Loading tweets...
The candidates involved in the Republican primary for the Texas governor’s race met last night for their second debate. Nationally, this race has garnered attention for the showdown between incumbent, Rick Perry, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Locally, the libertarian-minded Debra Medina has captured headlines for her ability to campaign with the two behemoths with a fraction of their budget and media exposure. As an independent voter, I’m still not convinced that I will vote in the Republican primary, but I decided to watch the debate nonetheless.
Over the past two decades, I’ve become all too familiar with the politics of both Perry & Hutchinson. Nothing that either candidate could say in the debate would change my perspective, the only real difference between the two is that Hutchinson is less interested in legislating Levitical law.
Minutes into the debate, the candidates’ contrasting styles became evident. Perry, nicknamed “Governor Good Hair” by a local media outlet, lived up to his nickname, dressed to the nines and presenting himself as a confident and competent politician. His style was well suited for the “good ol’ boy” network of oil men, timber men and ranchers whose deep pockets have kept him in office.
Hutchinson looked nervous, distant and unfocused, yet still very stately. The debate confirmed what the Perry campaign ads claim–Hutchinson is Washington. Without a pre-prepared speech, she seems uneasy and out of place. Yet there is enough sophistication to appeal the “blue blooded”, old world Republicans. However, there’s not enough there to appeal to the rural voters of Texas.
Medina, on the other hand, came off as an average Texan, outraged with the current administration’s handling of state affairs, full of populist fervor. She is the type of candidate who will play well in the rural areas of the state, but struggle among the white collar crowd. Yet there was something about her I found enticing. Coming into the debate, I had been intrigued by her libertarian stands on taxes, but conflicted by her association with the Tea Party movement–a movement whose affiliation with fringe elements worries me.
I must say that she impressed me. However, I was disappointed with her response to the “gay marriage” question. I find it hypocritical for someone to claim to be a civil libertarian and then to invoke their religious values to campaign against gay marriage. The only redeeming part of her whole response was that she felt the government really had no business in marriage at all, that it was a spiritual institution that should be handled by churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. I find this answer to be somewhat easier to swallow, knowing that there are several progressive minded congregations that would welcome the opportunity to marry gay couples. However, I feel very strongly that gay couples deserve the same protections under the law that straight couples enjoy.
All things considered, Medina won the debate and probably my vote. While I disagree with views on gay marriage, none of the candidates running for governor in either party support gay marriage, therefore that issue will not be a deciding factor in who gets my vote. This was the last debate before the primaries in March, so there’s not much time left for the candidates to change my mind. When I examine the issues across the board, Medina is the only candidate who provides real solutions and not just empty rhetoric.
3 comments
Brenda Ellis
January 31, 2010 at 9:41 am (UTC -6)
You present a thorough analysis; however, the issue of low priority to most voters is the one guiding your decision. Gay marriage, as abortion, cannot be the deciding issue when people are unemployed and suffering from disease, rising fuel costs, rising insurance premiums, rising costs of education that is producing unsatisfatory results, and a porous southern border.
Is an unknown Libertarian candidate with a career in nursing equipped to juggle the many responsibilities of holding the highest public office in one of the nation’s largest, most diverse states while learning how to deal with problems of roads, agriculture, border wars, as well as homeland security? I’m not sure she has access to the key experts and organizations in the many fields of legislation that need to be addressed by a governor. I agrre that the IDEA of finding a fresh face, untainted by politicos and special interests is a tempting choice, but the practical aspects of carrying on the seamless governance of this huge state requires skills that have been gained and honed as one has progressed through the political ranks.
Not one of the candidates is a perfect choice. The decision will ultimately be determined by which one’s faults are most palatable given the enormity of the job.
Artie
January 31, 2010 at 10:23 am (UTC -6)
Medina reminds me of the Republican Obama. Lots of rhetoric, no specifics. No real, concrete plans, just criticisms of the man in the arena.
I also don’t appreciate her foul and dirty language she is using on the campaign trail.
Her pro-drug views are also disturbing.
geoausch
February 1, 2010 at 1:02 am (UTC -6)
Artie, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I think Medina offered more specifics than either Perry or Hutchinson. Also, I’m unaware of her using “dirty or foul language” on the campaign trail.