Previous Posts:
Introduction
Part 1: How will the Democrats campaign?
Part 2: How will the Republicans campaign?
Part 3: How will the Candidates for Governor govern?
I realize it's been just a bit since I put forth an entry on this but I have a couple of good excuses that you can choose from as to why.
1. It was still a little far out from election night when I started this and this seems like a more reasonable time in which to do it.
2. I just got busy and forgot.
All that said it's time to jump back in the saddle and start taking a look at how the candidates for the (now) 2nd most powerful elected office in Texas will govern. It might help, before you read this, to go back and at least read the introduction so that you can see what my goals are here.
First up: (In alphabetical order by last name)
Dan Patrick (Republican - Houston)
One thing about Mr. Patrick, he's a very effective campaigner and knows exactly what to say and what time to say it. He's also more media savvy than most of his contemporaries and he uses that to his great advantage. This is a trait that also infuriate some of his colleagues in the Texas Senate.
With that out of the way it's not all that clear that Mr. Patrick would be a very effective Lt. Gov in terms of running the Texas Senate. Mr. Patrick's first priority, above all others, would be to repeal and forever rid Texas of the so-called "Rosebush" bill which requires a Supermajority to pass most legislation. This has been a stated goal of his for years now and he has made at least two attempt to have this done. As Lt. Governor this would certainly be at the top of his list.
It is very clear, by his rhetoric on the campaign trail, that Mr. Patrick does not place much value in the oft-mourned fraternal atmosphere in the Senate. Mr. Patrick has repeatedly stated that he would not seat Democrats as Committee chairs and that his interest in reaching across the aisle is limited to times when they are willing to reach out to him.
In many ways, Sen. Patrick can be expected to run the Texas Senate in the same way that President Obama deals with Congress. There will be a lot of lecturing and speeches to the media, some calls for bipartisanship and then blistering media interviews where he blames the Texas Democrats for any bill that does not pass.
Mr. Patrick's policy proposals will be to the right of the political spectrum and, based on his stump speeches, will call for school choice through vouchers, further restrictions to abortion and tax credits to businesses. Mr. Patrick appears to be in favor of maintaining both the TEF and the TETF. Strongly Evangelical, he led the charge to have "In God We Trust" added to the tote boards above both the Texas House and Senate.
On fiscal issues Mr. Patrick is an unknown. He ran his campaign primarily on the issue of property tax appraisals but, since being in office he has been surprisingly mute on fiscal matters choosing instead to focus on social ones. Mr. Patrick, during the last legislative session, voted twice for increasing school funding but ultimately voted against the budget. This has been used by his opponent for the office as a sign he voted against increased education spending. There are arguments for/against this, your feeling as to the validity of such probably depends on your partisan leaning.
Leticia Van de Putte (Democrat - San Antonio)
Since starting her campaign Senator Van de Putte has been talking big. Her spending proposals for Texas, (should she be elected) include $2 Billion to provide free community college to all Texas children, $1 Billion for Highway funds and an as yet undetermined number of Billions for elementary education. Clearly, the governance plan for Sen. Van de Putte is a departure from Texas' historical lean government, low spending past.
However, this post is more about her governing style than it is her policy positions, but I do think the two are closely intertwined.
For one, there is no way a Lt. Gov Van de Putte pushes any of her proposals through a strong Republican-majority Texas State Senate. Because of this she is going to have one of two options:
1. Moderate her stance on issues, place Republicans into committee chairs and work with some of the more moderate members to craft policy that her side finds tolerable.
2. The nuclear option. Freeze Republicans out of chairmanships as much as possible, quash their bills in committee and make sure nothing gets done. Then blame them in the bully pulpit with the loudest decibel levels hoping that voters take your side.
Under no circumstances would Van de Putte want the Rosebush bill to be repealed since it's the only thing preventing Republicans from running rough-shod over her Party from legislative perspective. Also, given the combative nature of Sen. Van de Putte I am fairly confident in predicting that her governing style would be very confrontational. I would expect her to try and fight the Republicans head-on for most issues and wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats be willing to torpedo the budget process hoping to further embarrass Republicans.
Prior to this session, when the Democrats were staunchly opposed to an issue they went to Ardmore Oklahoma where they stayed at a very nice casino and gave the Texas Rangers the raspberry. This time around I think they stay because they'd have someone in a leadership position to whom Texans would be forced to listen. From this perspective, for the Democrats, Van de Putte could be a very effective Lt. Gov despite no having any policy to show for it.
Conclusion: My favorite saying about this race is as follows: "No matter who wins, the citizens of Texas lose". I'm afraid that Sen. Dan Patrick is a self-aggrandizing demagogue who will say anything and everything to get elected. I feel that Sen. Van de Putte is a political pugilist who lives mainly to put others down and feel good about herself. I don't believe that either of these candidates have the best interest of Texas (or Texans) at heart and are only looking to bolster their own powers and ego.
I also don't think that either of these two State Senators has the social intelligence or political make-up to be effective in the role they are seeking.
