May 09, 2006

Since Folks Are Talking About It

Even if my computer had not crashed last Friday, I had no intention on commenting the CD22 Candidate Screening meeting held by Harris County Precinct Chairs. It was SUPPOSED to be a private meeting, and my understanding was that it was supposed to be private at this point. After all, Tom DeLay has taken no action to get off the ballot or out of Congress, so everything is informal and preliminary.

That said, our “on private property so we can keep it private” meeting had a reporter in the lobby, being gabbed to by an individual who I thought was sensible enough to know better. Interesting, isn’t it, that she is the establishment candidate for the Harris County Elector? And It appears her comments went beyond that single reporter, too, giving the establishment line.

And then there is this reflection from another participant, one whose views are clearly those of one of the establishment. Chris seems to think the author is a Harris County chair, and I have no reason to dispute this conclusion. Here is what this blogger thinks.

If I had to pick in terms of sheer performance on Saturday, I would go with the candidates in the following order:

1. Charlie Howard
2. Robert Talton
3. Shelly Sekula-Gibbs
4. Mike Jackson
(Gibbs & Jackson could really be a tie)
5. Tom Campbell
6. Andy Meyers
7. Tim Turner

David Wallace & Brad Wright made appointments but didn't show up, so I'm not considering either of them. Actually, I don't think I will consider anyone who hadn't already gotten their crap together enough to be prepared for this particular event. I can't commit to saying for sure that I definitely won't, but I don't think I will. This is going to be a sprint campaign and people will have to be ready.

Now, remember, gentle YPS readers, the above ranking is based upon Saturday' performance alone. Here are my candidate choices in rank order based on all factors. This is how I will position myself within the caucus, take this as if we were voting tomorrow.

1. Charlie Howard - I had never met or had any contact with Mr. Howard, but he really knocked my socks off on Saturday. I was really impressed with him. I had previously looked up his voting record in the State House and he puts his vote in the right place too. His questionnaire was spot on, his background is impressive and he is solid. There is a difference between a party conservative and a true conservative. You can learn which you have just by listening to them. Trust me folks, Howard is a true conservative. He's wow and ready.

2. Mike Jackson - This is the individual I went in favoring. Saturday he was very flat, uninspiring and unprepared. He acknowledged that his work in the Senate over the special session really didn't give him time to “brush up” on federal issues; however, I'm thinking that if you don't know where you stand on most of these issues by now, you deserve the job you have, and not much more. Both Talton and Howard are also in special session and gave much more solid presentations. Honestly, I am afraid that Lampson might out shine him in a debate if he can't get his crap together.. He stays my second choice, however, because I know that he's a good conservative and will vote the right way.

3. Robert Talton - I could not place Talton as my #1 or 2 for personal reasons, although he would keep a fairly solid conservative voting record. He put his friends ahead of principle once regarding a purely non-politics issue, and I can't put my trust in anyone who might have a shot at becoming “friends” with Sheila Jackson Lee or Nancy Pelosi. Plus, he makes me nervous because he stated that he doesn't support zero-based budgeting.

4. Shelly Sekula-Gibbs - I post the most about her because it seems as if she has positioned herself the most strongly amongst the precinct chairs. Or maybe her contingent is the most outspoken/annoying. Gibbs was very energetic and charismatic, but I still hold that she doesn't have the temperament for this office. She was almost too immature/girly. I didn't like in her opening statement on Saturday, how she evoked the memory of her late husband (who was a local news anchor/celebrity). As previously posted by me, she didn't take on her married name until she started running for office, so it comes off as sheer opportunism. Her worst habit, however is that nobody likes to be told how much “smarter I am than you”. And she just keeps doing that, it is very condescending. She says things like “well you probably don't know this because you're not a doctor.” It might be cool in Clear Lake, but that crap isn't going to fly with the industrial guys in the area where we live because it is very blue collar. Plus, quite simply, she's a “nanny stater”. She actually bragged because she was the force behind the “no smoking in Houston restaurants” ordinance. Now, don't get me wrong, I quit smoking about 3 years ago and don't like it much, but I can't get behind anyone who will tell a private property/business owner how he or she can conduct his or her business. It all comes back to that “I'm smarter than you and I know what's best for you mentality”. Thank you, Hillary Clinton. Further, she can't seem to get a grip on any issue outside the health care/medical side of it because of her royal doctorness, I guess. Her questionnaire answers were strong, but when she provided additional comments, she killed herself. We deserve more than her; she's too liberal.

And such is my assessment. The remainder of the pack aren't worth mentioning, in my opinion. Bless their hearts. They were outclassed, either too emotional or unprepared, and just not suitable for this particular office.

IÂ’d have to rank the candidates differently in terms of performance at the forum.

1) Shelley Sekula-Gibbs
2) Charlie Howard
3) Andy Meyers
4) Mike Jackson
5) Robert Talton
6) Tim Turner
7) Tom Campbell

As he points out, David Wallace & Brad Wright made appointments but missed them, so I place them at the bottom of the list.

My ranking of the candidates, based upon my personal preference, also differs. These are subject to revision, based upon future developments.

1) Shelley Sekula-Gibbs – Let’s say it flat out – this lady has been campaigning like she really wants this nomination and this office. That counts for something – and the fact that the candidate and her supporters are active and enthusiastic should not be seen as “annoying” – unless one considers support for anyone other than one of the three “good old boy” members of the legislature to be an annoyance. Shelley is intelligent (which frightens the blogger in question) articulate, and passionate, all of which are generally considered plusses in a candidate. And yes, she is conservative – though I personally disagree with her on the smoking ban issue. Oh, by the way, she did make the “you probably don't know this because you're not a doctor” comment – but it was in relationship to a particular law that impacts medical care. That law, EMTALA, may as well be called “The Anchor Baby Creation Act”, as it requires that an illegal alien in labor be allowed to deliver her child in the US, even if transferring her back across the border to a hospital in Mexico would in no way endanger her life or health or that of her child. I didn’t know about that law before I first met Dr. Sekula-Gibbs a month ago, and I suspect the same was true of many of those in attendance. Also, I like the brash pledge to be our congresswoman for at least six terms – it radiates a confidence and optimism that I like.

2) Charlie Howard – Here is a hard-working legislator who is well-spoken and conservative. He is a strong conservative, and I cannot say I heard anything that I disagree with. He would make a great candidate for Congressman. He has not made much of an effort to contact precinct chairs. My only issue is his age – even though Charlie is in good health, I have to ask how many terms we are likely to have him around. Will we be looking for a new candidate in four or six years? I would rather we were not.

3) Mike Jackson – My state senator has a lot of CD22 in his district, and he always does well. He is reasonably conservative, but I think he hurt himself with his vote last week on the tax bill, though he explained his reasoning well. I’m just worried how much compromising he would be willing to do in Washington. Mike's nomination will also set off a scramble to take his place in the state senate – and probably for at least one state representative district. I’m uncomfortable with the notion so many positions being filled by precinct chairs in the weeks prior to the general election.

4) Andy Meyers – Is he simply a surrogate for Robert Eckels and Paul Bettencourt? He is close to both and didn’t enter the race until they decided not to run. Does he have the desire to win on his own merits? I don’t care how right he is on the issues, I don’t want to settle for third best.

5) Robert Talton – There seems to be too maneuvering and scheming on the part of the Harris County GOP hierarchy to get this nomination for Talton. He also couldn’t clearly answer some questions about his votes on certain issues in the current special session. Add to that the reality that his major legislative priority in the last regular session was to keep homosexuals from adopting or being foster parents – and would have actually prohibited all single people, regardless of sexual orientation, from adopting or fostering. Besides having out-of-whack priorities, he is, at best, a pale shadow of Charlie Howard.

6) Tim Turner – Never won an election. He would not be a bad choice to replace Shelley or Mike, given his experience in appointed positions and business.

7) Tom Campbell – still asserts that his second-place finish in the primary was the result of disaffected Republicans, not cross-over Democrats. We don’t need a candidate who is delusional.

David Wallace – Probably the only candidate whose nomination would lead me to not vote GOP in this race in November. Stood us up after requesting inclusion after missing the deadline. We don’t need a candidate who is stupid.

9) Brad Wright – No name recognition.

Well, that is my take on the candidates. It should be fun over the next few weeks to see how this whole thing works out. And anyone in CD22, please feel free to let me know what you think about candidates.

Posted by: Greg at 04:44 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1855 words, total size 11 kb.

1 Um, before you get too excited about supporting Dr. SSG, you might want to take a look at what I pointed out about her on my blog here:

http://theumpire.blogspot.com/2006/05/with-friends-like-these.html

Are you sure that those groups that support her would be doing so if she were so "conservative" as you claim?

Posted by: The Umpire at Wed May 10 04:37:16 2006 (h/mwe)

2 When you consider that she was so strong in 2005 that she had only token opposition, I'm not surprised that she got some odd endorsements. Besides, look at the accomplishments listed on the same page -- accomplishments of a sort that can and should draw bipartisan support.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed May 10 08:26:25 2006 (JsMui)

3 I'll ask the question again since it didn't get answered: Do you think those groups really would have endorsed her if she were truly conservative?

Posted by: The Umpire at Wed May 10 13:15:50 2006 (0Zan0)

4 Yes -- because you did get an answer above. Unfortunately, you sem to have a problem with both sentences and words of more than one syllable.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed May 10 14:22:35 2006 (D/yVz)

5 Shelley is intelligent (which frightens the blogger in question)...

Unfortunately, you sem to have a problem with both sentences and words of more than one syllable.

Shelley Sekula-Gibbs is intelligent, no doubt. She also has a manner that comes off as abrasive and too smarty-pants to some people, myself included.

I'm not frightened of her intelligence, and I doubt you have any way of knowing that about the blogger you just insulted (nice misspelling in a sentence insulting the blogger, though! Nothing says "intellectually superior" better than that!). But I don't find her a compelling movement conservative. Why can't people disagree about her without it degenerating into flames?

Posted by: kevin whited at Wed May 10 15:27:16 2006 (oEW6K)

6 Hey, I get angry when I answer a question and then get accused of not answering it.

And I do find her to be well-within the definition of both conservative and Republican.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed May 10 15:39:20 2006 (D/yVz)

7 Does anyone remember when M.J. Khan and Shelley were the only two GOP Council members to oppose the resolution that would've ended Houston's "sanctuary" policy for illegal immigrants. If I remember correctly, she was quoted in the Houston Chronicle as saying she didn't have a strong opinion on the issue one way or another.

Posted by: Cavy at Thu May 11 06:05:28 2006 (loUCK)

8 The reality is that there was never any such resolution -- just one individual running for another office saying he was going to introduce one (which Bill White would never have put on the agenda). There was not even such a resolution in writing, just one councilmember talking about it. She said she didn't have a strong opinion on the proposal -- because it did not actually exist yet. She refused to pledge to support a "pig-in-a-poke" proposal.

Also remember -- she was quoted by the Houston Chronicle, not a reputable news source.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu May 11 12:41:51 2006 (3Oi5k)

9 Okay, I'm amused. First off:
As he points out

Bzzzt! Wrong! The blogger in question is female. I don't expect you to know that from one post, but try harder to avoid attributing gender when you don't know.

Second off:

Shelley is intelligent (which frightens the blogger in question)

You really shouldn't try to infer conclusions, because if this is a typical example, you're not very good at it. Distaste for the way Shelley Sekula-Gibbs throws her MD around is not fright, mmkay? Let's try a thought experiment. Replace Shelley's favorite phrase "because I'm a doctor" with "because I'm smarter than you" and see if that sounds a little condescending. While you may not take the phrase that way, that's how a lot of people interpret it. It's also an appeal to authority and that doesn't sit well with a lot of people, either.

Now, anything else you'd like cleared up? Perhaps the concept of conservative and why SSG isn't one?

Posted by: T at Thu May 11 15:00:04 2006 (wBNXF)

10 On Charlie Howard.
I concider his age an asset. It wasn't too long ago that Republicans were promoting term limmits. Now KBH is running on a third term when she prommised to serve only 2.
Tom DeLay is quiting in part because of his arrogence that has developped ovwer the years. He isn't the idealistic true conservative he once was, instead the years in power have turned him into an arrogent big spender and supporter of pork, not unlike Kennedy. In fact I rember when Kennedy was just a idealistic liberal instead of an arrogent blowhard liberal. We need Reps who will run 2 or three terms, and then gracefully move on. At least if we elect one with some age on him our odds improve.

Posted by: Liberty at Thu May 11 23:43:35 2006 (Yt9/S)

11 I'm a strong believer in only one form of term limit -- the decision of the voters to throw the bum out at the ballot box.

That goes for legislators, congresscritters, and presidents.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri May 12 10:44:35 2006 (akC1h)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
22kb generated in CPU 0.0087, elapsed 0.0199 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0139 seconds, 40 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]