Though I'm leaning in the direction of a particular candidate - or at least I think I am - I don't know who I'm going to vote for next month.

Rick Perry (R)
Pro: He's stood pretty firm as an anti-gambling governor. From what I understand he got there somewhat opportunistically, but there is little sign that he will budge on this issue of considerable importance. His first two years had two major accomplishments: he didn't buckle and raise taxes as did Republican governors from across the country (I didn't expect that kind of spine from him!) and he helped get Houston speed limits back above 55mph when our own mayor was treating the federal requirement as though it had come down from the Almighty Himself. And, on the whole, issue-for-issue I probably agree with him more than I agree with any of his rivals.
Con: Since his 2002 election, he's been a pretty lousy governor. He's had six years with Republicans controlling everything and everything is in greater chaos than it was when Bush had to work with the Democrats to get things done. Then, when faced with his greatest opportunity to revamp school finance, he did it in a way that pleased nobody and to which the upside is already being negated. And he missed a prime opporunity to implement appraisal caps.

Chris Bell (D)
Pro: Bell was a very solid Houston City Councilman. I wish he were serving out his third and final term as the mayor of Houston. He was a Democrat, but one more focused on solutions rather than partisan ideas.
Con: Something in Bell changed when he lost his mayoral bid. Somewhat bitter that Republicans lined up around the unimpressive Orlando Sanchez solely due to his partisan affiliation, he got the idea that Republican voters were out of his reach and stopped doing anything - except maybe support for Israel - that would lead us to support him again.

Carole Keeton McClellan/Rylander/Strayhorn (D/R/I)
Pro: She is by far the least offensive person in this race. She's alienated or been alienated by both parties, so she would govern as an independent in a way that the state would probably benefit from.
Con: She'll likely be a Republican or Democrat before her term. Her constantly shifting political stances would probably have her shifting into the mainstream thinking of whichever party she does re-join. It's disconcerting to vote for someone that could, by the end of her term, be a standard-issue Republican or a standard-issue Democrat.

Kinky Friedman (I)
Pro: He's interesting. He seems rather straightforward in his views to the point of offending some. He will take some positions that none of the others would dare. He is unambitious politically and I believe he honestly wants to do what is best for Texas, not his party or his political career.
Con: I don't know what positions, really. As with Strayhorn, I don't have a solid idea of what kind of governor he would be. Unlike with Strayhorn, neither party would be vying for his loyalties because both parties would likely realize that it would be more headache than it is worth even for the governorship. Ultimately, while I believe he wants the best for Texas, I don't believe he has the slightest clue what that might be.

Most of it, for me, comes down to whether how much I do not want Rick Perry to be Texas's longest-serving governor. If I determine that his defeat is paramount, I will vote for the most promising competitor, which at this point would probably be Chris Bell, who is least ideologically acceptable to me at this time. If I take a more nuanced view and accept that there are worse things that Governor Perry 3.0 or if the polls demonstrate conclusively that he will win (which is harder to do in a race like this than a standard two-person race), then I've got to decide which of his opponents I would find most preferable and "vote my conscience."

I really, really wish John Cornyn or John Sharp were in this race. Heck, at this point I would take Tony Sanchez.