Rick Perry vs World

03 December 2006

Perry watches fight in Mexican Congress

Marion Lloyd reports in the Houston Chronicle on Gov Perry getting to watch

The fistfights between rival congressmen that spiced up Friday's presidential inauguration here are a sign that democracy has finally arrived in Mexico, said Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

"It's a natural progression in a democratic society, a free society," he told reporters several hours after attending the drama-fraught swearing-in ceremony for President Felipe Calderon.

In fact, Perry said, it's nothing unheard-of north of the border.

"It's not like there's never been a fight on the House floor in Texas," he said. "I'm just not sure there were any chairs that were thrown."

...

Perry went further, praising Calderon as a man of like mind on both economic and security issues. He said the two men spoke by phone in August, and that he hoped to meet within the next two months.

Calderon, a former energy secretary, favors opening the way for foreign investment in Mexico's energy sector — a longtime demand of the Texas oil companies. Mexico's constitution currently forbids it.

"The fact is that there are substantial energy resources that could really help the economy of this country," Perry said. "And I hope they'll look to Texas as a source of expertise and a partner in whatever way they can. It would be good for both economies."

Perry said he and Calderon also share common concerns on immigration and skyrocketing drug violence.

Perry called for more cooperation on the drug fight, which he said is "the No. 1 negative that our two countries have."

"This isn't Mexico's problem," he said. "If you don't have a market for it, if you don't have the demand side, the supply side goes away."

I'm really only posting the story because I'm annoyed at the failure of the American media to report on the promise for democracy in Mexico.

Seven years ago it would've been unthinkable for the PRI to lose an election in Mexico. The PRI had ruled for almost a century as a non-ideological hierarchy dedicated to maintaining its grip on power. Then, PAN's Vicente Fox won. It was hardly assured that democracy would continue to blossom.

In 2006, it looked like socialist demagogue Obrador was likely to win the election, and make relations with the US frosty at best. Calderon wasn't even supposed to be the PAN's candidate, and primaries in Mexico were, um...not the norm. But nonetheless, Calderon plunged ahead and surprised people by winning PAN's nomination. Then, he came from behind for victory, on a pro-business, pro-US platform.

So, not only did we have a wide-open election that resulted in a good result (from an American perspective), but we had the development of primaries as a viable method of selecting party nominees. Considering that what happens in Mexico affects Americans greatly, the recent election in Mexico is good news indeed.

And good for Perry not demonizing Mexico for drug trafficking. The US has a tendency to sometimes act arrogantly vis a vis friendly Latin American nations about narcotics problems, when it is our own societal issues that fuel the drug trafficking.

Posted by Evan @ 12/03/06 07:32 PM | Comments (0)

Light rail on Richmond: did it move votes?

I meant to write recently about Charles Kuffner's provoking posts on whether rail on Richmond had a large affect on the race, but now that Rod Sallee has also written about the same topic in the Chron, I think I'll finally get around to writing about it. [I thought that's because the Texans-Raiders game is boring you?--ed. Yup, could be that too.]

Here's Kuffner's conclusion, about the effects of opposing light rail on Richmond, as both Republicans John Culberson and Martha Wong did, arguing that voters had approved a Westpark line, not a Richmond line:

Bottom line, plain and simple: Opposing rail on Richmond is not a winning issue in the neighborhoods that will be affected by rail on Richmond. The people who live there do not vote for anti-Richmond rail candidates. Say it loud, and say it often.

I don't agree with his conclusion, as he seems to suggest that people switched away from Culberson/Wong, because of their stance on light rail on Richmond.

Sallee's conclusion:

Hot opposition to rail on Richmond flared red in the Nov. 7 election, but a Houston Chronicle analysis of the vote suggests that outside the most vocal neighborhoods the passion drops off.

If you're interested in this, I suggest perusing the data that Kuffner assembled. He did a top-notch job. With that said, I definitely lean closer to Sallee's conclusion.

Here's my thesis, based on the data assembled by Kuffner: rail on Richmond did not affect very many votes in either the Wong or the Culberson race. Except for a few votes that Culberson probably picked up among Richmond's business owners (who don't necessarily live in the precincts that Kuffner cited), it doesn't look to me like light rail switched more than a couple percent either way. And of course, there is theoretical support for the idea that those who oppose rail on Richmond are more likely to be single-issue voters than those who support rail.

In looking at the Culberson data for 04 versus 06, it shows that Culberson lost about 5-6 points in the Montrose precincts and then loses less as it goes westward to where Culberson stayed even or even improved in Afton Oaks. The Wong data shows similar effects, only a point or two more shaded to the Dems.

If light rail on Richmond was such a high-profile issue that affected people's votes (as Kuffner seems to contend), then how come Martha Wong did worse than John Culberson in these areas? John Culberson is much more highly identified as being anti-rail on Richmond than Martha Wong is. So that's another strike against the idea that rail on Richmond is a proximal decision in voting.

In drawing his conclusions, it seems to me that Kuffner heavily undervalues how bad a year this was for Republicans. [See, eg, Kuffner's comment, "In fact, Wong lost support in every single precinct that contains Richmond Ave from 2004 to 2006. There is no "other hand" for her here." It doesn't matter whether the box switched. What matters is whether the box would have switched if rail on Richmond weren't an issue. Chances are that in 2006, this box was going to switch, because it was a bad year for the GOP.] The horrible, horrible political climate for Republicans accounts for most of the 5% swing right there. Then, especially in the case of Wong, it should hardly be a surprise that Republicans lost lots of votes in Montrose. I don't think that voters in Montrose were choosing Ellen Cohen or Jim Henley because of either's stance on light rail.

To test my hypothesis, I wanted to find the close precinct in Montrose for which Kuffner didn't gather data. It's the best thing to a control that we'll be able to find in political statistical analysis. The main Montrose precinct, 34, is contiguous to two of the precincts Kuffner cited: 39 and 123. Based on my thesis, I expected that the main Montrose precinct (where light rail was not really an issue) would essentially show the same drop for Culberson/Wong, only perhaps slightly exacerbated by 1%ish, since it is more Montrose. So, I checked the results for precinct 34, which I subsequently found to be in CD7 but not in HD134. In 2004, Culberson got 27.4% of the R/D vote, while in 2006 Culberson got 19.8% of the R/D vote. So, Culberson lost about 7.5%, which I believe is a little worse than he lost in the other Montrose precincts averaged together. So, there's some statistical support for my thesis.

My bottom line analysis: Culberson might've actually gained votes from being anti-rail on Richmond, but it's not more than a couple percentage points either way. As for the Wong race, I don't think it affected the race much either way, so in that, the headline to the Sallee article ("Rail didn't decide Wong-Cohen race") is correct.

Posted by Evan @ 12/03/06 06:41 PM | Comments (2)

Kay Bailey Hutchison vs. the World?

Selby writes up 2010:

"Nothing has been decided on what he wants to do," Wolf said this week. He stressed the uncertainties of the 2008 national elections culminating in a new president. U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas or Gov. Rick Perry could yet end up the Republican vice-presidential choice.

Hutchison, just re-elected, signaled to Austin supporters Monday that she's keeping her gubernatorial dreams alive.

"I'm not asking for your endorsement now. But please don't give it to anybody else," Hutchison said, according to former Austin Mayor Roy Butler, who was a lunch guest.

Hutchison did not say she was running for governor, Butler said, but it was "pretty clear that's where she wants to go."

Makes sense, especially in light of this year's national results leaving Democrats in charge of Congress. Texas is suddenly (decisively) a better place to be a Republican.

At the least, Hutchison wants folks to pause before aligning with Dewhurst or Tony Garza, the U.S. ambassador to Mexico who could come home to run for governor.

Butler declined to make an early Hutchison-Dewhurst pick, saying: "I'll wait four years to see if both of them are running."

Assuming Governor Perry doesn't run for re-election, the big question is whether Kay Bailey Hutchison decides to run. Sen. Hutchison has been saying that she wants to run for awhile, but has chosen not to challenge the incumbent Perry. She's the most popular politician in the state, although that's not necessarily a solid predictor of whether she would win a Republican primary (eg, she may be more popular than W, but she wouldn't win an election against him).

If Hutchison runs, that might not clear the field. Any of these three might decide to take her on: Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, Ambassador Tony Garza, and St. Sen. elect Dan Patrick. Dewhurst and Garza both have the money to self-fund the race [Dewhurst from the oil biz, Garza is married into the Corona wealth]. And Patrick is sorta the wild-card who may decide to run no matter what the other 3 do.

Hutchison probably knows -- based on her reluctance to run previously -- that a gubernatorial primary will not be a cakewalk versus someone who runs to her right. The state's GOP activists have largely never felt comfortable with her.

Dewhurst is definitely signaling that he intends to run, hoping to steer KBH out of the race just as Perry did. There were rumors that he intended to announce immediately after the election. Certainly, he heavily courted the media at Perry's victory party, spending at least 5 times as long with the media as any other statewide officeholder. That tends to leave the impression that he is intending to run for governor. He ran this year on Jessica's Law, allowing him to position himself as tough-on-crime but in a moderate, appealing-to-women way. However, as a non-incumbent whose ties to GOP activists aren't as strong/long-standing as Perry's, he probably can't scare KBH out of the race.

Right now, I think the signs point to a clash of the titans: Dewhurst v. Hutchison. Despite the years-ago rumors that Dewhurst would rather be in the Senate than in the Governor's Mansion, I doubt he's going to let Hutchison waltz into the Governor's Mansion and simply hope that Hutchison picks him to fill her then-vacant Senate seat. [Random aside: if Hutchison were governor, who would she be most likely to appoint to the final 2 years of her term?]

It's still very early, so crazy things could happen. Hutchison surprised everyone in the '06 cycle by not running, so we'll see about '10. If she decides to run, it might be a savvy move for her to resign her Senate seat. That would give Dewhurst the option to run for Senate, possibly against Congressman Henry Bonilla (assuming he survives the run-off in 9 days), or Garza or any other number of people. It would also signal that Hutchison is in-to-win, after the very-public previous flirtations with running for governor.

Posted by Evan @ 12/03/06 05:38 PM | Comments (0)

Chris Bell outperformed by corpse

Chris Bell, in mid-September:

"You could be a corpse and get 31 percent as the Democratic nominee just about any office," Bell said.

Chris Bell received 29.8% of the vote.

Posted by Evan @ 12/03/06 04:26 PM | Comments (0)

01 December 2006

Reyes gets House Intel Chairmanship

AP:

House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has chosen a Border Patrol agent-turned-congressman to lead the House Intelligence Committee, ending weeks of Democratic debate about who will oversee the nation's spy agencies.

Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, takes over the key post next year, as his party tries to intensify oversight of the intelligence community. Critics say Republicans failed to do that, leading to faulty prewar intelligence on Iraq and other stumbles.

That's good for Texas.

Posted by Evan @ 12/01/06 01:54 PM | Comments (0)

30 November 2006

CD23 Rodriguez Bonilla fundraising

Gary Martin, SAEN:

Bonilla, R-San Antonio, reported $955,000 in cash-on-hand for the Dec. 12 election, compared to $91,000 for Rodriguez, according to reports covering the one-month period that ended Nov. 22.

Rodriguez raised $100,000 for the current reporting period. A $40,000 debt was eliminated before the Nov. 7 election. He also filed additional fundraising reports that show he raised another $72,000 last week.

Bonilla started the period with $1.9 million. He raised $322,000, and listed expenditures of $1.2 million.

Campaign expenditures are fueling a mudslinging contest.

The DCCC is running a television ad attacking Bonilla for votes on veteran health care and funding for National Guard troops.

A Bonilla ad attacks Rodriguez – who served four terms in Congress before losing the Democratic primary to Henry Cuellar in 2004 – for votes on national security and funds to combat terrorism.

Bonilla has a big resource advantage, although that could be wiped out entirely if the DCCC decides it wants to play. The D-Trip has a TV ad up now, but that's almost just perfunctory. It sounds like they've decided not to try to throw the Hail Mary pass to try and beat Bonilla. Rodriguez is an uninspiring candidate with no money of his own, who couldn't even decide whether he was in the race. He manage to skate into a runoff with only 20% of the vote due to his name ID alone.

Posted by Evan @ 11/30/06 10:12 PM | Comments (0)

Cornyn's column:

On Nov. 19, 1854, General Sam Houston was baptized in Little Rocky Creek in Washington County. He also joined the Independence Baptist Church that day. Gen. Houston took these steps at the urging of his wife and mother-in-law, who both desperately wanted Gen. Houston to moderate his habits, and to live a more sober and devout life.

I've always believed in periodic re-evaluations, and in course corrections as the results warrant. For those of us entrusted with public office, there is nothing like an election to provide information on what changes are needed.

The election results were a powerful reminder of who works for whom in our democracy. We work for the people--not the other way around. Public officials must adhere to our principles and beliefs, but we also should remember who we work for, and who has the final say.

I am privileged today to occupy the U.S. Senate seat first held by Sam Houston, a man whose career in public service for our state and its people will likely never be matched. Gen. Houston was serving in the U.S. Senate when he was baptized at the Independence Baptist Church.

Guess he must be running for re-election.

Posted by Evan @ 11/30/06 10:04 PM | Comments (0)