HOUSTON - City Controller Annise Parker earned an early endorsement in the race for Mayor of Houston from the Houston Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Political Caucus tonight.
"Annise Parker is the most qualified candidate to lead Houston as our nation struggles through a severe economic crisis," said Caucus President Kris Banks. "Like the rest of our city, the Houston GLBT community is bracing for tough times in the coming months and years. We need a steady, experienced hand to guide us.'
"Parker's proven leadership and record of fiscal responsibility and sound economic policy will ensure that Houston can continue to fund our most important priorities - public safety, stronger neighborhoods, infrastructure and quality city services.'
"With this endorsement, our members send a strong message: Qualifications matter now, more than ever. And no one is more qualified than Annise Parker to lead our city though tough economic times."
(Sue Lovell is a member of the DNC running for re-election though she does have a challenger. Based upon what I've heard from Houston delegate meetings, she could be defeated for re-election to this position by another delegate from Harris County. We'll see what happens on Saturday. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
The officers of the Houston Stonewall Young Democrats released the following statements regarding each of their support for Democratic National Committeewoman Sue Lovell, who is seeking re-election this week at the Texas Democratic Convention:
Kristopher Banks, President:
"Sue Lovell is the only Texas representative for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community on the Democratic National Committee, and our community has worked hard to gain that voice. We will not be silenced now. We will fight any attempt to deprive us of our voice on the DNC."
Victor Castillo, Vice President:
"As a strong opponent of Proposition 2, the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions, Sue Lovell worked diligently to get out the vote and express her views, though unpopular at the time, despite the fact that she was on the ballot. I admire her courage for doing what is right even if that affects her political career in the short run. Sue Lovell is a strong candidate who is capable of aptly representing us on the DNC and standing up for what is right despite the odds. "
Meghan Baker, Outreach Director:
"The Houston Stonewall Young Democrats are supporting Sue Lovell in her race for re-election as Democratic National Committeewoman. Sue Lovell has been an asset to the GLBT community in Houston for as long as she has been a member of the community, both in the private sector and serving on the City Council. It is more important than ever that the GLBT community have a voice within the Democratic Party, and we feel good knowing that Sue Lovell has the experience and the passion to be that voice for all of us."
Conrad Camit, Secretary-Treasurer:
"Sue Lovell has an unwavering committment and desire to fight for the principles of the Texas Democratic Party. Since the onset of the Houston Stonewall Young Democrats organization, Sue has been a strong supporter and mentor for the group as we strive to reach out to the underrepresented GLBT youth who are seeking opportunities to make a difference within the Democratic Party. She continues to a staunch supporter and ally for the GLBT community here in the Houston area support her 100% for re-election as our Democratic National Committewoman."
The Houston Stonewall Young Democrats is an organization of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Democrats under 40 and their Democratic allies. For more information, visit www.houstonstonewallyd.org.
(I stopped listening around the same time- in part because the questions were so trivial to both candidates, and in part because there was a University Democrats meeting. What happened? - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
If anyone actually had the fortitude to finish the debate tonight, let me know if anything important happened. I'm not even planning on reading the autopsies. I cut it off after about 23 minutes, right after the flag question. It was the worst debate I had ever seen.
The candidates did OK. I guess Obama could have used a B12 shot. But they did OK with the questions they were given. The problem was what they were asked, and the responsibility for the wretchedness of this debate lies squarely at the feet of the askers: ABC News. It will take a lot to top the magnitude of Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos' abject failure to do their jobs to frame this discussion in a substantive light.
As an Obama supporter, I never thought I would tire of the Bosnia story. But my reaction to it was essentially the same as to a story that broke back when I was a Hillary supporter. When the story broke that the Clinton campaign planted a woman in an audience to ask a question, my immediate thought was: does this actually surprise anyone? Didn't everyone already assume Hillary Clinton was a calculating, manipulative and fierce politician? I thought that's why everyone supported her, because she has what it takes to win. She just got caught this time. I got a good laugh out of Snipergate, but it's not substantive, and it certainly didn't show me anything new about the candidate.
The debate proceeded, however, to move from questions that failed to reveal anything about the candidate to questions that didn't even seem to be intended to reveal anything about the candidate. Has there ever, in the entire history of U.S. politics, been a query posed to a presidential candidate as inane, as vacuous, and as utterly and completely without substance, and I include "boxers or briefs" in this analysis, as "Do you think Rev. Wright is as patriotic as you?" I cannot imagine what this was supposed to reveal about Obama.
I think the Obama campaign would probably like to talk about Bosnia all day, and the Clinton campaign would probably love it if we never got bored with Rev. Wright. I think we all know the sad truth that political campaigns have no objection to wallowing in the mud. What was so depressing was that ABC News was willing to wallow with them. There are few times as opportune than during a debate for the news media to reshape the discussion to a substantive one: rarely do they get more of a chance to completely control the dialogue. Instead, ABC News chose to discuss what the campaigns wanted to discuss: a lot of tripe that didn't reveal anything about who would be the better president.
So, if anyone watched the debate, you tell me what happened, and I can tell you what happened on American Idol. I have a guess as to who has more important news.
Phillip Adds: Terrific diary, and spot on. The critics are all piling on, too: Worst. Debate. Ever.
The Houston Stonewall Young Democrats welcomed the resignation of Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal Friday.
"Rosenthal's resignation ends a saga that has been both embarassing and harmful to the public trust of the district attorney's office," said Kristopher Banks, HSYD president. "Unfortunately, this office will not see real reform until January, when Democrat C.O. Bradford is sworn in."
Rosenthal gained national notoriety in 2003 when he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas that the state did have the right to regulate what lesbian, gay and bisexual people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. SCOTUSblog described his performance as the "worst oral argument in a truly important case in the past decade." More recently, Rosenthal has been in the news for using his county e-mail account to send racist jokes, organize campaign functions and receive videos of women being sexually assaulted.
Bradford, a former Houston police chief, will be the Democrat on the ballot in the November. Bradford has assured the LGBT community that he will maintain a fair-minded approach in enforcing the law.
"We look forward to the day when the District Attorney's office will be a shining beacon of ethical integrity, and we know the only way to get it there in the next four years will be to elect C.O. Bradford district attorney," Banks said.
