Let’s start with Houston –
Our city charter requires that the mayor receive a majority vote. When this doesn’t happen the top two vote-getters go at it again in a run-off election. Such is now the case between Annise Parker and Gene Locke, who will go face to face in December.
Per my explanation below, I voted for Parker. She wasn’t the perfect candidate, but the perfect candidate didn’t exist, and the only other decent contender had no real chance. Either way, I’ll be backing Parker for the run-off and I think the majority of conservatives who voted for Roy Morales, the self-proclaimed standard bearer for the conservative cause in this race, will be with me on this. Gene Locke is a lawyer and lobbyist with very liberal leanings. Should he win, his policies and management style will have very real effects on our lives.
Parker is is the current City Controller and a former City Councilwoman with a solid record of responsibility. The only thing people can pin on her is that she is gay, and a lot of people will have a hard time seeing beyond that. Honestly, I don’t think that has anything to do with her ability to govern, and I’m not sure what people are afraid of. Texas already amended our constitution to ban gay marriage, so that shouldn’t be an issue. What is it that we require in a Mayor that their sexuality would be a deal-breaker? No one seems to care whether our elected officials are overweight, or whether they smoke or drink. They just want responsible leaders who will perform their job well, serve the public and for us conservatives, preserve our liberties. Undoubtedly, if we elect Parker it will be a national story, and some may decry the godlessness of our society. But we are not appointing clergy, we are appointing a city manager, and we have to live with this person’s decisions for the next few years. I want the best person for the job, and I’m much more interested in my freedoms and the future of our city than one person’s personal life. I’d like to poke around into this subject further and get other people’s thoughts, but that will have to be another day, another blog.
On New York’s 23rd congressional district:
A little backstory: Three individuals ran for the 23rd district’s seat. One was a Democrat (Bill Owens), one was a very liberal Republican (Dede Scozzafava), and the third was a very conservative one (Doug Hoffman). Before it hit national headlines the leading Republican was Scozzafava, soaring above both of the others by wide margins. When the national GOP endorsed her many conservatives were outraged, pointing to such an act as the very problem with the party. They feel that left-leaning republicans are responsible for diluting the message and weakening the party. And for most part they are right, but more on that in a moment. A few national conservative figures decided to protest the decision by endorsing Hoffman. His popularity began to soar and Scozzafava’s dipped. A couple of days before the election she dropped out and threw her support behind… Owens.
As I warned in Monday’s post, the right-leaning voting bloc was split, giving Owens the seat by 4,593 votes. Though Scozzafava was no longer in the running, 6,976 people still cast their ballots for her – enough to have put her over a majority if she had Hoffman’s votes. The traditionally red district would have been easily won by just about any conservative had the infighting not divided the team. Some are trumpeting this as a win for Hoffman supporters, praising the relatively slim margin, but others are calling for party unity, even if it means compromise. I have problems with both of these arguments.
First, handing Democrats a seat is not a winning situation, no matter how you put it. If disagreeing Republicans can’t learn to work together, and talk of third parties gains ground, we’re going to see a whole lot more of this same situation, and if the end result is to increase the current supermajority in congress I have to withdraw my support for such a plan.
On the other hand, Republicans who pull out to endorse Democrats don’t belong in the Party. If we send them to congress just to have another Olympia Snowe we have effectively done nothing to support our cause, while sending the wrong message to the public about where we stand and the principles that guide us. The national GOP should have stayed out of the election until local Republicans could decide on who best represented them.
People have a responsibility to get involved early on and support the candidates that best fit your personal convictions. Be it the evangelical Christian, the Atheist, the lesbian, the extreme conservative or liberal, or the moderate independent. We all have a right to our interests, and to voice them. However, once a clear front-runner is decided upon to represent the general right or left, we have to coalesce into a strong support for the candidate who has the best chance of winning. We have to think offensively and defensively. Yes, much like a sport, except in this sport the winner will determine the rules.