Sunday, June 14, 2009

Kay defending about not supporting Reagan in 1976? Rick a Democrat? Who cares on both counts..

I don't get it. Why would anyone be upset that Kay supported the incumbent Gerald Ford instead of Ronald Reagan in 1976? In just the past several days, there have been two articles about this in the Dallas Morning News (link). Excerpt follows...
WASHINGTON – Ronald Reagan isn't on Mount Rushmore. But lots of Republicans think he should be. Thus, it is no small matter for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison when doubts are raised about her commitment to the party's hero.

Dust off those clippings from 1976, a seminal year for Texas Republicans. Reagan's challenge brought legions of enthusiastic newcomers to the party – and some friction between them and the traditionalists who had labored years to break the Democrats' grip on Texas.

President Gerald Ford had named Hutchison vice chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board, and she sided with him against the insurgent, naturally.

"But after that, certainly I was very pro-Reagan," Hutchison said last week. "Loved Ronald Reagan. Supported him, was chairman of his Women for Reagan committee in Texas [in 1980]. I've got a lot of Reagan supporters supporting me for governor right now.
Two people have sent me this article and asked me to blog it. Sure, but I don't really see what these minor things 20 or 30 years ago have to do with today or the next four years.

Kay also took a shot at Rick for being a Democrat, but considering that so many Texas Republican voters became that way in the early to mid 1990s I just don't see this as a credible attack. Heck there are still pockets of East Texas that are strongly pro Democrat but in a conservative way. Phil Gramm was a Democrat, too, and look at him. If you look at news articles from the 1980's and even early 1990's you will often times see labels "conservative Democrat" and "liberal Democrat" in the Dallas Morning News and other newspapers.

A lot of conservative Texas Democrats became Republicans not out of political convenience but because the party moved to the left and left them. In the meantime, the Republican Party moved to the right especially on issues like abortion and guns which helped facilitate the transition for conservative Democrats... who never fit in well with the country club Rockefeller Republican crowd... into the GOP. I certainly have family members who fit that description... they were diehard Democrats and now are diehard Republicans, and the issues have not changed all that much.

In 1990, Rick beat Democrat incumbent Jim Hightower as Ag Commissioner in a surprising victory, Kay won a statewide position which does not exist today... state treasurer... against a weak Democrat opponent... and Big John won a supreme court slot. Both Rick and Kay were at the forefront of the modern Republican realignment in Texas.

Kay not supporting Ronald Reagan in 1976 is just not a big deal. Rick being a Democrat in the 1980s is not a big deal either. Tell me what you've done for me lately. Since the 1990's. Preferably since 2000.


  1. Sure, you can say twenty years ago is twenty years ago. That's certainly legitimate. The issue with Rick isn't that he was a democrat at time when Texas conservatives were changing parties. The issue is that he was the state chairman of Al Gore's 1988 presidential bid. The issue with Rick is that every decision he has ever made has been about 'What's in it for Rick?' He's a fraud. Gardasil, TTC, token Tea Party support, business margins tax, FLDS, token illegal immigration support. The list goes on. We Texans are tired of doing what we've always done and getting what we've always gotten.

  2. Governor Rick Perry is more Republican than the Pope is Catholic. Being for Al Gore in the 1980s was considered the "conservative Democrat" thing to do at the time. This was when Gore was a Tennessee Senator and Mr. Conservative in the Democrat caucus and not all preachy and bearded and left-wing.

    Saying "token Tea Party support" really demonstrates a huge lack of understanding about the situation and maybe a serious jealousy that your candidate was not involved.

    Gardasil? You mean the miraculous anti-cancer vaccine that no individual would have ever been forced to accept? Adding that to the state regiment of vaccinations was a good idea and would have prevented cancer in a lot of women. Say what you will, but Rick Perry erred on the side of protecting life, and the "mandatory" aspect of all of that was overblown.

    And TTC is a good thing. Privatization may be a dirty word in some circles, but I love free market transportation solutions a lot more than I love unionized construction funded with tax dollars. At any rate, the TTC is dead because of a small but vocal minority.

    Token illegal immigration support doesn't even make sense. Rick Perry is probably the strongest border security governor any state has ever had.

    As far as FLDS goes, sure, I'll give you that it was mostly a fraudulent crank call situation that caused the raid in the first place, but there was actual child sexual abuse happening. I am not sure any governor would have been actively involved in that situation, anyway. There are agencies with directives that carry those directives out.

    Business margins tax was not my favorite thing, but remember they were all under a court order to fix the school finance system, and it was a net tax cut in the end for Texas. The Governor is upping the business tax exemption this year.

    But thanks for playing, Robert.


Hey now, campaign characters. Be nice. I know a lot of you on both sides, so I don't want any overly foul language, personal attacks on anyone other than the candidates themselves, or other party fouls. I will moderate the heck out of you if you start breaking the bounds of civility.