About Richard Murray
In a 2014 discussion, Richard Murray argued that winning gubernatorial elections is the most viable path for a minority party to become competitive, citing the example of Texas. He stated that "the minority party very often wins governorships" and described the office as "the easiest office to capture." Murray noted that voters tend to view the governor as a CEO and hold them accountable, and he said that the Texas governorship has become "significantly more powerful" over time, making it "uniquely important for a minority party to build on" due to appointee powers. He credited former Governor Bill Clements with using those powers effectively to build the state Republican Party and concluded that "there can't be a competitive Democratic Party in Texas until the party recaptures the governorship."
In a 2010 interview, Murray, then executive director of the Ohio School Facilities Commission, responded to an Inspector General report that found he had abused his authority. He said he accepted the factual events cited in the report but disagreed with the conclusion that his conduct was unprofessional or that he abused his authority. Murray rejected an allegation that he attempted to trade concerns about a school district's site for a project labor agreement, stating, "I simply reject the allegation that I attempted to do that." He acknowledged his union background but maintained that he did not promote union or nonunion labor in his role.
Source: AI-verified profile updated from Richard Murray's recent appearances.
Browse all interviews →
Transcript (1 segments)
U
Unknown0:16
But for the Democratic Party to become competitive, by far their best opportunity is in governor elections. First, because with good reason around the country, we find the minority party very often wins governorships. It's the easiest office to capture. You win something else, it's usually because somebody's hurt by a scandal. Voters want to throw them out individually. But in voting for governor, there's not a high correlation between a state being categorized as 'red' and voting for a Republican for governor, and 'blue' and voting for a Democrat. We got a lot of very red states that have Democratic governors, like currently Oklahoma. That was John McCain and Sarah Palin's best state. Somehow beat out Utah. The governor's a Democrat. New York, one of the bluest of states, had a Republican governor for 12 of the last 14 years and could elect another one if they find a decent candidate in 2010. Voters, in voting for state leadership, naturally tend to assume the governor is the CEO and they hold him or her accountable. Now that's not true in many incidents — and often arguably very much not true in Texas, where historically we've rated our governors 49th or 50th in formal powers. I think those ratings are now out of date. And our governor position has become significantly more powerful. But voters hold governors accountable whether they're powerful or not. So they're going to get blamed for things. And it's hard to win three or four elections in a row. And governorships are in national office. So this is an opportunity where you can get voters to, based on history, to focus on specifics to the state. To policy issues. And that gives a funded candidate who's bright, some opportunity to find those issues and maybe find the key that turns the lock with voters. Certainly we know Bill White is a data-driven guy. He likes numbers. We also know — I know personally — he's one of the tightest SOB's. He gets more money out of a campaign dollar — impact — than anybody I've ever seen. Perry I assume is pretty good, but White will get — his $25 million probably gets him about $35 million. The way he's able to use his money. Everything from how you buy media. When. Get paying consultants. Pollsters. He's tight. That's important in a mega state. Where again you've got to have money down that critical 60 day stretch to be competitive. So winning the governorship is important because it's a big office symbolically. And it changes the climate for the media. And for the political cognoscente that follow. And suddenly they stop talking about a state being a one-party state. And they start talking about, well, it's more competitive. But there's also something about the Texas governorship that makes it uniquely important for a minority party to build on. Because of the vast over time appointee powers. Bill Clements used that very effectively from 1979 through 1982 to build a state Republican Party. Republicans had been fairly competitive. John Tower had been winning Senate elections since 1961. But Bill Clements really provided the base it seems to be, for the Republican Party to grow here into the success in the 1990s and the early 21st Century. He wasn't a great governor in many regards, but he particularly used the appointee powers, I thought, very effectively. And with lasting benefit to his party. He lost his reelection bid in 1986, but came back in 1990 — well lost in 1982; he came back in 1986. But it's a good position to build a party from. Or rebuild one in the case of the Democrats. And I don't think there can be a competitive Democratic Party in Texas until the party recaptures the governorship. You might get a single-shot victory in something like a railroad commission race. Or a besmirched judicial — high judicial officer that's personal record turns off enough independent voters. But I think governorship is the key office in the state at the top for rebuilding.
