Redstate

I have no objection per se against challenging an incumbent from your own party, in fact under the right circumstances I'm all for it.  

What I am curious is what are the reasons (substantive, policy-wise) that she is putting forth as to why she should replace the current governor.

Perry's legislative failures are numerous, this education issue being only the latest.  But as always, substantive policy will never be the centerpiece of a KBH campaign.  Well-cut outfits, TV appearances, and boatloads of manufactured charm will be the platform.

The reality is that many suspect KBH wants to be a national political figure, not just a Senator.  And no one's ever lost a bet by putting money on her ambition.

In fact, I like this whole thing a lot.  KBH is a lightweight pro-choice moderate GOPer, and whoever replaces her in the Senate will be an improvement.  Let her go back to Texas, where she can do less damage.

Demanding that they avert their gaze?

Hutchison main claim to fame is the lack of an "n" in her name. As for matters of principle or issues she champions...well? What record is there to show?

Avert your gaze!

I don't know about the interns, but she was actually nice and kind of flirty when I met her.

But she brings new meaning to the title "camera whore," which in D.C. is usually reserved for men.

This news isn't really surprising, as KBH really thinks about herself more than anything else.  If it helps her become a VP or Pres candidate down the road, than it doesn't matter how much trouble she causes in the party with this race.

Although Perry hasn't been able to get some of his priorities in the legislature accomplished, in Texas a lot of the athority and power to get legislation moving and on the Gov's desk actually lies with the Lt. Gov.  Much of the fault for the failure in this session lies with the Lt. Gov and Speaker of the House.  A deal to pass a school finance bill was supposedly on the table this weekend when the two principles balked at the last minute, passing the buck to the next session or possibly the state courts.

KBH will undoubtedly use the school finance shortfall as ammunition against Perry, but much of the race will be less about substantive issues and, as Augustine said, more about her, her and oh yeah... her.

What for?  Why is she challenging Perry, and what will she tell voters is her reason?

Is Perry a danger to The Republic?

I wonder if they'd elect Martin Frost...

Governor is a better springboard to higher office than Senator.  Just ask John Kerry how well being a Senator worked for him.  :)

Word on the street for a while now has been that this ambition for Gov is only a means to an end for her.  She has seen the writing on the wall that it's much easier to be elected President (or at least beocme VP) if you're NOT a Senator.  I would love to see her replaced by a more conservative voice in DC, someone who's not such a squish on Pro-life issues.

Or at least I'd guess not.  People, this is Texas you're talking about, not Nevada.  It isn't possible to hurt the Texas Republican Party, I should know, I've been trying for years.  They could run a genuine Grand Dragon of the KKK and people would vote for him just because he's got "Republican" as his party name.  This is probably the single most Republican place on Earth.  If George W. Bush ate a baby on national TV people around here would still want to vote him in for a 3rd term.

Governer Rick "Goodhair" Perry is just a local dink, and if KBH beats him out the local Republicans won't have lost diddily.  It isn't as if there's any chance at all that a Democrat will take her Senate seat.  Heck, I don't know why the Democrats even bother running people for office around here, its simply not physically possible for a Democrat to take any statewide office in Texas.

Now, of course, that's the POV of a non-Republican Texan.  Things always look more fragile from the inside I suppose, but from the outside ya'll have got an unbeatable powerbase here.

You make some pretty offensive comments regarding Republicans in Texas.

Running the Grand Dragon of the KKK, W eating a baby?  Come on!!!!!

FWIW, I am a Texas Republican as is most of my family and we wouldn't vote for either.  You are just being rude.

While Texas is quite safely in the R column these days, I'll submit to you that wasn't always the case and there are other states that would be considered more Republican.

Run some decent candidates in TX, that really stand for something positive, and you might have some luck.

Until then, keep up the ridiculous stereotyping and you'll continue to lose races.

Maybe some off-color hyperbole, but the point was not that Republicans would eat babies or run a Grand Wizard, but that they basically have an unbeatable strong hold on statewide offices.

You could say the same thing about Ted Kennedy and northeastern Democrats.  He could be an obvious drunken philanderer and the people of MA would still continue to elect him in no small part because of the "D" in front of his name.  Oh, wait a minute, did I say could be?

. . . it wasn't so long ago when the running joke was "there's a governor's race in Minnesota.  One candidate is pro-abortion, pro-gun control and wants to raise taxes.  And then there's the Democrat . . ."

Today we have a GOP majority in the State House, 3 out of 4 State-wide constitutional offices are Republican and an even split in our Congressional delegation (4-4 in the House and 1-1 in the Senate).

It also wasn't that long ago when Texas was considered to be part of the "solid South" which was code for "votes Democrat" but that has changed in my lifetime and there is no reason why a moderate pro-business, fiscally conservative, and socially mainstream Democrat could not win in Texas or any other Southern State.

Unfortunately for the Democrats with Presidential candidates like John Kerry and a DNC chair like Howard Dean, the latter's professed interest in making inroads in the South notwithstanding, I don't think it is likely that Democrats will be doing that anytime soon.

Clayton Williams lost an election after a joke about rape and admitting he got hummers from prostitutes in Mexico so I think our track record is a bit better than MA.  Not much admittedly.

I thought he was pretty much dead in the water...or have the stories about his indiscretions not made it public yet?

was supposed to be humorous exageration, as someone already pointed out.  Kinda like "they'd vote for a three headed baboon if he was a Republican".  I may have chosen my humour poorly, but it was meant as humor, not an attack.

My point is that Texas is rock solid Republican and KBH isn't going to do anything but make for an interesting and fun primary battle.

Isn't it true for all of the complaints about gerrymandering of legislative/Congressional districts in Texas that the number of Democrats elected is roughly proportional to the voting patterns of the State whereas in Massachusetts there aren't any Congressional Republicans and barely any in the legislature even though there are about the same proportions of people voting GOP in Massachusetts as there are people voting Democrat in Texas?

Claytee was also mean, and oddly that still counts for a lot.  I really don't think the rape jokes and whatnot really did Claytee in, I think it was when he refused to shake Ann Richard's hand that did it.    Also, back then we still had some visage of the old "we're the South and we won't vote for the party of Lincoln" BS floating around.  These days, the only areas that go Democrat are along the border and in a couple of the big cities.

I live in Amarillo, up here the vote was around 85% Bush last election.  Sure, a Republican could loose around here, but he'd have to do something really outragously stupid and anti-Republican.  In today's world I think Claytee might have won against Richards.

You can't forget that for a long time there were two Democratic parties.  The Northern Democrats who were mostly like modern Democrats, and the Southern Democrats who were mostly like modern Republicans except they were racist pigs.  Then enough time passed since the Civil War that people would vote for Lincoln's party and the Southern Democrats shifted colors and became the Republicans they always were (and also dropped most of the racist crap because the modern Republican party won't put up with it any more than the modern Democratic party will).  Heck, Phil Graham was one of those Southern Democrats, and Zell Miller [1] should have been.

I'm not saying that things can't change, and they probably will as the Hispanic population becomes the majority.  But for the immediate future, and for at least the next couple decades, Texas isn't going to vote Democrat.

As for Dean, et al, I think you may be wrong.  Dean is a scrapper, and one thing that's really hurt the Democrats in the South is that they don't have any balls.  Dean does, John "super whimp" Kerry doesn't, and if Dean had been the Dem candidate I honestly thik he'd be President right now.  I dispise the DLC and the DNC, in case that wasn't obvious.  I don't think Dean could have carried Texas, but I do think the margin would have been narrower because say what you will about the man, he's not a whimp like Kerry, and that counts for a lot.

[1] Quick quesiton, is it just because I disagree with his politics, or does he really look like the Evil Emperor from Star Wars?  I kept expecting him to go off on the power of the dark side of the force.

... and decide for yourself:

MA Congress - take a good look particularly at districts 3 (McGovern), 4 (Frank), 7 (Markey) and 10 (Delahunt).

TX Congress - click around.

Your point is well made, Thorley.  For all the noise made about the new TX congressional map, it certainly looks no more gerrymandered than the Massachusetts map.

A take on Perry from a Texan:

Perry is a classic empty suit - no agenda, no ideas, just ambition.  I should add no charisma, and no strong following.  This year's just-ended legislative sesssion was a disaster for him - his one goal was a new school financing plan with a big property tax cut.  Didn't happen.  Probably won't happen even if he calls a special session of the legislature, which he very well may.

His one advantage is locking up endorsements from many of the big Republican contributors early, in an attempt to scare KBH out of the race.  Didn't work, and I think KBH will probably win in the primary, especially if she firms up her abortion position.

FWIW, if you are referring to the big rumors of last year (in which Perry was rumored to be having a gay affair), those were apparently false:

 http://www.burntorangereport.com/archives/001132.html

it that closely.  A bud in Texas told me about it.  It'll be interesting to see if the rumors start back up in a whisper campaign during primary season.

...for a divisive primary anyway. I'm certainly no insider, but I had thought the "common knowledge" was that Strayhorn was angling for the governor's office herself, regardless of Hutchison's entry into the race. Strayhorn certainly hasn't passed up any opportunities to criticize Perry (or the legislature, or anyone else around her for that matter). This is the first I've heard of her looking at the lt. governor's spot. I guess it depends on whether she (a) thinks she can win a three-way race and (b) whether she wants the spotlight or actual power.

when Clayton ran for governor and remember him giving speeches there.  I'd probably rank them in importance as:

1.  Rape joke
   
   
2.  The handshake snub
   
   
3.  Hummers in Mexico

A VERY distant third.  Atleast on campus where a hummer any place was a daily goal.

It was nasty on campus.  I remember the dorm battles over political cartoons.  Someone would tape one of Ann getting ripped in a bar and someone else would rip it down and tape one of Clayton getting "serviced".  People chasing others from floor to floor.  People hanging huge joints out the window with Ann's name on it.  Crazy times, man.  

As for a vestigial Confederate strain, I don't think so.  Texas is probably the best counterargument to the whole "Southern strategy" malarky.  After a 100 years of Dems we basically went D, R, D, R, D, R, R but no R until Clements in '80.  Granted, it's a conservative state overall but I don't see one dominant party machine.  I'm one of the few straight-ticket voters I've known and I always voted straight 'L'.  Most of the political advertisement here in south Texas never mentions party affiliation.  And the most popular politician I've seen has been a Republican who was a former 'L' who revels in putting the screws to everyone irrespective of party.  Doctrinaire Republicans hate him as much as Democrats yet no one can touch him.  So I don't see the party uber alles that you do.  Now Austin is a completely different beast.  There it is party uber alles and it's not of the Republican variety.

  Who is likely to fill KBH's slippers in the Senate?

That there is nothing wrong with gerrymandering. It is a time-tested symptom of a healthy democracy.

. . . had the resemblance to Senator Palpatine.

I'm not sure what the evidence is for Southern Democrats (as opposed to Southerners in general) becoming Republicans because AFAICT the (racist) Southern Democrats or "Dixiecrats" with the exception of Strom Thurmond pretty much remained Democrats until the day they died (out).   If you have some evidence of an exodus by Southern Democrats to the GOP, please feel free to share it.

As far as Howard Dean is concerned, the fact that he failed to win any States other than his own in the primary suggests, at least to me, that his appeal was far narrower than his supporters would have liked for us to believe.  For all of the talk of how "independents" and "moderates" just aching to support his candidacy, the base of his support seemed to be from the MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic Party.  Also, I never found anything particularly tough about him and every time I see him referring to his opponents as "evil" I say to myself "there's a guy who's trying to overcompensate for some flaw by trash talking."

And even if that weren't the case, considering all of his other handicaps on issues like national security, taxes, religion, his "marriage," abortion, and that he seems to think of Southerners based on some "ignorant hillbilly with a confederate flag decal on their pickup" stereotype rather than taking them seriously as, well, people suggests to me that (a) he is the person to try to make a pitch to make inroads into the South and (b) any association he has with that message is going to undermine it, even if someone else tries to deliver it.

Well, should KBH in fact not seek re-elelction to the US Senate, the race to replace her will be a fun one to watch.  Congressman Henry Bonilla (R-San Antonio), has not been shy about his intentions.  For months now he has said that should Senator Hutchison not seek re-election to the Senate, he wants her seat, badly.  Bonilla has been out raising his profile among the Republican community outside of San Antonio speaking at events in and around the Houston and Dallas areas recently.  As a hispanic republican, with solid support in South Texas, he'll be a force to be reckoned with come '06.

Another possibility in the pool may be Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.  As Lt. Gov. he has had a surprisingly good relatioship with the press and his appeal among the base is probably better now than it was when he was elected in 2002.  As a multi-millionaire, his ability to write LARGE checks to himself would make his entry into the race an interesting twist.

Other names that have been mentioned but have less buzz associated with them are Attorney General Greg Abbott, and Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams.  Instead of Senate, both these guys make choose to seek other offices that open up as part of the domino effect.  In Abbott's case, he may go for Dewhurst's Lt. Gov. posisiton should he try for Senate.  And if Abbott jumps the AG ship to run for Lt. Gov., Williams may seek to fill the void as the states top lawyer.  U.S. Representative Pete Sessions (R-Dallas) has also been mentioned as a possible contender for the Senate nomination.

On the Dem side... who knows.  The Democratic bench in Texas is pretty shallow.  Former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk, who lost in 2002 to John Cornyn, always has his name circulated, but he may choose to remain in the lucrative world of private practice law instead.  Barbara Radnofsky, a trial attorney from the Houston area, has signaled her intention to run, but her statewide appeal is in question.

Any number of former Dem Congressman may get in the race including Martin Frost, Chris Bell or Charlie Stenholm, but that is just speculation.  Some say that Bell has his sights on the Governor's office for 2006, and would not waver from that for an attempt at the US Senate.

My hope is that with Senator Hutchison out, Texas will elect a more conservative Senator.  Perhaps someone in the mold of a Sam Brownback or John Kyl.

Thomas, I don't see anything wrong with this time-tested practice either.  I was merely commenting on all the bluster surrounding the vast-Texas-DeLay-gerrymander-conspiracy and commenting that looking at the map in my home state I'm left with saying only, "So?"

Cheers.

Oh well.  Suppose it's just a matter of time.

I don't think KBH really understands what she is stepping into if she runs for Governor of Texas.  Right now there are thousands, if not millions, or Texas conservatives foaming at the mouth to rid the Texas government of Republicans in Name Only.  These, mostly Fort Worth/Dallas, republicans threw property tax appraisal caps out the window and told the tax payers 'Just shut up and pay."  These 36 republicans followed the leadership of the Lt. Governor to stick it to the tax payers of this once great State.  I may just have to vote Democrat or Independent next time around.

from the South have switched to Republicans in the last 25 years.  That's out of 15 total Democrat to Republican switches.

Over at the Burnt Orange Report, Byron says his source in the media has confirmed that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison will be holding a press conference in Austin next week to make her 2006 announcement.  

Also, The Dallas Morning News "Hutch-o-meter" is at 100% today.

Jesse Helms? (Yes, not a Texan, but we are talking about old style Southern segregationist Dems going GOP)

No one has adequately answered the question of why Kay Bailey would challenge Gov. Perry. It is absurd to blame the Governor for the Legislature's inability to reach consensus on education funding...

Perry has not fallen on his face or screwed up in any way.  He has held firm admirably against tax increases and has done much to bring valuable new industry to Texas.

So the question is why? There is no real animosity between KBH and the Gov. is there? No real issue? Is Kay Bailey bored in the Senate? Does she just hate D.C.? Does she want to be closer to grandchildren?

Whatever.  Its time to get rid of Rick "the Veto" Perry.  Perry has inappropriately used his veto power since inheriting his office from Bush.  From where I'm standing its evident that Perry's veto power is for sale to whatever big business special interest wants to buy it, even when it flies in the face of the will of the legislature or the public.

I was so disgusted with Perry that I refused to vote for him last go around, but the democrats choice of Tony "the money Launderer" Sanchez, was equally as poor a choice.

I'll back Strayhorn/Rylander (whatever she's calling herself these days) as a viable alternative to Perry, just to get rid of this "Do Nothing" governor.