In defense of David Dewhurst… and Rick Perry

Posted on by

One of the most common spats between Cruz and Dewhurst supporters is over endorsements. Cruz has Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, FreedomWorks, Club for Growth, and many more out-of-state conservatives on his side. Dewhurst has equally prominent endorsements to his name as well – most notably, Governor Rick Perry.

As a Dewhurst supporter who’s had the gall to post nice things about him on Twitter, I’ve heard many an argument against Dewhurst – including slams undermining Perry’s endorsement

“Of course Perry endorsed him,” a friend recently told me. “He had to, right?”

Had to. I may be newer to politics than some of my older and more seasoned compatriots, but since when does Texas firebrand Rick Perry ever do what he supposedly “has to”?

Take a look at a few of his other endorsements: Don Willett, a strict constructionist for Texas Supreme Court justice; Wayne Christian, widely regarded as one of the most conservative (former) members of the State House; J.M. Lozano, who recently left the Democratic Party to join the GOP; and Bryan Hughes, who is challenging Joe Straus for the Speakership. Sound like the status quo to you? (The Texas Tribune has a full recap of Perry’s endorsements.)

Many of the candidates Perry endorsed are incumbents. But they’re hardly the “moderate establishment” folks Cruz supporters attempt to paint Dewhurst as. Whether newcomers or experienced politicians, whether facing a serious challenger or in a safe seat, these endorsements were not sent down from some political gods, and they were not made because of any obligation Perry supposedly had.

As for me, I try not to give too much credence to endorsements. They’re churned out nickel and dime these days. But if there are two people whose endorsements I would trust, it’s Attorney General Greg Abbott and Rick Perry. I am proud to stand with Dewhurst – and Governor Perry – in preparation for July 31st.

  • Barbara

    Perry doesn’t base his endorsements on conformity to conservative principles, and it’s as wrong to claim credit by association (“Perry’s endorsements are often conservative, therefore Dewhurst is conservative”) as it is to claim (attenuated) guilt by association (“Ted Cruz’s law firm donated x dollars to Obama”). I agree with many of the strong positions that Perry and Dewhurst have taken on certain issues, but my confidence in Perry was irretrievably damaged by the Trans-Texas Corridor fight: if ever there was an outrageous affront to private property, that was it. Throw in the wrong-headedness of the whole project and it reeked of cronyism. Then, of course, there was the whole HPV debacle. That was so bad, on so many levels: someone who has principles, much less a reasonable grasp of the science of vaccines, would have nixed that immediately. Again, the whiff of cronyism was apparent.

    Katie, you didn’t vote for Michael Williams because his campaign was non-existent. What does it tell you that out of a $12 million campaign, $10 million was David Dewhurst’s own money? That in itself isn’t an argument, I know. But maybe all of those people who have donated to Ted’s campaign (the thousands of us) see someone who is principled, hard-working and devoted to the Constitution. We’re a bit disgusted by the wealthy guy who thinks he can buy his senate seat and skip all the icky townhalls. In my personal experience with Ted (I’ve worked with him and have known him for years) this is an accurate portrait. He’s a terrific conservative, with backbone to spare: exactly what we need in the Senate.

    • Katie Thompson

      Regarding your comments about Governor Perry, I’ll just say that Perry has freely admitted the policy mistakes he has made and righted them. That is one of the reasons I trust him. I truly believe he only endorses candidates he feels will do the best job possible.

      Since when is financial success a flaw? More power to Dewhurst for having $10 million to pour into his campaign. That’s not what I call “buying” a seat – it’s a) reaping the benefits of free enterprise and b) using the money to have an active, well-advertised campaign. And he’s less beholden to outside groups who may attempt to influence his votes through their financial support. (The Michael Williams analogy doesn’t quite fit here – Dewhurst is actively campaigning, which Williams didn’t seem to do at all, regardless of available resources.)

      I don’t doubt Cruz is a conservative or a hard worker. I just don’t believe he’s right for this seat.

  • Andy Hogue

    I have no problems with what Dewhurst has done.

    But it’s what he has NOT done that makes him a squishy, middle-of-the-roader.

    The man pretty much is the Senate’s rules book. He controls the Calendar. He has full command and control over what bills get heard and which get pushed back or pigeon-holed indefinitely.

    Which bills got the green light (such as SBs 6 and 8, the education “reform” bills) and which ones died (i.e. the anti-TSA groping bill) says a lot about Mr. Dewhurst. I’ll say one thing about him, though: He defended the Rainy Day Fund as best he could.

    Dead bills after special session:
    http://www.lonestarreport.org/LoneStarReport/LSRArchives/200811Articles/tabid/158/ctl/Detail/mid/655/xmid/742/xmfid/1/Default.aspx

    Dead bills after 82nd session:
    http://www.lonestarreport.org/LoneStarReport/LSRArchives/200811Articles/tabid/158/ctl/Detail/mid/655/xmid/726/xmfid/1/Default.aspx