Home

About
- Who We Are
- Community Guidelines
- Right to Respond
Advertising on BOR
- Advertise on BOR
- Buy on all Texas Blogs

Advertisements

Search




Advanced Search


Follow Burnt Orange Report on Twitter (@BOR) and Facebook.

The Real Facts


by: Gary Cobb

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:18 AM CDT


(A former candidate explains his endorsement in the Travis County District Attorney race.   - promoted by David Mauro)

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.

 

ADVERTISEMENT
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Real Facts | 13 comments
A couple questions... (2.00 / 2)

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?


he doesn't sound defensive to me (2.00 / 1)
he sounds like a guy who just had his integrity questioned, and was explaining the details of what happened.

LettersFromTexas.com

[ Parent ]
David (4.00 / 4)
First of all, you're joking with this contradictory statement, right?

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.
You can't accuse someone of wrongdoing ("you asked Montford...") and then say you didn't accuse someone of wrongdoing. That's just logically impossible.

You also ask a leading question: "Did Lehmberg promise him something?" that, if you read his comments, he addresses (though I sure wouldn't have answered such a leading question). Cobb wrote:

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.
So for you to come back and ask, "why didn't you answer the questions?" is another point where you're just not being logical. I'm not going to speculate as to why, I'm just saying you're not. He answered the question.

You also ask, "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?"

Well, everything he wrote in this diary happened. He lost an election, pretty bad. He met with Montford. He met with Lehmberg. I presume he's allowed to change his mind, right? And he's said why he's chosen to endorse Lehmberg:

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.
So Cobb answered both of your questions.

All due respect, but you're going way, way, way overboard. I know nothing about any interactions that may or may not have happened. But reading your original comments (link here) and the Statesman article, and now Cobb's responses, he's seemed to maintain himself openly and honestly.

Cobb answered your questions. If you want to raise the specter of wrongdoing b/c this is a political campaign, fine. But don't pretend you're on some "high road" and Cobb isn't answering your questions. He did, and more.  

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.


[ Parent ]
I met Gary Cobb... (3.50 / 2)
at an Obama function about a week before the primaries. I really liked him then, and like him even more now.

Good job Gary (3.67 / 3)
I do not trust Mindy Montford either.  To my knowledge there are no public offices for people that cannot be trusted.  Perhaps Mindy should work in the private sector.  She would fit right in at AT&T and their warrentless wiretapping.

fascinating... (0.00 / 0)
I love these inside glimpses into the campaigns.  We need to make more baseless accusations against pols so that they write more of them. :)

Just kidding, of course.  Thanks for the info, Gary!


Objection (3.00 / 1)
I would say Gary was acting overzealous by repeatedly asking Mindy about the position of first assistant. Mindy said she he would be working with her at the top of her administration. He should have left it at that and moved on, instead of badgering her to get her to say that he would have a specific position. Good for her for not giving him an answer on what specific job she might have in mind for him.

It sounds like he was putting Mindy in an awkward position by repeatedly asking if she was going to make him first assistant. If he were doing this to a witness in a courtroom, the other side's lawyer would probably say "objection, your Honor, the witness has answered the question" and the judge would say "sustained".

I certainly hope that no one is foolish enough to go into meetings with Obama, Clinton or McCain repeatedly asking them to say they are going to make them Secretary of State or some other specific position.  


Over Ruled (0.00 / 0)
by Word Games 101. I would like to know by the still active presidential candidates who they are giving "serious consideration of" and/or their "shortlist" of possible Secretary of State candidates. Might affect my support for them.

Appears Montford did not answer Cobb's question directly (illegal) or indirectly (legal) on who her choices for 1st Assistant might be. Be very afraid of the indirect promises or commitments made by all political candidates, to obtain large legal campaign contributions. Who pays the freight for a politican is much more important than who they would they hire to help them once they get elected to run their office.


[ Parent ]
Permission to approach the bench (0.00 / 0)
It's fine if a candidate for president says my shortlist for Secretary of State is X, Y and Z.

It is an entirely different matter for a person to go to a candidate and repeatedly ask if they are going to be appointed to a specific position.


[ Parent ]
except that... (0.00 / 0)
wasn't it Ms. Montford who anxiously wanted to have a conversation with Mr. Cobb, not the other way around? If the conversation then turned to issues she wanted only to hint at, instead of clarify, that doesn't really seem like Mr. Cobb's problem to me, given that she was approaching him. From the description of the converesation given, he wasn't asking for a job - he was asking for clarification of something she had first said, in a conversation she wanted, on a subject she first broached. Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't see a point.

LettersFromTexas.com

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
She did want to have a conversation with him, but as far as I can tell, she did not first broach the subject of what role he would have. Her subject was trying to get his endorsement based on shared issues. According to him, he first broached another subject, "At some point I ask Mindy what role does she see me having in her administration."

She gave an answer that looks like she was trying to convey to him that she thinks very highly of him and that he would play an important role but that she did not want to get into specifics, since this was a meeting she asked for to get his endorsement and at such a meeting talking about specific jobs is not appropriate.

He then pushed further and first brought up the specific job, "I ask her, what would that be, the First Assistant."


[ Parent ]
uh-uh (0.00 / 0)
Scott, that's not how I read the story at all...I interpreted it as Ms. Montford first bringing something up, via voicemail and txt message, and Mr. Cobb later asking that it be quantified. The first reference to a role for Mr. Cobb was in Ms. Montford's voicemail:

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.

Subsequently, there was a similar txt message from Ms. Montford:

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.

Now maybe it's just me, but the way I read those quotes, she was either proposing that they start dating, or she was proposing a professional relationship. With her repeatedly pushing the point, it's understandable that Mr. Cobb would want to follow up on that to see what she meant and to quantify what she was talking about.

And again, that two intelligent people can disagree on what was said and what it meant indicates to me that this is much ado about nothing, because if it's not clear to us, it probably wasn't clear to them at the time either. That's why I don't think the charge should have ever been leveled at Mr. Cobb by Ms. Montford's folks in the first place.

From the start, it has sounded more like a description of the details of a routine, if emotionally charged, conversation between two people who are very familiar with each other, neither of whom had any reason at the time to believe they were approaching anything improper. Let's just let both of these good folks out of the doghouse on this, and let the two surviving candidates go on with their primary run-off.


LettersFromTexas.com


[ Parent ]
right. (0.00 / 0)
i agree with harold's take.

i'm kinda baffled at why (by his own admission) cobb repeatedly pressed her for a specific commitment.

was he wearing a wire?
was he trying to make a deal?
was he just clarifying?

i don't know.

but it is a little weird that he keeps pushing for a specific commitment.

all that being said, conversations like this are very common in runoffs and i would expect both sides to get what they want without breaking any laws. i'm not sure where the alleged-shenanigans took place.


[ Parent ]
The Real Facts | 13 comments
Burnt Orange Reader

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Poll
Who would you vote for in the Democratic Primary for Ag Commission?
Kinky Friedman
Hank Gilbert

Results

Advertisement

Best of Texas Left
- (Complete Directory)
- A Capitol Blog
- As the Island Floats
- B & B
- Bay Area Houston
- Blue Bloggin
- Bluedaze
- Brains and Eggs
- Capitol Annex
- Collin County Democrats
- Collin County Observer
- Community Forum
- Dog Canyon
- Dos Centavos
- Easter Lemming Liberal
- Eye on Williamson County
- Feet to the Fire
- Greg's Opinion
- Grits for Breakfast
- Half Empty
- Houtopia
- In the Pink Texas
- Kiss My Big Blue Butt
- Letters from Texas
- McBlogger
- Mean Rachel
- Musings
- North Texas Liberal
- Off the Kuff
- Panhandle Truth Squad
- Para Justicia y Libertad!
- Pink Dome
- San Antonio Mayor
- South Texas Chisme
- StoudDemBlog
- Texas Clover Leaf
- Texas Kaos
- The Caucus Blog
- There..Already
- Three Wise Men
Best of Texas Right
- Blogs of War
- BlogHouston
- Boots and Sabers
- Lone Star Times
- Publius TX
- Rick Perry vs the World
- Safety for Dummies
- Slightly Rough
- Urban Grounds
Other Texas Reads
- Burka Blog
- D Magazine
- DOT Show
- Statesman Elections
- Strong Political Analysis
- Texas Monthly
- Texas Observer
- The Texas Blue
- Quorum Report Daily Buzz
Around Austin
- Austin Bloggers
- Austin Chronicle
- Austin Contrarian
- Austin Metblogs
- Austin on Two Wheels
- Austin Real Estate Blog
- Austin Statesman
- Austin Texas Bike Shit Stuff
- Austin Towers
- Austinist
- Capital MetroBlog
- Daily Texan
- Do512
- Downtown Austin Blog
- East Austinite
- Elise Hu
-
Flash Mob Austin
- Keep Austin Blue
- M1EK
- Travis County Democrats
- University Democrats
TX Progressive Orgs
- ACLU Legislative Blog
- Atticus Circle
- Criminal Justice Coalition
- Equality Texas
- Latinos for Texas
- NOW Texas
- PFAW Texas
- Public Citizen
- SEIU Texas
- Tejano Insider
- Texas AFT
- Texas HDCC
- Texas Watch
- TFN
- TSTA
- TSEU
- Texas Young Democrats
- United Ways of Texas
TX Elections/Returns
- TX Returns 1992-present
- TX Media/Candidate List

- Bexar County
- Collin County
- Dallas county
- Denton County
- El Paso County
- Fort Bend County
- Harris County
- Jefferson County
- Tarrant County
- Travis County

- CNN 1998 Returns
- CNN 2000 Returns
- CNN 2002 Returns
- CNN 2004 Returns
- CNN 2006 Returns
- CNN 2008 Returns
Traffic Ratings
- Alexa Rating
- Quantcast Ratings
-
Syndication

Burnt Orange Reporters
Publisher - Karl-Thomas M.
Editor-in-Chief - Matt G.
Staff Writer - David M.
Staff Writer - Katherine H.
Staff Writer - Michael H.
Staff Writer - Todd H.
Man of Mystery - Phillip M.
Founder - Byron L.

Powered by: SoapBlox