Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

The Chron on Hotze, Welch, and Locke

The Chron editorializes today about the forthcoming hatemongering in the city election to be aimed at Annise Parker, and Gene Locke’s tepid response to being its intended beneficiary. And they fall just short of getting it right.

We’ve been here before. In 1997 a small-minded ballot initiative would have ended the city’s affirmative action program that helped minority and women contractors. Mayor Bob Lanier went on the air in an ad that bluntly stated his opposition to a proposal that would “turn back the clock to the days when guys who look like me got all the city’s business.”

Lanier couldn’t have been more clear: Discrimination is just not right.

It was a powerful moment of leadership. The referendum went down to defeat, and news outlets around the country marveled that a “wealthy white developer” had taken the lead on affirmative action.

It’s time for another such moment of leadership.

Saturday afternoon, Gene Locke issued a statement rejecting “the style of campaigning that was the subject of an article in the Houston Chronicle.” He urged the people of Houston to choose a new mayor based on the issues and avoid being “swayed by divisive rhetoric.”

The rhetoric of people like Steven Hotze and Dave Welch carries a high cost. Their support should not be purchased at the price of bigotry.

Well, they do correctly note Locke’s courting of Steven Hotze. And they seem to be saying that he ought to be more like MayorBob and take a real stand on this rather than just put out a wimpy press release that never acknowledges his own role in this crapstorm. Just one more sentence, to call on Locke to specifically disavow Hotze and his ilk, that’s all I ask. Guess I need to wait for Rick Casey to write about it next week.

Related Posts:


  1. Baby Snooks says:

    I doubt you will see Gene Locke disavow the association and even if he did, the association is still there. Reality is the high rollers behind him are holy rollers and they know that “gay rights” is still a red hot button to push in this community and they are betting that by pushing it they will motivate sufficient numbers of voters to go to the polls not to vote for Gene Locke so much as simply to vote against Annise Parker. Political correctness goes out the window when political reality dictates. And political reality dicates it going out the window in this case. Stephen Hotze will not endorse Gene Locke but at this point he doesn’t need to. He and others have pushed the red hot button. The pundits may be wrong and we may see even more at the polls on December 12th. Voting against Annise Parker. For the wrong reasons.

  2. Bill says:


    You aren’t voting for Locke. You aren’t voting for Parker. You aren’t adding to the conversation. Can you get your own blog?

  3. Baby Snooks says:

    You aren’t voting for Locke. You aren’t voting for Parker. You aren’t adding to the conversation. Can you get your own blog?

    Still have an opinion. Don’t need to vote to have an opinion.

  4. Baby Snooks says:

    I am just the same urging people who do intend to vote and don’t know who to vote for to vote for Gene Locke – the matter of “gay rights” has become a major campaign issue and he is on the record as stating he will use the mayor’s office to ensure and further those rights while Annise Parker is on the record that she will not. And you know what? That sums up Annise Parker best. And Gene Locke.

  5. Temple Houston says:

    Considering the individuals and groups involved, it’s no surprise that they see using the “Gay menace” as a way to ensconce themselves at the city contracts trough. When Locke wins, he will owe the Republicans and preachers big time. By courting Hotze, Locke went much lower than I thought he ever would. Bettencourt is wrong, Locke certainly doesn’t have to sign on to their agenda to win their support. He certainly didn’t’ need to go to Hotze. That particular solicitation certainly undermines his credibility as a progressive. By the way, I’m not aware of any “national fundraising” appeals for Parker. The gay blogs have mentioned her in passing, but the real drive is the financial boycott of Obama, his campaign organization and the Democratic National Committee. Sounds like the “national gay money” assertion is just another fabrication designed solely to push buttons for increasing turnout among their supporters.

  6. Baby Snooks says:

    The curious thing about the Hotze endorsement is that it will actually work against Gene Locke among moderate Republicans who have long disassociated themselves from everything Hotze represents. To call him a radical is an understatement. He believes in dominionism and in chattel law which when was the “law of the land” allowed men to beat their wives and children among other things. What he would like us to return to. I have never seen anything in writing but he apparently is not only anti-immigrant but believes in eugenics. He at one time was a charismatic Christian but apparently has become aligned with some of the more radical Southern Baptists who still believe in the Curse of Ham. You do have to wonder if Gene Locke really thought about any of this before seeking the endorsement.

    In any case, Gene Locke’s strategy apparently is to spread himself all over the map hoping to pick up votes everywhere – the problem is his seeking the endorsement of Steven Hotze, it is Steven and not Stephen although you will see it spelled both ways, is that it may cost him more votes than the endorsement would be worth.

    Regardless of anything “gay rights” has become the main issue and Gene Locke’s stated position is contrary to the position of a majority of Republicans and certainly the “right wing” radicals like Steven Hotze.

    It’s all very odd. And no doubt about to get even odder.

  7. […] Burka, and former Roy supporter Big Jolly, has the potential to do as much damage to Locke as Hotze-gate has. Speaking of which, you have noticed that no one on Team Locke, up to and including the man […]