Term limits for Texas governors (and Rick Perry)

A commenter writes:

Rick Perry cannot run again - he's term limited

In one year - most of Dan's supporters are going to know alot more about Mr, Patrick and be able to make a full and decisive choice about even reelecting him.

The first is factually incorrect. Texas governors are not term-limited. Rick Perry will be able to run again in '10.

The second...well, what evidence do we have for this? Several well-funded opponents completely failed to convince Republican primary voters in SD7 not to vote for Dan Patrick. You might be right, but so far the evidence seems to weigh against you.

Posted by Evan @ 09/27/06 12:21 PM


Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry



I did make the mistake of term limits -I heard it on TV that he can only serve the max 10 but I should have looked it up

But I'm not the Anti Dan - I just know he's managed to make more enemies than humanly possible with his stunts like the CLOUT Lawsuit (thrown out immediately), the LST website which has turned into a mess of angry raging whatever and his Rino hunts

Not the way to reform - also, his setting up multiple partnerships to avoid the business tax is going to hammer him, also his numerous claims that first he would never carry astros baseball (then he bid on it) wouldnt go to the games (season tickets glowing posts on LST and the radio) the armor for Humvees (is there an investigation? questions have been asked)

As far as his competition, there wasn't any, a former school teacher who barely showed up to vote, a wanta be business man in Joe and a lost city councilman.

So trying to label people as sour grapes won't work Dan has baggage, he has thrown rhetorical mud for years and they are waiting for him to get into chambers and then - he reaped what he sow and he's in their court now and unless he wants to spend the rest of his life answering ethics charges - he needs to walk a tightrope.

But the point it as a reformer, first he correctly attacked democrats, but then because Fred Hill is also a larger than life figure, now Dan is on the warpath declaring the same party he ran under to be the enemy also.

Not smart. How is going to do anything positive? He went negative years ago.

And Edd Hendee's complete distortion of what happened at the party convention. Dan was plainly told he was one vote and then they all turned away from Dan at the party convention, no one talked to him, let him speak, only people in his broadcasting range greeted him.

I can only remember David Duke being treated this poorly. And please, I'm not saying that Dan is David Duke in any form, just considered as repulsive by a party of conservatives.

He's toast, burnt

Posted by EricPWJohnson @ 09/27/06 03:24 PM

The above comments are, to put it kindly odd.

First paragrph .. why would Texas have a 10-year term limit? That would require a governor to resign in the middle of his/her third term.

Second paragraph ... the CLOUT lawsuit was not thrown out (although it is a weak pleading).

Third paragraph ... all this was fodder for THIS year's primary. If voters were upset about any of it, why would it take four years for the outrage to develop?

Fourth paragraph ... a 69 percent win in a four-person primary against the chair of the Administration and Civil Practices committees -- two of the most sought-after positions in the House -- and a sitting council member. It was a landslide win over the strongest Senate primary field in decades.

Fifth paragraph ... I think I get your point, but it's hard to decipher.

Sixth paragraph ... the words "Fred Hill" and "larger than life" have never been used in the same sentence before. Please tell me that was sarcasm.

Seventh, eighth, nineth and tenth paragraphs ... I'll take a stunning win at the polls over the approval of party delegates. More importantly, why does it matter and who cares?

Final paragraph ... based on what? I don't get anything you say.

Posted by jim @ 09/27/06 05:46 PM


Lets be realistic - Dan has been on the news and Radio for 20 years every weekday, being a self promoting conservative, of course he won.

The point I'm addressing is, is he really trying to reform or is he trying to line his pockets. You see the difference between you, me Evan, Kevin, Matt is we are conservatives who arn't paid to be conservatives, its something we believe in. Dan makes good coin stirring up the populace and he's now a master at it.

also about term limits:

Well I just heard it, most states do have that limit so does the federal for President. Now I know Texas (even though no governor has ever served more than 8 years that I know of) doesn't have a limit.

Also all of your points are correct - its just this Dan's has made enemies - I personally know that he also has baggage, and its been reported by and large in segments on the news as well.

Dan is a strong christian conservative but with a sometimes nasty big mouth and like Ralph Reed has made more enemies than friends.

The point is - he now has to face them one on one which - if you saw the debate over the stadium issue - its not his strength, also consistency in his views and followthrough is not either.

Also I really, really doubt Dan will win again with 69% when he is more exposed

Also, I don't think anyone knows who their local rep is or what committee they may chair - thats really a non issue

Of course I was kidding about Fred Hill - but actually attending that hearing and I'm not defending Fred Hill, but property taxes are a huge issue in Texas and Dan standing up and shouting with a bus load of misbehaving people isnot going to get anything constructive accomplished.

(But he did get more ratings more money for himself)

So, like in business when people are trying to help you, hold on to your wallet.

Posted by EricPWJohnson @ 09/27/06 10:22 PM

EricPWJohnson -

Get your facts straight before posting such an angry rant. The CLOUT lawsuit is currently in the appellate court. It was dismissed on a technicality with no comment from the judge and no justification for his rationale (IOW it was a politically driven flush). The merits of the case were never even heard in a courtroom, hence the decision to appeal. It will be heard eventually in the appellate process because they have to put their decisions down on paper.

Since you bring it up though, why don't you take a look at Gov. Perry's plan on the Article VIII Section 22 budget cap that he released yesterday?


I quote:

"In order to make the Article VIII limit effective in controlling spending, the state should...No longer use personal income as the sole measure of state economic growth. Other economic
growth measures exist such as Gross State Product or population plus inflation, and to make the limit meaningful, the state should calculate the limit using a different measure (or some combination of available measures)."

You may recognize Perry's solution because you've probably seen it before. That's because it's lifted straight from the CLOUT lawsuit, which seeks to throw out SPI and replace it with either GSP or Population + Inflation.

In fact, I'll even venture to suggest that the only reason Perry's even making a proposal to fix Article VIII, Sec. 22 is the CLOUT lawsuit. The CLOUT lawsuit put this issue on the statewide agenda and now 3 major gubernatorial candidates publicly support scrapping SPI (Perry, plus Strayhorn who joined the original suit, plus Friedman who put out a similar plan last month). All in all, I'd say the suit has served and continues to serve is purpose.

Posted by PWM @ 09/29/06 01:27 PM


It weas dismissed immediately Edd had no standing, in the legal world you can send it to an appellate court where judicial mistakes are revued but attaching an air of legitmacy before the court rules is being intellectually dishonest.

Also Rick Perry is trying to modernize sedtion VII before some idiots have the Federal courts throw it out and then spending cannot be capped anymore in Texas (thats the point - you missed it - remember William Wayne Justice?)

Rick Perry has been using the veto over 140 times not to exceed the budget and has asked for reforms since 2003, 3 years before the lawsuit. (Oh but that wasn't mentioned was it - neither was that Texas is 50th in state spending per capital and 50th in taxation either - also most courts are in favor of Texas taxing and spending more - not less)

the lawsuit was just a publicity stunt, typical, this could have been done privately, but then donations and listenership would not have been affected.

Don't be fooled by those who help you while making money at it, Dans already used up his political capital long before he took office, which is a shame I and many others had high hopes for him but in the end it was selfserving grandstanding

Look Texas is dead last in taxation and Spending as if? What? Already we are looking at selling state parks and monuments. Maybe you ought to go on line and look a tax situations in other states.

but some people are still upset.

Posted by EricPWJohnson @ 10/01/06 12:25 AM

EricPWJohnson -

Actually it was dismissed on a plea to the jurisdiction without comment. The state's plea alleged 3 different things - no standing, political question, and sovereign immunity. I read the state's pleadings on all three grounds and they were very weak if not outright frivolous at times. This included willful misrepresentations of the suit itself and an apalling attempt to misapply federal case precedent over a state matter - i.e. the kind of stuff that would cause you to fail a law school exam.

The judge gave no written opinion and no indication as to which, if any of these things, were the basis for his ruling. As I understand it he interrupted the arguments midway through the hearings, said "case dismissed," stood up and walked out without another word said. That has all the makings of a political flush, and it's exactly the type of trial court error that the appellate process is intended to correct.

To portray the district court's ruling as something greater than it actually was is the real intellectual dishonesty here.

Regarding Perry, I'm certain you'll direct me to the place where he tried to implement a GSP-based cap prior to...oh...last Thursday (It's Article VIII BTW, not VII but then again you're the guy who also apparently thought Perry was term limited). The simple fact is that Perry never made a peep about fixing SPI until the suit put it on his lap. In fact, nobody in the governor's race said a word about switching to a GSP-based cap until the lawsuit was filed. Now Perry, Friedman, and Strayhorn have all endorsed it. Your irrational hostility to all-things-Dan aside, I'd say that's a pretty successful feat. It got the GSP cap on the statewide agenda, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether Patrick will be able to legislate successfully or not.

As to spending I could care less if Texas is 1st or 50th per capita compared to the other states. My political belief is in the reduction of spending as assessed against a budgetary base, not in its relative position to other states.

Posted by PWM @ 10/01/06 12:08 PM

Come to think of it, Eric, I just googled "Rick Perry," "Gross State Product," and "Article VIII"

The top hits are all to articles about the lawsuit, and the non-lawsuit hits do not mention anything about a Perry proposal to change the cap.

Although it probably pains you to learn that Rick Perry or any politician took a position on an issue in response to anything CLOUT did, that's the unavoidable reality in this situation. And that means the suit more than served its purpose, so go wallow in it.

Posted by PWM @ 10/01/06 12:17 PM

Resurrecting this thread/blog entry. The cervical cancer vaccine controversy has pretty much shot Perry's chances to be reelected in 2010 to hell, should he choose to be foolhardy enough to seek a third full term.

Posted by Bluer Would-Be-Texan @ 02/27/07 05:45 PM

Add Comments

No flames or impolite behavior. HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.