I don't know if the position has any more power than in any other state but it is a big state and, like CA, a (theoretically) good jumping off point for a presidential bid. I wouldn't be surprised if the governor had more power internally, but I don't know the set up nationwide.
>Doug:
>>
>>He probably should stick to dumbass music, but the comparison he's making
>>isn't about immigration it's about "phony politicians."
>
> Yeah, that's an old trope in American politics, and it usually goes
> nowhere. Perot, Ventura...
Don't forget the Governator. It goes nowhere but it is more entertaining than what seems like a wonky election (i.e. one that actually deals with issues realistically). Unfortunately, entertainment seems to be a an ever increasing factor--maybe moreso in a bigger state where the policy environment is so complicated candidates can revert to making ludicrous promises since they have no hope of ever passing (maybe a contradiction to the point above).
> Jim Devine:
>
>>... it plays to Texas nationalism (yes, I said TEXAS nationalism) ...
>
> if we're lucky, Texas under Kinky will secede from the union (except
> for Austin, of course, which the US should keep).
>
It would be complicated since that's where the state capital is, but I'm sure we could work out a East/West Berlin type solution amenable to all. If Kinky's building walls, might as well. How we can give them the state house and keep 6th street will take some very creative drawing of the borderlines. On the other hand, after seeing the redistricting effort, I assure you the Texans are up to the task.
-s