Texas Governor's Race
Jun. 23rd, 2006 08:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livingdebThis is your last weekend to see "Fall to Grace" in Austin and to see Requiem. This has been a public service reminder so that you don't miss these just because you forget. (If you read this in time. If you didn't read this in time, and you forgot, I'm very, very sorry for rubbing it in.)
**
If you are about to quit reading, then I recommend this link before you go, even if you are not a Texan. It's a fun read.
Here is what I have been thinking recently about the upcoming governor's race in Texas.
On the one hand, the governor in Texas doesn't have much power, so I don't have to worry too much. On the other hand, look where our last governor is.
Here's what I know (which is a whole bunch of nothing).
Rick Perry, Republican - incumbent who's done a lot of stupid and annoying things, the particulars of which I no longer remember. Currently the frontrunner, I believe.
Chris Bell, Democrat - seemed the most reasonable on the one issue I know about, but no one seems to be taking him seriously. The one issue I know about is the top 10% rule (anyone in the top 10% of their Texas high school can get into any state university). This came into effect when it was found that looking at race in admissions was unconstitutional. I like this solution because even if you're in a crappy school, so long as you're in the top 10% of that crappy school, you can still get into a university. We appear to not be overly horrible about helping some of these folks catch up, either. So, it's good for people who aren't getting a good education for all kinds of reasons (race, poverty, etc.).
The problem is that most of UT Austin's students are now admitted under the 10% rule, and they wish they had more leeway in making decisions. Chris Bell agrees with me that the real problem will not be solved by turning it into a 7% rule or saying that you can't be guaranteed acceptance into a specific university. He knows that with more and more people wanting to go to college (our state's population keeps expanding), you are going to need more colleges or bigger colleges. And you might need to improve the quality of some of the other colleges so that the majority don't apply to the same one(s).
Carol Keeton Strayhorn, Independent - currently our Comptroller. I have a vague memory of her not letting politicians do some of their idiotic ideas by using her powers as Comptroller.
However, everything I've read lately, in my admittedly liberally biased sources, has made her sound awful. She wants to be called "Grandma" on the ballot, because she keeps changing her name every time she gets married, so people know her better by the name Grandma. Um, no. I never heard of her being called that until I read the article. And I'm sorry, but anyone would know that Carol Keeton, Carol Keeton Rylander, Carol Keeton Strayhorn, and whatever other names she's had, just might be the same person.
She's also screaming about how the race is between her and Perry and that any votes for anyone else are just making it easy for Perry to win. She has a point, because apparently we don't do run-offs for the governor election. (What the?) But still, ick. Because she is not second in the polls right now.
Kinky Friedman, Independent - currently a writer, musician, and humorist. Also currently second in the polls. Now obviously, we are not supposed to vote for some weirdo performer guy with no political experience and therefore no clue what he's getting into. On the other hand, it's just the governor. In this state, the governor really doesn't have any power except the veto and the bully pulpit. Having some guy with all kinds of weirdo ideas--could that get citizens interested in paying attention? Having him complaining on TV about what idiot ideas are going on in the Congress, and then spewing out other ideas? I don't know. That sounds kind of good to me.
Okay, and what are some of his ideas? Well, like every politician, he has a lot of generalizations and not much substance. His main campaign goal is to fight the "wussification of Texas." Now, since I am a wuss, this might not be the right person for me to vote for. Of the few specific issues I've found, I've agreed with half, and disagreed with half. On the issue I really know, the 10% rule, his opinion is basically who cares? You don't need college to make a good life, so it's not that big a deal. I actually respect that perspective, though the fact is that we have a lot of education inflation these days. There are a lot of jobs that you just can't get without a degree even though what you learned in getting that degree is not required for the actual work; it's just a handy way to eliminate applicants when you have way too many.
James Werner, Libertarian - I know nothing about this guy.
One way to decide who you like is to see what kind of person likes them. I don't know who likes these guys, but the two Independents had to collect signatures. They had to collect signatures from 1% of the number of voters in the last gubernatorial election, and they had to be from people who did not vote in the primaries of any party and from people who did not sign any other petitions. I decided an interesting number would be the percentage of signatures that turned out to be valid. This could mean that the people attracted to collecting signatures were better informed, better workers, or just smarter. Or it could mean the people signing the petitions were smarter. Those would be good signs. I guess it could mean a lot of other things, too, but it's hard to think of any. Want to guess who had the higher percentage?
They needed 45,450 valid signatures to get on the ballot. Strayhorn collected 222,514 signatures, of which 108,512 were confirmed for a percentage of 49%. Friedman collected 170,258 of which 137,154 were confirmed (81%). He got more confirmed signatures from fewer total signatures, which makes him more efficient than her. I really, really, didn't expect that. I was hoping that Strayhorn was the one with her head on her shoulders, knowing what's what and how to get things done.
I am seriously considering Bell, Strayhorn, and Friedman at this point, as much as one can seriously consider voting a politician (or singer/humorist/author) into political office. Any of you guys have any comments about this race?
**
Tonight I decided to look at their websites.
Bell's website actually has a page of issues.
Rebuilding public education - create a commission to find better ways to finance it. I used to respect that research answer, but now I see it as a copout and a waste. He should figure out better ways and make them part of the platform. Oh, he also mentions stop wasting money, reject hypocrisy, and work harder. Whatever. I used to respect these nice-sounding generalizations, but without knowing specifics, it's just another copout.
Reducing barriers to higher education - start regulating tuition again, increase public funding, make textbooks tax-free, spend more on grants, and value community colleges. None of this addresses the problem of there not being enough colleges for everyone who wants a degree. The newspaper article I read made me like this guy's take on this issue more than his own page.
Expanding home ownership - quit having ridiculous taxes on home ownership like Perry wants. Huh? I thought he just reduced those. I can't even stand to read any more of this.
Strayhorn's website is extremely lightweight. Not much sign of any issues at all. At least it loads quickly
Friedman's website has issues as the very top link. (And it loads quickly, too.) He lists only three issues: education, health care, and renewable energy. And the ideas on this page sound good, much better than the 50% agreement rate that I've perceived so far. Weird. And it's a fun read, too. I recommend you click on that issues page.
The page on why you should vote for him has ten issues.
Based on the websites, Friedman is by far the best candidate. I'm trying to be biased against him, but it's not working today.
Okay, comment time. Mac the Mike, this means you!
**
Broken thing at work: There's one rule type where doing an override works, but updating a certain kind of override doesn't work. If you messed up or changed your mind, you better delete the whole override and start over.
It also hurt my brain when I found an example of something we claim doesn't work, and it seems to be working. So, it must only not work in certain situations, which, bleh, I could not figure out.
Only 8 years, 6 months and 3 weeks to go.
**
If you are about to quit reading, then I recommend this link before you go, even if you are not a Texan. It's a fun read.
Here is what I have been thinking recently about the upcoming governor's race in Texas.
On the one hand, the governor in Texas doesn't have much power, so I don't have to worry too much. On the other hand, look where our last governor is.
Here's what I know (which is a whole bunch of nothing).
Rick Perry, Republican - incumbent who's done a lot of stupid and annoying things, the particulars of which I no longer remember. Currently the frontrunner, I believe.
Chris Bell, Democrat - seemed the most reasonable on the one issue I know about, but no one seems to be taking him seriously. The one issue I know about is the top 10% rule (anyone in the top 10% of their Texas high school can get into any state university). This came into effect when it was found that looking at race in admissions was unconstitutional. I like this solution because even if you're in a crappy school, so long as you're in the top 10% of that crappy school, you can still get into a university. We appear to not be overly horrible about helping some of these folks catch up, either. So, it's good for people who aren't getting a good education for all kinds of reasons (race, poverty, etc.).
The problem is that most of UT Austin's students are now admitted under the 10% rule, and they wish they had more leeway in making decisions. Chris Bell agrees with me that the real problem will not be solved by turning it into a 7% rule or saying that you can't be guaranteed acceptance into a specific university. He knows that with more and more people wanting to go to college (our state's population keeps expanding), you are going to need more colleges or bigger colleges. And you might need to improve the quality of some of the other colleges so that the majority don't apply to the same one(s).
Carol Keeton Strayhorn, Independent - currently our Comptroller. I have a vague memory of her not letting politicians do some of their idiotic ideas by using her powers as Comptroller.
However, everything I've read lately, in my admittedly liberally biased sources, has made her sound awful. She wants to be called "Grandma" on the ballot, because she keeps changing her name every time she gets married, so people know her better by the name Grandma. Um, no. I never heard of her being called that until I read the article. And I'm sorry, but anyone would know that Carol Keeton, Carol Keeton Rylander, Carol Keeton Strayhorn, and whatever other names she's had, just might be the same person.
She's also screaming about how the race is between her and Perry and that any votes for anyone else are just making it easy for Perry to win. She has a point, because apparently we don't do run-offs for the governor election. (What the?) But still, ick. Because she is not second in the polls right now.
Kinky Friedman, Independent - currently a writer, musician, and humorist. Also currently second in the polls. Now obviously, we are not supposed to vote for some weirdo performer guy with no political experience and therefore no clue what he's getting into. On the other hand, it's just the governor. In this state, the governor really doesn't have any power except the veto and the bully pulpit. Having some guy with all kinds of weirdo ideas--could that get citizens interested in paying attention? Having him complaining on TV about what idiot ideas are going on in the Congress, and then spewing out other ideas? I don't know. That sounds kind of good to me.
Okay, and what are some of his ideas? Well, like every politician, he has a lot of generalizations and not much substance. His main campaign goal is to fight the "wussification of Texas." Now, since I am a wuss, this might not be the right person for me to vote for. Of the few specific issues I've found, I've agreed with half, and disagreed with half. On the issue I really know, the 10% rule, his opinion is basically who cares? You don't need college to make a good life, so it's not that big a deal. I actually respect that perspective, though the fact is that we have a lot of education inflation these days. There are a lot of jobs that you just can't get without a degree even though what you learned in getting that degree is not required for the actual work; it's just a handy way to eliminate applicants when you have way too many.
James Werner, Libertarian - I know nothing about this guy.
One way to decide who you like is to see what kind of person likes them. I don't know who likes these guys, but the two Independents had to collect signatures. They had to collect signatures from 1% of the number of voters in the last gubernatorial election, and they had to be from people who did not vote in the primaries of any party and from people who did not sign any other petitions. I decided an interesting number would be the percentage of signatures that turned out to be valid. This could mean that the people attracted to collecting signatures were better informed, better workers, or just smarter. Or it could mean the people signing the petitions were smarter. Those would be good signs. I guess it could mean a lot of other things, too, but it's hard to think of any. Want to guess who had the higher percentage?
They needed 45,450 valid signatures to get on the ballot. Strayhorn collected 222,514 signatures, of which 108,512 were confirmed for a percentage of 49%. Friedman collected 170,258 of which 137,154 were confirmed (81%). He got more confirmed signatures from fewer total signatures, which makes him more efficient than her. I really, really, didn't expect that. I was hoping that Strayhorn was the one with her head on her shoulders, knowing what's what and how to get things done.
I am seriously considering Bell, Strayhorn, and Friedman at this point, as much as one can seriously consider voting a politician (or singer/humorist/author) into political office. Any of you guys have any comments about this race?
**
Tonight I decided to look at their websites.
Bell's website actually has a page of issues.
Rebuilding public education - create a commission to find better ways to finance it. I used to respect that research answer, but now I see it as a copout and a waste. He should figure out better ways and make them part of the platform. Oh, he also mentions stop wasting money, reject hypocrisy, and work harder. Whatever. I used to respect these nice-sounding generalizations, but without knowing specifics, it's just another copout.
Reducing barriers to higher education - start regulating tuition again, increase public funding, make textbooks tax-free, spend more on grants, and value community colleges. None of this addresses the problem of there not being enough colleges for everyone who wants a degree. The newspaper article I read made me like this guy's take on this issue more than his own page.
Expanding home ownership - quit having ridiculous taxes on home ownership like Perry wants. Huh? I thought he just reduced those. I can't even stand to read any more of this.
Strayhorn's website is extremely lightweight. Not much sign of any issues at all. At least it loads quickly
Friedman's website has issues as the very top link. (And it loads quickly, too.) He lists only three issues: education, health care, and renewable energy. And the ideas on this page sound good, much better than the 50% agreement rate that I've perceived so far. Weird. And it's a fun read, too. I recommend you click on that issues page.
The page on why you should vote for him has ten issues.
Based on the websites, Friedman is by far the best candidate. I'm trying to be biased against him, but it's not working today.
Okay, comment time. Mac the Mike, this means you!
**
Broken thing at work: There's one rule type where doing an override works, but updating a certain kind of override doesn't work. If you messed up or changed your mind, you better delete the whole override and start over.
It also hurt my brain when I found an example of something we claim doesn't work, and it seems to be working. So, it must only not work in certain situations, which, bleh, I could not figure out.
Only 8 years, 6 months and 3 weeks to go.