> I think Hutchison will be large improvement over Perry

Yes, in the same way that the flu is an improvement over pneumonia.

But I follow your point.

I honestly don’t know why Kinky’s running again. Yeah, he realizes he hurt the Dems in 2006, so he’s running AS one now, but his shtick is tired. Slightly-unhinged celebrities-as-governor are lots of fun, but they wear pretty thin, pretty fast (See also: Ventura, Governor Jesse).

The Texas governor, in fact, doesn’t have a whole lot of actual power besides the bully pulpit of the office. The real action is in the Legislature, where the Dems were just two seats down from holding a majority this past session.”

“Exactly so. That, in large measure, is how the governor leaves his or her fingerprints all over the place, through both direct appointments and those requiring State Senate confirmation. By January 2011, when Perry leaves office, we will have had sixteen straight years of appointments by him or George W. Bush. They may be gone, but their legacy will live on in dozens of state agencies, boards, commissions and panels for another decade or more.”

I think you’ve pretty much nailed why I think Hutchison will be large improvement over Perry even though you believe she’ll be only a small improvement. Since she doesn’t really control legislation, her positions on the issues don’t matter too much. She may not know much about setting policy, but she is good at dealing with people, and working well with others. Perry isn’t. What matters is I believe she’ll be a lot more open to appointing people of different political beliefs than her to various positions, and that she won’t be likely to appoint campaign contributors to positions that they have no ability in.

By the way, I didn’t know that Kinky Friedman was planning on running as a Democrat. If he hadn’t split the liberal vote in the last election, there might be a Democrat in the governor’s office right now.

> What political influence the Governor has derives from appointment powers to the various unelected Boards and Commissions. . . .

Exactly so. That, in large measure, is how the governor leaves his or her fingerprints all over the place, through both direct appointments and those requiring State Senate confirmation. By January 2011, when Perry leaves office, we will have had sixteen straight years of appointments by him or George W. Bush. They may be gone, but their legacy will live on in dozens of state agencies, boards, commissions and panels for another decade or more.

One of the little-known secrets of Texas politics is that the Governor is (at most) the fifth most powerful office in the state. Ahead of the Governor are:

(1) The Speaker of the (State) House of Representatives, who controls the House Agenda and thus, legislation getting out of the House.
(2) The Lieutenant Governor, who is President of the (State) Senate, and controls the Senate Agenda.
(3) The Railroad Commissioner, an elective office in Texas. Illogically, the RR Commissioner has oversight rights on the petroleum industry in Texas and derives tons of political clout from that.
(4) The Agriculture Commissioner, also an elective office in Texas. Ag is still a big bidness in Texas and the Ag Commissioner has oversight of the whole shebang.

Depending on personal dynamics and clout the Speaker and Light Gov can swap around 1 and 2, but both carry more weight than the commissioners. What political influence the Governor has derives from appointment powers to the various unelected Boards and Commissions and the veto power.

> Who does [Karl Rove] bring to the polling booth?

I’d bet medium-sized money that was not an endorsement KBH asked for. I suppose there are some who still think of Turdblossom as some sort of political genius, and might quietly put him on the payroll, but I cannot imagine anyone who’d want a high-profile endorsement from him.

> Are the Democrats going to attempt to make a contest of
> this in the general election?

It’s going to be difficult. There are only two declared Dem candidates, Kinky Friedman and Tom Schieffer, neither of whom seem (a year out from the election) likely to energize the campaign. There hasn’t been a real fight for the governor’s office since Ann Richards lost in 1994.

Important to understand that just because both GOP candidates, Pick Perry and Kay Baily Hutchison, are both hideously unpopular, that doesn’t necessarily translate into votes for the Dem candidate.

David C said:

> Frankly, I don’t see how any knowledgeable person, particularly a liberal,
> could see Hutchison as anything but an improvement over Perry.

Hutchison’s only a modest improvement over Perry. Her actual positions on real-world issues aren’t much different; she just doesn’t usually dive headlong into crazy, fantasy-world issues like secession. (Which, naturally, gets her routinely labeled in teabagger circles as a RINO, “traitor,” etc.) Hutchison’s not really better, just marginally saner.

The Texas governor, in fact, doesn’t have a whole lot of actual power besides the bully pulpit of the office. The real action is in the Legislature, where the Dems were just two seats down from holding a majority this past session.