Gary Cobb Ready to Endorse: Looks Like Lehmberg

gonna go out on a limb here (0.00 / 0)

and say it's probably going to be Lehmberg.

---

by: Joe @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 22:15:22 PM UTC

I will go further out on that limb (0.00 / 0)

Lehmberg is the next DA and Danny Thomas is the next Constable in Pct 1.

---

by: ssuits @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 22:54:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's Lehmberg (0.00 / 0)

AAS  3/12/08
Cobb throws support behind Lehmberg

Gary Cobb, who finished third in the Democratic primary for Travis County district attorney last week, said today he will pledge his support to candidate Rosemary Lehmberg in the April runoff election.

Cobb will announce the endorsement at Thursday press conference.

---

by: sonia @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 00:29:13 AM UTC

What's the point of a press conference (0.00 / 0)

if you tell the press about the endorsement a day in advance?

---

by: LSadun @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:11:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

TV (0.00 / 0)

duh

---

by: Jeb @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 15:07:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The facts: (0.00 / 0)

Gary Cobb told multiple people prior to the election that he would endorse his close, personal friend, Mindy Montford, if she made it into a runoff and he didn't.  Suddenly, once the results came in something happened:

1.  Cobb asked Montford three times to commit to making him 1st assistant in the DA office. 2nd Statesman Article.

2.  Montford refused to break the law by giving him a promise for his endorsement.  See sec. 36.02 Penal Code.

3.  Cobb said in the first version of the Statesman story of Lehmberg, "She talks specifically about things that she would be doing and getting me involved."  And of Montford, "I was not personally comfortable in what she saw was my role."

4.  Then Cobb broke his own commitments and suddenly endorsed Lehmberg.

What happened between the time he made promises to support Montford and the time he changed his mind other than a refusal to break the law by Montford?  Did Lehmberg promise him something?

---

by: david.holmes @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 13:58:52 PM UTC

The reality: (0.00 / 0)

Travis County has a great retirement plan and good health benefits. Cobb has a wife and two kids, plus he has 17 years with the Travis County District Attorney's Office.

Lehmberg will most likely win with or without his endorsement. Cobb is exercising good common sense after discussing his issues with both runoff candidates, I do not think it is necessary to question his integrity.

All parties involved are attorneys well versed in sec. 36.02 of the Penal Code. So I doubt any lines were crossed by anyone. So unless Montford taped her meeting with Cobb to prove her allegations, I will assume no lines were crossed. Lehmberg for damn sure knows better.

---

by: ssuits @ Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 03:40:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Real Facts (0.00 / 0)

I have never felt the need to respond to any blog posting regardless of what I felt was the biased slant against me or against my campaign for Travis County District Attorney.  But my friend David Holmes has gone too far and I feel that to not respond to this atack on my integrity would be to accept an undeserved personal affront.  Although many posters felt I was not the best candidate for DA [and many, many voters ultimately agreed with that assessment] not ever has anyone questioned my ethics or my integrity.  Apparently my personal decision to not endorse the candidacy of my "close, personal friend" Mindy Montford has magically transformed me into a corrupt politician looking to gain a top position in a new administration. Rather than have a salaried stalking horse such as David Holmes give a truncated version, I will tell what really happened. Most of this response involves conversations and matters of personal friendship that I would not have openly discussed but for what I felt was the need to respond to David Holmes.
On election night, after most returns were in and the results indicated that Rosemary and Mindy were headed for a run-off, Mindy called me at about 10:57pm and asked for my endorsement.  I told her I would need time to sort things out before deciding if I would be endorsing anyone.   A few days later, I think it was Friday, March 07, Mindy called and left a voice message asking me to please call her.  She said that she wanted to be right by  me and wanted me right by her side and that she could not do it without me.  When I did not respond to Mindy's phone message she had a mutual friend call me and ask that I return her call because she really wanted to talk to me.  I explained to that friend that I did not trust Mindy and was not interested in returning her call.  Shortly afterward I received a text message from Mindy.  In her text message she asked me to please call her, she stated that I could trust her and that she still wanted us to be a team.  She soon afterward sent a second text stating that she knew she had given me reason to pause but that I should not doubt her loyalty.

Saturday, March 08, I receive a call from Pam Wade who has been contacted by Jack Kirfman.  Jack, at Mindy's request, asks Pam to arrange for me to meet with Mindy and some of her campaign people at Montford headquarters on Sunday.  As a favor to Pam Wade I agree to go with Pam to this meeting, a meeting which I understand is solely for the purpose of Mindy seeking my endorsment in the District Attorney's race.

On Sunday at 5:30pm myself, Pam Wade and Flynn Lee meet at Montford Headquarters with Mindy, Jack Kirfman, and a man named "Hal" who I understood to be Mindy's campaign consultant.
The initial part of the meeting was primarily a conversation between Pam Wade and Mindy, with Pam asking questions about policies and changes Mindy might implement and Mindy responding to her questions.  Numerous times Mindy uses statements I had made during the campaign as a point of reference for how she would do things and areas of importance concerning the community and the DA's office.
Mindy makes it a point of stating that my campaign platform and her platform are very similar and that our views are similar.

At some point I ask Mindy what role does she see me having in her administration.  Mindy replies that I will be at the very top with her.  I laugh, and say that the very top would be the District Attorney position and that I dont believe I'm going to be in that position.  Mindy agrees.  I ask her, what role do you see me having in the work that's going to be done to make the changes you are talking about.  Mindy says that I will be at the very top, working right with her.  I ask her, what would that be, the First Assistant.  Mindy replies that she cant offer me the First Assistant position in return for my endorsement.  I reply, I'm not talking about you offering me anything in return for my endorsement, I dont want to talk about any endorsement, I want to know what role will I have making these changes that you believe we agree on.  I tell Mindy that she keeps saying I'm going to be at the top with her, and I cant be the District Attorney, is she saying that I will be the First Assistant.  Mindy says, I cant offer you the First Assistant position in return for your endorsement, that she cant do a quid pro quo.  I say, I'm not asking you to offer me anything, I'm not offering to endorse you, I just want to know what role you see me having that is at the top, working with you.  I ask again, do you see that as being the First Assistant.  Mindy says, I cant offer you that position because we both know it's illegal to offer a position in return for an endorsement.  I say, Mindy, I'm not offering you any endorsement, if you think I'm so valuable to the office, then you should want me beside you whether I endorse you or not.  Mindy then responds that she doesnt know why I would want to be the First Assistant since it's just a paper shuffling, administrative job.  I tell her that I dont care what the job is, I just want to know what plans, if any, she has for me in her administration.

After that conversation I then spoke with Mindy about trust issues that I believed exist between Mindy and many of her co-workers at the DA's Office.  Mindy stated that any trust issues were mine and did not in any way reflect the feeling of our co-workers.  We disagreed on that point. We then had an extended discussion about whether I was justified in distrusting Mindy.  We also disagreed on that point.

The meeting concluded and we exchanged pleasantries and parted ways.  At no point did anyone express any concerns that anything illegal, unethical or underhanded had occurred.

The next day,with the addition of Candace Wade, we met with Rosemary Lehmberg.  We discussed the same issues as well as what Rosemary saw as my possible role in her administration.  Rosemary made it clear that legally she could not even consider me for any particular position, but that there were areas that my experience and skills would be well-suited, including the area of recruitment of minority attorneys.

Based on our meeting with both candidates and based on my personal relationship with both candidates, with the knowledge I have about each of their experience and character, I felt that Rosemary Lehmberg was the best qualified of the two so she recieved my personal endorsment, for what little I imagine that's worth.

Ultimately, each voter in Travis County will decide for themself whether to endorse Rosemary or Mindy.  I believe those voters will make their decision based on the candidates stances on issues and on the candidates qualifications, not based on some misguided attempt to splatter mud on me. We have a long and honorable tradition in Travis County of running relatively clean political campaigns.  Time and time again candidates who insist on running dirty campaigns here are punished at the ballot box. I hope that we can all be good democrats and run good, clean campaigns.

I did maintain a "close, personal" friendship with Mindy throughout the primary.  We never had a cross word and rumours of our supporters rumbling at voting sites were just rumours.  As far as I know our people were as respectful and good humored toward each others as Mindy and I were.  However, regardless of that friendship, and regardless of any pre-election "committment" to endorse Mindy for a run-off, the Real Fact is this:  I endorsed Rosemary Lehmberg because I believe she is the most qualified person to be the next Travis County District Attorney.  If there is an office of Good Friend Whom I Like A Lot, But Dont Quite Trust, then Mindy Montford gets my vote.  I'm sorry that David Holmes is disappointed by my decision, but it's a decision I made without seeking a position from either candidate and without either candidate making an offer of a position to me.  Please, let's move on.

 

---

by: Gary Cobb @ Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 15:45:13 PM UTC

In all that you couldn't answer the questions? (0.00 / 0)

Gary -

Read again my comments that generated the entry above and you will notice two things:

1.  I referenced facts that you do not deny regarding asking if you would be first assistant.

2.  I asked questions.

I did not accuse you of any wrongdoing.  I said that what you asked Montford to do would have been illegal for her to do.

I appreciate that you took the time to write such a response, but why didn't you answer the questions?

You told several people that you would be endorsing one candidate, and then suddenly you endorsed another.  What changed?

I have spent nearly every weekday evening and many weekends at forums with you over the last couple months; every night you spoke of how Lehmberg can not be trusted to make changes that she has had every opportunity to make in the last 10 years running the office.  I believe your regular phrasing was, "Lehmberg can not take credit for the good without taking responsibility for the bad."

You, rightly, brought up the facts that under Lehmberg's leadership of the office, the Travis County District attorney's office is woefully underrepresented by minority prosecutors.

You, rightly, brought up the fact that under Lehmberg's leadership the Travis County District Attorney's office prosecutes minorities at a higher rate that any other major Texas city.

You said repeatedly that this election is between doing things the same or establishing needed change and improvement over those aspects that do work.

You sound quite defensive for someone who was only asked a couple questions.  So, again, what made Montford trustworthy enough for you to tell all the people you told that you would be endorsing her one day, and then the next, she wasn't?

---

by: david.holmes @ Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 16:58:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]