Our campaign is the first in Houston up with TV ads, which you can view below. The reviews are in:
"[I]t hits all the high points of Brown's resume while emphasizing that he has a plan for Houston" - Off The Kuff
"Brown released a dynamic, informative 30-second advert that will appear on broadcast and cable television. The commercial is titled "Next Step" and touts Peter Brown's achievements in City Council and plans for a better Houston." - David Ortez
"Commentary caught H-Town Mayoral candidate Peter Brown's first ad this morning during "The Today Show." It's a nice ad for an intro. Peter now has the airwaves to himself which is always advantageous."- Marc Campos
See the ad and read the full press release below the jump!
(Peter Brown is a candidate for Mayor of Houston this November. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
It's been eight years since Tropical Storm Allison, an event no one who experienced it can forget. My family remembers this time not just because of the storm, but also because it was the day of my daughter's wedding. Both the reception site and church were unreachable so we had to hold the ceremony and reception at our house. We were fortunate. Many Houstonians lost their homes, cars, possessions and more than twenty lost their lives. Texas, mostly the Houston area, suffered over $5 billion in losses, including $2 billion in damages at the Texas Medical Center.
After a catastrophe of this magnitude you'd think there would be swift action and a coordinated effort to assure this never happens again. Unfortunately, in the eight years since Allison flood control in Houston has been insufficient, costly, and uncoordinated. Residents, whether in the South Belt area or Spring Branch, continue to fall victim to flash floods causing loss of business, loss of property, and even loss of life. Flood damage costs Houstonians millions every year, and the City spends $50 million a year just trying to correct flooding. But the numbers can't measure the anger and frustration too many of us know of attempting to drive home or pick up a child from school only to find a submerged road in our path.
I've tackled flooding and drainage issues my entire career and I know we can win the fight against flooding. When I'm mayor, we'll get this right. My blueprint has three major suggestions:
Houston City Councilmember and Mayoral candidate Peter Brown is having a blogger/"tweeter" twitter conference Friday @ 10AM to "chat" re: Houston. Rsvp @pb4mayor.
The campaign first announced its most recent fundraising totals on Twitter and has used the platform to communicate about issues and campaign events with Houstonians. Now, the campaign is hosting their first open discussion with the Houston net community on Twitter this Friday.
Come ask him your questions about building an even better Houston before blogger lunch!
Yesterday an impressive fundraising number was making rounds that we did not get around to posting here at BOR. Annise Parker, a mayoral candidate in Houston's 2009 elections, a Democrat, Houston City Controller, and an open lesbian, had raised over $800,000 for her campaign and also gave some other impressive statistics. From her press release:
The Annise Parker for Mayor Campaign released its fundraising totals through June 30 today, raising $810,114.92 from 2,254 donors.
"We're building a grassroots campaign like Houston has never seen before," said Parker. "It will take all of us to keep Houston moving through these tough times to a strong economic recovery - and that's why there is a place in our campaign for everyone to make a difference."
The proof, according to Parker's campaign manager Adam Harris, is in the numbers:
• 2,254 donors - the campaign set a goal of 2,000 donors for the period and easily surpassed it
• 7,008 supporters on Facebook and Twitter - greater than three times those of all Parker's opponents combined
• 1,099 online donors contributed a total of $303,927.87
• In the last two days of the period, 291 donors contributed $42,948 online in response to an email appeal Parker sent to her supporters
• 1,002 donors made 1,144 contributions of $50 or less
• 742 people signed up to volunteer
Today, Gene Locke, former Houston City Attorney and another Democrat, showed that she could be beaten. From his press release:
The Gene Locke for Mayor campaign today announced that it had raised more than $1.15 million in its first reporting period of the campaign. More than 30% was raised between June 1, 2009 and June 30, 2009, showing the growing support and energy for Locke to be elected the next mayor of Houston.
Locke was the last major candidate to announce his candidacy for mayor on March 26, 2009, midway through the reporting period. Despite his relatively late start, Locke outpaced his opponents, who came into the race as previously elected officials with large war chests and a built-in network of supporters.
"Houstonians are investing in our campaign because they know that when I am mayor I will build a bridge to a new era of opportunity and prosperity for Houston," said Locke. "When I came to Houston I had $20 in my pocket and it's encouraging to start my campaign for mayor with considerably more than that thanks to the generosity of so many Houstonians. We've got a long way to go and a lot of sweat equity yet to earn, but our fundraising success shows the strength of our support."
There are two other prominent names in the race for Mayor of Houston: City Councilman Peter Brown, who happens to be a Democrat, and Harris County Board of Education Trustee Roy Morales, who happens to be a Republican.
Beyond knowing that two Democrats are campaigning with success to become the next mayor of America's 4th largest city, one can't help but compare these numbers to Tom Schieffer's lackluster numbers that were announced yesterday. True, the Houston elections are a year earlier than the Gubernatorial election (they happen this November), but there are also stricter contribution limits for Houston elections than statewide elections. In Houston elections, individuals max out at $5,000 per candidate per cycle, and PACs max out at $10,000.
That makes this comparison between Houston candidates and Gubernatorial candidate Schieffer even more impressive for Parker and Locke while simultaneously more depressing for non-Houston Texas Democrats. If we are going to stand a chance to win the Governor's seat in 2010, Tom Schieffer must pick it up or someone who is more effective must get into the fray. This pace just won't keep up with Kay Bailey Hutchison or Rick Perry.
Update: Peter Brown has released his numbers, too; $1.7 million cash-on-hand. Note that less than a third of Brown's cash-on-hand number was raised during this filling period. It looks like Gene Locke's release explicitly says his number was for this current filing period and Parker's release implies the same for her number.
Anyways, here is the key part of Brown's release:
Houston mayoral candidate Peter Brown announced today that he has amassed a war chest of over $1,7 million for his election - more than any other candidate in the race. Brown's support continues to grow and his campaign continues to pick up momentum as the candidates head toward the traditional beginning of campaign season.
"We have exceeded our goal," said Peter Brown. "Houstonians are responding to my plans to cut crime, bring new jobs to the city and improve our quality of life. Other candidates might be relying on downtown special interests or combing San Francisco and New York City for donations, but my campaign is focusing on donors who live and vote right here in Houston - who have a stake in the future of our city."
The Peter Brown for Mayor Campaign has raised over $477,000 since January first of this year bringing his total cash on hand to $1,756,031.
(This is wild. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Have you ever voted in multiple cities on the same day and it not be voter fraud? I get to experience this experiment of democracy gone awry on Saturday.
First, I have to explain that I do not live in a city any longer. I built a home in 2007 along the US 380 corridor in Denton County (Sorry Crownover. I didn't just move there to run against you in 2008.) It is situated in a fresh water supply district, even though it has a Little Elm address. That basically means I live in a developer controlled entity that can tax me to build water and sewer services, etc. without the benefits of being a Little Elm citizen.
The fun begins with overlapping districts. Our Denton County FWSD 11-A contracts out its billing services through Mustang SUD, yet another special utility district that controls water services for much of rural northern Denton County. Even though thanks to legislation from Tan Parker and Craig Estes, I can not legally run for a seat on their board, I can vote for their candidates. They have only one poll location at their office in Aubrey. You would think since 380 residents are now over half of Mustang's revenue, they would be a tad more accomodating. But, of course not.
We are also part of Denton ISD. Luckily, they have decided to have an additional poll located at the new government center in Cross Roads for us 380 folks. So, this will be my closest location to my home to vote, though it is still two towns west of me. But I have to make sure I can keep those nonpartisan Democrats on the ISD board. I wonder if the Republicans know most of that board votes Democratic? It is a bit of a rarity in Denton County.
And finally, there just wouldn't be an election without voting about liquor! The JP 2 district is holding a local option election regarding the sale of off premises liquor. I plan on taking a jaunt down to the Del Webb master planned Frisco Lakes community and voting there to make sure those retirees can visit a bar closer to their homes. What would Jesus do? I'd say he would vote for the drink.
I will have to drive roughly 30 miles in a weird trapezoidal pattern to exercise my right to vote. If anyone else has stories of long treks or crazy voting, I'd like to see them in the comments.
Today the University Democrats and the Central Austin Democrats, together the Austin Progressive Coalition, held their joint endorsement meeting. The results go as followed.
Central Austin Democrats Mayor: Lee Leffingwell
Place 1: Chris Riley
Place 2: Mike Martinez
Place 5: Bill Spelman
Place 6: Sheryl Cole
University Democrats Mayor: Lee Leffingwell
Place 1: Chris Riley
Place 2: Mike Martinez
Place 5: Bill Spelman
Place 6: No Endorsement
A few comments.
For every position except Place 6, the endorsements will be placed on thousands of yellow flyers that will be distributed door-to-door. Beyond claiming CAD and UDems endorsements, the candidates will be able to claim the endorsements of the Austin Progressive Coalition.
Second, Strayhorn was a no-show as was Mike Martinez's opponent.
Next, although Chris and Perla have been splitting the two endorsements, Chris managed to pull the entire coalition to his side. As Riley's extensive Austin experience is heavily concentrated in Central Austin, it comes as no surprise he won the CAD endorsement, but the UDems endorsement was no certainty; Perla still has a lot of strong support in the club.
Finally, the UDems' No Endorsement for Place 6 might come as a surprise to outside observers, mainly because the most active Democratic clubs haven given her an endorsement. She lost an endorsement from the activist students because, in my mind, she 1. had a mediocre performance today and 2. Even the most veteran University Democrats claimed that this was the first time they had ever seen her (anywhere, not just at club meetings). She'll still most likely win reelection, but that's simply due to the dearth of the competition. But hopefully she'll take the various No-Endorsements to heart and amp up her work on the council.
Update by KT: Indeed this is a big win for Riley in Place 1. Most observers rated it as a toss up (more so in UDems than CAD) but it could have gone either way for either candidate and most of us expected a split endorsement (which would have resulted in being knocked off the thousands of yellow doorhangers). On top of that, the UDems endorsements match those of the Capital City Young Democrats which opens up the door to a second year of a joint youth mail piece which makes today's results even more meaningful for co-endorsed campaigns.
While Leffingwell was like 10-1 over McCracken in CAD, it was closer in UDems. Closer in fact than Place 1 ended up being! I've posted the UDems numbers in the extended entry, which are publicly requestable via a transparency clause we added into the constitution back when I was a member (mainly because everyone always asked anyways or tried to leak it and this way it just makes it fairer).
The Place 6 No Endorsement was a solid margin. I owe Mr. Suits an apology for cautioning his hope that UDems would wind up doing this. Color me surprised and maybe even a bit impressed.
Click here to view this site's Mayoral & City Council Endorsements.
More local endorsements have been released.
NXNW Democrats
Mayor: Lee Leffingwell
Place 1: Perla Cavazos & Chris Riley (dual)
Place 2: Mike Martinez
Place 5: Bill Spelman
Place 6: Sheryl Cole
Mexican American Democrats of Austin
Mayor: Lee Leffingwell
Place 1: Perla Cavazos
Place 2: Jose Quintero
Place 5: Bill Spelman
Place 6: Sam Osemene
Sierra Club
Mayor: Lee Leffingwell
Place 1: Chris Riley
Place 2: Mike Martinez
Place 5: Bill Spelman
Place 6: Sheryl Cole
So in short, Leffingwell continues to steamroll the club endorsements (still at 100%), the Place 1 endorsements continue to be split, Bill Spelman continues to have no opponent, and a butterfly ballot is clearly responsible for Mike Martinez losing the endorsement of the Mexican American Democrats.
(This is on at 8PM tonight for those that would like to tune in to listen. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
DJordan, DJosh and I will be dodging rhetorical bullets on Wednesday night as Austin City Council Place 1 candidates Perla Cavazos and Chris Riley rumble.
The two go head-to-head for the first time, on "Tons of Fun," hoping to win our hearts.
Purpose: 91.7FM KVRX Austin City Council Place 1 debate
Date: Wednesday, Feb18, 2009
Time: 8PM-830PM
Location: 91.7FM or http://www.listen.KVRX.org Details: Live, on-air
Call-in: 512.495.5879(KVRX)
Austin's been through a lot in the last few years. Got anything that's keeping your spirits down/lifting your spirits up? Stop Domain Subsidies vs. Keep Austin's Word? Live Music Task Force?
If you have any questions, please include them in a response to this blog posting, or you can call-in! 512.495.5879(KVRX).
Tons of Fun is a political free-form talk show on 91.7FM KVRX - UT-Austin's student-run radio station. ToF was awarded an Honorable Mention in Public Affairs radio from the Texas Intercollegiate Press Association in the spring of 2008.
Yesterday, I went to the campaign office openings for both Lee Leffingwell and Brewster McCracken. I went both as a writer for the Burnt Orange Report and as someone who really wants to here from both sides in order to make a personal decision. That is, I have not yet decided who I am voting for in this race.
When considering the two events, the most telling fact is that they were not close to the same thing.
Lee Leffingwell's event was the party before their supporters' work began. Brewster McCracken's event was the beginning of their work. Leffingwell had a keg flowing, Ruby's Barbeque at a buffet, and homemade brownies. McCracken's campaign put out a dessert tray, and it was a much more solemn affair.
Lee Leffingwell was introduced by Councilman Mike Martinez, a strong symbol of Leffingwell's institutional support. When a councilman running for reelection backs you, you know you've got some big names. Other appearances I noted were of John Sharp, Chris Riley, and apparently a couple former mayors. I saw none of these public office holders or hopefuls at the McCracken event.
Brewster, in fact, was not even introduced by someone else. A staffer let out a loud whistle to gain everyone's attention, and Mr. McCracken stepped up to speak. He used his blanket charisma to hold on its own, too. (In contrast with the Leffingwell campaign, which used a microphone.) It was effective, too. The speech McCracken gave was a strong campaign speech. Leffingwell gave a good speech, too; but I noticed that Leffingwell made a personal plea to supporters for volunteer work, and McCracken delegated that job to Temo Figueroa, a former national field director from Barack Obama's primary campaign.
When Mr. McCracken was done speaking, it was time for his supporters to hear the game plan for victory, and then to sign up to help. At the Leffingwell event, I feel that many people finished socializing a tad before leaving. For both, though; the real work started today. Both campaigns sent block-walkers to the streets.
I feel that all of the above, in basic, shows the core difference between the way the campaigns decided to start their work. And oddly, it was a stylistic difference, for the most part.
A few more observations:
- The Leffingwell event attracted a significantly larger crowd.
- McCracken campaign Headquarters are apparently in the geographic center of Austin, but the Leffingwell Headquarters are in downtown Austin. Notably, Leffingwell's HQ is more accessible to UT students, a group I'm sure both campaigns are hoping to get volunteer hours from.
- Speaking of UT students, I recognized a group of them at each event. Every student I noticed at the Leffingwell event is or has been involved with the University Democrats. Every student I noticed at the McCracken event is or has been involved with Student Government, including the student body President.
- Leffingwell had yard signs readily available for supporters to take. The McCracken campaign had both signs and t-shirts, but asked for suggested donations when getting them. I don't know if this actually says something about the two fundraising strategies, but I thought it was notable.
As the current council elections crank up, I'm not having much regret about my decision to sit out this round. I'm not really sitting it out. I'm just not running for election myself. I do hope to make some worthwhile comments on the election, the election process, and issues facing the city.
As friends and supporters (and candidates!) check in with me to find out my plans, I do regret losing the momentum and loyalty that I built up during my campaign last year. And I miss the excitement and shared enthusiasm of the struggle. Such things fade quickly, and are not easily called back into being.
But, when I sit down to write in my journal at leisure, or take a long walk, or read a book, I feel very good about my decision not to run this time. It's not just that I'm glad to have free time, something that I certainly did not have in the crush of campaigning. More important, I'm glad to be rebuilding clarity and stability of mind. I'm restoring that stock of ideas and ideals that I drew on during the campaign.
If I do run again-and I plan to-clarity and stability will be every bit as important as the momentum and enthusiasm that are fading. Moreover, I have time now to think about the lessons I learned at a gut level during the campaign.
