So the Houston Chronicle’s Rebecca Elliott thinks that there are “clearly defined differences” in the City of Houston mayoral race. Interesting. I suppose there are some differences between the two but I seriously doubt that they are “clearly defined”. After all, Sylvester Turner was Speaker Pro-Tem of the Texas House under former Republican Speaker Tom Craddick, an ultra conservative. In fact, Craddick appointed Turner to the Legislative Budget Board. And as we all know, Bill King supports sanctuary cities, is against prayer in public, thinks that global warming is caused by humans, supports the “anchor baby interpretation of the 14th amendment, and supports Obamacare.
Yeah, lots of differences there. “Clearly defined” ones, eh Rebecca? But King’s team has decided to push that meme:
I think the first two replies speak for themselves.
What is interesting to me is the way “conservatives” in Houston supported King. It may be a “marriage of convenience” as my new friend Brandon Rottinghaus told me. But honestly, the fervor with which “conservatives” supported King just makes no sense to me.
I wonder if they will continue to support him with such fervor after this:
As the Kingwood Tea Party would say, King is a “principled conservative”.
Ahem.
Maybe we’ll all decide that voting for King is a marriage of convenience. Then again, maybe the folks of Houston will look at the actual records of the two candidates and vote accordingly.
All I know is that anyone with principles wouldn’t claim support of someone when they needed it and then delete it when they want to run away from it. Just sayin’.
Karen Townsend says
Troubling, indeed. I thought all the “conservative” support was odd, too, in the primary race. Also, just as others are trying to run as “outsiders” though being involved in politics for years, it seems that the word”principled” is in the eye of the beholder. That goes for candidates and groups, too.
Manuel Barrera says
Well if King’s interpretation of what is a U.S. citizen at birth is wrong why haven’t someone or some state challenged it, if it is so wrong?
The Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,
Section 1 – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I have read some of the cases that which the”Anchor Babies” indicates that they are not natural born citizens, and guess what, one of those cases involved a woman who wanted the right to vote. The 14th amendment gave her citizenship but not the right to vote. I guess that is why they had to pass the 19th amendment. One other case was whether US citizenship is the same as State citizenship, a state wanted to discriminate against citizens of other states.
So if people that don’t like the 14th amendment and the way it has been interpreted let them challenge it in court. Maybe a state can make laws that citizens of the United States whose parents where not citizens do not have the right to vote, that would be interesting.
Maybe the state can also make laws that any person not born in the United States even if now a citizen cannot vote in state elections.
Manuel Barrera says
Made a mistake, 14th did not give women citizenship, she was trying to use it to vote.
Manuel Barrera says
By the way I agree that Bill King is no conservative, I wasted $9 Kindle version to find out by ordering his book.
Pro Abortion;
Pro same sex marriage;
Pro limitation of gun rights;
Against prayer in public places;
Pro Soviet;
Pro Chinese;
I don’t know why people think he is a conservative.
Voter says
What King offers is to get our city government away from a progressive agenda and back to performing basic city services in a fiscally responsible manner. Active voters in the City of Houston are roughly 35{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} Republican in terms of voting history. If we can simply get a lawful local government that is fiscally conservative and competent and does nothing else, we can pursue our conservative agenda in the State Legislature, which is where laws are set by which the city must abide. Sylvester Turner, besides being a socially liberal progressive, is beholden the the public employee unions whose financial interests in the city budget dwarf the interests of tax payers. If we stay on the Turner path, the next mayor of Houston will be a federal bankruptcy judge.
Fred Flickinger says
Bill King never presented himself as a staunch conservative, most likely because he is not. He has presented himself as a business man who can resolve the city’s financial issues and deliver the basic services the city should provide. This is exactly what the conservatives who are supporting him are looking for.
As for there are little difference between the two, that is ridiculous.
Ed Vidal says
Bill King is a pragmatic fiscal conservative, and nothing more, but that is enough to deserve our vote. He has pledged to address the city’s fiscal problems in a responsible manner, and has the business experience to do it.
On the other side, Sylvester Turner represents a continuation of the failed fiscal policies of Mayors Brown. White and Porker, leading our city further down the road to Detroit, with a detour through Chicago, from a fiscal perspective.
As for men in women’s bathrooms, women should arm themselves and shoot any perverts in their bathrooms. On the other hand, women are welcome in men’s bathrooms. That was the rule in my college dorm on the South Side of Chicago, where today many are shot for less.
david jennings says
Ed, how do you back up your statement? King’s “business” experience consists of government contracts, which you are very much against.
Please, enlighten us.
DJ
Ed Vidal says
Who better to bring fiscal responsibility to city government than a former government contractor. Bill King is not a movement conservative or libertarian, but he offers the best opportunity to reform the city’s fiscal policies. The alternative is to continue fiscal policies that have failed in Houston and elsewhere.
Jim Lennon says
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/11/09/houston-mayors-race-cruzs-support-draws-attention/
david jennings says
LOL, you keep on pushing Jim. Hilarious.
DJ
Janet Thomas says
He may be the best, but he’ll be a hell of lot better than Turner.
Fr. Christopher Terry, O.P. says
“Conservatives” voting for Bill King because he will fix the pot holes and says he is against Hero, (like Hitlery says she is against the TPP) over moral principle has lead to a run off election for Houston’s Mayor between Bill King and Sylvester.Turner. In voting for King, it is evident these Christian Conservatives believe the end justifies the means. I know Jesuits like Francis believe the end justifies the mean, The Illuminati believe the end justifies the means. Both candidates will continue to support Abortion, Same Sex Unions (sodomy) and the over all LBGT anti natural family agenda as Mayor of Houston. King flip flopped on Hero (like Hitlery on TPP) to get elected Mayor against another Liberal Democrat. If elected, if follows then, King, like President Barak Obama on Same Sex Marriage will evolve into supporting HERO to gain reelection support from Turner’s and Parker’s constituents against an anti Hero Republican if there is such a thing.. Both candidates support Planned Parenthood absolutely. To elect King is to elect the pro Planned Parenthood, Hero Houston Chronicle Editorial Board as Mayor, or I should say The Ministry of Truth.. Both have given their tacit approval to Planned Parenthood’s baby parts business and logistic supply for child sex slaving by their absolute public silence. Houston is the world’s hub of human trafficking: Domestically (Houston hub I-10) and Foreign- Cardinal Dinardo’s child sex slaving “Faith Based Initiative” business cashes in annually for 80 million of your tax payer money via GW’s 2008 Wilberforce Act trafficking ten’s of thousands of “victims of child sex slaving” covertly across are now non existent borders. There are one million child sex slaves in the US.
And Foreign, Cardinal Dinardo will double down on his DHS human trafficking Faith Based Initiative business for tens of millions more in wake of the Pope’s visit demanding ” immigration” from the Middle East as a moral imperative. Cardinal Dinardo. Houston’s Cardinal, likewise is spearheading as head of the Vatican’s Commission on the Rights of Immigrants and VP of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops the trafficking through Catholic Relief Services and DHS of 200,000 muslim Jihadis covertly into the US, just as he has done with victims of child sex slaving from Central America via the bogus GW Wilberforce Act over the last two years.
Neither Turner nor King will say anything as Mayor to save Houston, our Country, nor of course the hundreds of thousands of innocent men, woman, and mostly children foreign and domestic who are raped, murdered, and dismembered in the future by ISIS migrants and by Planned Parenthood through abortion and child sex slaving run and funded by the government and the Churches in conjunction with Fr. Maciel’s Sinaloa Federation Cartel/ Knight of Columbus Jeb Bush and Carlos Slim Helu. Are Christian Conservatives going to vote for Jeb over Hitlery just like they did King over Turner? Jeb’s new campaign slogan is “Jeb can fix it”. Will Jeb fix pot holes better than Hitlery.
The most prominent leaders of the government in Houston and Washington and the Catholic Church are homosexuals engaged in human trafficking from child sex slaving to male Jihadi’s 18 to 25. This will not change with either Turner or King. Only an act of God can save us now. So why Christian Conservatives beat their chests on their great political victory over Parker’s moronic men in girls bathrooms ordinance (which Cardinal Dinardo said nothing about as Bishop publically just as he says nothing about Planned Parenthood’s baby pars business, defunding, or cantina child sex slaving), many voted for Bill KIng, which correlates to, but did not cause the defeat of Hero. .The result is all of the above continuing. The tally was 60 to 40. In less than five years that will switch to 51 in favor and 49 opposed as religious demographics continue to nose dive across the board.
Deus Providebit.
Fat Albert says
Christopher,
While I commend your longstanding, singleminded commitment to the sanctity of life, allow me to point out a couple of things:
1. The Mayor of Houston cannot affect the Supreme Courts decision on Abortion. Nor can the Mayor approve veto any laws passed by the Texas Legislature. While abortion is a great evil, the office of Mayor is not the source or remedy for that evil.
2. HERO is a dead ordinance. I suspect that, in light of the electoral drubbing the proposed ordinance took a couple of weeks ago, and the legal mauling that Mayor Parker took before that, it’s gonna be a while before any elected official pokes that particular bear again.
3. The runoff ballot will offer two choices for mayor, Sylvester Turner or Bill King. I suppose you can decide not to vote, in which case you are simply accepting the choice of those who do vote. Otherwise, you need to decide which candidate will be better for the city, or (if you’d prefer) which candidate will do the city the least amount of damage.
Also, I get that you don’t like Cardinal DiNardo. But he isn’t elected at all. Perhaps you’d have more success if you copied the Holy Father with your posts. . . . .
Manuel Barrera says
Wars are won one battle at a time, I am sorry to hear that people have already thrown in the towel. It is better for King to lose and know exactly what we are facing with Turner.
George Scott says
Years ago, I coined the phrase vendor pimp. The Houston mayoral election requires a division of that phrase since one candidate is clearly the pimp and one was the vendor. Perhaps the future HERO issue should be expanded to include political transsexuals – that is not a real term, but it is a good one.