Friday, January 27, 2006

More Analysis On HD 48

The thing about HD 48 to remember is that it's a well educated district and the usual Republican BS ain't working. Vouchers and a Republican lapdog doesn't play here. After a bad commentary earlier in the week on lobbying earlier in the week Harvey Kronberg rebounds with this excellent analysis of this race, A Texas House district declares independence:
This House district is one of the most politically sophisticated in Texas. Many lobbyists, political operatives and Capitol staff members live there. As a spectator sport, Texas politics is second only to University of Texas football. It is a moderate, white-collar district defined by good public schools and, in particular, a fierce loyalty to the Eanes schools. One lobbyist living in the district hit the nail on the head when he joked that the folks in that district want one thing -— more money for the high school so they can hire another calculus teacher to assure their children a better shot at a good college. Vouchers are not popular.

[...]

The political sophisticates in District 48 understand that success in Craddick's House precludes representing the district, especially one so independent.

Long-time Republican residents have confided to me that they voted for Howard. For a few, it was something personal about Bentzin or his commercials or his refusal to participate in a televised debate. But for many others, the thought was that a Democrat representing a Republican-leaning district owes nothing to Craddick but will be sensitive to local issues -— much like state Rep. Patrick Rose of Dripping Springs, a Democrat representing a Republican district.
Bentizin's in trouble because no matter who he brings in to blockwalk and how much money he pours in it doesn't change the fact that he's a "yes" vote for whatever Craddick, Perry, Dewhurst and all their financial backers plans are to finish off public education in this state. If you want to know who "they" are check out this story in today's Houston Chronicle, Is Norquist still the man?

No comments: