Now that we've all had our fun at the expense of Out Of Town Orlando Sanchez, Kevin is turning his attention to Bill White, who most of you know is my preferred candidate for Mayor of Houston. Says Kevin:

He's a pasty-American with ties to big energy.

He is not well known by most Houstonians.

He has ties to the Greater Houston Partnership.

He has virtually no experience in municipal government.

He has raised more money than any of the other candidates. Lots more money.

It appears he is determined to try and win the election by massive media buys -- one might even suggest he is attempting to "buy the election."

Sounds like a walking target for our left-of-center friends who decry the influence of money in politics.

Ah wait... what's that? Oh yes, that's right. He's okay, because he doesn't have that scarlett letter (R) beside his name. Well, in that case, he really must be smart. And a successful businessman in a volatile industry. And a guy with experience in municipal government after all (he chaired a task force once). And not as scary as that other left-of-center candidate. More moderate than that other "moderate." Yeah, that's it!

- I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one am not a reflexive basher of the energy industry. I know what city I live in, and I know what the biggest employer in this city is. Show me evidence that Bill White thinks that global warming is "just a theory", and then you'll have me rethinking my position.

- I'm willing to bet that most first-time candidates for city office have name recognition issues. That may be one reason why White, and for that matter Michael Berry, started their campaigns so long ago, as they couldn't afford to coast on the assumption that people already knew who they are.

- I have no opinion on the Greater Houston Partnership.

- Bill White's three main opponents in this race are an undistinguished former City Council member who's been living off campaign funds for two years, an even more undistinguished one-term City Council member, and a generally respected state legislator. There are times when I consider a lack of experience to be a deciding factor in an election, and times when it's less of a factor. This is one of the latter times. As someone recently commented, the most qualified candidate for Mayor in 2003 would be Lee Brown. I think we can all agree that there are other qualities that are worthy of consideration this year.

I think I can sum up Kevin's gripe here as "this guy has a lot in common with Republican candidates, but you wouldn't give him the time of day if he ran as one." To which I'll say: Yes and no.

First off, I do vote for the occasional Republican. I've voted for Justice John Anderson, who earned it after giving a correct ruling in what became Lawrence v. Texas and refusing to back down in the face of mudslinging from then-GOP Chair Gary Polland, and for County Treasurer Jack Cato, whom I know through playing bridge. Should Gabriel Vasquez, my party-switching Council representative run for another office some day, I'll give him due consideration for his excellent service. I don't punch the GOP chad often, but neither do I vote a straight ticket.

Second, there would be a big difference between Bill White running a generally non-partisan campaign yet happening to be a Republican, which would make him functionally equivalent to former Mayor Bob Lanier, for whom I voted in the past, and running a partisan campaign as a Republican, which would make him Rob Mosbacher circa 1997 and an easy no-vote decision to make. Frankly, the note in yeserday's Chron that White is being a stealth partisan with different messages to different audiences, is not something that I like. I can understand it, but I'd rather he didn't do it.

In short, White has some of the generally-associated-with-Republicans credentials that I approve of, and none of the ones that I don't approve of. What's the problem?

Now let's talk about money, which was probably the reason for Kevin's post in the first place. I had a long response in mind for that at first, but after what I've already written, I'll rein it in. My concern about money in political races is not its presence - I may as well be complaining about the presence of politicians. I specifically have a problem with secret donors, especially when they're funding phony "issue ads", I have a problem with corporate donors who help fund state races where they don't have a legislative stake, and I have a problem with quid pro quo for corporate donors. With the exception of soft money anti-White radio ads, I don't see how that has any effect on my choice of candidate this year.

(Hope this wasn't too boring for non-Houston folks.)