A homosexual mayor for Houston?

The runoff between City Controller Annise Parker and former City Attorney Gene Locke in the Houston mayor race is going to start getting more attention because some people have noticed that one of the candidates is openly gay and they’re going to make an issue of it. A Houston Chronicle story describes how a handful of social conservatives plan to act to stop a “gay takeover” of Houston city government.

What a great idea! Houston voters should focus on the sexuality of their mayor because the city has no major problems left to worry about. Clearly, gay and lesbian employees getting benefits for their spouses is the issue that should define Houston in the new millennium.

Oh…  the “straight” candidate also favors same-sex benefits because they  allow governments and businesses “a competitive advantage.”

So, this is either an attempt to reject a candidate purely on their personal life or a symbolic power play by some to demonstrate that they’re in control.

Unfortunately, this is a serious test for Houston. Businesses thinking about moving to town will be asking if Houston can focus on the work it takes to make a community thrive or if the city will get bogged down by anger. Turning the mayoral runoff into a battle about homosexuality will only convince the rest of the nation that Houstonians would rather have new divisions than new neighbors.

This reflects the broader problem that Texas politicians at the moment seem to be better at picking fights than solving problems. Whatever his faults, George W. Bush proved that he could put up a good fight and then put it aside and work with former enemies to solve the state’s problems. At his best Bush refused to become the captive of the politics of division and define himself by the enemies he made. Bush (and Reagan before him) understood that in a way that some people seem unable to grasp.

Kay Bailey Hutchison’s vote against political science

In case you missed it… Senator Coburn (Oklahoma) proposed an amendment that would have ended  National Science Foundation funding for political science research. Senator Coburn felt that there was more than enough wisdom on cable (really–he said this):

The University of Michigan may have some interesting theories about recent elections, but Americans who have an interest in electoral politics can turn to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the print media, and a seemingly endless number of political commentators on the Internet.

Senator Coburn doesn’t realize that the “experts” on cable as well as campaign consultants who tell him what to do rely on models of voting behavior built on research like the National Election Study funded by the National Science Foundation. The Senator decided that the tiny sliver ($93 million over the last 10 years) of the NSF’s budget given to political science too big of an investment in democracy.

Texas’ own Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was one of 36 Senators supporting this amendment. You might think that someone who last year spent over $3.6 million on staff salaries alone understood the value of research. I guess she needed to claim a vote against spending after being named “porker of the month” by Citizens Against Government Waste.

The Battle in the GOP

CQ Politics has a very good story on Senator John Cornyn’s effort to increase the number of Republicans in the US Senate. The story is interesting for two reasons:

1. It illustrates the work of the party campaign committees associated with Congress. Senator Cornyn is the Chairman of the  National Republican Senatorial Committee. The NRSC raises and spends money on behalf of Republicans running for the US Senate. It is not a subcommittee of the Republican National Committee and the chair of the committee is a Senator elected by fellow Republican US Senators every two years.  On the House side, the National Republican Congressional Committee does the same thing for House Republicans and the Democrats have similar committees for the House and Senate. These congressional campaign committees are important because they operate somewhat independently of other party committees. Each may have their own philosophy and tactics. Sometimes that produces tension…
2. John Cornyn is experiencing a little tension because he has attempted to recruit moderate Republican candidates that he believes are more likely to win in November of 2010. Apparently, this hasn’t pleased some people on the far right and some conservatives are threatening a kind of boycott of NRSC fundraising. Anytime I hear someone criticize John Cornyn for not being conservative enough I have to pause and wonder what is going on.

While it’s tempting to talk about “the party” when referring to one of our major parties, it’s important to remember that the differences within the parties will be reflected in its organizations. American political parties are really a set of loosely connected organizations and there is certain to be disagreement.

There are lots of stories about the battles in the Texas GOP. Most focus on the Governor’s race. The Texas Tribune has a good story on how the differences play out in a race for the State Board of Education. While our governor’s race is a good example, there are plenty of places in Texas and across the nation where you can see this conflict.

It’s seems odd to me that some conservatives have felt free to move the Texas Republican Party to the right of the national party (even while Bush was President) while  treating Cornyn’s efforts to court moderates as illegitimate. These conservatives believe that they are absolutely right about these issues and that the Republican party would win a majority if only the party pushed these issues harder.

These conservatives claim Reagan as their hero. However, their memories of Reagan’s presidency are selective and too many forget how many people on the far right criticized Reagan for the compromises he made and for putting aside social issues in favor of economic policy. So…. maybe they should cut the Senator a little slack.

“A compromise is never to anyone’s liking–it’s just the best you can get and contains enough of what you want to justify what you give up.”
–Ronald Reagan

Thoughts on the Texas Tribune Poll

The Texas Tribune launched this week and one of their first big moments in the spotlight of Texas politics came from the results of their poll that showed that Rick Perry lead Kay Bailey Hutchison by 12 points. That was a pretty interesting result that has left people with plenty to argue about.

There was another result that CQ Politics’ Poll Tracker pointed out after the second set of results were released. I went back to the original release from the poll and pulled together this summary chart of job approval (combining those who “approve” and “strongly approve”):

It seems pretty clear that while Perry should feel pretty good about his lead in the Republican primary, no one is very popular in Texas. For example, Perry’s job approval (36%) is lower by his disapproval (44%). While Perry trumpeted that the elections in Virginia and New Jersey as validation of his view of Washington (while overlooking the congressional race in New York), back home Texans were thinking that they liked their President a little more than their Governor.

Texas amends its Constitution–again.

Texans have now amended their state constitution 467 times since 1876. Just over a million votes were cast statewide this year and voters approved all 11 amendments on the ballot.  The last time we had an election with just constitutional amendments on the ballot (2007) turnout was 6.3% of the voting age population. (The higher rate of 8.7% reported in some accounts is the percentage of registered voters who cast their vote). It looks like turnout was slightly lower this year. However, there are some votes still not counted. The 2009 results are available from the Texas Secretary of State’s web site.

The Texas Constitution is cluttered with too many issues. Among other things, this year Texans voted on the vital constitutional issues of:

• giving cities and counties the authority to buy up land to create “buffer zones” near military bases.
• appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes.
• allowing two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.
• authorizing the Veterans’ Land Board to issue bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized.
• protecting the public use of public beaches on the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.

and…

• allowing elected members of governing boards of emergency services districts to serve terms not to exceed four years

Now, before you get caught up in the excitement of extending the terms of office for Harris County emergency service districts, you should pause and note that there were a couple of other issues on the ballot.

Amendment #11 was designed to make it harder for local entities to use eminent domain to acquire private property. This became a hot issue after the Perry’s Trans-Texas Corridor was demonized for threatening to push aside family farms to make way for toll road and well after  homes fell to the bulldozers making the way for the new Cowboys Stadium. Suddenly, taking land from citizens for fun and profit wasn’t as much fun.  There seems to be some doubt about the exact impact of the amendment on economic development. Instead of cementing this uncertain language into the Texas Constitution to appease property rights advocates, it might be wise to leave this to the laws already passed by the Legislature. However, the amendment proved to be the most popular, passing with about 80% of the vote.

Amendment #4 will help elevate additional Texas schools to a “Tier 1″ level.  It seems odd to me that there’s suddenly a great deal of interest in the enhancing a few elite universities even money proves tight in the existing Tier 1 schools. This looks like one of those promises that today’s politicians like to make because they’re leaving others to pay for in the future. An alternative to chasing the prestige of having more Tier 1 schools would be increasing funding for all schools so that they could handle the influx of students mandated by the state’s goal of putting another 500,000 students in higher education. However, it’s no fun talking about failing to fund what we’re already not doing. It’s more fun to talk about the wonderful things we could do and the amendment was passed with about 56% of the vote.

I’m still amazed by the range and number of issues we jam into our Constitution. People may say that the system is working because we’re still passing amendments. However, I’m not convinced about the health of a process that only  involves about 1 in 16 Texas voters.

New news for Texas!

On November 3, a new Texas news website will be going “live.” Texas Tribune is promising to promote civic engagement by providing Texans with state-wide news.

I think that everyone watching coverage of Texas politics has noticed the decline in coverage. Enrique Rangel, writing in the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, notes that two decades ago some 60 reporters covered the Capitol while but fewer than 30 journalists covered the last session. While some people complain about journalists, we need as many eyes and ears in the Capitol as possible. The opinion writers and bloggers who increasingly dominate what passes for “news” today need actual facts and reporting behind their ramblings. Left to some people, the news business would be nothing more than people spouting uninformed opinion.

Texas needs as many real journalists covering their government as we can get. As much as it may irritate us to sometimes have our cozy assumptions about our favorite candidates and causes challenged, Texans can’t leave the government to monitor itself.

The Texas Tribune is a non-profit, nonpartisan public media organization. Their model is public radio/television. They will not accept advertising and will instead rely on contributions from readers (I’ve already contributed) and “underwriters” whose generosity will be mentioned on the site

The Texas Tribune could give Texas a focal point for reporting and debate. While a free press is necessary to hold government accountable, the press also need scrutiny. Politicians can not defend themselves from hundreds of small attacks. Countless rumors can circulate on the Internet and defy the ability of anyone to defend themselves. We need a media environment in which a corrupt state-wide official could be investigated and revealed by a credible source. We also need a setting where officials can face accusations and effectively defend themselves and clear themselves.

I’m hoping that Texas Tribune will fill the void left as the state’s newspapers and television stations cut back their reporting. It will definitely  be a news source to watch.

Narrowcasting the campaign for governor

The Dallas Morning News has a story on how Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison have waged much of their campaign thus far with web ads. Rather than investing expensive television advertising early in the campaign, the Perry and KBH camps have opted to take the less expensive path of creating advertising designed specifically for distribution on the Internet.

The campaigns have been placing ads on their own website for months. However, they are also buying spots on conservative news site in an attempt to reach likely Republican primary voters.

There are a several significant characteristics of these types of ads:

(1) They are quick and inexpensive. Campaigns can produce these ads quickly and on every issue and for every line of attack on their opponent. It encourages of a shoot first and ask questions later approach.

(2) They are viral media. This means that people will pass them on to their friends based on their entertainment value. People will pass along links to funny or otherwise entertaining political messages more often than dry, boring ads. It’s a kind of message survival of the fittest as we give new life to ads we like while boring ads die a slow and lonely death. Especially entertaining or controversial ads might even find their way onto television news shows and earn the campaign a little “free” or “earned” media (in contrast to “paid media” that campaigns pay to put on the air).

As viral media takes hold we should expect to see campaigns spend more on writing that produces fun ads we want to share and less on the television ads that try to force their way into our conciseness. Campaigns need to learn the lesson from YouTube stars like “Obama Girl” who got 15.7 million views of her “I’ve got a Crush on Obama” video. An ad that captures a little imagination can go far.

There are campaign seminars all over the country this year designed to teach campaigns how to replicate Obama’s success with social networking. Social networks like Facebook have altered campaigns by empowering everyday citizens to become the medium for the campaign’s message. This resembles the old two-step flow of communication in the communications literature. In the old two-step, opinion leaders receive information mass media, campaigns, etc and then pass along information–with some context and interpretation– to average citizens. A message coming from a friend with common concerns and common interests is much more likely to be viewed and believed than a message directly through broadcast media. A yard sign or bumper sticker used to be the best way of letting those you knew how you felt. In today’s two-step, it’s the next step to sharing is fast, easy, and allows more than would fit on a yard sign.

(3) The audience can be narrow. In contrast to “broadcasting” on television, this kind of advertising is called “narrowcasting.”  Beyond cost, an advantage is that the broader Texas public probably doesn’t want to hear about the 2010 election in 2009. The last thing that candidates can afford to do is wear out their welcome a full year before the election. The candidates are quietly working the narrow part of the public that is already interested while leaving other Texans undisturbed. The narrow audience  of the early campaign season can be especially important because it includes many of the donors that will fuel the campaigns down the stretch.

Narrowcasting allows the campaign to sharpen their message and use arguments that might alienate a broader audience. Candidates battling for the hearts and souls of the base of their party need not flaunt their courtship of the fringes in front of moderates. With the number of independent voters rising the last thing (most) candidates want to do is lose those crucial swing voters in the middle of the political spectrum.

Social networks allow messages to naturally find their way to the right audience. Hunters may pass along materials about gun rights while students may share stories or ads about tuition increases. Your friends know better than campaigns what message is likely to resonate with you.

The  saturation bombing of the television ad we’ve grown to expect will not end any time soon. We’ll see plenty of traditional television advertising in the days leading up to the 2010 election. This is partly the result of campaigns’ efforts to reach out toward independent voters who are not tied into social networks of highly political voters. Another reason for the reliance on broadcast advertising is that political campaigns often prefer to rely on what has worked before (or at least they assume worked before). It doesn’t help that many consulting firms make their money off buying air time.

Narrowcasting is coming soon to a television near you. Cable companies are already able to offer campaigns relatively narrow audiences by geographically targeting areas through cable.  Before cable advertising, candidates in parts of eastern Texas had to buy ads on Shreveport broadcast stations. That left them paying for a lot of viewers who couldn’t vote for them. Now, cable companies allow city-by-city advertising buys.

Cable companies can give campaigns pretty precise demographics that tell them what kind of person is watching different shows or networks. They track what kinds of people are watching particular shows. Combined with the geographic targeting that cable companies can do, it is possible for a campaign to pretty effectively reach narrow groups and buy ads that will appeal to their interests.

The cable industry is telling campaigns that by 2012 they will be able to target individual homes. The cable companies will be able to build a profile based on the shows you watch and send you a different campaign ad than your neighbor is getting. This profile can matched up with the micro-targeting models that the political parties have built using their massive databases to hit you with ads about the issues that interest you the most.

It’s a brave new world of media.

Perry’s staff and agency appointments

The Austin-American Statesman has an interesting story about how frequently Rick Perry turns to his staff when making key appointments to head important agencies. According to the story, this helps Perry establish a stronger degree of control over the state bureaucracy.

Governor Rick Perry

It is interesting that Perry turns to his staff so more than George W. Bush and Ann Richards. A couple of sources in the article argue that Perry could find people who were equally loyal by looking beyond his staff. This may be true. However, someone who had worked with Perry should know his philosophy/style/politics better than anyone else. It would also help create a communication network between Perry’s gubernatorial staff and executive agencies.

Unlike Perry’s highly questionable use of at least one regulatory chief as a fundraiser, there’s nothing necessarily improper about this. It is reasonable for Perry to develop communication and control across the state bureaucracy. While this influence could be abused, any form of power could be. As chief executive, Perry has every right to influence the executive branch. The over-use of staff does raise to possibility that these appointments might be personal rewards, it’s better to reward competent staffers than large donors.

Shaking down restaurant owners

The Dallas Morning News is reporting that head of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission has been soliciting campaign contributions for Perry’s re-election campaign from the owners of the bars and restaurants that TABC regulates. José Cuevas, a Perry appointee, has written a letter asking for large donations ($1,000- $5,000) for a fund-raising event for Perry’s campaign.

Apparently, this violates no law. In Texas the head of a regulatory agency can solicit campaign contributions from individuals whose fate they control.

As I’ve noted before, Texas is very uneven in how it regulates conflict of interest. I am forbidden to make a contribution to a State Board of Education campaign because I’ve written a textbook while Cuevas can solicit funds from the people he regulates?

The Perry defense is: “In this case, you have a letter from someone who is a longtime restaurant owner who is soliciting money from people in the same business.” This only reveals the degree to which we’ve allowed conflict of interest to become institutionalized. To paraphrase: “Of course, he soliciting money from people he does business with–that’s who we put him in charge of.”

Perry spokesman Mark Miner said that he has absolutely no reservations about the solicitation. When asked about state regulators soliciting those they regulate he declined to comment on “hypotheticals.”

That’s not a hypothetical–it is principle. You either have principles or you don’t.

We usually only see restaurant owners being shaken down on television crime dramas.  It’s wrong. Texas has a serious problem if Perry can’t see this. Let’s hope that this blind spot is limited to one campaign person.

*********

Update: According to the Midland Reporter-Telegram, Rick Perry doesn’t “have a problem in the world” with his appointee soliciting restaurants for donations. That’s too bad. Texas government needs a higher standard of ethics. Apparently, ethics cramps his campaign’s style.

I wish Cuevas would change his ways. Anybody who would run a place call “JumBurrito” is generally okay with me.

A little old school lobbying

Another great clip from the “Vote for Me” series PBS did a few years ago. The cell phones have gotten smaller and Bob Bullock is gone, but little else has changed in the Texas Legislature.