Jump to navigation
Let's Get Serious, Not Kinky
R. Alex Whitlock
It's been interesting reading conservatives over at the Lonestar Times beginning to
embrace the candidacy of Kinky Friedman, though not surprising. Astonishingly, in the four candidates for the Governor of Texas, conservatives don't actually have a whole lot of options. They have a lousy governor, a comptroller that has been a thorn in the side of the party, a Democrat, and of course Kinky.
Nor that the establishment left has begun to take aim at him. Every vote for Kinky is one that Democratic nominee Chris Bell would have a pretty good chance at getting.
What surprises me most is how many liberals seem to be unwavering in their support for the eccentric Jewish cowboy. The number of Kinky bumper stickers I've seen out here outstrips all other candidates combined by a factor of ten.
This is a serious election, people. This is not a case of an invincible or doomed incumbent. It's the story of an unpopular governor that is about to get re-elected at least in part because a large number of would-be detractors are wasting their time with someone that wants to name Willie Nelson as their energy czar. Whatever chance Kinky had of being the Jesse Ventura of the race ended when the pox-on-both-houses vote was itself divided by Carole Keeton Strayhorn's entrance as an independent.
Meanwhile, I have yet to hear what is so wrong (from a Democrat POV) with Chris Bell, the guy that's actually a Democrat. The main argument against Bell is that he can't win. To the extent that's true, it's at least in part because Democrats have refused to back him, opting instead for Strayhorn or Friedman. If Chris Bell were ideologically unpalatable I'd understand, but he's more consistantly liberal than Friedman*. If Friedman honestly, seriously had a better chance at getting elected I would understand that, too. But the biggest obstacle Bell faces is Friedman... and the second, the rightward tilt of the state, is a problem that Friedman shares.
Six years ago, enough liberals rallied around Nader to keep Gore from conclusively winning Florida. They've been kicking themselves for it ever since as 'sticking it to the man' ultimately cost them a lot of ground on a lot of issues they held dear. It would behoove liberals not to repeat that mistake. I appreciate what they did in 2000, don't get me wrong, but this is one Republican I would quite like to see lose, dangit.
This whole election manages to reinforce my belief that political belief and action is derived as much from self-image as it is the an evaluation of the issues and a desire to enact change.
I am against the establishment, therefore I will vote for the anti-establishment candidate. To heck with everyone else.
* - In fact, Kinky has been suspiciously non-liberal in the last couple of weeks. I almost wonder if he sees the effect that he's having on the race and has decided that he needs to take more votes from Republicans and send some Democrats
back to Bell.
Observations
>>It's been interesting reading conservatives over at the Lonestar Times beginning to embrace the candidacy of Kinky Friedman, though not surprising. Astonishingly, in the four candidates for the Governor of Texas, conservatives don't actually have a whole lot of options.<<
In all honestly, has anyone over there but Benzion embraced Kinky?
I think Benzion's notion is that anyone who discredits government is fine from a libertarian/conservative POV, and Kinky would certainly do that.
More commenters seem to support Friedman than Perry.
<i>Meanwhile, I have yet to hear what is so wrong (from a Democrat POV) with Chris Bell, the guy that's actually a Democrat. The main argument against Bell is that he can't win.</i>
Republicans are quite guilty of this as well. Arnold won California partly due to conservatives voting for him instead of the one decent candidate they should have been backing. Not that he would have won, I don't think, but he was certainly a much better candidate than what Arnold was bringing to the table. Can't remember the man's name.
The guy's name was Tom McClintock. I would say the main difference is the idea of Arnold winning was much more credible than that of Bell winning this year. It was also better than the chance of McClintock winning.
And there was also a reason why it was supposed (rightly or wrongly) that McClintock couldn't win: he is a conservative in a liberal state that presumably wouldn't elect anyone very far to the right of the center. A year before California elected a governor so worthless that he would be recalled a year later rather than a conservative Republican.
The rationale for Bell's inability to win seems much more circular: he can't win because nobody thinks he can win. That would be a more valid analysis if it were a primary and he was against someone that it was percieved had a better chance of winning (in part because you can regroup after the primary and try your darndest). Instead, this is the main election and there are no do-overs.
If there were a chance to regroup, a run-off, I would be much less adamant about it all.
Whenever I get worried about the Texas gubernatorial election, I remind myself that the governor is the most powerful person in the state, except for the Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, Land Commissioner, Agricultural Commissioner, Railroad Commissioner, and the woman behind the counter when I go to renew my driver's license. That always cheers me up.
>>More commenters seem to support Friedman than Perry.<<
Well, my experience with those same commenters (hardcore KSEV listeners) is that they tend to agree with whatever position is being advanced by the people perceived to be the ringleaders(whether it was Dan Patrick, me/Owen/Rob, or now Benzion).
These are the same people who LOVED SAFEclear when Dan Patrick told them it was great on the air, and then they hated it when Dan Patrick changed his mind and started calling it "socialized towing."
I honestly wouldn't read much of anything into what most of those commenters have to say. Watch what the better writers are saying.
So far, it's pretty much Benzion out on a limb for Friedman who I am certain he will "endorse" at some point. The other writers aren't exactly enthusiastic about Perry, but they haven't gone over to the nutjob.
Personally, I may sit this one out. I cannot support Perry after his tax expansion and after his higher ed board effectively killed the UH-Northwest proposal. I can't support the Grandma with the big mouth. I can't support the liberal establishment/opportunist candidate Bell. And I can't support the buddy of the twice convicted triple murderer, Kinky. Pathetic in a state like this, we produce four candidates who aren't worth a damn.
I'm not a regular LST reader, so I'll take your word for it.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
