The last debate

I’m not much of a debate-watching person, and we had company yesterday afternoon, so I did not catch the last Mayoral debate. (Judging by David Ortez’s liveblogging, it would seem a lot of people weren’t watching.) I don’t think events like these tell you much about a candidate that you didn’t already know, though there is always the chance you’ll get to see a highly visible screwup. Which apparently didn’t happen. I’m not sure what there is left to convince people who weren’t sure for whom to vote which choice to make, but then I’m not an undecided voter. So let me ask: Who out there watched? Did it affect your opinion of either candidate? Leave a comment and let us know.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in Election 2009 and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The last debate

  1. Horace Winkler says:

    To quote Gene Locke “… I love money …”

    This combined with his endorsement by Steve Hotze presents a main distinction between candidates. Christians know the biblical quote “The love of money is the root of all evil…” Close followers of this election also know that Locke accepted endorsement by Steve Hotze whose stances have been construed as hateful.

    Although it is certain that money is a central issue in our society, the majority of premeditated criminal acts can be attributed to “the love of money…’ or carrying out hate induced violence, and fighting crime is a major issue in this election.

    The mayor, as the highest position of leadership in city politics, influences what people believe to be acceptable as well as directing policy. It is unreasonable to expect a candidate to be beyond reproach, and the two in this runoff election, both being Democrats, do not present many policy distinctions; therefore examining the spirit of leadership they may bring to the position is in order.

    Annise Parker presents a moral dilemma for voters because she is gay. Her dedication to service in city government provides evidence that she is probably most qualified to step into the position and effectively implement solutions, but we cannot resist peering into her bedroom and imagining sexual activities.

    This is reminiscent of the Clinton presidency which coincided with a relatively peaceful international environment and unmatched economic prosperity, but Washington politics interceded and changed the debate to sexual antics. Perhaps had national policy makers focused on the job they were elected to do rather than scrutinizing the marital infidelity of our highest elected official, perhaps we would not be facing the economic crisis we have today.

    To stay focused on good governance it seems to me that a Mayor Parker whose dedication to the City of Houston is measured by years served is the logical choice over the Locke candidacy which accepts any endorsement to further his ambitions.

  2. Michael says:

    I am quite bothered by Mr. Winkler’s comments about Parker. Her sexuality (that other people have brought into this race) does not pose any moral dilemma for the voters in the city of Houston, nor does it give us reason or desire to “peer into her bedroom imagining sexual activities.”

    Imagine that, a morality play from a peeping tom.

    At the end of the day, if someone had sent out a mailer saying, “We don’t need a n***** in City Hall,” Annise Parker would not be able or willing to accept their support. That is because people like that have been rendered irrelevant in our society for being the bigots they are. By accepting the support of people like Hotze, Locke is empowering bigotry. It is reprehensible given his background, and is a disturbing display of hypocrisy. That alone makes him unqualified to be mayor of this city.

    Mr. Locke, I wonder if you will represent the racists in Houston as diligently as you do its bigots.

  3. Paul says:

    I live on Allen Parkway directly across Stanford from Channel 11. At one point, I looked out of my window ad saw hundreds of Gene Locke signs posted around Channel 11 and on Allen Parkway. I then noticed that 3 signs were in my front yard. I went outside and pulled them up and somewhat angrily told one of the Locke supporters he had no right to place the signs in my front yard. He agreed and promptly began removing the rest in front of the townhomes. I regret not telling him there was nothing racial about my actions but rather that I had been a supporter of Parker from the beginning.
    Interestingly, before the debate began, all of the signs that had been put up were taken down.

  4. Horace Winkler says:

    Wherein lies the moral dilemma?

    There are many who feel that homosexuality is morally wrong.
    There are many who feel that racial bigotry is a major moral problem.

    Houstonians cannot deny they know the current Mayoral runoff is between a gay woman and a black man. Although Parker may prefer that sexuality be ignored, the national eye perceives the situation and will take notice how this election within the Democratic party plays out. She has two difficult moral obstacles to hurdle: 1. Some may feel that supporting her may be analogous to condoning homosexuality, and 2. Some may feel that a vote for Locke is a vote against racism.

    No matter how one may feel about sex and politics and no matter how one may feel about race relations, the original quoted quote of Gene Locke “… I love money …” flies in the face of Jesus’ words. Perhaps Locke’s statement was a casual comment intended to be insignificant, but it translates to him embracing the root of all evil. The Democratic Party needs needs to avoid schism but also to embrace the moral high ground. I doubt that Locke placed much weight on the simple phase, but for me it was a moral transgression which surpasses personal preferences or physical appearances.

    Here is the moral dilemma. Houston voters must ignore moral indignation about politicians sexuality (possibly misplaced but real nonetheless insomuch as to cause a Constitutional crisis in Clinton’s case) and voters must ignore moral inclinations that racial progress can be best served by a black candidate (Clarence Thomas proved otherwise) but instead voters must hold politicians accountable to their words.

    Why does that quote “I love money” ring so loud in my ears, why such indignation?
    It seems to me a taunting of the failures of Christianity, a slap across the face denying the hope of the promises set forth by the Bible. Annise Parker campaign is based on the premise that her hard work over the past many years for Houston makes her imminently qualified to continue her service, in the position of Mayor. We as Americans believe that hard work towards a goal is not only morally upright, but most commendable. She should be rewarded with overwhelming support.

    Get out and vote.

    Perhaps I make much ado about nothing…

Comments are closed.