FORT WORTH, Texas - Texas Gov. Greg Abbott cannot reasonably be accused of always playing to his party's lowest common denominator.
That territory is typically occupied by his more provocative Republican peers, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton - not to mention his recently routed primary challengers.
But his recent announcement that Texas would be chartering buses and offering to bring migrants at the border straight to the steps of the U.S. Capitol in Washington - where the Biden administration "will be able to more immediately address the needs of the people that they are allowing to come across our border," he said - played like red meat in a media environment that often glosses over nuance.
"Texas Governor Targets Migrants in Anticipation of Influx at Border," read a headline in The New York Times.
The sub-headline, of course, acknowledged that the expected surge in illegal immigration is the direct result of a change in the Biden administration's policy - the announced end of Title 42, the emergency health order used during the pandemic to turn away migrants at the border.
It also clarified that Abbott's fierce-sounding plan to ferry migrants to the nation's capital is, in fact, completely voluntary.
Transporting migrants around the state of Texas is something border cities already do, Abbott explained.
"So I said I've got a better idea: As opposed to busing these people to San Antonio, let's continue the ride all the way to Washington, D.C.," he added.
The busing plan's voluntary nature even drew criticism from the governor's right flank, who like his critics on the left (including White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki), called it a publicity stunt.
That sounds about right.
Most Texas policies to combat out-of-control immigration are half-baked solutions because by definition they have to be. Texas simply lacks the authority to do much else.
As Psaki quite clearly stated, while swiping at Abbott and his busing plan, "enforcement of our country's immigration laws lies with the federal government, not a state."
What she conveniently failed to address was what exactly border states, which bear the burden of porous borders, are supposed to do when the federal government fails to enforce existing immigration laws or develop a more cogent plan for dealing with huge numbers of people crossing into the U.S.
That is why Abbott's new policy, however much it looks like a stunt, is so far working exactly as planned: It's keeping the public's attention on a burgeoning crisis that the Biden administration has publicly and privately admitted is about to break.
Jeh Johnson, homeland security secretary under President Barack Obama, explained why numbers of that magnitude are not sustainable.
"It overwhelms the communities ... that have to absorb this population. It overwhelms Catholic Charities. It overwhelms the Border Patrol and ICE and their ability to keep up with these numbers," he said in a recent interview.
And that doesn't even begin to address the other manifold problems associated with a surge of migration, such as the increased incidence of human, sexual and drug trafficking.
Given the magnitude of the problem, it's difficult to see Abbott's plan making a substantial difference. It won't deter migrants who have been gathering at the border for months, and it won't magically imbue Texas with the authority to detain them.
But it will keep the crisis at the border in the news and at the forefront of the minds of political leaders - including several prominent (and politically vulnerable) Democrats, who have already expressed their displeasure with the administration's decision to end Title 42 without a plan to manage its significant repercussions.
Sometimes, publicity stunts are an end in themselves.
Score it Abbott: 1, Biden: 0.
Fort Worth Star-Telegram