:)
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 |
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 |
1 comment:
Friday, December 21, 2007
CHALLENGING THE DISTRICT JUDGE IN ALICE. D.A. also faces a candidate
Unconfirmed investigations by the Defenzor reveal that some attorneys are voicing discontent with Judge Terrell's rulings which may be quickly becoming a problem with the "Club" here in Corpus Christi who rely on favorable plaintiff venues like Jim Wells or Duval or Brooks Counties.
Intelligence reveals that attorney Craig Sico ("Club Member"), Bobby Bourlon of Alice officing at Cristina Soliz office by the Jim Wells County Courthouse and others are encouraging a well-established attorney David Towler, a resident of Alice who's office is in San Diego, Texas, to run against Richard Terrell. Judge Terrell hails originally from the southern part of Jim Wells County.
Interestingly Judge Terrell received overwhelming support from "Club members) including a one night fundraiser back in 2002 and "debt relief" parties for him from the Club. Now that he is dismissing many medical malpractice suits before they reach a jury for what defense attorneys contend are deficienies in the reports from experts that justify a lawsuit. Many politicos indicate that it would be very hard to topple Terrell and even an attractive and personable female candidate like Edie Gonzalez Lemon would have a hard if not impossible time (Gonzalez-Lemon lost to Terrell two election cycles ago when a vacancy was created by Judge Canales being forced off the bench after the sexual harassment scandals).
Elsewhere Armando Barrerra an attorney and brother of Chuck Barrera has thrown down the gauntlet and is running against D.A. Joe Frank Garza. Garza has been the longrunning D.A.
Things are heating up.
Posted by HOMERO VILLARREAL at 1:18 PM 0 comments
GUY WILLIAMS DURACELL CANDIDATE?
Once again Guy Williams is running for office. This time against longstanding judge Jose Longoria. Many have underestimated Judge Longoria's resolve. Many lashed out against him early in his judgeship as not being as poltiical correct or friendly to lawyers but rumor has it that Longoria has mellowed in his tenure and has been an increasingly effective judge.
Many detractors of Guy Watts say that he has shot himself in the foot by not playing ball and running in the right race as many Republicans wanted him to do. Sources indicate that he refused to heed warnings that if he did not stay on message and run the ads against Saldana as the Democratic candidate Fred Jiminez had done he would lose. He narrowly lost and used a campaign strategy and commericials that arguably created a disconnect.
This race would be his 4th attempt at office against Longoria. Previously he had ran for Court of Appeals, District Attorney against Carlos Valdez and recently in 2006 against Saldana. His running for the fourth time coupled with Republican fatigue may be in the negative column. On the other hand many lawyers have attacked Longoria on bar polls which rate him at the bottom as a judge. Still the polls by lawyers as one politicera was quoted as saying mean little: "Give me a break, the Caller Times has missed the mark on its endorsements over half the time and who cares what the lawyers think from a voters point of view, they are not to be trusted as we are seeing from the whole stories with Thomas J. Henry launching attacks against an Hispano who tried to help the Democratic party. Henry is a cannibal."
Time will tell as to whether or not Guy Williams can garner the support he needs or are the Republicans going to leave them the odd man out for his disobedience and lone wolf mentality towards politics? Will the Democratic Hispanics who grow increasingly aware of Republicans being as racially exclusive as always only using Hispanics for expediency?
Posted by HOMERO VILLARREAL at 12:56 PM 0 comments
Post a Comment