That guy? How did the Star-Telegram Editorial Board end up recommending those candidates?
Our Editorial Board just finished making candidate recommendations for the Nov. 8 elections. We ended up recommending more Democrats than Republicans, particularly in statewide races. I’d like to tell you why.
Our board is center-right; we advocate mostly for centrist policy, good governance, transparency and accountability. Some of us individually may tip further right or left, but when speaking for the Star-Telegram as an institution, we mostly try to stay in the middle of the road.
That’s increasingly harder to do, given the polarization that drives our politics. Compromise on issues seems nearly impossible. If anything, many Americans feel so much antipathy for the other party that on some issues, they gravitate to extremes to sharpen the contrasts. Party identification has always motivated voters, but now, it’s seen as an expression of their values.
In looking for good governance, our Editorial Board takes time to examine individuals’ qualifications, experience and policy proposals.
Among the questions we consider: How much do their campaigns focus on the jobs they’re actually running for? If they are incumbents, are their offices functioning well, or should they be fired? Does their experience outside of politics (or before the current campaign) seem useful to the tasks they would face? Does their rhetoric indicate they would seek to govern openly, solve problems and build consensus?
Party affiliation is low on the priority list. We’re trying to recommend individuals, not parties.
And on the statewide slate, for instance, Republicans are offering up several incumbents whose job performance has been controversial, if not suspect.
Consider Attorney General Ken Paxton. Bribery allegations against him have yielded no legal action yet. But when several hand-selected aides leave in protest of what they see as corruption, it merits attention. Paxton has also made several dubious legal and policy moves, including his unforgivable effort to overturn other states’ elections on behalf of former President Donald Trump.
So, while we might disagree with some of Democrat Rochelle Garza’s progressive stances, the higher priority is that Paxton needs to go.
This is an extreme example. There’s not corruption up and down the ballot. Consider a case like the open race for land commissioner. As a state senator, Republican Dawn Buckingham seems qualified for the job. But she has little experience on several of the issues that office governs, and her campaign rhetoric is boilerplate of inflation, immigration and crime. Democrat Jay Kleberg has worked on conservation and land use issues in the public and private sectors. Advantage, Kleberg.
It doesn’t help, either, that most statewide Republican candidates declined to meet with our board. That’s certainly their choice to make, but it’s harder to recommend a candidate we haven’t talked to.
Why aren’t we seeing better candidates? Polarization is certainly a factor, driving politicians to the fringes to win their parties’ nominations. Republicans are also on their third and fourth generation of candidates since flipping the state red in the mid- to- late 1990s with leaders such as George W. Bush, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Rick Perry. Like a sports dynasty trying to keep going with draft picks to replace hall-of-famers, there will be some flops.
As for Democrats, they’ve struggled for decades to field competitive candidates statewide. Rising stars wait for better conditions. The party’s slates have improved. In 2006, Democrats trotted out a nice fellow named Fred Head (really), who had last served in the Legislature 25 years prior, to at least have a comptroller candidate on the ballot. Other than Beto O’Rourke, no Democrat has made a competitive run for statewide office in more than 20 years.
We understand that every year, our recommendations drive some readers bonkers. Our goal is to use our access, time and expertise to provide information and lay out a case. It may be that you perceive our priorities to be so different from yours that, as one reader told me, you simply use our list to determine who to vote against.
That’s OK. In fact, it’s great. As long as we’re helping our subscribers wade through a long ballot of unfamiliar names and obscure offices, we’ve done our job.
