Blogcritics Comments on After 170 Years, Texas Still Has an Independent Streak

Comment by Dave Nalle

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:25:44 EDT

A democrat friend argued with me yesterday that no Democrats would vote for Kinky, that they'd all be party-loyal and vote for Chris Bell. If that's the case it's a sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party these days, because I know plenty of Republicans who are seriously considering Strayhorn or Kinky. I suspect he's wrong, though. Bell offers nothing new and nothing positive, so I bet Kinky will suck up a lot of Democrat votes. Dave

Comment by Justin Berry

Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:55:42 EDT

I agree the more I see of kinky the more I like him. I like him enough that I took a pass on the primary to sign. I normally vote conservative republican but I dont have a candidate this time Perry is only a republican, and strayhorn is only a fiscal conservative. Kinky has a chance.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 9 Apr 2006 03:16:07 EDT

Great article about the independant spirit Dave, it would be nice for the United States to have a viable third party that could bring pressure on the big two. One of our third parties in Canada is basicly the government now. Based on your articles, I'm not sure that's worked out so well. What's known as the Conservative Party of Canada started out as the Reform party, became the Alliance party, and than mergerd with our previous Conservative Party. I don't agree with their politics, but they did their job perfectly as a third party for a decade and parlayed that into acutal party. That kind of flux seems characteristic of a system which is open to multiple parties. We haven't had that kind of change and realignment in 150 years. Out N.D.P. is the perpetual third party, but in minority governments usually end up holding the balance of power, and can affect policy that way. It really does force the big parties to stay honest and on their toes re accountability. Sounds good to me. Great breakdown Dave, Keep us all posted on how Kinky is doing, I think you're right that his chances are slim to none, but at least he's proving to be more than just a joke candidate. I don't think Texas is ready for him though, any more than the Middle East. He's got good deep Texas roots. I think there are many who'd welcome him. The governorship here has very limited powers anyway. And the more I see of Kinky the more I like him. Dave

Comment by Richard Marcus

Sun, 9 Apr 2006 00:39:51 EDT

Great article about the independant spirit Dave, it would be nice for the United States to have a viable third party that could bring pressure on the big two. One of our third parties in Canada is basicly the government now. What's known as the Conservative Party of Canada started out as the Reform party, became the Alliance party, and than mergerd with our previous Conservative Party. I don't agree with their politics, but they did their job perfectly as a third party for a decade and parlayed that into acutal party. Out N.D.P. is the perpetual third party, but in minority governments usually end up holding the balance of power, and can affect policy that way. It really does force the big parties to stay honest and on their toes re accountability. Is the Middle East ready for the Kinkster? Too bad if they're not. Let's start a draft Kinky for Prime Minsister of Israel movement...brilliant Ruvey absolutly brilliant. Great breakdown Dave, Keep us all posted on how Kinky is doing, I think you're right that his chances are slim to none, but at least he's proving to be more than just a joke candidate. I don't think Texas is ready for him though, any more than the Middle East. Richard Marcus

Comment by Dave Nalle

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:24:00 EST

He's vacuous, corrupt and has great hair. Sounds like presidential material to me. Dave

Comment by SonnyD

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:10:51 EST

Dave, I just reread your description of Rick Perry along side the pic. My prediction is he will probably win re-election but in 2008 will run for president. I mean, he has all the qualifications he needs to be presidential material, right?

Comment by CC

Tue, 7 Mar 2006 02:03:52 EST

Good points, but I also know quite a few republicans that were apalled at the power grab & other antics & they considered it an abuse of power, they say they won't be voting for Perry or other state republicans this year. I guess time will tell.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Mon, 6 Mar 2006 04:02:50 EST

#7 If you know anything about TX politics- conservative or liberal is not necessarily a racial thing in this state- but still, compared to the actual ethnic makeup of this state, blacks, latinos, and women are still way far behind. While this may have some statistical truth to it, Texas is a uniquely racially blind state in a lot of ways. There's really nothing here that holds back an ambitious individual of any race who's willing to work hard and use their wits, and if you're smart your race can work to your advantage in many ways in politics or business. True to your previous statements, but in TX, the Dems & Reps traditionally had an 'understanding' in the way they had conducted the political process, including a set schedule for re-districting(once every 10 years) & a set '2-absentee' vote(one person from the Dems agreeing to not vote on an issue if a Rep does not vote, both of which the Republicans violated during these past few sessions. Truely cheesy politics. Tales of this 'understanding' mostly surfaced after the redistricting controversy and it's rather unclear that such an understanding existed in any serious way in recent years. This sort of agreement is generally worth the paper it's printed on. If the Dems had really abused the supposed power they held for 40+ years- would the Reps hold nearly the power they have now(almost half of the leg now)? If the Dems wanted, the Rep party would be crippled and impotent- but it is not. (with the 40+ years and all) The courts struck down multiple Democratic redistricting efforts after 1990 and the districts which held until 2000 were mandated by the courts. The only reason the Dems didn't cripple the Republicans was that the cours intervened - exactly the case we have today, with the difference that the courts ruled against the Dems when they were in power and ruled for the Republicans when they redistricted. Consequently, what was traditionally respect and an understanding that existed b/t the two parties was broken by the Reps in their unprecidented power grab in an attempt to retain some of the power they know they will eventually will lose once Latinos take over the majority population in the state. The Latino vote has been growing for years, yet there are more Republicans now in Texas than ever before. What does that tell you? The Reps are a soon to be extinct dinosaur in this state & they are freaking out & trying to hold onto power in whatever way they can. The demographics and history of the state clearly argue against this theory. More and more hispanics are voting Republican and the state's largest growth population is people who move here from other parts of the US, and they also vote Republican more than Democrat. The democrats have failed the people, and they have no way to fix it and earn back their trust. Dave

Comment by CC

Mon, 6 Mar 2006 02:57:22 EST

whoops- the Reps actually hold OVER half the state leg right now.

Comment by CC

Mon, 6 Mar 2006 02:53:10 EST

#7 If you know anything about TX politics- conservative or liberal is not necessarily a racial thing in this state- but still, compared to the actual ethnic makeup of this state, blacks, latinos, and women are still way far behind. True to your previous statements, but in TX, the Dems & Reps traditionally had an 'understanding' in the way they had conducted the political process, including a set schedule for re-districting(once every 10 years) & a set '2-absentee' vote(one person from the Dems agreeing to not vote on an issue if a Rep does not vote, both of which the Republicans violated during these past few sessions. Truely cheesy politics. If the Dems had really abused the supposed power they held for 40+ years- would the Reps hold nearly the power they have now(almost half of the leg now)? If the Dems wanted, the Rep party would be crippled and impotent- but it is not. (with the 40+ years and all) Consequently, what was traditionally respect and an understanding that existed b/t the two parties was broken by the Reps in their unprecidented power grab in an attempt to retain some of the power they know they will eventually will lose once Latinos take over the majority population in the state. The Reps are a soon to be extinct dinosaur in this state & they are freaking out & trying to hold onto power in whatever way they can. Yes, you can argue there was no 'legal' rule that obligated them to only re-district only every decade, it was a 'moral code' they should have held to, regardless of the outside sources pushing them (Delay, etc). It is appalling that the trust that once existed in this state has been violated, and then 'spun' to make it seem as if it was the Dems that violated this trust and uneasy truce by taking their stand in Ardmore. What else should they have done- bent over and taken it once again?! What is even more appalling is the Reps used ILLEGAL means to track down the Dems whereabouts-but the ends justify the means-right? Something is only illegal & illegitimate if you are in the 'minority' right? Re-RE-RE- districting (wasting millions of dollars of OUR taxpayer money on diversions) & wasting countless hours of time on pointless issues is justified in a feeble attempt to abuse power & illegitimately retain power is okay(instead of leaving it to a constitutional vote)- b/c other pressing problems in TX such as-the children of TX don't REALLY need proper attention from our leg to fix the education problem in this state right?! I mean- who needs the natural course of demographic changes to fix things instead of 'cooking the lines' by the Reps right?!

Comment by Wright

Sun, 5 Mar 2006 23:04:48 EST

Oh, Ruvy, what a magnificent concept... Someone like Friedman as prime minister of Israel. And a real conservative at the helm (so to speak) of Texas. I agree, Dave. The rise of independent candidates with real chances of shaking the major political parties of the U.S.(even at the state level) is very encouraging.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 5 Mar 2006 17:20:54 EST

I believe the Kinkster goes over there on kibbutz on a regular basis, or so I recall my Jewish sister-in-law mentioning at one time. Perhaps he's just using this as a warmup for a run over there. As I recall your citizenship requirements for Jews are pretty relaxed, right? Dave

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Sun, 5 Mar 2006 04:25:29 EST

I don'know nothin' about Texas politcs, but everyone I've ever met from Texas was at least interesting and usually had a sharp wit about them... Could we - uh - borrow Kinky Friedman to run for prime minister here? We need somebody with some brains, some wit, and some real smarts (to go along with the trademark ceegar) who might have the ability to break a tough horse. Do you really need him for governor that bad? Can you get by with the grandma who's fogotten how many husbands she's had?

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 5 Mar 2006 03:39:58 EST

I don't know how religious Strayhorn actually is. I doubt Perry is anywhere near as religious right as he'd like his extremist supporters to believe he is either. As for him being gay, that's not actually a proven fact, just a popular rumor. Dave

Comment by lumpy

Sat, 4 Mar 2006 10:18:30 EST

Perry is a creepy self-hating gay who has sold his soul to special interests. But Strayhorn is often seen wearing a cross large enough to crucify a small child. What's the deal with that?

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 3 Mar 2006 22:13:16 EST

I suspect the White House would rather have Strayhorn. Lt. Governor is an elective position, so Perry wasn't necessarily Bush's choice for the job. Strayhorn is much closer to Bush in political philosophy. Dave

Comment by RJ Elliott

Fri, 3 Mar 2006 21:50:49 EST

Perry was Bush's Lt. Gov. back in 2000, right? Does anyone else think the White House is going to try to pressure Strayhorn to get out of the race, so the GOP nominee (Perry) doesn't risk getting booted out of office on Election Day?

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 3 Mar 2006 21:46:02 EST

Good lord, Banjo, you're right. Unlike every other office in Texas the gubernatorial race requires only a plurality. That certainly renders the situation pretty peculiar. I suppose I ought to ammend the article. Still very interesting, but it enormously increases the chances of Perry winning if there's no runoff. It also massively reduces Kinky's chances, unfortunately. Dave

Comment by Banjo the Dog

Fri, 3 Mar 2006 21:34:28 EST

Sorry, but the gubernatorial race is won with a plurality...a majority isn't needed. Still saving myself for Kinky.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 3 Mar 2006 17:01:55 EST

Don't kid yourself. Strayhorn is as independent as Perry. She "jumped the GOP" ship NOT because she wanted to be independent, it's because she knew she hadn't a chance of beating Perry in the Republican primaries. An wolf in sheeps clothing is still a wolf. Sorry John, you're just dead wrong here. Strayhorn has a substantially different platform from Perry and she's not in bed with the same interests he is. To start off with, she's moderately pro-choice or at least sensible on abortion. She's also a true and determined fiscal conservative, which Perry certainly isn't. She's also willing to listen to and support opposition to the insane toll road mania. That puts her head and shoulders above Perry. Yes, she's still a politician and certainly still a Republican, but she's a better candidate than Perry and would be a hell of a lot better as governor. Dave

Comment by Irish John

Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:54:00 EST

Don't kid yourself. Strayhorn is as independent as Perry. She "jumped the GOP" ship NOT because she wanted to be independent, it's because she knew she hadn't a chance of beating Perry in the Republican primaries. An wolf in sheeps clothing is still a wolf. In reply to CC. The Dems leaving the state was not only cowardly... but ILLEGAL. It was in no way legitimate. I find it funny Democrats talking about "power grabs", when that is exactly what they have been doing for the previous 40 years. Democrats in Texas have to realize something... They are in the MINORITY now. That's what happens when you are in the minority. I find it hilarious that they took the redistricting to the Supreme Court, citing minorities were disenfranchised, when actually there are one MORE minority in the state legislature now (one more black, same amount of hispanics).

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:15:37 EST

God, you're right Scott. How could I have forgotten that the two are on different dates. I wonder if there's a state holiday for San Jacinto day too. Dave

Comment by Scott

Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:47:17 EST

Politics aside.... March 2 is Texas Independence Day, the day independence was declared. This independence was not secured until April 21 at San Jacinto (San Jacinto Day)

Comment by Dave Nalle

Fri, 3 Mar 2006 09:21:54 EST

Some people find Strayhorn a bit strident, but she makes some awfully good points about fiscal responsibility and some other issues. The catch, of course, is that the governor probably has less power to impose better government than she has right now as Comptroller. Dave

Comment by Maurice

Fri, 3 Mar 2006 09:15:47 EST

Interesting read. Wish there were more political people like Strayhorn. I checked your spelling: intependence should be independence redundent should be redundant