No surprise here:
For Immediate Release: Contact: Allen Blakemore
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 713-526-3399Anderson gains HPOU endorsement and releases video
Houston – Mike Anderson, conservative Republican candidate for Harris County District Attorney, announced that he has gained the endorsement of the Houston Police Officers’ Union.
“I am particularly pleased to announce this endorsement. The HPOU represents more than 5,000 Houston Police Officers,” Anderson said. “When elected, I will restore a strong working relationship between local law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office.”
Ray Hunt, President of the Houston Police Officers’ Union said, “The current District Attorney has turned her back on the citizens and the entire law enforcement community. She has put politics above the public’s safety. It’s time for a change. We recommend a vote for Mike Anderson.”
The Anderson campaign released an endorsement video featuring HPOU President, Ray Hunt. It can be viewed here.
Mike Anderson is the conservative Republican candidate who is ready to return credible leadership to the office of Harris County District Attorney. Mike spent 16 years as an assistant district attorney and 12 years as judge of the 262nd Criminal District Court, including two years as the criminal district court administrative judge. He is married to Devon Anderson, a respected former prosecutor and district judge. More information is available on the web at www.AndersonDA.com.
Remember, incumbent DA Pat Lykos says that she did not seek the endorsement of any of the union bosses. Now, if you can prove otherwise…
“Contact: Allen Blakemore”
Or do you contact Mamie Brockman? I’m confused 😉
Do Harris County candidates knowingly hire consultants so unsophisticated and foolish as to use easily discoverable nom de plumes in order to make immature and silly blog comments on widely read blogs among their constituents ?
Would not the content of those blog comments prompt those clients to take pause in their hiring decisions ?
I find this sort of behavior incomprehensible.
This is the same consultant who became a bondsman when his BFF, Steve Hotze, was arrested for DWI in Memorial Park in the wee hours of the morning. The same consultant who represented Chuck Rosenthal who allowed Hotze to skate on the charge. The same consultant who represents HPOU, the organization who endorsed Anderson, a Mamie client, yesterday. Same consultant who represents District Clerk Chris Daniel. Same consultant who is running candidates against the sitting DA and Tax Assessor. Same consultant who promises a Hotze endorsement if you are a client.
Mike Anderson’s campaign has 2 fatal flaws:
1. Mike Anderson is presuming Pat Lykos to be guilty before investigations are completed and even after investigations are completed and the alleged charges against Pat Lykos are dropped.
2. The extrapolation of this type of judgment would lead one to conclude Anderson’s approach to prosecuting defendants would be guilty until proven innocent a/k/a “winning at all costs”.
That type of Rosenthalesque prosecutorial behavior is frowned upon.
Karma can be a bitch sometimes.
How ironic if Mike Anderson’s condemnation of Pat Lykos’ alleged wrongdoing is never substantiated and it turns out he and/or his wife Devon Anderson are proven to be complicit with the GJ investigations purely to promote the Mike Anderson campaign?
John Maxwell,
The Firm Blakemore & Associates represents and has represented a rather large base of political clientele. Among them have included Beverly Kaufman, many Judges (at all levels), Many state Reps including Jim Murphy, Bohac, Legler, Huberty, and County Judge Eckels.
The fact that you have a bone to pick with one or two endorsements made by Hotze and HPOU doesn’t mean my name needs to be used as a political punch line for your agenda.
Pat Lykos is a friend of mine. Don Sumners is a friend of mine. I don’t have to agree with Allen on who all he advocates for. But that’s why I’m glad i’m American instead of Dutch (like my grand parents)–where we have the right to advocate for whom ever we choose to represent.
John–if that is your real name–Allen doesn’t promise a Hotze endorsement or any endorsement for that matter. A candidate stands on his own, much like I did. You earn it. I didn’t pay a dime for the Doctor’s endorsement. I worked hard at the grassroots to show I was aligned with the same platforms of Hotze.
Again. We have the right to advocate for anyone. Just because you are an incumbent doesn’t mean you are immune to challengers: Mike Sullivan was challenged–and lost–as a sitting school board member before becoming a city council member; Don Sumners was challenged–and lost–as County Treasurer before challenging the appointed Tax Assessor and winning.
Thank you for the name dropping. Now please leave me out of it.
Chris Daniel
Chris, Great to know you believe incumbents should have opponents. I hope that you are ready for one!
How many of your employees were on the grand jury? Currently on grand juries?
You gave Mamie $25,000 on November 4, 2010. And Gary Polland $5,000 on February 20, 2010. And Terry Lowry $5,000 on January 25, 2010. Pay to play? I think so.
Mamie represented Chuck Rosenthal, Jerry Eversole, Michael Berry, and you. Does he represent Michael Wolfe too? Steve Hotze is also a client. Speaking of Mr. Hotze, exactly what similar platforms are you referring to in regards to Hotze? The holy church of 2:00 a.m. picnic lane (HCPL)?
So, are you defending Blakemore and Associates, Allen Blakemore, or Mamie Brockman? For Allen to use his deceased grandmother’s name to speak ill about David Jennings on this very blog is beyond bad. As a client, I would think that should concern you. Or is this Mamie posting as Chris Daniel? Again, delighted to know you think incumbents should have opponents.
See you later tonight at the HCPL Pot Luck. Make sure to bring Mrs. Daniel with you.
I think Mr. Daniel was saying he didn’t pay for Hotze’s endorsement. Not sure why Terry or Gary or Mamie came up on your response. Your response seems off point, if its all about Hotze and HPOU.
I didn’t read anywhere that he supported running against incumbents. “Pat Lykos is a friend, Don Sumners is a friend”… etc. means I think he supports the incumbents. It’s just that “we all have the right to run”.
I read that he mainly wanted to be left out of the comments. Which I can understand, since the first comment seems off base too.
That’s my take anyway. M.Berry, is that short for Michael Berry? if so, did you really run into a gay bar bouncer’s car outside of the club the other night?