The second and last debate between the major candidates for governor gave Texas voters a clearer image of their choices ahead — even with the unanswered questions on public education and ethics.
In one corner was cool, calm Gregg Abbott, confident in those successes reaped by Republican dominance of state government. The semi-flappable attorney general represented what might be called status quo-plus.
In the other corner was underdog Wendy Davis, whose verbal roundhouses never ceased in a furious effort to make up a deficit in the polls. The Democratic state senator accentuated her profile as a shake-’em-up agent who’s offering solutions to unsolved problems.
Contrasts, there were many, such as their positions on whether to expand Medicaid coverage under Obamacare (her, yes; him, no); tighter abortion restrictions (her, no; him, yes), and whether they would veto a bill rescinding in-state college tuition for Texas high school graduates in the country illegally (her, yes; him, no). This newspaper would side with Davis on all three.
But we also listened intently for how she would pay for her expansive programs for public education, including universal pre-K and raising teacher pay “more in line with the national average.” Unfortunately, despite repeated attempts by her questioner, Davis would not estimate the cost or specify where the money would come from. “I will set a vision,” she said, pulling up way too short on how she’d squeeze extra billions out of the GOP-controlled Legislature.
On education, Davis was more focused on putting words in Abbott’s mouth, claiming he would subject preschoolers to standardized testing. Take Abbott’s word for it that he intends no such thing, even though Davis said she found it on Page 21 of his plan. To which we say, at least Abbott has published a detailed blueprint for education, although he struggles to convey its essence to TV viewers.
Abbott’s biggest setback during the debate — one area where Davis knocked him off kilter — was over his office’s handling of information requests into Texas Enterprise Fund grants. Davis wanted to know whether he would release all records pertaining to grant requests that he shielded from public view in 2004, citing the potential of confidential corporate information.
Abbott clumsily tried to turn that question on Davis, insinuating that a title company she worked for benefited underhandedly from the incentive fund. Davis let him have it. Back on his heels, Abbott never clearly answered the question posed to him, which is too bad.
That played into Davis’ strategy of depicting Abbott as a lapdog for special interests. For his part, Abbott mildly suffered the taunts, careful to appear gentlemanly toward Davis, in a safe front-runner’s strategy.
It’s also too bad we don’t get another look at the two of them squaring off. Each occasion gives us a little more to go on, a way to separate fact from fiction and contrast two vastly different approaches for leading 27 million Texans.
