The Houston Chronicle endorses Sam Houston, completing a sweep of the big papers for the Democratic candidate for Attorney General.
Sam Houston
Democratic candidate Sam Houston is the best choice on the ballot. A graduate of Baylor Law School and candidate for Texas Supreme Court in 2008, Houston is more than just a famous name (though it certainly doesn’t hurt). Houston, 51, is board certified in civil trial advocacy and has 26 years experience as a Houston-based litigator, practicing civil law at the state and federal level. With executive experience managing his law firm, Houston will bring the attitude of an attorney over that of a politician.
Meeting with the Houston Chronicle editorial board, Houston said that he would rely more on mediation than politically charged proactive lawsuits. That strategy may not make headlines, but it stands to save taxpayer dollars while getting good results for Texas.
This balanced, professional attitude should help win over some traditionally Republican voters, who find themselves with a troubling candidate.
State Sen. Ken Paxton, R-McKinney, puts forth the persona of a Sunday school teacher but has a history of lawbreaking and questionable business practices that should disqualify him in the minds of Texans.
They go on to make as thorough an accounting of Paxton’s sins as you’ll see. I expected Houston to sweep the endorsements from the beginning, on the grounds that editorial boards tend to not like lawbreakers, but it’s still good to see it happen. I’ll be interested to see how the smaller papers, especially those in deep red areas like Lubbock or Midland, handle this. They tend to endorse later, since they have fewer candidates to consider. Ideology is the only argument Ken Paxton has. We’ll see how far it gets him in places that would otherwise be his breadbasket.
Speaking of ideology and candidates that deserve all of the endorsements, the Statesman gave their nod to Leticia Van de Putte for Lite Gov.
In the contest for lieutenant governor between Democratic state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio and Republican state Sen. Dan Patrick of Houston, the question voters should ask is whether they want a Texas Senate capable of governing, or a Senate that risks devolving into Washington-style gridlock. We favor a functional Senate and urge voters to support Van de Putte.
Elected to the Texas House in 1990 and the Texas Senate in 1999, Van de Putte, 59, a pharmacist by training, possesses a deep knowledge of state government and owns a successful legislative record. Throughout her political career, she has fought for public and higher education, women’s health care, equal pay for women and programs to help veterans and military families. She’s widely respected and liked by her colleagues.
As a candidate for lieutenant governor, she has called for funding all-day pre-kindergarten and reducing standardized testing. She supports the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. And as the daughter of a Latino family that has been in Texas for generations, Van de Putte has a perspective on immigration and border security that is grounded in reality and possibility, not divisive rhetoric like Patrick’s.
Granted, Van de Putte, if elected, will be called on to lead a conservative Texas Senate disinclined to follow a Democrat, but her career has been distinguished by an ability to work with senators on all sides of a debate. We’re confident she can forge coalitions and find common paths forward to meet the state’s education, health care, infrastructure and other priorities and needs.
Where Van de Putte knows how to reach across the aisle, the confrontational Patrick, 64, shows more interest in using his conservative majority to dominate, bully and ram through legislation than in seeking bipartisan consensus.
That would be the choice, all right. Patrick doesn’t have Paxton’s ethical issues, but he has enough other baggage to weigh down a 747. Editorial boards don’t like crooks, and they also generally don’t like obnoxious ideologues, especially when there’s a viable alternative. That isn’t quite as reliable an indicator – see the Chronicle’s regrettable endorsement of Ted Cruz in 2012 on the laughable grounds that he couldn’t possibly have meant all those crazy things he’d been saying on the campaign trail – but it’s still a pretty good bet. The Chron seems to have absorbed that lesson since they endorsed Van de Putte earlier, and it’s my expectation that the other papers will follow. We’ll see.