Favorability
Perry 42% favorable, 32% unfavorable
Obama 43% favorable, 46% unfavorable

The Lyceum poll had Obama’s favorability rating in the state as a hard-to-believe 68%, and Perry’s favorable/unfavorable was 57/30. In both cases, the new poll’s figures seem a lot closer to reality.

Senate Race (likely to occur in May 2010)
Sharp 10%
Dewhurst 9%
White 7%
Abbott 6%

Issues
–Accept unemployment insurance stimulus funds 36% yes, 43% no (not a ringing endorsement of Perry’s refusal)
–Voter ID 70% yes, 17% no
–Gambling 40% favor full casino gambling, 20% favor a limited expansion
–Statewide smoking ban 63% favor, 31% oppose

* * * *

I find Perry’s lead to be quite believable. Hutchison is running the worst campaign imaginable. She has essentially abandoned the field to Perry. She has been invisible. Perry gave her a softball by fighting for the extension of privatized toll road agreements in the special session — a heaven-sent opportunity — and she just watched it go by. I think her team is not first-rate talent, and I think they are letting her do what she wants to do instead of telling her what she needs to do. Part of Perry’s lead is due to his ability to exploit Republican voters’ anger at the federal government, but part of it is due to Hutchison’s complete absence from the fray. What we have seen is voters defecting from being for Hutchison to being undecided. Hutchison has a long way to go before she is an effective candidate. I keep hearing stories like the one out of the Dallas area, where legislators who attended a meet and greet with Hutchison were appalled at her lack of knowledge of state issues.

It’s eight months until the election, but she has wasted the last eight months (except for fundraising), and she still doesn’t have anything that resembles a message. The one thing in her favor is the same thing that has always been in her favor: She remains very popular. Look at Perry’s favorable/unfavorable: 42-32. That’s plus 10. Hutchison’s in the Lyceum poll was 65-17. That’s plus 48. If she is going to beat Perry, those are the numbers that will decide the race.

Dear —-

A few weeks ago, I found myself at the center of a national firestorm, and the subject of withering attacks from the left, because I had the nerve to defend the U.S. Constitution.

I don’t know when the Bill of Rights became like a cafeteria plan, where we can pick and choose the amendments we like, but clearly there are folks in Washington who do not appreciate my stand for the 10th Amendment, which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

When I placed my hand on the Bible and swore a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Texas, I swore to defend the entirety of those founding documents — not just those parts that are convenient. It is a duty that I take very seriously.

I am fighting for the very Constitution that our Founding Fathers crafted to limit the reach of the federal government in our lives. But I need your immediate help. Your gift of $50 or $25 to my campaign today will help me compete against my well-funded Washington-connected opposition that thinks power and freedom emanates from government.

The fact is, the Constitution was created to limit the powers of the federal government, not unleash them.

In the coming gubernatorial campaign, I will ask you to honor me with another term as Governor for Texas. But understand, this campaign is not about personalities but principles. It as about two models of governing: the Washington model that talks the talk about limited government while delivering record earmarks and increasing bureaucratic control, and the Texas model of balanced budgets and fiscal restraint that recognizes growth and prosperity are not granted by government but created in the private sector.

Washington has given us jaw-dropping bailouts, record debt and deficits, and a stimulus package that grows government. They have also tried to force states to raise taxes in order to receive unemploy,ment dollars, and have made reforming expensive programs like Medicaid dependent upon their willingness to grant waivers.

They over-tax us, over-regulate us, and make billions of dollars in federal funding dependent upon our acquiescence to the strings they attach. They have over-stepped their authority, and they are racing us toward fiscal ruin.

When the colonists rebelled against the British Crown, they fought a distant regime that sought to impose its will on the lives of citizens through onerous regulations and taxes. Sound familiar?

If there is any question whether limited government and fiscal conservatism works, look no further than Texas. A part-time Legislature … a Constitutionally mandated balanced budget … no income tax … a predictable regulatory climate and a fair legal system … and the most hardworking people in the world. It’s no wonder that Texas leads the nation in exports, job creation, and Fortune 500 companies.

Limited government works. We just wrapped up the legislative session, in which we responded to the economic crisis by reducing spending of general revenue dollars — the second time we have done that in six years — setting aside money for a rainy day, cutting taxes for small business, and strengthening protections for private property owners from the use of eminent domain.

While our families face lean times and are cutting corners to make ends meet, the Pelosi Congress increased the federal debt by one-third in just the first 100 days of the Obama Administration. Worse still, the Administration’s own numbers balloon this year’s deficit from $1.7 trillion, or $5,500 for every person in America, to almost $7 trillion ten years from now. That is almost $23,000 for every man, woman, and child in America today!

At a time when small businesses — our greatest engine of prosperity — are struggling to survive and provide jobs for hard working Texans, the federal government is handing out trillion-dollar checks to big corporations, even taking them over. Our system of capitalism is at risk!

And as the soft economy shrinks the tax coffers of the states, the Federal government has tried to bully governors and state legislatures into taking federal money by forcing them to increase taxes, expand bureaucracies, and change long-standing state laws. When it came to an expansion of unemployment benefits,. I told them that they can keep their money and we will keep our state sovereignty.

I will stand strong against anyone — Democrat or Republican, federal or state — who would lead us further down that misguided path. But to get my message out to the voters of Texas so they know exactly what is at stake, I need your immediate gift. Please join my team today. Together, we can win this most important battle for Texas and America.

Sincerely,
Rick Perry

PS — The eight months until the March 2 primary election (fittingly held on Texas Independence Day) will pass quickly. Today is the first day I can raise campaign funds under Texas law. But as a Federal official, unrestrained by Texas law, my Washington-connected opponent has a six-month head start. Please send your contribution today, and stand with me as we work to preserve our vision of limited government for Texas. Thank you.

* * * *

This is a very effective document. It reminds readers of his April remarks that hinted at secession without using the “s” word; it embraces the Tenth Amendment; it reinforces the message of the Tea Parties by referring to the American Revolution and puts himself in the tradition of the colonists. This is an Horatio-at-the-bridge message. It speaks to conservatives who believe that the country is in deep trouble. And it differentiates Texas (”limited government”) from Washington (”jaw-dropping bailouts,” “the Pelosi Congress). Perry has had almost three months, starting with the Tea Parties on April 15 to drill this message into the consciousness of Republican primary voters, much of it through free media. This letter can serve not only as the basis of a reelection campaign, but also of a national campaign. Meanwhile, Kay Bailey Hutchison has had nothing to say. Remember the Claytie Williams campaign of 1990. Primary races can be won in October. Or July.

Turner went to the PUC prepared to argue that June was the hottest month in Texas history, and that Texans are paying 43% to 66% more than the rates in surrounding states. But Turner did not get to present his arguments at the hearing. Instead, he was preempted by the commissioners. They denied his petition before he ever got to make his pitch for it. Each of the three commissioners read their reasons for denial. Only then was Turner asked if he wanted to say anything. “To make a ruling prior to hearing anyone — that really did get my goat,” Turner said.

The arguments for denying the petition, as told to me by Turner, were:
* The cost of electricity today is lower than it was in 2006 (but, Turner says, consumption is higher due to the extreme heat)
* Customers can switch providers if they choose (but, Turner says, switchers may face a cancellation fee to leave one provider and must pay a deposit, usually two months usage or 1/5 of annual usage to their new provider)
* The system benefit fund offers financial relief for eligible customers (but, Turner says, the system benefit fund only covers 55% of those who are eligible)
* It would be ill advised to impose a moratorium in a competititve market
* People will game the system
* A moratorium would be detrimental to utility companies

“The arguments mirrored what the companies had written to the PUC,” Turner told me. “The industry could not have presented their case better than the PUC did.” He was particularly exasperated that PUC chairman Barry Smitherman argued, “It’s really not that much hotter than any other Texas summer.” “He’s totally detached from the real world,” Turner said.

Smitherman did tell Turner, “We can review this [decision] if conditions change.” “What does that mean?” Turner said to me. “It’s too late if people start dying. Seniors are more afraid of their electric bill than the heat.”

But Perry also wants the Legislature to renew the authority for Comprehensive Development Agreements, the controversial financing tool that privatizes toll roads, and to establish an infrastructure bank, managed by TxDOT, that would lend money for road projects. This is political dynamite. Toll roads are Perry’s biggest political liability. They have little support other than business groups. They are particularly unpopular with captive suburban commuters who are the key voters in a governor’s race.

This is the controversial language in HB 1, pertaining to the bonds, the proceeds of which may be used “to provide money for deposit in the Texas Transportation Revolving Fund or similar revolving fund authorized by law, to be used for the purpose of making loans for highway improvement projects as provided by law.” Guess who administers the intrastructure bank? TxDOT, of course. This has many members worried, lest TxDOT lend money that would aid the cause of privatizing roads. One of the concerns, for example, is that the bank would loan money to local toll agencies, which could then sell the project to Cintra or another private entity. It is my understanding that Chisum will have an amendment to provide safeguards against hanky-panky. HB 3, which would reauthorize CDAs, has the safeguards, but, as has been reported elsewhere, the bill lacks the support to become law — no one but TxDOT likes CDAs — and has not been scheduled for debate.

These are not good times for toll projects. “The credit market collapse and political opposition have all but killed the U.S. highway-privatization trend,” Barron’s reported in May. That same article quoted Toll Road News, an Internet publication: “Toll-road traffic decline has been more severe than in any other post-war recession.” Toll road traffic is down by 6%, and truck traffic, which accounts for half the usage on toll roads, is down 50%.

The governor’s fight for more toll roads and more Comprehensive Development Agreements makes no sense politically. It puts the spotlight directly on his most controversial policy. It’s a heaven-sent opportunity for Kay Bailey Hutchison to differentiate herself from Perry, but when I spoke to a Hutchison adviser today, I heard the same line, that she does not want to engage with the Perry at this time. If not now, on the best issue for her, when?

It’s easy for Kennedy to say that fear of litigation cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race. After all, he’s the judge; litigation holds no terrors for him. In the real world, the city was in an impossible position. If they promoted the white firefighters, the black firefighters would sue. If they didn’t promote the white firefighters, the white firefighters would sue. The city’s fear of litigation was justified. The courts should have given them a way out. Ginsburg’s argument gave them a way out, that nobody had a vested right to be promoted.