G-slate '06-Primary: The Contesteds
Kuff offers his endorsments, here's mine:
US Senate: Barbara Radnofsky. I've been impressed ever since this post.
Gov: Chris Bell. The quick explanation would be that Chris is a friend and someone I've had a good deal of respect for since his time on Houston City Council. But I'll slap together a longer post tonight or tomorrow with a bit more to offer than that.
Lite Guv: Ben Grant
Ag Commish: Hank Gilbert
Not a lot to really offer for either candidate, only that what little info is out there reflects favorably on them. So, for once, can we avoid a future full of Gene Kellys and nominate these guys?
CD07: David Murff ... I know good people helping both sides of this race, so I tread lightly on a race that I don't have a vote in. Henley's got his selling points as being a teacher with a stellar professional record that I've heard nothing but good things about. But watching the two candidates in person, I'm of the opinion that Murff has more to offer as an ambassador for the party within the district. Put a successful, young family out on the campaign trail in West Houston, and I think we've got a good shot at gaining ground. Despite the positives for Henley, his campaign style has yet to really impress me.
HD140: Basically ... what Kuff said. I'd love to know more about John Reyes, but I don't. What I know of Kevin Bailey doesn't exactly wow me.
HD146: Um ... Borris Miles. I don't think I'd spill as much blood, sweat, shoe leather, and tears if I felt otherwise. Still, I'll go into a bit more detail around the time I pen something on the Guv endorsement.
HD147: Garnet Coleman. The guy's quality, his opponents are Ron Wilson hacks. 'Nuff said.
Categories
Politics-20069 Comments
I also heartily endorse my state representative, Garnet Coleman, who I voted for today!
I also voted for Chris Bell, Barbara Radnofsky, Ben Grant, and Hank Gilbert.
I am curious, Greg...
What is your response to this ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=180&topic_id=26226&mesg_id=26226 ) and the reply letter by "porter"?
If you are concerned about what looks good in pulling voters for CD-07 then you might want to question the kick-off parties for both candidates. David Murff had 36 people at Christie's on Westheimer and Jim Henley had over 300 at El Meson on University Blvd. It would seem to me that the proof is in the numbers.
Those numbers are incorrect; there was standing room only with 100 people attending Mr. Murff's announcent party. In fact, there was a reporter from the Examiner News that was eating dinner at Christie's and wanted to know what all of the commotion was about, and ended up writing a story on Mr. Murff. On the other hand, the majority of Mr. Henley's supporters at his announcement party were students and supporters of Mr. Henley's sister. (Which by the way, Mr. Henley is running, not his sister) If you want to look at appearances then let's talk about Mr. Murff going to Washington DC to meet with congressional leaders and meeting with the Band of Brothers, which is a group of over 50 veterans running for the 110 congress. (You may have caught Mr. Murff on C-SPAN during this meeting.) Mr. Henley on the other hand touts that he is not a politician, does not want to be a politician, and doesn't necessarily want to be a congressman, but he's willing to make a sacrifice. Now, is that the kind of person you want in office? Someone that makes a compromise to serve you? Don't you want someone that honestly wants to be your congressman and knows how to make legislation to best serve your voice? Mr. Murff is passionate about this race to unseat Mr. Culberson, and knows that he has the ability to do that. Mr. Henley is running out of things to campaign on, so he is beginning to resort to distorting truth about Mr. Murff. If anyone hears Mr. Murff and Mr. Henley speak, I can tell you that most people find Mr. Murff to be the only true candidate. He holds himself with confidence and drive to bring back the voice to CD7.
Mr. Henley is distorting the campaign of Mr. Murff? I find the opposite happening. Mr. Murff is distorting his own campaign by claiming false endorsements and using negative campaigning against someone from within his own party.
While I admire Mr. Murff in some respects (though certainly not all), I am worried that he may be doing some of the same things that make voters agrivated with Mr. Culberson.
Endorsements? here?s an issue that Mr. Henley loves to bring up. It?s the only thing he can really mudsling against Mr. Murff, since he?s the one that made the mud. Okay, so let?s get some truth in there shall we? Mr. Henley stated MANY times that he did not believe in endorsements and will never seek endorsements of ANY politician. So, Mr. Murff decided that he does believe in endorsements, and he began to seek support from politicians due to the fact that Mr. Henley certainly wouldn?t. He asked Bob Gammage, Chris Bell, David Van Os, but never did he ask Scott Hochberg. Everyone that Mr. Murff asked gave their endorsement. Then, somebody from Henley?s campaign decided to call each endorsement and tell them that they were dividing up the party through these endorsements?even though Mr. Henley does not believe in endorsements, remember? So, Mr. Murff spoke with each gentleman and decided to take out the endorsements until after the primary.
I find this all very interesting. I was at Mr. Murff's Christie's party, matter of fact spoke with his father-in-law and several others...was even there when the equipment malfunctioned. There were not 100 people there even if you include the wait staff, which numbered 10. Neither here nor there, this is Greg's Opinion and he is entitled to it, he offered this page as a conversation and that is what I am doing. Lindsey (wife?)is correct, there were children at Mr. Henley's party...they were accompanied by their parents who are supporting him.
The question of the endorsements was not originally brought up by Mr. Henley, nor should he be held accountable for their retractions. Endorsements are wonderful things as long as they are valid and can be verified. Campaigns are for voters to get a look at the candidates and hear what they stand for and then to be able to question what they see.
As I see it, we have 2 TRUE candidates for CD-07 because they are BOTH willing to stand up to public scrutiny...something I'm sure not many of us would ever be willing to do.
You are absolutely right! This is supposed to be about the voters finally getting a voice and a choice for their voice. This fight should be at Mr. Culberson's front door, not our own. But, when there continue to be mischaracterizations distortions, and negative campaigning that come from the Henley campaign, you can bet that Mr. Murff, I (his wife) and his supporters will be there to set the record straight. By the way, I set the record straight yet again, on DemsUnderground in response to Mr. Porter.
Shall we focus on the issues now? Let's allow the voters to see where each candidate stands on the issues (education, health care, home land security...) and not on each other!
FYI - There were approx. 95 people who signed in the night of Mr. Murff's announcement party.
I guess we should go back to issues.
Maybe both campaigns can stop mudslinging, even though I haven't seen anyone officially working for the Henley campaign do any of it.
Lindsey, Henley supporters are not Henley campaign workers. There is a slight difference.
Mr. Henley told Mr. Murff that he would help him if Mr. Murff won the primary. Let us hope that the scene has not become muddy to the point that this would not happen anymore, and let us hope that Mr. Murff would help the Democratic Candidate if the candidate for the party is Jim Henley.