Texas Primary Results

Results available here.


No surprises here. Perry destroyed Hutchison, and Medina stalled out after she threw a bone to the truthers. Maybe this is the election where people finally wake up and realize that Perry, love him or hate him, is a sharp politician. As for Hutchison, she may have run the worst Texas campaign since Clayton Williams compared rape to bad weather. She came off a dithering on the resignation issue, and never really came up with a message why she should be Governor beyond “Perry’s been there for a really long time.”

Railroad Commissioner

Incumbent Victor Carillo gets stomped by a no-name, under-funded challenger. Much like the similar Xavier Rodriguez Supreme Court primary loss in 2002, I think this points to how much of an obstacle a Hispanic surname remains in the statewide GOP. If the party really wants to make inroads into the swelling Hispanic vote, it’s going to have to start showing that they can get behind competent Hispanic candidates.

US House

The interesting thing here on the Republican side is how much of a non-factor the Tea Party candidates ended up being against incumbents. Conaway, Brady, and Smith saw off their challengers without breaking a sweat, despite having the albatross of having voted for the TARP hung around their necks. And this in a vote where both Perry and Medina where whipping up the Tea Partiers with a loud anti-Washington message.

Any other thoughts welcome.

I was reading yesterday that Perry was pretty progressive. I am not familiar with his history. People voted for change. The reason they are pissed at Obama is because they are not getting it.

Perry is a glad handing cronyistic idiot who plays on emotional outrage and trends while driving Texas further into the ground and the people voting for him didn’t use their brains to do so. It’s frustrating to live in a state that refuses to consider electing any official that is actually capable but doesn’t make them ‘feel good’ about staying stupid and sick.

Don McLeroy lost the GOP primary for State Board of Education to Thomas Ratliff!! :smiley:

As compared to what? He’s a Young Earth Creationist and appointed an equally loony fundie Chair of the Board of Education and signed a law to teach bible studies in public schools. He played to the Texas secessionists last year. We have the worst health care in the nation. On what issues is he supposedly ‘progressive’?

I’ve consistently voted Republican for Texas Governor in the past because that candidate usually seemed to have more character and honesty. The exception was when Dubya came up and I went with Ann Richards. However, this election too I’ll be going with the Democrat. Rick Perry has been a disaster as Governor. He backed the TransTexas Corridor, a shameful landgrab that would have destroyed the livelyhood of thousands of farmers and ranchers that were understandably vehemently opposed to the plan and put insane fortunes into the pockets of his doners. He wanted to turn down the federal funds last year and he supported forced vaccinations of adolescent girs for the HPV. The bloomin’ idiot even played the secession card. I don’t know one sane person that gives that stupid notion a lick of credence.

Bill White, our mayor here in Houston, has easily been the best ever. A successful investment manager, he came in with a practical, sensible and industrious approach to every issue and he’s provided excellent financial and administrative leadership without playing politics or participating in partisal bickering.

Yes, Perry is glamorous and Bill White seems dull as dishwater. I hold out hope though that voters can get past that and elect a real leader, not some has been cheerleader. I think Bill White would make one of the best Texas Governors in a long, long time, this coming from someone that typically has little use for politicians in general.

Well a Texas progressive would make Hitler go, “Dude, harsh!” :smiley:

Wondering about your source, I asked myself what kind of reality-detached nutjob would ever describe Rick Perry as “progressive.” Then I did a Google search and got my answer.

And let me point out the moderate irony of people voting for change by backing the guy who has served as governor longer than anyone in the state’s history.

You don’t know how happy this makes me!


Don McLeroy is a Young Earth Creationist who inexplicably sat on the State Board of Education and pushed a dual agenda to (1) fill our textbooks (and correspondingly the textbooks of many other states) with unscientific nonsense and (2) embarrass the whole State of Texas.

Rick Perry won because he is the devil we know. Hutchinson didn’t have a chance because she was successfully painted as too much of a Washington insider. Medina was making strong in roads until she outed herself as an insane 9/11 truther.

Bill White had essentially no competition in the Democratic primary. Farouk Shami basically spent about $12 million of his own money and simply made White look great in the process. I think that White is an incredibly smart and non-partisan politician. To me, he is a democrat in name only. I believe he will put Perry to shame in the debates. He has a strong chance of winning.

You may have a point but what’s so wrong about studying (not preaching mind you) the Bible in schools? We learn the other great works of literature such as Shakespeare, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Orwell, and so on. If the Bible is studied in an objective and neutral way it would be educational.

The bible in a mythology class is one thing. He said bible studies. That’s different.

Also, the bible is laughable as a work of literature. It is self-contradictory, poorly translated and the protagonist dies at the end. :smiley:

What’s wrong with it is that it’s unconstitutional. It isn’t being taught as an objective, neutral subject. It is being taught as aclass about religion in all Texas public schools, and there are no other religions being taught. Story here.

If the protagonist is God that He does not. Also whether it is bad literature or not doesn’t matter-it is the most influential book in the history of Man and should be treated as such.

According to the article it is an elective, it is the Bible “as history and literature” (not as religious preaching), and the measure passed the Texan legislature by 167 to 3-probably including some liberal Democrats

:dubious: You think those exist in my state legislature? Interesting.

I’ve seen my sister in law’s lesson plan suggested by the state. It’s about bible literacy. There are no other books being taught in the ‘literature’ class. The bible isn’t literature; it’s a holy book. We also have football teams in East Texas being led in prayer before games. I know this may be difficult to accept, but Texans don’t really give a damn that what they’re doing is illegal when it comes to GOD. They think that as long as they know it’s right everyone else should butt the hell out. Rick Perry is one of those people, and he’s ignorant and corrupt to boot. He needs gone.

Texas is a BIG state and some districts such as Austin are fairly liberal.

It is a class focused on the Bible and it is both. To Ancient Greeks and some neo-pagans to-day Greek mythology is considered to be religious truth yet no one has complained.

Curtis, this is not to pick on you, but whenever anyone claims to be teaching “the Bible as literature”, I feel that people teaching or completing such a course should be able to pass this test:

  1. What does the structure of the Book of Job suggest regarding the reliability of its contents?

  2. What is the main thesis of the Book of Jonah?

  3. What was the probable reason for the writing of the Book of Ruth, given lignuistic evidence for its date-of-composition and social conditions of the time?

  4. Which book most systematically sets forth the thought of Paul?

  5. Which book’s viewpoint most closely approximates a nihilistic philosophy?

  6. Which gospel has the least supernatural view of Jesus? Which gospel is noted for investing common words with special connotations?

  7. What are the arguments for and against single or triple authorship of the Book of Isaiah?

  8. What was the purpose of the style chosen for the Book of Revelation? Why is this relevant in understanding its contents?

  9. What was the purpose of the ‘toledoth’ passages in the Book of Genesis? Does the evidence sugges they were written before, at the same time as, or after the passages surrounding them? What do they suggest about the provenance of those passages?

  10. According to the Jewish classification of the Tanakh/Old Testament, which of these is considered a Book of the Prophets (Neba’im): Joshua, Daniel, Zechariah, Baruch? Why that one and not the others?