Please make it stop. At least, please make it stop until and unless there is some actual thing that is worth talking about.
Alright, alright, alright … he might, he might, he might.
Matthew McConaughey has publicly said a run for Texas governor in 2022 is a “true consideration.”
But the Academy Award-winning actor’s interest goes a step further than musings in interviews. McConaughey has been quietly making calls to influential people in Texas political circles, including a deep-pocketed moderate Republican and energy CEO, to take their temperature on the race and to talk about seriously throwing his hat in the ring, according to multiple people familiar with the conversations.
Most political strategists say they doubt McConaughey, a Texas native, will sacrifice his status as a beloved cultural icon in the state for the dirty business of politics. They don’t see a viable path forward, either, pointing to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s backing among the business community and millions in the bank — but the state’s political class is keeping a close eye on the Hollywood star’s plans nonetheless.
“I find it improbable, but it’s not out of the question,” said top Republican strategist Karl Rove, who relayed a recent encounter with Lawrence Wright, describing the New Yorker journalist as “hyperventilating” at the prospect that his close friend and fellow Texan might run. (Asked for comment on McConaughey, Wright replied in an email, “I’m trying to lower my profile in this, so I’ll politely decline.”)
[…]
“I’m a little more surprised that people aren’t taking him more seriously, honestly,” said Brendan Steinhauser, an Austin-based GOP strategist. “Celebrity in this country counts for a lot … it’s not like some C-list actor no one likes. He has an appeal.”
There’s little question that McConaughey — who became a household name for his starring roles in top films like “Dazed and Confused” and “Dallas Buyers Club,” delivering memorable lines in his signature languid drawl — would draw national media attention should he enter the race against Abbott.
What’s less clear is what kind of platform McConaughey would run on or even which party banner he would run under. McConaughey has been peppered with questions about politics and news of the day while promoting his memoir, “Greenlights,” but overall, has been vague about his political leanings, saying little about specific issues or policies.
The political calculations for a decision about party affiliation would also be tricky.
“The question is: Would he run as a Republican? A Democrat? Independent? And where is he on the political scale? He says he has a funny phrase about being a hardcore centrist, but what party would he run under?” said Rove.
See here and here for some background. God help me, I agree with Karl Rove, who is at least asking the right questions for these stupid articles.
There are only two types of people McConaughey could be talking to, assuming this isn’t all a bunch of hooey. One is the kind of person who could write him a very big check in the event he does run. He’s going to need a lot of those people, because Greg Abbott has a gazillion dollars in his campaign finance account. It’s true that McConaughey has more name recognition than your typical novice candidate, but he’d still have to let people know what he stands for and what he’d want to do, not to mention attack Abbott and defend himself from Abbott’s attacks. And two, he’ll need to talk to people who would be willing to work on his campaign. In the class of political professionals, there are likely two types: Those who will tell him that running a campaign will be very difficult and his odds of winning are not great, and those that will be happy to cash his checks. Good luck with that.
One more thing:
Meanwhile the Democratic Party has no announced candidate as of yet. Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, whose 2018 Senate run against Ted Cruz vaulted him into national prominence and a failed presidential bid, has yet to make a decision about whether or not he enters the race.
Former HUD Secretary and fellow 2020 hopeful Julián Castro is another potential candidate.
“He hasn’t ruled anything out and we’re watching the race closely,” said Sawyer Hackett, executive director of Castro’s People First Future PAC.
We have discussed the Beto situation. This is the first I’ve heard from someone connected with Julian Castro on the topic in awhile, and it’s not a No. So there’s that. The Texas Signal has more.
I hope he does run.
It will tamp down the Fascist vs Communist rhetoric and force folks to talk about solutions to issues.
I doubt he would run under a party banner. His best path forward is as an independent.
Let’s all just agree on some basic facts, OK?
~he can’t win as an independent. Have we learned nothing from John Anderson and Ross Perot? Even Trump recognized this, so he hijacked the R’s. An independent can’t win.
~as soon as he picks a team, could be D, could be R, he’ll get savaged by whichever team he did not choose. Be honest. Say he runs as a moderate R. Dems will savage him. He’ll be savaged right here on this forum. Should he choose to run as a moderate D, he’ll be mercilessly savaged by the R’s. Big Jolly will savage him. It is what it is.
I don’t really know where else to put this, but since fascism and communism have been mentioned, how about a shout out to blatant racism:
https://twitter.com/MaryAnnAhernNBC/status/1394766979450425360
Seems the mayor of Chicago is now only going to consent to be interviewed by non White journalists. Is this the unity we’ve been talking about?
ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT; LET’S THINK THIS OVER AND TALK
Frederick has seen the light. The party duopoly needs to be shook up. As the GOP has abandoned the center, so have the Dems. Moderates currently have nowhere to go.
If you look at recent attitudinal survey data for Texas, you can see that the distribution among registered voters (subset of all eligible voters) is still bell-shaped (bulge left and right from center) while both parties’ elites and their agit-prop entourage have moved out to the fringes, unable or unwilling to engage in reasoned debate, denying and defying empirical reality, and denouncing dissenters instead of honestly acknowledging that folks differ in their values and beliefs (which for some are closely connected with their religion and perhaps their upbringing).
The silent masses are much more moderate, and perhaps conflicted on hot-button issues such as abortion and gender roles, than the partisan ideologues and personality cultists. And when someone speaks up for the silent majority, they are liable to get shouted down.
For an illustration of Democratic extremism, look no further than the metaphorical treatment (“Dragging”) of Harold Dutton, a Catholic, for not toeing the line on chemical if not surgical castration of young boys, and implications thereof for school sports.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr. (murder by dragging)
You may not agree with Dutton on everything or anything. You ought to still treat him with a minimum level of respect.
And on the merits of the hot-button issue, how can Democrats denounce folks for opposing castration of children?
Seriously, have Texas Democrats gone nuts?
Advocating for emasculation of boys to prevent them from ever even reaching puberty?
Is that what feminism has degenerated into?
If i am ever tempted to believe BD that Lobo is a liberal, i have but to read the last paragraph of one of his comments (I’m certainly not going to read the whole thing).
Bambini Castrati Addendum:
VOTE BREAK-DOWN ON SENATE BILL 1311 ON THIRD READING,
AND BILL TEXT VERBATIM [including hermaphroditism and chromosomal abnormality exceptions]
Senator Hall moved to suspend the regular order of business to take up for
consideration SB 1311 at this time on its third reading and final passage:
SB 1311, Relating to the provision of and professional liability insurance
coverage for gender transitioning or gender reassignment medical procedures and
treatments for certain children.
The bill was read third time and was passed by the following vote: Yeas 18,
Nays 13.
YEAS: Bettencourt, Birdwell, Buckingham, Campbell, Creighton, Hall, Hancock,
Huffman, Hughes, Kolkhorst, Nelson, Nichols, Paxton, Perry, Schwertner, Seliger,
Springer, Taylor.
NAYS: Alvarado, Blanco, Eckhardt, Gutierrez, Hinojosa, Johnson, Lucio,
Menendez, Miles, Powell, West, Whitmire, Zaffirini.
DULY ENGROSSED: THE DON’T-RESEX-THE-KIDS BILL
By: Hall S.B. No. 1311
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the provision of and professional liability insurance
coverage for gender transitioning or gender reassignment medical
procedures and treatments for certain children.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 161, Health and Safety Code, is amended
by adding Subchapter X to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER X. GENDER TRANSITIONING AND GENDER REASSIGNMENT
PROCEDURES AND TREATMENTS FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN
Sec. 161.701. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(1) “Child” means an individual who is younger than 18
years of age.
(2) “Health care provider” means a person other than a
physician who is licensed, certified, or otherwise authorized by
the laws of this state to provide or render health care or to
dispense or prescribe a prescription drug in the ordinary course of
business or practice of a profession.
(3) “Physician” means a person licensed to practice
medicine in this state.
Sec. 161.702. PROHIBITED PROVISION OF GENDER TRANSITIONING
OR GENDER REASSIGNMENT PROCEDURES AND TREATMENTS TO CERTAIN
CHILDREN. For the purpose of transitioning a child’s biological
sex as determined by the sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous
profiles of the child or affirming the child’s perception of the
child’s sex if that perception is inconsistent with the child’s
biological sex, a physician or other health care provider may not:
(1) perform a surgery that sterilizes the child,
including:
(A) castration;
(B) vasectomy;
(C) hysterectomy;
(D) oophorectomy;
(E) metoidioplasty;
(F) orchiectomy;
(G) penectomy;
(H) phalloplasty; and
(I) vaginoplasty;
(2) perform a mastectomy;
(3) prescribe, administer, or supply any of the
following medications that induce transient or permanent
infertility:
(A) puberty-blocking medication to stop or delay
normal puberty;
(B) supraphysiologic doses of testosterone to
females; or
(C) supraphysiologic doses of estrogen to males;
or
(4) remove any otherwise healthy or non-diseased body
part or tissue.
Sec. 161.703. EXCEPTIONS. The prohibitions under Section
161.702 do not apply to the provision by a physician or other health
care provider, with the consent of the child’s parent or legal
guardian, of appropriate and medically necessary gender
transitioning or gender reassignment procedures or treatments to a
child who:
(1) is born with a medically verifiable genetic
disorder of sex development, including:
(A) 46, XX chromosomes with virilization;
(B) 46, XY chromosomes with undervirilization;
or
(C) both ovarian and testicular tissue; or
(2) does not have the normal sex chromosome structure
for male or female as determined by a physician through genetic
testing.
Sec. 161.704. DISCIPLINARY ACTION. The Texas Medical Board
or another state regulatory agency with jurisdiction over a health
care provider subject to Section 161.702 shall revoke the license,
certification, or authorization of a physician or health care
provider who the board or agency determines has violated that
section.
SECTION 2. Subchapter F, Chapter 1901, Insurance Code, is
amended by adding Section 1901.256 to read as follows:
Sec. 1901.256. PROHIBITED COVERAGE FOR PROVISION OF CERTAIN
GENDER-RELATED PROCEDURES AND TREATMENTS TO CERTAIN CHILDREN. A
professional liability insurance policy issued to a physician or
health care provider may not include coverage for damages assessed
against the physician or health care provider who provides to a
child gender transitioning or gender reassignment procedures or
treatments that are prohibited by Section 161.702, Health and
Safety Code.
SECTION 3. Section 1901.256, Insurance Code, as added by
this Act, applies only to a medical professional liability
insurance policy that is delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed
on or after January 1, 2022. An insurance policy that is delivered,
issued for delivery, or renewed before January 1, 2022, is governed
by the law in effect immediately before the effective date of this
Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 4. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
Act takes effect September 1, 2021.
—
Of related historical interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato
Bill,
Did you just mention agreeing on basic facts?! LOL…this comment from the king of conspiracy theories…again, LOL.
Your tangency to Anderson and Perot is irrelevant. You’ve heard of the electoral college right? N/A.
Mc will not run in either party. It will be as an independent. He will easily be in the +30% range and due to plurality winner he’ll have a chance depending on the direction of the electorate wind that couple of weeks of early voting and voting day.
THINK KINKY !
Can an Independent Become Governor in Texas ?
Bill Daniels says No. – He is wrong.
In 2006, Rick Perry won the gubernatorial election with 39% of the vote. That’s
11% short of half. His Dem opponent (Chris Bell from Houston) was more than 9% behind with 29.8%.
Anything-but orthodox Jewish Cowboy Kinky Friedman got only 12.4%, but consider that there was another strong independent candidate in that race: Carole Keeton Srayhorn, who received 18.1%.
So, if you add up the independent vote for Kinky and Strayhorn, that’s 30.5%, which is more than the Dems’ ballot haul that year. And thanks to the multi-way character of the contest, the win-percentage was brought down to only 39%, with no need for a run-off under our current rules for picking a governor. It could even be lower.
Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2006
PLURALITY SUFFICIENT
At the minimum, we must conclude that there is historical precedent in Texas for Independents doing well in gubernatorial elections, and for a gubernatorial race to be won with *far less* than 50% + 1 of all ballots cast.
And if there is only 1 independent candidate (as opposed to the 2 in 2006), he may do even better because of grater perceived viability and momentum. In 2006, some voters may have been discouraged from voting for their truly favored independent candidate to avoid wasting their vote, and may have cast their ballot for the “lesser evil” among the two establishment R & D candidates instead.
In fairness, 2 separate independents are likely to garner more votes collectively because they will appeal to different constituencies, which applies in particular to candidates of different sexes and different life-course background, as was true in 2006.
The challenge for a sole independent candidate in a race for governor would be to cast as wide a net as possible, and go looking for voters at the center of the political spectrum (and current nonvoters). Voters on both tails ends of the curve will have hardened views and partisan allegiances already, and will be much more difficult to persuade to go for an alternative to the R or D branded offerings.
HAIL TO McCENTER !
Being at the center also means being wishy-washy about policy positions and hot-button issues, which can be “sold” as having an *open mind*. Mc C is already on the “right” track there. Perhaps the time has come to roll a campaign think tank into Town Square on Main Street in Midland.
Alright, alright, alright … let’s see what we can do about all those issue you-all really care about.
Let’s do it together, whatever it is.
Pingback: We return again to the “Is Beto running for Governor” question – Off the Kuff