And their editorial is dead on.
We find ourselves in agreement with Friedman on most issues.
He favors legalized gambling in Texas. Given the right legislation, we may also favor it, and we certainly would not be willing to dismiss it out of hand as some other candidates do.
Friedman favors reforming Texas education by reducing the rigid adherence to standardized tests as the sole measure of success. Those tests have simply not produced better-educated Texas students — just students somewhat more adept at taking specific tests but arguably less adept at everything else.
Friedman is for smaller, more efficient government.
He is for stricter control of the Texas-Mexico border.
He is for broader health-care guarantees for the poor, especially for children.
Friedman is for maximum personal freedom for all Texans. Translate that to mean he’s for gay rights and against the Texas ban on gay marriage.
But, having said all that, Friedman’s real strength is much simpler. It lies in what he is not — he is not a traditional, party-affiliated, lobby-financed Texas pol.
He is not Rick Perry or Chris Bell or Carole Keeton Strayhorn, all of whom are running multimillion-dollar campaigns paid for by people who expect something in return.