GregsOpinion.com

What better way to spend some quality time on a rainy day than listening to three of the four mayoral hopefuls wax eloquent on their respective agendas for the future of Houston? As I plodded through the rain, I had to mull over the possibility of just calling it a day and heading home instead, but I figured the rain would scare off less hearty individuals and I might enjoy a sparsely attended affair. I also considered the wisdom of that move while I was lost in Greenway Plaza. But kudos to John Turner of the Houston Democratic Forum for offering an invite to this shindig. Interesting sidenote here ... shortly after I'm introduced to John's wife, I get a question as to whether I'm "that guy with a website." Instinct normally dictates I run when I hear questions like that. I'm godawful with names, but it was one of the R Club honchos that apparently reads this blog and now I'm outted as one who is crappy with names. Sucks to be me. Suffice it to say, the legion of Republican/Conservative readers of this blog knows no limits, though. I fully expect William F. Buckley Jr. to be a loyal reader by now.

So once inside the Houston City Club, I grab a seat in a quiet corner. The moderator was Doug Miller of KHOU and the questioners were all acedemics from the local universities. I thought that was an odd twist. Granted, Jane Ely was in attendance, so it's not like the press was entirely shut out. Format was simple enough: opening statements and closing statements (naturally), one round of general policy questions for all the candidates to answer, and then a round of candidate-specific questions with some rebuttal by the others and a re-rebuttal by the original victim of interrogation.

A few things struck me right from the start. Michael Berry, who is trailing in fundraising, came out much harder on his outsider pitch than I seem to recall hearing before. He's on board with all of Bill White's pledges, for instance, yet likely because he's realizing that he doesn't have to worry much about insider support or significant PAC money. White doesn't have that to worry about either, but only because he's got a better rolodex and a fair amount of personal wealth. Both struck a theme that Houstonians should decide who the mayor should be, not people in Austin or elsewhere. That's naturally a shot at Turner and Sanchez. Since Sanchez wasn't there to fend for himself, it was up to Turner to proclaim that he is more worried about monied interest deciding this election. That was a direct shot at White, and perhaps an indirect shot (or at least a glancing blow) at Sanchez.

Berry wasted no time in cracking on Sanchez for skipping. It literally led off his opening statement. Who knows, maybe there's some life to this GOP primary after all. I'll give Berry his due ... he's got good presentation skills. Too good. I felt as if I should sign up for his $300 weekend course on reselling real estate with no money down. But he does emit a bit of the Jack Kemp-ish qualities of compassionate conservatism. There's no doubt a sincerity there. Still, didn't he just get elected to City Council? Funny tidbit, Turner followed the opening with a crack on Berry for skipping a prior event. How the hell does Berry end up making this big of an ass of himself? Everytime it seems he cracks on Sanchez, he's guilty of the same damn thing.

The rounds of questioning displayed a homogeneity to the candidates that perhaps underscores why mayoral elections had tended to be non-partisan for so long. For about an hour, there literally wasn't much difference between the three candidates save for style and presentation points. Nobody wants to go on a massive spending spree (lone exception being Turner's desire for bigger rail), nobody's going to cut spending in a way that we citizens can feel (unless one is truly attached to Mayor Brown's picture at the Airport entrance), and nobody is going to raise taxes. That left the resulting answers to a bland mush of statements about how the various candidates will "bring people together" or "manage problems." I was most cynical when Berry enumerated the mayoral strengths as consisting of the bully pulpit and "resources" which therefore meant that whatever the mayor wanted, he or she would get. Considering this was directed at a question regarding how the candidates would get their agendas passed, I thought it incredibly naive and pointless. It's akin to saying I'll get something done "just because." The point underscores the youth and inexperience that I think Berry has to overcome in the eyes of other voters, but what do I know ... I'm biased.

Turner was a little more impressive, but my initial thought was that there just can't be any way this man gets the same support among African Americans that Lee Brown got. In part, that's due to Sly no longer being the great hope of being "the first." The first came and went and it's been a rather drab disappointment for many. Even to the extent that pride will dictate votes, I've got to think that's even diminished. I don't pretend to know how much, though. Sly's opening was rather interesting ... as in, amusing interesting. He basically did what I would call a self-Socratic method for his intro:

"Can we build rail? Yes we can. Can we fix our streets? You bet. Can we do it without raising taxes? Absolutely."

It went on like that for what seemed an eternity. Did it get old quick? You betchya!

A few takes on Bill White now. I've stated before, I'm in his camp. Primarily because there's no other place for me but also because he comes across as a descendant of the type of Houston pols that I like to support. I've known Sly since his first days as a State Rep. and seen him go from an idealistic do-gooder to cynical special interest pol in my eyes. He did nothing to combat that image when he stated flat out that he'd be the police and fire union's lapdog. I've got nothing against giving those guys and gals everything they need to do the best job possible, but maybe it was the extent to which Sly bent over backwards that bugged me the most. Berry: too young, too quick, heard too many stories about what a crook he is. Sanchez: you've got to be kidding me.

White is definitely of the lineage of candidates that I support for city elections: the Eleanor Tinsleys, Jim Greenwoods, George Greaniases, Chris Bells and even the Helen Hueys (see, I even included a Republican!). But cynicism runs a little too rampant in Gregland sometimes. The Grenias line is set at 17% and whether I'll live to see one of my guys get above that remains to be seen. Bill White may be that person ... or maybe not.

First, here's why he can win: He's the only grown-up in this race. Think about it. That's not been able to be said about the other names above when they ran for mayor. Helen Huey, maybe. But she was a district councilperson without a large base. Greanias, maybe ... but it was a crowded field when he ran. This is a pretty even race as far as contrasts go. Establishment pick for the GOP, Everyman candidate for the GOP, black liberal Democrat, and white moderate Democrat (nevermind what the county GOP would have you believe).

In debates such as this, White also knows how to bat cleanup. Translation: when the others speak before you, you've got a real opportunity in speaking last to fill in the gaps, and pick apart other candidates' comments. White was the only one that seemed to grasp this. I paid close attention to a few of the times when White was first or second to speak and he does about as good as any other candidate, but I think the power of going last is something that is there for all to take advantage of, it's just that when you rush through your answer, you come across as an afterthought. And when you give a prepared speech instead of distinguishing yourself from the others, you give way to that homogenous vibe that permeats city politics (after all, who's FOR crime?). White was able to point out some minor differences and address points that were asked but not answered by the prior two responses. That's a skill. I'm not sure it's a huge deal since few uncommitted interested parties were in attendance, but it's still a nifty skill to have when you've got to peel off votes from other constituencies to get into a runoff.

Oh, one other way White was able to set himself apart from the crowd ... remember that PBS debate the candidates did where they split up $100 among the various departments as if to indicate where their priorities were? White was perhaps the only one to clock in a truer estimate of what the city really spends its money on, and he led the pack on spending for public safety. He promised to update his site with those results. God as my witness, Chris Bell never knew how to set himself apart that well.

That White has this Lanier-esque ability about him bodes well. But here's the downside: cold hard numbers. The support in the room was pretty even among the candidates. Many supporters and volunteers were there, so the crowd had an astro-turf feel to it. Outside of this building, though ... where's White's constituency? That's been the dilemna facing such candidates since Whitmire's downfall. Once Turner locks up around 25-30% of the vote with support of black voters, Sanchez presumably holds firm with about the same with support of GOP and Hispanics (Berry will peel away a little GOP support ... I'll guess around 10% is his total). That leaves 30-40% or so up for grabs. It would be an incredible run of luck to get the bulk of that group up for grabs. But that's what it will take. Presently, White is in the lead moneywise. That's something that none of the previous sorts managed to accomplish and it might bode well for his chances at corralling that 30-40% into his camp. But still, that's a tough task.

As for a runoff, I think the logistics there come out to be a little trickier depending on who is involved. But I tend to agree with the growing consensus that if White's in a runoff, he's in good shape to win regardless of who he's running against.