Oh Lord, we’re still talking about Matthew McConaughey

Please make it stop. At least, please make it stop until and unless there is some actual thing that is worth talking about.

Alright, alright, alright … he might, he might, he might.

Matthew McConaughey has publicly said a run for Texas governor in 2022 is a “true consideration.”

But the Academy Award-winning actor’s interest goes a step further than musings in interviews. McConaughey has been quietly making calls to influential people in Texas political circles, including a deep-pocketed moderate Republican and energy CEO, to take their temperature on the race and to talk about seriously throwing his hat in the ring, according to multiple people familiar with the conversations.

Most political strategists say they doubt McConaughey, a Texas native, will sacrifice his status as a beloved cultural icon in the state for the dirty business of politics. They don’t see a viable path forward, either, pointing to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s backing among the business community and millions in the bank — but the state’s political class is keeping a close eye on the Hollywood star’s plans nonetheless.

“I find it improbable, but it’s not out of the question,” said top Republican strategist Karl Rove, who relayed a recent encounter with Lawrence Wright, describing the New Yorker journalist as “hyperventilating” at the prospect that his close friend and fellow Texan might run. (Asked for comment on McConaughey, Wright replied in an email, “I’m trying to lower my profile in this, so I’ll politely decline.”)


“I’m a little more surprised that people aren’t taking him more seriously, honestly,” said Brendan Steinhauser, an Austin-based GOP strategist. “Celebrity in this country counts for a lot … it’s not like some C-list actor no one likes. He has an appeal.”

There’s little question that McConaughey — who became a household name for his starring roles in top films like “Dazed and Confused” and “Dallas Buyers Club,” delivering memorable lines in his signature languid drawl — would draw national media attention should he enter the race against Abbott.

What’s less clear is what kind of platform McConaughey would run on or even which party banner he would run under. McConaughey has been peppered with questions about politics and news of the day while promoting his memoir, “Greenlights,” but overall, has been vague about his political leanings, saying little about specific issues or policies.

The political calculations for a decision about party affiliation would also be tricky.

“The question is: Would he run as a Republican? A Democrat? Independent? And where is he on the political scale? He says he has a funny phrase about being a hardcore centrist, but what party would he run under?” said Rove.

See here and here for some background. God help me, I agree with Karl Rove, who is at least asking the right questions for these stupid articles.

There are only two types of people McConaughey could be talking to, assuming this isn’t all a bunch of hooey. One is the kind of person who could write him a very big check in the event he does run. He’s going to need a lot of those people, because Greg Abbott has a gazillion dollars in his campaign finance account. It’s true that McConaughey has more name recognition than your typical novice candidate, but he’d still have to let people know what he stands for and what he’d want to do, not to mention attack Abbott and defend himself from Abbott’s attacks. And two, he’ll need to talk to people who would be willing to work on his campaign. In the class of political professionals, there are likely two types: Those who will tell him that running a campaign will be very difficult and his odds of winning are not great, and those that will be happy to cash his checks. Good luck with that.

One more thing:

Meanwhile the Democratic Party has no announced candidate as of yet. Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, whose 2018 Senate run against Ted Cruz vaulted him into national prominence and a failed presidential bid, has yet to make a decision about whether or not he enters the race.

Former HUD Secretary and fellow 2020 hopeful Julián Castro is another potential candidate.

“He hasn’t ruled anything out and we’re watching the race closely,” said Sawyer Hackett, executive director of Castro’s People First Future PAC.

We have discussed the Beto situation. This is the first I’ve heard from someone connected with Julian Castro on the topic in awhile, and it’s not a No. So there’s that. The Texas Signal has more.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in Election 2022 and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Oh Lord, we’re still talking about Matthew McConaughey

  1. Frederick says:

    I hope he does run.

    It will tamp down the Fascist vs Communist rhetoric and force folks to talk about solutions to issues.

    I doubt he would run under a party banner. His best path forward is as an independent.

  2. Bill Daniels says:

    Let’s all just agree on some basic facts, OK?

    ~he can’t win as an independent. Have we learned nothing from John Anderson and Ross Perot? Even Trump recognized this, so he hijacked the R’s. An independent can’t win.

    ~as soon as he picks a team, could be D, could be R, he’ll get savaged by whichever team he did not choose. Be honest. Say he runs as a moderate R. Dems will savage him. He’ll be savaged right here on this forum. Should he choose to run as a moderate D, he’ll be mercilessly savaged by the R’s. Big Jolly will savage him. It is what it is.

  3. Bill Daniels says:

    I don’t really know where else to put this, but since fascism and communism have been mentioned, how about a shout out to blatant racism:


    Seems the mayor of Chicago is now only going to consent to be interviewed by non White journalists. Is this the unity we’ve been talking about?

  4. Lobo says:


    Frederick has seen the light. The party duopoly needs to be shook up. As the GOP has abandoned the center, so have the Dems. Moderates currently have nowhere to go.

    If you look at recent attitudinal survey data for Texas, you can see that the distribution among registered voters (subset of all eligible voters) is still bell-shaped (bulge left and right from center) while both parties’ elites and their agit-prop entourage have moved out to the fringes, unable or unwilling to engage in reasoned debate, denying and defying empirical reality, and denouncing dissenters instead of honestly acknowledging that folks differ in their values and beliefs (which for some are closely connected with their religion and perhaps their upbringing).

    The silent masses are much more moderate, and perhaps conflicted on hot-button issues such as abortion and gender roles, than the partisan ideologues and personality cultists. And when someone speaks up for the silent majority, they are liable to get shouted down.

    For an illustration of Democratic extremism, look no further than the metaphorical treatment (“Dragging”) of Harold Dutton, a Catholic, for not toeing the line on chemical if not surgical castration of young boys, and implications thereof for school sports.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr. (murder by dragging)

    You may not agree with Dutton on everything or anything. You ought to still treat him with a minimum level of respect.

    And on the merits of the hot-button issue, how can Democrats denounce folks for opposing castration of children?

    Seriously, have Texas Democrats gone nuts?

    Advocating for emasculation of boys to prevent them from ever even reaching puberty?

    Is that what feminism has degenerated into?

  5. Joel says:

    If i am ever tempted to believe BD that Lobo is a liberal, i have but to read the last paragraph of one of his comments (I’m certainly not going to read the whole thing).

  6. Lobo says:

    Bambini Castrati Addendum:

    AND BILL TEXT VERBATIM [including hermaphroditism and chromosomal abnormality exceptions]

    Senator Hall moved to suspend the regular order of business to take up for
    consideration SB 1311 at this time on its third reading and final passage:

    SB 1311, Relating to the provision of and professional liability insurance
    coverage for gender transitioning or gender reassignment medical procedures and
    treatments for certain children.

    The bill was read third time and was passed by the following vote: Yeas 18,
    Nays 13.

    YEAS: Bettencourt, Birdwell, Buckingham, Campbell, Creighton, Hall, Hancock,
    Huffman, Hughes, Kolkhorst, Nelson, Nichols, Paxton, Perry, Schwertner, Seliger,
    Springer, Taylor.

    NAYS: Alvarado, Blanco, Eckhardt, Gutierrez, Hinojosa, Johnson, Lucio,
    Menendez, Miles, Powell, West, Whitmire, Zaffirini.


    By: Hall S.B. No. 1311


    AN ACT
    relating to the provision of and professional liability insurance
    coverage for gender transitioning or gender reassignment medical
    procedures and treatments for certain children.

    SECTION 1. Chapter 161, Health and Safety Code, is amended
    by adding Subchapter X to read as follows:


    Sec. 161.701. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
    (1) “Child” means an individual who is younger than 18
    years of age.
    (2) “Health care provider” means a person other than a
    physician who is licensed, certified, or otherwise authorized by
    the laws of this state to provide or render health care or to
    dispense or prescribe a prescription drug in the ordinary course of
    business or practice of a profession.
    (3) “Physician” means a person licensed to practice
    medicine in this state.

    CHILDREN. For the purpose of transitioning a child’s biological
    sex as determined by the sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous
    profiles of the child or affirming the child’s perception of the
    child’s sex if that perception is inconsistent with the child’s
    biological sex, a physician or other health care provider may not:

    (1) perform a surgery that sterilizes the child,
    (A) castration;
    (B) vasectomy;
    (C) hysterectomy;
    (D) oophorectomy;
    (E) metoidioplasty;
    (F) orchiectomy;
    (G) penectomy;
    (H) phalloplasty; and
    (I) vaginoplasty;
    (2) perform a mastectomy;
    (3) prescribe, administer, or supply any of the
    following medications that induce transient or permanent
    (A) puberty-blocking medication to stop or delay
    normal puberty;
    (B) supraphysiologic doses of testosterone to
    females; or
    (C) supraphysiologic doses of estrogen to males;
    (4) remove any otherwise healthy or non-diseased body
    part or tissue.

    Sec. 161.703. EXCEPTIONS. The prohibitions under Section
    161.702 do not apply to the provision by a physician or other health
    care provider, with the consent of the child’s parent or legal
    guardian, of appropriate and medically necessary gender
    transitioning or gender reassignment procedures or treatments to a
    child who:
    (1) is born with a medically verifiable genetic
    disorder of sex development, including:
    (A) 46, XX chromosomes with virilization;
    (B) 46, XY chromosomes with undervirilization;
    (C) both ovarian and testicular tissue; or
    (2) does not have the normal sex chromosome structure
    for male or female as determined by a physician through genetic

    Sec. 161.704. DISCIPLINARY ACTION. The Texas Medical Board
    or another state regulatory agency with jurisdiction over a health
    care provider subject to Section 161.702 shall revoke the license,
    certification, or authorization of a physician or health care
    provider who the board or agency determines has violated that
    SECTION 2. Subchapter F, Chapter 1901, Insurance Code, is
    amended by adding Section 1901.256 to read as follows:

    professional liability insurance policy issued to a physician or
    health care provider may not include coverage for damages assessed
    against the physician or health care provider who provides to a
    child gender transitioning or gender reassignment procedures or
    treatments that are prohibited by Section 161.702, Health and
    Safety Code.
    SECTION 3. Section 1901.256, Insurance Code, as added by
    this Act, applies only to a medical professional liability
    insurance policy that is delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed
    on or after January 1, 2022. An insurance policy that is delivered,
    issued for delivery, or renewed before January 1, 2022, is governed
    by the law in effect immediately before the effective date of this
    Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
    SECTION 4. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
    a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
    provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
    Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
    Act takes effect September 1, 2021.

    Of related historical interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato

  7. Frederick says:


    Did you just mention agreeing on basic facts?! LOL…this comment from the king of conspiracy theories…again, LOL.

    Your tangency to Anderson and Perot is irrelevant. You’ve heard of the electoral college right? N/A.

    Mc will not run in either party. It will be as an independent. He will easily be in the +30% range and due to plurality winner he’ll have a chance depending on the direction of the electorate wind that couple of weeks of early voting and voting day.

  8. Lobo says:


    Can an Independent Become Governor in Texas ?

    Bill Daniels says No. – He is wrong.

    In 2006, Rick Perry won the gubernatorial election with 39% of the vote. That’s
    11% short of half. His Dem opponent (Chris Bell from Houston) was more than 9% behind with 29.8%.

    Anything-but orthodox Jewish Cowboy Kinky Friedman got only 12.4%, but consider that there was another strong independent candidate in that race: Carole Keeton Srayhorn, who received 18.1%.

    So, if you add up the independent vote for Kinky and Strayhorn, that’s 30.5%, which is more than the Dems’ ballot haul that year. And thanks to the multi-way character of the contest, the win-percentage was brought down to only 39%, with no need for a run-off under our current rules for picking a governor. It could even be lower.

    Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2006


    At the minimum, we must conclude that there is historical precedent in Texas for Independents doing well in gubernatorial elections, and for a gubernatorial race to be won with *far less* than 50% + 1 of all ballots cast.

    And if there is only 1 independent candidate (as opposed to the 2 in 2006), he may do even better because of grater perceived viability and momentum. In 2006, some voters may have been discouraged from voting for their truly favored independent candidate to avoid wasting their vote, and may have cast their ballot for the “lesser evil” among the two establishment R & D candidates instead.

    In fairness, 2 separate independents are likely to garner more votes collectively because they will appeal to different constituencies, which applies in particular to candidates of different sexes and different life-course background, as was true in 2006.

    The challenge for a sole independent candidate in a race for governor would be to cast as wide a net as possible, and go looking for voters at the center of the political spectrum (and current nonvoters). Voters on both tails ends of the curve will have hardened views and partisan allegiances already, and will be much more difficult to persuade to go for an alternative to the R or D branded offerings.


    Being at the center also means being wishy-washy about policy positions and hot-button issues, which can be “sold” as having an *open mind*. Mc C is already on the “right” track there. Perhaps the time has come to roll a campaign think tank into Town Square on Main Street in Midland.

    Alright, alright, alright … let’s see what we can do about all those issue you-all really care about.

    Let’s do it together, whatever it is.

  9. Pingback: We return again to the “Is Beto running for Governor” question – Off the Kuff

Comments are closed.