And so ends, for all practical purposes, the long Perry governorship. In an article I posted on Saturday, previewing the State of the State address, I asked, “Is it his last?” The tenor of his speech yesterday affirms that it is. Perry spoke mainly about the state he loves: “It is my pleasure to report that the state of our state is stronger than ever,” he said. “We led the nation out of recession and into recovery.”

“Big and small, dreams become reality in Texas,” he went on. “Texans have succeeded to the tune of more than half a million private-sector jobs added over the last two years alone, a total of nearly 1.4 million created in the private sector over the last 10 years. Now, there are those who insist our job creation stat doesn’t mean much, because they say we are only creating entry-level, low-paying jobs.”

“We should put in place a stronger constitutional limit on spending growth, ensuring it never grows more than the combined rate of inflation and population,” he continued. This was a rare applause line in his speech. He called for tax relief and said that the state will not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. (“Texas will not drive millions more into an unsustainable system that will drive this state into bankruptcy,” he said.) That he called the law by its formal name rather than “Obamacare” was a signal that he was not inclined to forge into partisan politics this day, and he did not do so.

“We need to address our state’s infrastructure needs in water and transportation,” Perry said, adding that the Rainy Day Fund would soon reach $12 billion. He said he would earmark $3.7 billion from the fund for a one-time investment in infrastructure, but $3.7 billion won’t stretch very far when Tx-Dot alone is asking for $4 billion for maintenance and congestion relief.

What is interesting about this speech is that Perry himself, in earlier years, spoke often about the need for infrastructure improvements in power, water, and transportation. He has been governor since December 2000, and he could have put that money to good use for much of that period. Why didn’t that happen? The answer, I believe, is that two political battles changed Perry and made him less inclined to take chances. One was over HPV vaccinations of young girls; the other was over the Trans-Texas Corridor. He lost both. What Perry learned from those fights is that his constituency was more conservative than he was. Facing a looming primary battle with Kay Bailey Hutchison, he turned sharply to the right and embraced the Tea Party (and, famously, hinted at secession). That gave him a new lease on his political life and won him his third term as governor.

I think it’s worth pointing out what he didn’t say in his speech. He didn’t mention abortion, after saying recently that he hoped to end the procedure in Texas. He didn’t propose emergency legislation. He didn’t blast Washington and the federal government. But one thing came out of nowhere: “During his second inaugural address, President Obama called on us all to work together and do our part to secure a brighter future for America. Mr. President, Texas stands ready to do our part!” Huh? Where did that come from? Rick Perry harkening to the words of Barack Obama? Did the message of the election and the troubles of his party outside of Texas come through to him? Has he realized that the world of politics has changed? That came as a complete surprise.

By any political standard, Perry has been a highly successful governor. He had a vision for Texas that had at its center a policy of building a strong economy by attracting jobs to Texas with state funds. He now has the good fortune of serving during a magical oil boom that is transforming not only Texas but America and the future of energy. As a chief executive, he has changed the nature of the office that he held. The framers of the Texas Constitution intended to establish a government with a strong legislative branch and a weak and fragmented executive, but Perry has used his longevity in office to establish a cabinet form of government, one in which he appointed the heads of all the executive agencies and ran them from the governor’s office. He controlled the regents of every college and university system. His style of governing is not unlike a game of monopoly, in which his opposition had no safe place on which to land. He controlled the entire board of state government. Perry understood power as few Texas chief executives ever have and knew how to use it. That was his genius.

Of course, the story does not yet have an ending. Perry’s term as governor extends through January 2015.  What we do know is that Perry overreached when he ran for president. It didn’t appear to be a mistake at first, but it soon became obvious that he had started too late and his staff (until Joe Allbaugh came along) was not up to the job, and he was battling fatigue from painful back surgery. By the time he returned to Texas, Perry had lost his aura of invincibility, and the Legislature had lost its fear of him. The fact is, Perry has always enjoyed the campaigning part of the job more than the governing part. Whether he will try again to run for president (or governor) is known only to Perry. What else is there for him to do? But in the end, he has made the fatal mistake of staying too long.

Tagged: rick perry

WFAA’s Brad Watson posted the story on the Dallas station’s website yesterday evening:

There is a strong indication Thursday that state’s top lawyer has set his sights upon the Texas Governor’s Mansion. 

A source who has spoken with Republican donors says Attorney General Greg Abbott is saying he’ll run for governor next year, challenging Rick Perry. With the 83rd Texas Legislative Session underway this week, Gov. Perry says he’s focused on state business not re-election.

“I’ll make my decision about what I’m going to do at the appropriate time, which will be June, July of this year,” he said. 

But until then, he can’t raise any money. 

State law doesn’t allow Perry to accept campaign cash from Dec. 8 until after the regular session, June 17. The blackout covers Abbott, too. 

However, a Republican source who knows of fundraising activity at this level told News 8 that, ahead of that December deadline, Abbott told big donors eager to back him in a run for governor that he would.

When asked for a reaction by KVUE in Austin, Perry recalled the last prominent Republican to challenge him in a primary:

“Sen. Hutchison also announced that she was going to run for governor back in 2009 so everybody gets the freedom to do that,” Perry said of the just retired senator he easily beat in 2010. “I’m real focused, which I hope the General is, too, on this legislative session.”

But Perry could be significantly behind in the money race by mid-year.

At the midpoint of 2012, Abbott already had $14.5 million on hand, according to the finance records he’s filed with the Texas Ethics Commission. Perry has just $3.4 million.

Should Abbott widen the gap by summer, Perry was asked if that would discourage him from running.

“I’ve been underestimated many times before so we’ll just let it sit right there,” the governor replied.

In my post on Tuesday, about the first day of the session, I noted Perry’s meandering remarks to the House of Representatives. This was a moment when Perry could have seized the bully pulpit and laid out an agenda to move Texas forward. He did touch on some vague proposals about infrastructure and education but, as usual, he made no concrete proposals. Perry behaved very much like someone who has retired, which in fact is exactly what he is. He couldn’t have cared less.

In any event, my sense of the speech was that Perry isn’t going to run for reelection, and he isn’t going to run for president. Maybe he has already arranged for his exit, and maybe he and Abbott have cut a deal. I don’t think he’ll take on Abbott because he doesn’t want to lose, and I think Abbott would beat him.

So what does it mean for the state Republican party? When he is engaged, Perry is a better politician than Abbott. But Abbott is sharper than Perry, and he is more transparent. I can’t see Abbott engaging in crony capitalism, certainly not to the degree Perry does. And he is more interested in public policy. But I sense in Abbott an absence of empathy.

Perry’s great failing as governor was (if I may be permitted to use the past tense) that he made no effort to represent all the people of Texas. He only cared about catering to the ideology of the hard right. It is unconscionable that Perry is willing to forgo Medicaid expansion that could pump millions, perhaps billions, of dollars into the Texas economy that could benefit the state’s hospitals and doctors, while withholding quality health care to uncounted thousands of Texans, all for the sake of thumbing his nose at Obama. I would like to think that Abbott would be practical enough to accept the expansion. He is not as ideologically rigid as Perry, but he is one of the most partisan of all the state officials. We saw that in redistricting.

This news comes at a moment when the state Republican party is in desperate need of rebranding. It is essentially a collection of tea parties. Perry has demonstrated no interest in rebranding the party. Nor does Abbott strike me as one who thinks that the party needs rejuvenation. The mantle should fall on Joe Straus, but the tea parties that seek to bring Straus down are blind to the fact that he is the person best situated to rebuild the party. Anyone who doubts that Straus is not a “real” Republican did not hear him say (as I did shortly after he put together the votes to be speaker in 2009), “I am Republican to the core.” Well, you can’t fix stupid, as Ron White likes to say. If the Republicans can’t figure out that Straus is the best person to chart their future, that’s their loss.

And so, we have reached the moment at which it is possible, for the first time in a decade, to envision an occupant of the Governor’s Mansion other than Rick Perry. He has hit the wall, and I think he knows it. He stayed too long, and he has lost the mojo that is an essential quality of a successful politician. Perry has had an amazing career, but he has reached the point at which he has nowhere to go except o-u-t.

Tagged: greg abbott, rick perry

Rick Perry’s latest comment about CPRIT, the state’s embattled cancer-fighting agency, is disturbing. He says, six years after the agency was created with the mission of curing cancer, that the legislative intent included “creating wealth.” At the same time, Perry dismissed the importance of basic research, saying “Basic research takes a long time and may or may not ever create wealth.” He was quoted by the San Antonio Express-News as saying, “The way that the Legislature intended it was to get cures into the public’s arena as soon as possible and at the same time create economic avenues (from) which wealth can be created,” said Perry. He is creating this supposed legislative intent from whole cloth, years after the fact.

We have seen this movie before. We all know who the beneficiaries of “creating wealth” will be. Sooner or later, everything the governor touches leads back to cronyism. Perry is changing the mission of CPRIT to refocus it from research to commercialization. The deemphasis on research will greatly crimp CPRIT’s ability to fulfill its original mission.

Tagged: CPRIT, rick perry

After the members of the House took the oath of office this afternoon, they heard from two of the state’s leaders. One was Joe Straus, who had just won a third term as speaker, this time by acclamation. The other was Rick Perry, who is presumed to be running for president in 2016.

If you didn’t know them, you would have thought Straus was the one running for higher office, not Perry. The governor spent a little bit of time reminiscing about the days when he was in the House and recycling issues he has championed in the past: a stricter constitutional limit on spending that did not get much traction when he first pushed it; requiring drug testing for people seeking welfare and unemployment benefits (which would ultimately punish the children of the state’s most vulnerable citizens, if a parent is denied benefits); a bill to prevent abortions in the first twenty weeks based on the unproven argument that a fetus can experience pain at that stage of development; and a vague proposal for “tax relief” in a state whose residents already enjoy the lowest tax burden in the country. I had the sense that he was mailing his remarks in.

Straus challenged members to address the biggest issues facing the state, starting with profound demographic change. “Our rapid growth requires a steadfast commitment to the core responsibilities of government,” he said, “such as a quality education, a reliable water supply, a healthy transportation system, and an honest state budget.” He received a loud ovation for his attack on standardized testing: “Teachers and parents worry that we have sacrificed classroom inspiration for rote memorization. The goal of every teacher is to develop in students a lifelong love of learning, and we need to get back to that goal in the classroom. To parents and educators concerned about excessive testing — the Texas House has heard you.”

This stance will, in due course, bring Straus into conflict with Perry, who, along with various business groups, has been a strong advocate of the state’s accountability system based on standardized tests. If last session is any guide, Perry will ensure that his agenda receives action by labeling his proposals as “emergencies,” thereby bumping them up to the top of a special calendar. Yet one issue that Perry did not raise in his remarks to the House was school choice, the pet issue that has been embraced by Senator Dan Patrick and Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst. Whether the omission was deliberate or by chance remains to be seen, but it was probably wise of Perry to avoid it. The House has a long history of being a burial ground for school vouchers, with members as diverse as Charlie Geren and David Simpson among the opposition.

As I watched Straus speak, I felt as if he was going from presiding over the chamber to leading it. His emergence as a leader raises the stakes for the session. For the first time in awhile, one of the state’s leaders has stepped forward to grab the state’s biggest issues by the throat.

This first day definitely hinted at conflicts to come over the next 139. The session is setting up as a battle between those who want to address the state’s biggest issues and those who want to rachet down spending even after the comptroller’s revenue estimate validated predictions that the state would have a large surplus. In other words: Straus v. Perry.

Tagged: 2013, Joe Straus, rick perry

Rick Perry’s recent pronouncement about religion and politics—“Church and state separation is the devil’s work”—is an indication of why he will not get anywhere if he tries to run for president again. He might as well wear a stamp on his forehead labeled “extremist.”

No doubt there are people in America who agree with him, but there are many more who will be repelled by Perry’s comments and who respect the wisdom of “render unto Caesar.” It wasn’t just “oops” that sank his presidential race in 2011-12; it was also his personality. It was dark, menacing, and angry. His campaign was devoid of uplifting messages. He was ready to come to blows with Romney over immigration. His threat against Bernanke was over the top (and misguided). The Republican electorate didn’t buy what Perry was selling in 2011-12, and they aren’t going to buy it in 2016 unless Perry moderates his anger. It is a complete misjudgment for Perry to adopt this persona, when he is fundamentally a likeable fellow. America is not a theocracy, and Perry will not get elected president by pandering to the evangelical right–not that he won’t try.

Tagged: rick perry

In reading the last couple of days of convention coverage, I found two key takeaways that have been overlooked:

(1) Rick Perry is still very strong with the base of his party. He still connects with the rank and file when he makes a rousing speech, as he did at the convention in Fort Worth. Of course, Perry was addressing the 18,000 strongest and most loyal Republicans, and there was confusion about whether the boos when Perry spoke up for David Dewhurst, his choice for U.S. senator, were for Perry or for Dewhurst, or both. But Perry’s statement that he did not intend to ride off into the sunset was a warning shot across the bows of the wannabes, most prominent among them Greg Abbott.

It is still unclear (as it has been since he left the presidential race) whether Perry is just trying to find a way to remain relevant, or if he has any kind of plan other than his expressed interest in running for president in 2016.

(2) The second most important takeaway from the Republican convention is that the platform seeks to change the way the speaker is selected. The platform urges that the pledge card system, in use since at least the 1960s, be scrapped. Lawmakers give speaker candidates a leg up on the next election by signing pledge cards to signify that they will support a particular speaker candidate–usually the incumbent–in the next session. Obviously, the greatest beneficiary of this system is the incumbent speaker, who discovers who is for him and who is not (although any speaker worth his salt already knows). The platform would further urge that the speaker be elected by a secret ballot, thus making it less likely that a victorious speaker candidate can rain retribution on a member through punitive committee assignments. Next, the platform calls on lawmakers to do away with the pledge card system in which lawmakers swear fealty to an incumbent speaker in exchange for presumed favors to be granted at some future time. Finally, it urges Republican legislators to vote for speaker in caucus by secret ballot to protect members on the losing side. Note that this system applies to Republican members only. In 2011, the Republican members did vote for speaker, in a closed-door meeting, but the rules called for members opposing Joe Straus, the incumbent speaker, to stand if they were opposed to giving him another term. Obviously, this process was not akin to a secret ballot.

Readers with long memories will recall that the means of choosing a speaker was debated in the days leading up to the Eighty-first Legislature. The key issue was an amendment by Geren for a secret ballot on the choice of speaker. But the vote on the Geren amendment had to be public, and the incumbent speaker, Tom Craddick, had enough votes to prevail. I stress again that any speaker worth his salt does not need a vote to know who is for him and who isn’t.

Typically, a speaker’s race is decided when a candidate lays out his or her votes and the number is greater than 76. This was not the case in the Eighty-first Legislature, when election day passed without Craddick, the incumbent, laying out his votes. Craddick twisted in the wind during the weeks between election day and the convening of the Eighty-second Legislature, and when it became clear that he did not have the votes, he relinquished the chair.

It is inevitable in the age of the social media and the 24-hour news cycle that old forms of politics are going to give way to new ones. Members of the public are going to claim their right to be involved in the selection of the speaker, although ultimately their only tool is to persuade members how they should vote, and if what occurred in the weeks leading up to the Eighty-second session, that persuasion is likely to be none too polite.

In the end, the choice of the speaker will be made by the members, not by the public. The process may be different, but the outcome is likely to be the same as it was in the days when pledge cards were the deciding factor. The point is–let me repeat–any speaker worth his salt doesn’t need a pledge card, or the absence of one, to know who is for him or who is against him. Every speaker has a “team.” The speaker knows who is on his team. Bryan Hughes is challenging Straus for speaker (and other candidates may arise), but Straus knew long before Hughes announced his intentions that Hughes was against him.

The desire to be on the “team” is sewn into human nature. People want to be on the team because they want to get things done, or because they share a point of view with other members of the team, or just because it is natural to want to be on the prevailing side.

That will be true in the next speaker’s race, and in the one after that, and in the one after that. The members who are on the outside can do nothing to change their status. This is how politics works.

The likelihood is that, when all the ballots have been counted on election day, Joe Straus will have enough support to be elected speaker. He will have most of the Republicans and many of the Democrats, who have no one else to turn to, short of making a Faustian bargain with the Republicans. (A number of Democrats made such a bargain with Craddick, and they prospered for awhile, but in the end they had to rejoin the Democratic ranks or face defeat. It could happen again.)

The pledge card system, which has lasted half a century, will not last forever. Nothing does. The most ideological Republicans want to change the system so that it benefits Republicans and only Republicans–and in particular, not the elected class, but the agitators and the pressure groups who want to bully politicians into doing their dirty work. A lot of people believe, as I do, that Texas politics is headed on a course that will inevitably result in the replication here of the way Washington works, where the majority party controls everything. I hope it doesn’t happen, but if it does, remember, politics never stands still.

Tagged: gop convention, Joe Straus, rick perry, speaker's race

This was the headline of Patricia Kilday Hart’s strong column in the Houston Chronicle last week. It asks a good question. Her focus is on the Greater Houston Partnership. I asked a similar question a couple of years ago–why isn’t the business community more involved in state government?–and was subsequently invited to speak to the GHP.

I told them that on the previous day, 200 people from Lubbock were walking the halls of the Capitol extension, urging members to support Texas Tech’s campaign to become the next state’s next tier one university. My question to the GHP was, where were you? Why weren’t you in Austin supporting your hometown university? One person thanked me afterward. It was Renu Khator, the chancellor and president of the University of Houston.

I think the answer to Hart’s question is that there are no business leaders in this state. Ken Lay was the last one (as painful as it is for me to write that), and his business turned out to be a house of cards. The reason that today’s business leaders aren’t leaders is that Houston and Dallas have become outposts of Wall Street. The local banks are run by people who are sent to Texas, stay for five years, and recycle themselves somewhere else. They have no long-term stake in the success of their temporary place of residence, much less Texas; they only care about what they can contribute to their institution’s bottom line while they are here. The Greater Houston Partnership is a shell of what it used to be. George R. Brown would weep at its lack of influence. Bob Lanier must be appalled. It is just another Perry echo chamber. It is inconceivable that CEO Jeff Moseley would challenge Perry’s budget plans. If he dared to try, I suspect he would be out of a job.

Hart exposes just how weak (and meek) the Greater Houston Partnership is. She points out that the partnership adopts resolution after resolution supporting sound state policies–including “create new revenue streams to address the state budget shortfall.” But it’s just window dressing.  The minute Rick Perry says “sign my budget compact,” there is Moseley rushing to Perry’s side with the pen, giving him cover for fiscal policies that he knows are ruinous for the future of this state. Not educating kids. Not providing for water. Uttering prepackaged statements like, “The pro-business policies and accountable and responsible budgets adopted by Governor Perry and legislators have given Texas an enormous advantage when competing for high-paying jobs, and helped Houston prosper to become the top region for corporate relocations in the U.S. in two of the last five years, including in 2011, and these principles will keep us on that path blah blah blah.” Two of the last five years? Shouldn’t Houston do better than that?

As Hart writes, “The folks at the Greater Houston Partnership are well aware of the many ways the Texas Legislature – and our statewide elected officeholders – have failed to invest in the crucial infrastructure required for our exploding population.” Her column is a variation of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Everybody knows the emperor is naked, but no one will step forward and say so. Why don’t the state’s business leaders stand up to Rick Perry? Because there are none.

Tagged: Greater Houston Partnership, rick perry

Writing in The Eagle, the newspaper for Bryan-College Station, president emeritus Ray Bowen and distinguished alumnus John Hagler charge that A&M regents have “failed the university.” The article appeared on April 21, San Jacinto Day, the most important date on the Aggie calendar. This is the day on which Aggies around the world gather for Muster, a ceremony at which the A&M community honors those who have died in the past year. When their names are read, friends answer “here.” The publication date is no accident. It was a solemn article for a solemn occasion. Read the whole piece, but here’s a sample of what Bowen and Hagler believe:

Our university’s governance began to be corrupted when the governor’s appointment of regents was not primarily based on a candidate’s fiduciary loyalty to the university, on competence and on qualifications, but rather based on their personal and financial relationship with the governor. These practices have been broadly reported in the news outlets of our state.

As a consequence, these same regents have cost the taxpayers significant “settlement” sums for regent failures in presidential or chancellor selections. The damage has continued with ill-advised and counterproductive intrusions by both regents and the chancellor into the academic and administrative autonomy of our flagship, Texas A&M University. One chancellor, now departed, even explored combining his office with the presidency of Texas A&M University.

A highlight of irresponsibility came when our regents began to implement, in a secretive way, the half-baked proposals of a wealthy oil man and the pseudo think tank misnamed the Texas Public Policy Foundation. No one can be against controlling costs and teacher efficiency. But our university — one of the most administratively efficient and well-regarded universities in the state — should not have been the starting place for this discussion, and our regents failed everyone by rolling over without a peep and facilitating an illegitimate disruption of the university’s sanctioned mission.

Tagged: rick perry, Texas A&M, TPPF

This ought to end any speculation about whether there is a real contest for Hutchison’s Senate seat. Now there is no race, though there never really had been one from the beginning. Dewhurst was a cinch to win. Too much money, too much name I.D, too insignificant opposition. He was able to employ a rose garden strategy, ducking debates and forums, without suffering any adverse consequences. The Ted Cruz campaign was a mirage. Dewhurst really wanted (and still wants) to be governor, but a Senate seat is a nice consolation prize. Of the lesser candidates, Leppert made the best showing.

Tagged: david dewhurst, rick perry

The Texas Tribune had a story yesterday by Ross Ramsey about Perry’s fight to stay relevant (my characterization, not Ramsey’s). From the Trib:

On Monday, he will unveil a financial pledge and challenge candidates in Texas to sign on, agreeing to oppose new taxes and tax increases, to cut “duplicative” programs and agencies in state government, and to push budget ideas that he has been touting for years, like requiring lawmakers to spend state revenue collected for specific programs on those programs, instead of diverting the money to other uses.

I don’t think anybody is going to be surprised by Perry’s attempt to emulate Grover Norquist. Perry has tried in the past to impose spending limits, and it hasn’t worked. Ending diversions sounds good, but it is really a phony issue. The main diversion, more than $1 billion, is using gasoline tax revenue to fund the Department of Public Safety. Since DPS’s job is to keep the highways safe, it makes perfect sense to us gasoline tax revenue for that purpose. If budget writers end the diversion for DPS, the money for the state’s chief law enforcement agency is going to have to come from somewhere else — and we don’t have it. So the campaign against diversions is really a campaign against spending, period. It reduces the amount of money that is available to spend.

The Perry pledge is laying the groundwork for another battle over state spending, and perhaps for another race for governor, or for his ultimate ambition: to run for president in 2016. He will surely find some adherents on the right side of the political spectrum, particularly among first and second term members, but I suspect he will be a lot less successful among veteran members who are uncomfortable with the spending cuts that were made in the last budget.

That Perry views this as a legacy is clear from his words: “We are approaching a 2013 legislative session that offers a very clear choice in the direction we’ll be going as a state in the years, and even decades to come.” What a grandiose notion. But what he offers is an empty vision for Texas’s future. Perry is a negative leader. He loves to tell people what they can’t do, but what they should do or what they need to do is missing altogether.

What stands out about the Perry pledge is that there is nothing in it that he hasn’t said before. Nothing. Oppose new taxes. Check. Preserve the Rainy Day Fund. Check. End accounting tricks. Check. He doesn’t have even the glimmer of a new idea.

There is something about this that is sad, on a human level. He has nothing to do except reflect on his rejection in the presidential race and struggle to stay relevant. Several members of his inner circle recognized that the end of the Perry era is near and found jobs in the private sector. The fear that he once generated is gone. The pledge gimmick will not find sufficient traction to make a difference. This is what happens when you stay too long at the dance.

Tagged: grover norquist, rick perry