Endorsement watch: The Chron still loves John

The Chron makes four easy and obvious endorsements today, and one puzzling one. The obvious ones are for Sen. Mario Gallegos in SD06, Reps. Ana Hernandez and Jessica Farrar in HDs143 and 148, and Carol Alvarado in HD145. All have good records and token opponents, and are in districts they will win by comfortable margins.

And then there's this:

John E. Davis, Texas House District 129: This veteran Republican initially voted for cuts in the Children's Health Insurance Program as well as imposing six-month eligibility cycles that resulted in a sharp reduction in the number of program participants.

However, to his credit, Davis changed his views in the last session and joined Houston State Rep. Sylvester Turner in a successful bipartisan effort to expand the program and double eligibility periods to a year.

The owner of a contracting firm, Davis believes the margins tax is far too complex and discriminatory against small businesses and must be the subject of major alterations in the coming session.

That endorsement reads quite a bit like the one they gave him in 2006, where they note all of Davis' sins but then reassure us that he's promised to do better this time. If the things listed here that Davis says he'll fight for this time around represented clear differences with Sherrie Matula, that would be one thing. But Matula has been a stronger and more consistent advocate of these things, not that you'd know if from this writeup. What irks me is that while Davis did see the light about kicking kids off CHIP, that "successful bipartisan effort" from 2007 only undid about half the damage that Davis and his Republican colleagues caused in 2003, with no clear promise that I'm aware of that they intend to do any more; indeed, it will likely be a fight to make sure that the 12-month eligibility rule isn't taken away. And as for the margins tax and its effects on small business, which is something that Matula has loudly criticized, it might have been nice for the Chron to note that Davis voted for the thing during the 2006 special session. I suppose it's commendable that he keeps changing his mind about these bad things he once supported and promising to fix them, but wouldn't it be better to not do them in the first place? And wouldn't it make more sense to support someone who'll get it right the first time? Maybe the Chron just likes a good redemption story, I don't know. Whatever the case, I got this one wrong, which would bother me less if I could figure out what the logic of it was.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on October 11, 2008 to Election 2008