for a liberal, they would vote for a Democratic liberal. Accordingly, the Republican Party was stuck in a rut until they started trying to change peoples’ opinions. Enter Barry Goldwater. Goldwater lost in a landslide, but he changed the conversation and ultimately set the stage for this ugly right-turn the country has been on since 1980. Simply put, the Texas Democratic Party needs their Goldwater.

Once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party was the party of the average, rural Texan would identify with. John Tower, Bill Clements and George Bush changed all of that. However, much like the Deweys and Rockefellers of the past, the Texas Democratic Party continues to nominate people like Bill White, Paul Sadler and Hank Gilbert. Don’t get me wrong, I liked all of these politicians personally and believe they would have been great officeholders. But, simply put, they did not have the chutzpah to run for office as open Democrats. When Sadler had a chance to correct this, he ran away like a scared little poodle. If we concede that the Texas electorate wants conservatives, they will vote for the conservative candidate.

Wendy Davis could be our Goldwater. Even if she doesn’t win, she shifts the conversation. That way, two or three elections down the road, we win. The great landslide of 2026 or what not will look back at 2014 the way the Reaganphiles look at Goldwater. But I digress.

The other upside to Wendy Davis running for Governor would be what I call the “Obama effect.” Having Davis at the top of the ticket, even if she can’t win Statewide, will be sure to help the downballot Democrats in Bexar and Harris counties, respectively, in what will be sure to be competitive county elections.

The state of the races

The Dallas Morning News reports that Senator Dan Patrick (R-Harris County) is still, in fact, pondering a run for Lieutenant Governor. The Morning News as well as the Tribune directly interview the Senator, and he is not shy about his ambition towards the state’s ostensibly second-highest office. Senator Patrick stated, ““That’s why I would run. It has nothing to do with David Dewhurst.” Even though the Morning News piece featured some hurtful comments referring to Houston as “choke city” (stupid [expletive deleted] Dallasites), it highlighted that Patrick will still be a factor in the race for Lieutenant Governor. It appears as though the floodgates have truly been opened by Combs’ announcement, as well. Accordingly, I would like to go over where each race stands as of now.

Governor
Perry, of course, is the main topic here. He would certainly be in a favorable position towards the next primary, if he runs. Abbott is next on everyone’s mind. Though the Governor himself has sworn the two would not run against each other, the Attorney General may throw his hat in the ring anyway.

Aside from the aforementioned couple, Tom Pauken,  former Texas Workforce Commissioner and TXGOP Chairman as well as prominent secessionist Larry SECEDE Kilgore have officially entered the race, with or without Perry.

Lieutenant Governor
Dewhurst is running for re-election, with Land Commissioner Jerry Paterson and  Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples openly running against him. This has all been happening for awhile. The big question now is if Senator Patrick will enter the race, seeing as that Comptroller Susan Combs will not be.

Attorney General
Abbott presumably would run for re-election if he does not challenge Perry. If he does run for Governor, though, the AG’s seat would become open. Susan Reed, the hard hitting Bexar County DA, is the only name I have heard for this seat.

Land Commissioner
Jerry Patterson’s seat is, almost like a little prince’s birthright, already been bequeathed to George P. Bush. The fourth generation politician in the family is running for this seat with national backing.

Agriculture Commissioner
Todd Staples’ seat will be open, and I have heard nothing of it. Anyone? Bueller??

Comptroller
As I stated yesterday, Senator Glenn Hegar and former County Party Chairwoman Debra Medina are already in the fray, while State Senator Tommy Williams and State Representative Harvey Hilderbrand are openly discussing the idea. Former representative Raul Torres and former Speaker Tom Craddick (I kid you not, from the Morning News) are also listed among the more dark house candidates.

Democrats
As I said yesterday, no Democrat who holds any public office has declared for a statewide thus far. With special, young candidates like Julian Castro and Wendy Davis not running, the Democratic lineup this year is just like the Astros’–it just doesn’t matter.

BOR has more. Also, we at Texpatriate are now on our own website. Though the old URL still redirects here.

Hall lists his supporters

Perhaps I missed this, but it is news to me that Ben Hall now has a gigantic list of his supporters on his website. Many of these names stood out to me. I have taken the liberty of creating a Wikipedia page for this year’s mayoral election, which lists most of this info, but I would like to go over some of the more surprising supporters.

It is no surprise that Dr. Hall would receive the bulk of his politician endorsements from the African-American community, but it did catch me off guard how pervasive his support was. There were rank-and-file politicos like Jarvis Johnson and Carol Mims Galloway who were listed, which is almost expected. However, the three African-American politicians who were on the list, and three who were off the list, which I would like to talk about a little bit. C.O. Bradford, Lee Brown and Al Green were all listed as supporters of Dr. Hall’s candidacy. However, Dwight Boykins, Ronald Green and Sheila Jackson Lee are all conspicuously absent.

Now, Bradford did support Parker in 2009, but got into a somewhat high profile feud with her before the 2011 elections, during which rumors actually floated about him challenging the Mayor in the election. I cannot remember if he ever came around to Parker’s candidacy in 2011 after nobody feasible ran against her, but it makes some sense that he would immediately jump on the bandwagon to endorse Parker’s opponent. Ronald Green, on the other hand, never really had a rocky spell with Parker, and, by all accounts, the two still get along pretty well. However, Ronald Green and Bradford have something in common: they both have higher ambitions. Personally, the first time I met both of them, I felt a very strong inkling that they wanted to be the Mayor, sort of like when one meets the Castro brothers, you know they want to be Governor/Senator/President. Accordingly, I find it interesting that Bradford would endorse Hall, who will probably lose, if he might be interested in running in 2015.

Second, I find it very intriguing that Dwight Boykins,who is running for the City Council with some very high profile support, is not listed among Hall’s supporters, but his honorary campaign treasurer, Lee Brown, is. For that matter, some of Boykin’s supporters, like Borris Miles, have also stayed out of the race. I am going to assume it has something with the fact that as someone who is probably getting elected, Boykins won’t want to be on the Mayor’s bad side.

Third, Al Green is a public supporter, while Sheila Jackson Lee is not. Green, if you might remember, was the one who made Hall stand down and endorse Locke back in 2009. I guess Green felt obligated to help Hall this time around. I suppose that Jackson Lee is more tepid to support Hall as some of her former political opponents (e.g., Jarvis Johnson and Craig Washington) are in Hall’s column.

Another point I would like to make is that Bob Lanier is quoted and prominently featured on Hall’s website, as providing a testimonial that reads “He is exactly what Houston needs at this time.” However, Lanier is not mentioned among Hall’s official list of supporters, and the quote isn’t dated, leading me to think that, maybe, he said this back in 2009.

Finally, I was surprised by how many people in the Jewish community support Hall. Alan Rosen, the recent Constable for Precinct 1, and Alvin Zimmerman, his campaign strategist, aren’t really surprises, but I saw a few names of the parents of people I went to Hebrew School with (PLEASE NOTE: The “Hurwitz”s that endorsed Hall are not related to me, I have an “o” in my last name).

Just as an aside and a blast from the past, Rod Paige, Bush’s 1st term Secretary of Education, is listed as a supporters. Also, someone is listed with the name “Drayton McClane,” which may or may not be a typo for Drayton McLane, as in the former Astros owner.

Parker doesn’t have a supporters page, but I assume it will be a priority now. Can’t wait to see who I find on her list!

Holy cow, he’s actually serious

Last time I wrote about this, I got linked by the TPB round-up, so I better do a job this time.

Anyways, Kinky Friedman is actually really serious about running for Governor. The Statesman is reporting his really serious, a good respite from the joke-cracking Friedman of 2006. Friedman prides himself as the Democrat who could win, calling out the other candidates as ones “only Texas Democrats would vote for,” as well as saying that a candidate such as Mayor Castro would  be “steamrolled” in the general. Ouch.

Friedman would run on two big platform ideas, legalizing gaming and ganja. He said he could be a “transitional candidate” who could “flip the state early.” Friedman also noted, as I did in my first article on this topic, his support for gay marriage a long time ago, back when gay issues could not even find a home in the national Democratic Party.

Finally, he said he will make a final decision at some point between early April and early May. As I have before, I would not hesitate to support him if another legitimate candidate jumped into the mix (even one who would evidently get “steamrolled,” like Julian Castro).

Who is running for Governor, again?

Who is running for Governor, again?

I meant to write this a few days ago. Anyways, BOR had this obnoxious little piece about the gubernatorial candidates. The piece mentioned six gubernatorial candidates (three being defied “on deck” and three as “long shots”). Mike Villarreal (a San Antonio State Rep), Kirk Watson (a Austin State Senator) and Bill White are the ones who are “on deck,” as BOR puts it. Rafael Anchia (a Dallas State Rep), Wendy Davis and Julian Castro are the ones who are less-likely, I suppose. I have a few comments on this.

First, I cannot say that I am surprised that the Austinites have to throw a bone to one of their own. I really like Sen. Watson, for the record, and think he would make a good statewide candidate, but I cannot find any other site which validates this little factoid. However, I seem to remember a very-similar rumour in 2010, which turned out to be completely, totally and utterly false.

Second, I really would not call Bill White “on-deck” for a gubernatorial run, or really anything in politics. Again, I don’t know where they’re getting this info, but even the adults in Houston political blogging haven’t been talking about this. Even if there is some movement about White’s candidacy, I would not venture to call his odds in an echelon above Sen Watson or Mayor Castro.

Finally, most perplexing in my opinion, is how completely different these names are from the ones I’ve been hearing of recent in other blogs. Kuff has been talking about Cecile Richards, Henry Cisneros and Rodney Ellis, and BOR did not even touch upon it. I find this a little perplexing. I’ve had problems with BOR’s reliability in the past, and I generally will trust fellow Houstonians first and foremost, but that’s just me.

Okay, goodnight. Soaking up everything that is Houston right now, leave for Austin on Friday.