South Texas Verdad: Hey dude, you talk shit and when you feel the byte you go back crying for somebody to do something because I bit you. Go away, or

South Texas Verdad: Hey dude, you talk shit and when you feel the byte you go back crying for somebody to do something because I bit you. Go away, or stay but dont cry wh

decide what's best for you and yours and quit worrying about who somebody else supports or doesn't.I promise you..you'll be much more comfortable.....

Re(1): And what?"Juana B" M Garcia is an "excellent example of agendism, spin and half-truthery"
Posted on October 15, 2006 at 01:43:25 AM by 4 Major C

The Ads against Gene Seaman...

...are excellent examples of agendism, spin and half-truthery.

Purely progoganda...I''m sickened by them more for their blatant ""politicalization"" than the message they wish to give.

The one I have seen...that mentions Delay, neither tells you who to vote for nor who paid for the message (at least plainly visible.) The play on words he gives and allegation he is a ""woman hater"" are taken out of context. They are things a person...any threadster here, might say as a pun.

Gene''s ads seem to build on his accomplishments.

Gene is in a tight spot...to respond negatively is to drop down below his established ""standards."" But not to respond at all is equally damaging.

http://www.ericvonwade.com/community/display.asp?post_id=68198&mode=expand&thread=68198&board=1&board_name=General
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And what?
Posted on October 15, 2006 at 02:54:40 AM by Major Carrales

While I do not know the intent behind this thread...

Yes, the adds are examples of "excellent examples of agendism, spin and half-truthery."

I take neither side in this debate and hold a great deal of respect for both Juan Garcia and Gene Seaman and, thus, I am an objective observer of the tactics, methods and strats of this campaign.

I have always hated agendism and the foul stench of what "politics" has/is become.

There is also. now, a commercial from the other side connecting Juan Garcia to attorneys and calling him a "Liberal," in a pejorative manner.

Agendism is bad no matter who does it. Let truths come out on the news...and people inform themselves based on presented facts. There is no need to resort to such bias and inuendo where and when it is of a questionable nature.

Juan Garcia is a gifted aviator and proven leader in the Armed Forces poised for a bright future. Gene Seaman is a proven legislator and has had a meteoric rise from humble origins.

Yet, one would never know any of that from the AGENDISTIC ADS.

What to do...eh? It would seem that such tactics are the nature of the beast (politics). I will say again... "to respond negatively is to drop down below established standards. But not to respond at all is equally damaging."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted on November 4, 2006 at 10:50:13 PM by dannoynted1

well the last thing we need is another disingenuous politician who lies before he even is elected.

imagine how it will be IF he gets some power!?!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Litmus Test for JUANA B Garcia......
Posted on October 17, 2006 at 01:48:29 AM by Jaime Kenedeño

Is he pro life or pro choice?

He has yet to personally answer that question.

Is he related to Richard Borchard?

How is he affiliated with Richard Borchard?

BTW, his campaign manager (Joe Hall) is a registered Republican.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re(1): A Litmus Test for JUANA B Garcia......
Posted on October 21, 2006 at 12:57:36 PM by Elwood Blues

That's it?..that's your "litmus test" for candidates for State Rep.? Whether they're "pro-life" or "pro-choice"?..and whether they're related to Richard Borchard?

Do you really want a politician's views on abortion to determine what everyone else's should be? That's an issue that should be left up to the individual to decide,not politicians.It has no place in the political arena,although both sides keep trying valiantly to put it there.It's been used as a political football for FAR too long..as a wedge to divide us,and it's time we took it out of the hands of politicians.Do you contemplate having an abortion in the near future?..if not why would you base your vote on the issue?

The "Richard Borchard" test is just plain stupid.Who freakin' cares who Borchard supports or doesn't?..that's "chisme" politics,and as such,completely irrelevant.Only an idiot would base his/her vote on who Borchard or anyone else supports.

Try looking at the candidates through your own eyes,not someone else's.Sit down and think about what's important to YOU..what YOU think the issues are and should be,not what someone else TELLS you they are,then ask the candidates where they stand on what's important to YOU,your family,your livlihood,your community..I guarantee you Borchard did.

Think for yourself,Jaime..decide what's best for you and yours and quit worrying about who somebody else supports or doesn't.I promise you..you'll be much more comfortable with your decisions,win or lose.



Replies:
There have been no replies.

An Earthquake Took Place: Many A Top County Post Shift Republican

An Earthquake Took Place: Many A Top County Post Shift Republican
Nueces County, TX -- The Republican Party did an excellent job in getting their supporters out to vote. One major problem with the Democratic Party was that it found itself split due to internal problems both ideological and personal powercratic struggles.
In the race for County Judge Loyd Neal, the Republican candidate and former mayor of Corpus Christi, won with about 54 percent of the vote over his Democratic rival Larry Olivarez, former Sheriff of the county.
Neal told the South Side Defender: "It has been a long day, but we made history. Thanks to every one though out Nueces County that turned out to vote." He added: "I since the get-go that we had to get a certain percentage of the Democratic Party vote. We intend to open county government up. There will be some people that will not be very happy; but that is okay." Another Republican was in the spotlight: Jim Kaelin, a retired state trooper, triumph (procuring 53 percent of the vote) over Democratic challenger Jimmy Rodriguez, a Sheriff Chief Deputy. Kaelin told our publication: "It has been a tremendous victory. We bring a fresh appointment to county government. The jail is not the only issue, but is a symptom of many other issues that need to get addressed. I will not have the honeymoon as some of the victories will have. The vote will be canvassed and I will take office a short time after." Sheriff-Elect Kaelin said: "I will not be a Republican or Democratic sheriff that will be serving the county. I will be a sheriff for everyone. I will have only two years then my term will be over. I can be thrown out if I do not perform. This victory, in my opinion, was a mandate from the majority of the people that they are tired of the way the government was being run. The thing I bring to this office is my service." Kaelin also announced that his new Chief Deputy will be John Galvan (a veteran officer). In the 148th Judicial District Court Maricela Saldana (a county court at law judge) won by a light margin (one percent) over Attorney Guy Williams. There were some voting "box" problems, especially at Moody High School. The voting at that site continued until 8:14 p.m. County Clerk Diana Barrera reported that some of the numbers had to be physically trans-ferred to machines. After the election there was a huge white board at the Nueces County Courthouse where the numbers were being posted as they came in from various precincts. The projection on the board was difficult to read. In reference to the beach ban charter amendment (proposition #1) failed to pass. In other words, vehicle access will be allowed. The vote was 45 percent, for; and 55 percent, against. Charter amendment #2 passed -- future bands will have to go before the voters. Some political analysts believe that the beach contro-versy boosted voter turnout for both Neal and Kaelin. There were some anti-developer signs that read: "Don't let them steal our beach." Hal Suter, who campaigned against Charter Amendent #1 said: "We carried the early vote. A lot of the voters in island turned out to the polls." On another major race that reflected the "dynasty effect" was one for District 33 State Representative seat. Solomon P. Ortiz Jr. won over Republican challenger Joe McComb only by three percent -- that is, Ortiz' 53 percent to McComb's 47 percent. Ortiz Jr. did not win by a mandate but hair-length push. Incumbent State Representative Gene Seaman managed to keep his seat over the high dollar "negative advertisement" advance by rival Juan Garcia. The Libertarian candidate -- Lenard L. Nelson -- managed to acquire only six percent. But despite the loss, Garcia, did quite well in a traditionally conservative area. Incumbent Gene Seaman stated at Republican Headquarters: "The mood here was upbeat. I have worked hard. Furthermore, my wife and I did walk to thousands of homes. We visited some even three times." Incumbent District Judge Tom Greenwell (Republican) was able to keep his seat -- i.e., procuring 56 percent of the vote, winning over Robert Zamora. Greenwell was also being endorsed by the DOC-PAC: a PAC that contributed to Saldana's one percent gain over Williams. Bobby Galvan also won his bout for a District Judge seat over James Sales. (This article reflect some of the major races at the County Level).

DOES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY STILL EXIST?

Democratic Party Betrayed By Solomon Ortiz Jr.

----------------------------------------------------------------

DOES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY STILL EXIST?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Nueces County, TX -- Solomon P. Ortiz Jr., son of Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz Jr, while serving as Democratic Chair of Nueces County both assisted and accommodated a fringe of organizers affiliated with the Socialist Party USA. The latter organization is a radical organization that calls for the “transformation” of U. S. Society from a Democratic Free Enterprise System into an arrant Socialist System.

Both minutes and emails exchanged by inner core members of the Socialist Party USA/ Socialist Party Texas reveal that the socialist camarilla had been planning the penetration of the Democratic Party in South Texas for a few years prior.

To make a long story short, this Socialist fringe (a triad -- John Kelley, Les Cassidy and Abel Cavada) in 2004 approached then-Democratic Chair Ortiz Jr. and announced that they were considering running a candidate (s) against his father Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz Sr. It was also pointed out that their party was dissatisfied with his father’s voting record such as this pro-war position (Iraq/Afganistan conflict) and with his position of being pro-NAFTA and pro-CAFTA.

Solomon P. Ortiz Jr. instead of “sounding the alarm” and warning the membership of the deceptive and hostile intentions of the socialist fringe which manifested itself at the time in the form of a TRIAD, instead “broke bread with them” and accommodate their abberant whims and schemes so to speak. He assisted them in forming a trojan horse political organization that is known today as the CORPUS CHRISTI PROGRESSIVE POPULIST CAUCUS (CCPPC). Ortiz Jr., even gave their organizational projects free publicty in the Democratic Website and even place a link to their website.

Abel Cavada, who has traveled to CUBA, is the current chairman of the organization and has a long history of being involved with radical socialist movements. Records show that Cavada and his wife Joy Miller Cavada (who is active with the organization also) submitted an application to join the Socialist Party of Texas. Please read it below:

“We are from Corpus Christi and travel to the valley weekly on business. Abel, is an attorney and I do all the rest, I am sure you know what that means… Abel, my husband was involved in La Raza Unida in his younger years. We are seeking to be involved again. We tried a group here in Corpus Christi, but they seem stuck in the Democratic box. We are wondering about your group.”

Addressed to: Steve Rossignol; Socialist Party of Texas, Sun Oct 16 11:21:55 EST 2005

Read carefully the phrase above – “they seem stuck in the Democratic box”; they are referring to Corpus Christi Progressive Populist Caucus. It eminates a disenchantement with the two party system and the slow process of system. The phrase also seems to be suggesting it is not radically exciting enough.

Mr. Cavada (that is, the entire TRIAD) also attended a State Convention of the Socialist Party of Texas last year to work on what has been defined as “mutual interests.” However, Cavada’s name does not appear in the roster; Kelley has let it be known in an internet posting.

The TRIAD even bragged at the cited meeting, official minutes reflect, how the CCPPC was working with the Socialist Party of Texas for “mutual aims.”

Last year, Ortiz Jr., announced that he would not be seeking office as Party Chair. Soon after, John Kelley (a member of the TRIAD) in an unorthodox move announced that he would be running for Democratic Chair post. He even received the informal endorsement of Ortiz Jr. as well as absorbed the endorsement so of the Coastal Bend Labor Council and even the Corpus Christi Police Officers Association.

Kelley lost, but a run off between Businessman Alex Garcia and Attorney Jerry Trevino remained. He used his former following as a negotional chip to barter with the two remaining candidates. Disenchanted, one day he began referring to then-run off candidate Alex Garcia a “Repubican” and a person “without backbone.” Subsequently, he scheduled a meeting with then-candidate Attorney Jerry Trevino and requested that Trevino’s campaign manager, Mike Chavez not be present. Kelley tried to barter with Garcia, requesting important appointments and concessions in return for his endorsement.

At this point in time, Mike Chavez let it know that Kelley (was part of a group) which had socialist leanings and was obviously attempting to penetrate the party. Kelley, fired back, claiming Chavez was a “racist” – adding that his participation in Hispanic Civil Rights Groups had clouded his judgment of Anglos. Kelley harped on the Karl Marx rhetoric that there was a “class war” going on, and that “ethnic struggles” were just delaying the inevitable.

Little did Chavez know about Kelley affiliation with persons and a specific fringe that was calling for a “reorganization” of U.S. Society away from Democratic Free Enterprise to arrant Socialism. However Chavez, an ex-military veteran had a “gut feeling” that would later not only enlighted but shock many a member of the Nueces County community.

After this incident, word began to trickle down into the grassroots community that there was a socialist fringe attempting to take over the regional Democratic Party. The question back then was: “What type of socialist movement is it? Is it working within the system or does it have implications of a total reconstruction of our society as we know it?”

Finally, Alex Garcia wins for office; however, Kelley (and the two other members of the TRIAD) have postured themselves with the party. Kelley via the help of Ortiz Jr. become the “informal Chair” of the Democratic Party. They have created a “soviet” circle effect – an organizational artifice used by the former Soviet Union in which important political matters and power orbits arounds a person or individual. The CCPPC, chaired by Cavada becomes the dominant political organization; however, it has been argued by some repeatedly, that within it an inner core (a TRIAD) exists that meets clandestinely and keeps the other members in the dark.

In fact recently John Kelley via an email to all the prospective advertisers claims that his group was responsible for Ortiz Jr.’s endorsement by the majority of the Democratic precinct chairs for District 33 State Represenative.

Many more organization are jumping into the TRIAD’s movement: Beach Access Coalition, Unity and Peace Movement, Anti-Recruitment efforts, some Anti-war activists, Labor groups.

Solomon P. Ortiz Sr. has also used his influence to help this core group advance their propaganda instuments such as their monthy paper WE THE PEOPLE and Radio Station (affilaited with Air America) here regionally. Prominent businessmen such as George Finley and CC Distributors have bankrolled their print editions, even though the anti-Free Enterprise, anti-Capitalism rhetoric, pro-abortion agenda is so glaringly obvious. Even the Texas Democratic Women organiztion led by Gloria Casares and Treasurer Barbara Cline have enrolled John Kelley and have even channelled thousands of dollars to the propaganda instument.

Progressive Populist Chair Abel Cavada announced in a local radio station that now the group is going to start targeting moderate Rebpublicans. The group claims to have enrolled at least 75 members.

Irony that you should make such a Statement: Whoever lies with El Defenzor gets fleas.

I say Irony because little did I know of this February discussion until tonight and that the If you Lie with Dogs article was written. Well, you would have to read it. IRONIC!

:)

Czolgosz (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 10:42 AM Original message

Would your newspaper endorse a weaker Dem candidate to help a GOP candide?

I was reading my local paper today, which ran a judicial primary election endorsement. There is one endorsement that has many local lawyers scratching their heads. Please tell me what you think. The first Democratic judicial candidate has 14 years experience as a County Attorney, a District Attorney, a US Attorney, and he's tried over 80 cases. He's been endorsed by the local Police Officers Association as well as other labor groups, and if you go to the Texas Ethics Commission's website for Campaign Finance Reports, you see that he's supported by a wide representation among the local lawyers (family lawyers, criminal defense lawyers, civil defense lawyers, consumer advocate lawyers, lawyers who previously chaired the local Democratic party, etc.) as well as very many traditional Democratic party supporters. The second Democratic judicial candidate is a very charming attorney but she has only 4 and a half years of legal experience (the required-by-law minimum experience is 5 years, which she will barely have by the November election). Ask lawyers you know if they would have been a good (or even barely competent) district court judge after only 5 years of experience, and they will laugh; rarely will you ever meet lawyers (a pretty overconfident bunch) who are so vain about their legal abilities that they would consider themselves qualified to be a district court judge after barely 5 years of experience. Plus, floating around the courthouse are copies of the candidate's prior criminal conviction for theft, which she pleaded guilty to and the offense was dismissed after she completed her punishment. If that weren't enough, a local federal judge has been outspoken against this candidate because the judge believes this candidate unethically hid a witness from the other side in a case. On top of all of this, if you go to the Texas Ethics Commission's website for Campaign Finance Reports, you see that most of her financial support is from three law firms and one of those firm's corporation clients (on an odd note, she also lists the cost to "meet with Republican candidate to discuss campaign" as one of her campaign expenses). As you can imagine, many people consider this judicial race a very easy call. Astoundingly, the local newspaper endorsed the 4-and-a-half year lawyer and -- wait for the punchline -- cited her "legal experience" as the reason. Why would the newspaper endorse the Democratic primary candidate who barely meets the legal minimum for qualifications? The only answer that anyone I've talked to can figure is to help out the Republican candidate in the general election. The Republican candidate is a long-time darling of the newspaper. He's a "hang 'em all, 'n let God sort 'em out" prosecutor of "gang activity," which in South Texas means everything from serious crimes down to the stuff that is called "mischief" when nice middle-class white kids get caught doing the same things but which are called "gang crimes" when Hispanic kids get caught doing it. So, here's the question: Do you ever wonder if your local newspaper would endorse the obviously less qualified Democratic primary candidate in order to boost the newspaper's favorite Republican's changes in November? I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Alert | Hide Thread | Recommend Topic for Greatest Page (0 votes)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Replies to this thread

My local newspaper has no credibility.	acmejack	Feb-13-06 10:49 AM	#1
My local paper endorsed Kerry, but it's beyond horrible on local issues	Czolgosz	Feb-13-06 11:22 AM	#3
Absolutely!	merci_me	Feb-13-06 11:03 AM	#2
I wonder if that's what my paper is up to. There seems to be a pattern of,	Czolgosz	Feb-13-06 12:36 PM	#7
Sounds like it.	crispini	Feb-13-06 11:38 AM	#4
Maybe they like the way Angelica has run her race	meg	Feb-13-06 11:41 AM	#5
Would the newspaper endorse her because her ex-husband doesn't like her?	Czolgosz	Feb-13-06 11:52 AM	#6
If her opponent BROUGHT her ex-husband to rattle her	meg	Feb-13-06 01:08 PM	#8
Other than witnesses saying (1) the candidate and his opponent's exhusband	Czolgosz	Feb-13-06 02:23 PM	#9
thanks for the ethics report links	meg	Feb-13-06 03:28 PM	#10
That link has a WEALTH of interesting information on who's beholden to who	Czolgosz	Feb-13-06 04:07 PM	#11
And, in Galvan's ethics report I saw	meg	Feb-13-06 04:24 PM	#12
I think anyone who supports El Defenzor is on a slippery slope -- it seems	Czolgosz	Feb-13-06 04:37 PM	#13
El Defenzor	meg	Feb-13-06 06:15 PM	#14
I'm not disagreeing with you. Whoever lies with El Defenzor gets fleas.	Czolgosz	Feb-13-06 07:43 PM	#15
I really don't know much about El Defenzor	meg	Feb-13-06 10:59 PM	#16
What may get us beat in November	susanr516	Feb-14-06 07:39 AM	#17
Of course, any misperception that one lawyer is buying the bench is awful.	Czolgosz	Feb-14-06 09:49 AM	#18
A widely held misperception	susanr516	Feb-15-06 06:53 PM	#23
How do we fix this misperception? Will it help that some candidates the	Czolgosz	Feb-15-06 09:52 PM	#24
At this point in time	susanr516	Feb-16-06 08:48 AM	#25
Maybe we will continue this discussion someday over coffee. We need to fix	Czolgosz	Feb-16-06 10:02 AM	#26
This race seems like an easy choice to me.	Texas Dave	Feb-14-06 02:39 PM	#19
Less experienced candidate?	meg	Feb-15-06 11:28 AM	#20
The Caller either missed this one or is deliberately boosting GOP Sales's	Czolgosz	Feb-15-06 11:50 AM	#21
"...Caller Times said..." "Perhaps..." "..I've heard..."	Texas Dave	Feb-15-06 12:15 PM	#22

acmejack (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 10:49 AM Response to Original message

1. My local newspaper has no credibility.

It endorsed * & I haven't read it since. I miss the local funny fellow & I admit I sneak over to the website and read his column, the letters to the editor and the classifieds. 8643

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Czolgosz (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 11:22 AM Response to Reply #1

3. My local paper endorsed Kerry, but it's beyond horrible on local issues

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

merci_me (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 11:03 AM Response to Original message

2. Absolutely!

Look at their record of endorsements in general elections. Do they usually (hell, always) endorse the Repuke in November? Then I look at their dabbling the the Democratic primaries as trying to set up their Repuke's November Democratic challenger to not be a challenge. Here and there, I've always lived where the newspaper was Repuke and I've seen it happen over and over, probably 90% of the time, in those papers that continually go Repuke in the general. M

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Czolgosz (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 12:36 PM Response to Reply #2

7. I wonder if that's what my paper is up to. There seems to be a pattern of,

first, endorsing the least qualified candidate and then, later, hounding that candidate over some issue which they should have known about back when they made the official endorsement. For example, not too long ago, the newspaper made a huge deal about how one judge made judicial appointments in cases which, frankly, no one wished to be appointed to handle so no one particularly cared who got appointed because the appointment wasn't doing anyone a favor (it would be like making a big deal about appointing someone to wash the dishes as if that was some plumb appointment). Anyway, one of the biggest appointment hogs (again, not that anyone really cares) is now running for office against an incumbent Democratic judge. Will the newspaper even mention this fact that this guy has received a ton of appointments from a certain judge after making a huge deal about that same issue just a few years ago? Don't count on it. I think they would rather see the appointment hog nominated so they can raise this phony issue during the general election. Is this too cynical?

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

crispini (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 11:38 AM Response to Original message

4. Sounds like it.

I'd call 'em on it, manipulative jerkwads that they are.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

meg (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 11:41 AM Response to Original message

5. Maybe they like the way Angelica has run her race

As compared to the way the Galvan has. South Texas Chisme had a post about Bobby Galvan bringing Angelica's exhusband to a debate to rattle her. I wouldn't put a guy on the bench who acted like Bobby did.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Czolgosz (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 11:52 AM Response to Reply #5

6. Would the newspaper endorse her because her ex-husband doesn't like her?

Edited on Mon Feb-13-06 12:07 PM by Czolgosz How is that her opponent's fault? More to the point, how does that make her a better candidate? The people I have spoken to who were at the event (I missed the event, but I have a friend who considers himself a good friend of hers and he was there and this is all according to him) said that the first candidate did not arrive with the second candidate's ex-husband and did nothing to encourage the second candidate's ex-husband. I hate to blame a candidate for what is obviously a spouse/ex-spouse issue that has nothing to do with the candidate or any campaign issue. I completely agree, by the way, that she's more of a go-getter on the campaign trail. I'm just thinking that she's a really tough sell against the Republican in November (which is why all the lawyers I know -- except her boss and ex-boss -- are supporting the other Democratic candidate). P.S. I'm trying not to use any names because, if she is the nominee, I don't want this echoed back during the general election. I'm sorry if that makes this post more difficult to follow.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

meg (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 01:08 PM Response to Reply #6

8. If her opponent BROUGHT her ex-husband to rattle her

That is his fault. I have heard that her opponent has not been in court for a few years, preferring to plead out or dismiss cases.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Czolgosz (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 02:23 PM Response to Reply #8

9. Other than witnesses saying (1) the candidate and his opponent's exhusband

arrived separately, (2) the candidate did not encourage the exhusband, and (3) the candidate and his opponent's exhusband left separately, what more could someone offer to disprove the rumor that there was a link between a candidate and his opponent's exhusband's boorish behavior? I really enjoy reading South Texas Chisme, but sometimes you have to take chisme as pure chisme and nothing more (and sometimes you have to take chisme as spin placed by a candidate or the people she does business with). In terms of actual facts, there can be no question that her candidacy is linked with El Defenzor (which is a judgment some would find questionable, but that's a separate issue) because her payments to El Defenzor are recorded by the Texas Ethics Commission. People associated with El Defenzor post all sorts of questionable nonsense on South Texas Chisme. What can you make of all this gossip? I don't know, but would you vote for a demonstrably less qualified candidate because of a rumor that he attended an event with his opponent's ex-husband? I hope not. I think one thing that CouldBeTrue posted at South Texas Chisme warrants further consideration: "I don't want a person on the bench or all the judges on the bench beholden to an individual." I completely agree with that idea. Look up the campaign contributions to the two different candidates at the Texas Ethics Commission website <http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/php/cesearch.html >. You'll see that one candidate has contributions from many different sources, but the other candidate has a very large percentage of her contributions from just a few lawyers (mainly her boss and her former boss) and one of her boss's main clients, a local business that finds itself in frequent legal trouble. If someone were intending to choose a candidate based on which candidate is more beholden to an individual or smaller group of individuals, you wouldn't pick the same candidate the newspaper endorsed.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

meg (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 03:28 PM Response to Reply #9

10. thanks for the ethics report links

My understanding of the El Defenzor posts was to alert people to the Watts smoked filled room. I noticed in the filings that El Defenzor gave something like $250 while the people El Defenzor named gave several thousand dollars.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Czolgosz (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 04:07 PM Response to Reply #10

11. That link has a WEALTH of interesting information on who's beholden to who

Edited on Mon Feb-13-06 04:09 PM by Czolgosz It is interesting to see which Valley court of appeals candidate is mainly supported by Republicans, which candidate from that court is supported by Dallas and San Antonio lawyers but no one from the Valley and almost no one from Corpus Christi. My only point is that, within the local legal community's evaluation of the race which was the subject of the Caller Times's endorsement, one candidate has support from Watts (who South Texas Chisme seems obsessed with) plus John Bell, Donnell Abernathy & Kieschnick, Abe Moss, the Reddell Law Firm, Debra Rodriguez, Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer & Kern, Bargas and Rodriguez, Ruben Lerma, the CGT law Group, Rick Holstein, Rudy Garza, the Allison Law Firm, Leon & Barker, Jordan Hyden Womble & Culbreth, Cecil Starcher, the Edwards Law Firm, Porter Rogers Dahlman & Gordon, Huseman and Pletcher, Brunkenhoefer and Associates, McLallen Phillips & Langenfeld, Bonilla & Chapa, William Thau, Mark Woerner, Morris Gilbreath & Smith, Coover & Coover, Canales & Simonson, Randy Barrera, Huerta Law Firm, Armando Reyna, Dunn Weathered Coffey Rivera Kasperitis & Rodriguez, etc., etc., etc. That includes support from every segment of the legal community. The other candidate is supported by her boss (Paul Kratzig & Associates -- she's the "& Associates") and only a small handful of lawyers WHO ALL MAINLY REPRESENT CITY GOVERNMENTS AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AGAINST CLAIMS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HURT, WRONGLY FIRED, DENIED MEDICAL BENEFITS, OR OTHERWISE MISTREATED. Almost all of her legal supporters have the exact smae narrow legal interest and she comes from that same narrow legal community. But where most of the lawyers who support her come from the exact same perspective, the legal community's support for her opponent is very, very broad and includes people in every area who represent every different view. I will support whoever gets the nomination, but I think broad support as compared to support predominantly from only government claims denial lawyers will be important in the general election. And, more importantly, I suspect that the local newspaper feels the same way and endorsed her candidacy only to boost the Republican candidate's chances in November. I hope I'm wrong.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

meg (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 04:24 PM Response to Reply #10

12. And, in Galvan's ethics report I saw

a $700 expense to El Defenzor for advertising.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Czolgosz (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 04:37 PM Response to Reply #12

13. I think anyone who supports El Defenzor is on a slippery slope -- it seems

to be in the spreading outrageous rumor as fact business.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

meg (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 06:15 PM Response to Reply #13

14. El Defenzor

as you noted gave to Hernandez. From the ethics documents, there was a $250 reported. I merely noted that Galvan gave $700 to El Defenzor as reported in his ethics documents. El Defensor is what it is. I make no claims about El Defenzor. I'm just reading the ethics reports you pointed me to.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Czolgosz (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 07:43 PM Response to Reply #14

15. I'm not disagreeing with you. Whoever lies with El Defenzor gets fleas.

No matter which candidate, is is a questionable judgment.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

meg (1000+ posts)

Mon Feb-13-06 10:59 PM Response to Reply #15

16. I really don't know much about El Defenzor

There is a commenter over on Chisme who is a little out there. Sometimes way way out there. I do agree that after the primary we are all Democrats. I'll be for the Democratic ticket. No matter who's on it.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

susanr516 (35 posts)

Tue Feb-14-06 07:39 AM Response to Original message

17. What may get us beat in November

Is the perception that one lawyer is buying the bench in Nueces County. I wouldn't panic; the male candidate has enough money to blow anybody else out of the water. The phone bankers hit my house last night, and his commercials are already up. In this particular race, the female has gotten the image of David vs Goliath, and the image isn't being helped by the attorney reported to be in charge of the "good old boys" cabal. This attorney showed up at one of HER meet-and-greets. Why? It gives me the impression that she's being stalked. When the ethics commission report shows some of the attorneys in a particular law firm all giving the same amount of money on the same day, it leads one to believe they were instructed to do so by the firm owner. And yes, I know there were some attorneys in that firm whose names were missing, but a lot of people don't know that. People don't know about various areas of expertise in the field of law, either. They just see the title attorney. I have nothing against the "good old boys" network here in Nueces County; in the past, we have had some excellent judges--who would never have gotten a chance otherwise--come from a coalition of progressive attorneys who backed them. One of these attorneys, in particular, would quietly make the rounds, talking to labor leaders and various Democratic activists. He got everyone on board, explaining why this candidate would be the best choice. It was a win-win situation for everyone. Now, we have one attorney who seems to have decided he's going to control the Democratic Party. Two years ago, he swooped into the state convention and bought a National Delegate spot, knocking out an activist who had faithfully worked in the party for over 30 years. Now he's openly supporting a slate of judges. Pardon me if I get the impression he's buying what HE wants, and the rest of us be damned.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Czolgosz (1000+ posts)

Tue Feb-14-06 09:49 AM Response to Reply #17

18. Of course, any misperception that one lawyer is buying the bench is awful.

In the "bad old days" a small group of people (lawyers and others) was recruiting marginally qualified candidates and successfully promoting them. This unfortunate practice led to elected officials who were underqualified, overly beholden to the small group who recruited and promoted them, and not representative of the whole community. We could list the former (and a few remaining) office-holders who were promoted WAY above their meager abilities back in the day, but what purpose would that serve? But I hate to hear these arguments applied to long-time Democratic office holders who are widely acknowledged to be doing a good job. For example, I want to scream when I hear people refer to long-time incumbent judges and judges who are seeking to move from one elected bench to another as "so-and-so's candidate." That is such bullshit. These judges are Democratically elected incumbents -- they are the voters' candidates based on past elections, not "so-and-so's candidates." To call hard working Democrats who have a long history of elected service "so-and-so's candidate" is crazy, and it strikes me that only a Republican or someone pushing a lesser qualified challenger would have any incentive to trash a widely respected sitting Democratic official who's doing a good job by almost all accounts. With that said, I think it is worthwhile to look at who is supporting which candidate. In my mind, it raises real questions when a candidate has support from peculiar places. When I see a local candidate who is supported by contributers who are almost all outside the area she serves, that strikes me as troubling. When there is a candidate who nobody knew was a Democrat until she declared her candidacy and I see is supported by an overwhelming percentage of people who are supporting mostly Republicans in other races, that strikes me as troubling. When I see a candidate where all his money is coming from a few sources who all share a nearly identical narrow political interest, that strikes me as troubling. When I see a candidate who has a history, documented by non-partisan sources, of ruling in favor of financial supporters and against his opponents, that strikes me as troubling. But while these sorts of questions must be raised, they need to be based on facts and not based on rumors. But to dismiss well-qualified candidates who have extremely broad support from all sorts of traditional Democratic Party supporters as "so-and-so's candidate" is unfair to the Democratic candidate, it's unfair to all the traditional Democratic Party regulars who are working their asses off for that candidate, and -- perhaps most worrisome -- creating the false impression of some imaginary "king-maker" does nothing but enhance the influence of the alleged "king-maker." Let's judge the candidates by (1) their Democratic people-oriented values, (2) their history of hard work within the party, (3) their ability to do the job well, and (4) the breadth of their support within the party and within the community. Let's don't pick and choose candidates by rumor and according to alleged guilt-by-association with one faction or another within the party. We're all Democrats, let's pick the best candidates, with the best qualifications, and the broadest appeal, and then let's kick some Republican ass together.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

susanr516 (35 posts)

Wed Feb-15-06 06:53 PM Response to Reply #18

23. A widely held misperception

may be as damaging as the truth. The sad truth is that a young super-star lawyer and his PAC have become the story on Spanish radio. Carranza spent an hour on "Verdades y Chismes" this morning reading the Ethics Commission reports of the Good Government PAC. Talmadge Heflin, HILLCO, David Dewhurst, Greg Abbott--those are just the names I remember. I understand "Comentarios" was even worse. When it gets this ugly in the primaries, people don't forget--if the "other guy" wins, they might not vote Republican, but they will just skip the race. Those "half votes" for the Rs can get awfully costly. I've worked grassroots politics for over 25 years, and this one is spinning out of control. Remember the Hinojosa--Canales-Black bloodbath? People refused to vote for Sanchez because the wrong person happened to be dropping literature for him. It's not that bad yet, but the potential is there. What a mess.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Czolgosz (1000+ posts)

Wed Feb-15-06 09:52 PM Response to Reply #23

24. How do we fix this misperception? Will it help that some candidates the

Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 10:10 PM by Czolgosz alleged "king maker" is backing will inevitably lose (because that is all but certain to happen and it would seem to disprove the absurd notion that anyone has the power to "make" a candidate win)? Frankly, the only power the alleged "king maker" has is to make it easier to raise money -- and good grassroots work can achieve that same fundraising effect without any help from any alleged "king maker." I would think the Carranza radio program would put an end to the idea of "king making" rather than reinforcing that idea because -- while it's inexplicable that any self-professed Democrat would give money to Dewhurst, Abbott, Jefferson, and the rest of that corporatist bunch -- it is crazy to suggest that those contributions "made" those Republicans into the political tyrants they have become. Of course the alleged "king maker" isn't "making" kings; he's clearly trying to pick the likely winner ahead of time and get out in front to support the eventual winner. That's not "king making" -- that's simply seeking political brownie points with the candidates who are likely to win anyway. While that sort of back-the-likely-winner politics not my cup of tea, it's certainly a very well precedented strategy in electoral history. So. Help me here. What do we do to make sure that the best candidate gets the Democratic nomination without good, long-serving Democrats being wrongly smeared by the El Defenzor/Verdades y Chismes crew (who are not Democrats from what I can tell)? How do we avoid the mess you predict? Besides helping me come up with a plan of action to avoid the mess you predict, which local party chair should we select to steer clear of this trouble? Kelley is passionate, but not a uniter. Trevino could be a great uniter, but he doesn't excite the base the way Kelley does. What do you think?

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

susanr516 (35 posts)

Thu Feb-16-06 08:48 AM Response to Reply #24

25. At this point in time

I can not continue the discussion, although I would like to do so. My identity on this board is transparent--anyone working closely with the county Dem structure would know exactly who I am from my board name. I am extremely limited in what I can say publicly. That being said, I can tell you that the attorney in question became a lightning rod two years ago by aligning himself with one faction of the county party. He was less than honest with some members of the other faction, costing him personal respect with that group. Another spokesman is needed from the attorney network, and there needs to be some serious off-year coalition building. Many of the activists carrying the attorney coalition water among the party regulars have the reputation of being for sale to the highest bidder--they never work for free. One person, in particular, has been rumored to have accepted a tidy sum of money from the relative of one candidate, and has now gone way over the line on Spanish radio, hurting the entire perceived "rich Anglo attorney" coalition. This primary campaign needs to be pulled out of the gutter, and fast, or it's going to cost the party half-votes (race-skipping) in November. I've seen it happen too many times before, and there are too many personalities from both sides of the State Senate race involved.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Czolgosz (1000+ posts)

Thu Feb-16-06 10:02 AM Response to Reply #25

26. Maybe we will continue this discussion someday over coffee. We need to fix

this rift. In my experience, part of the Chuy-Barbara-Diana rift was repaired when some folks on all sides of that feud got together during the '04 presidential race. If the rift is spreading again, and not healing, we need to do something.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Texas Dave (2 posts)

Tue Feb-14-06 02:39 PM Response to Original message

19. This race seems like an easy choice to me.

I have read the various posts about attorneys and fundraisers and other unrelated nonsense, and I still come to the inescapable conclusion that Bobby Galvan will be a superior judge to Angelica Hernandez. She has been practicing a short time by attorney standards. He has worked in two prosecutors' offices, including as a Federal prosecutor. You don't spend that much time in Federal Court without developing some skills and sense. I have met both of them, and they both seem nice. Other than what seem to me to be attempts to discredit Mr. Galvan with his association with other lawyers (which is what lawyers do-associate with other lawyers), I have yet to see a compelling argument for voting for the less experienced candidate. Texas Dave

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

meg (1000+ posts)

Wed Feb-15-06 11:28 AM Response to Reply #19

20. Less experienced candidate?

The Caller Times said Galvan was less experienced. Perhaps they were refering to the lack of courtroom time I've heard about.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Czolgosz (1000+ posts)

Wed Feb-15-06 11:50 AM Response to Reply #20

21. The Caller either missed this one or is deliberately boosting GOP Sales's

candidacy. If know people who personally know both candidates, and some like him better and some like her better because that's a subjective measure. Who has more experience is not at all subjective, and it's clear he has a ton more experience than she does. She has been involved in a couple of trial, one of which US District Court Judge Jan Jack says she screwed up by unethically hiding a witness from the other side -- that's not a rumor, there is a written record of the proceedings available from the federal court. Also, when the Caller said her "experience as an attorney with the law firm of Paul Kratzig & Associates gives her the edge," apparently the Caller did not bother to check that she's only been at that firm for 2 years! What law firm gives you such amazingly great experience that two years at the firm qualified you to be a judge?! Plus, if Paul Kratzig doesn't trust her experience at his firm enough to make her a full partner, why should the Caller trust her two years' experience at the firm to make her to be a judge? If the Caller had said, we're endorsing her because she's a real go-getter, or because we know something about her opponent that causes us concern, then maybe I could take that endorsement seriously, but when the Caller says that she has more experience, that's just sloppy (or deliberately misleading) reporting. By the way, you can call over at the US Attorney's office and confirm that her opponent has had a very active (and successful) jury trial docket.

Alert

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Texas Dave (2 posts)

Wed Feb-15-06 12:15 PM Response to Reply #20

22. "...Caller Times said..." "Perhaps..." "..I've heard..."

No to belabor the point, but my vote requires something more than "...Caller Times said...", "Perhaps...", and "..I've heard..." I know that Galvan was an Assistant County and District Attorney for approximately five years ('92-'97) and an Assistant U.S. Attorney for approximately eight years ('97-'05). I know what that entails. If the Caller-Times or one of his opponent's supporters claims that thirteen years in the prosecutor's office means something other than what it means, I tend to go with what I know firsthand. Objectively, Bobby Galvan is the more qualified candidate. Texas Dave