Two criminal defense attorneys are facing off against each other in the Democratic primary to see who will challenge long-time Republican incumbent (and one of my favorite judges on the bench today) Judge Sherman Ross in November.
Grant Hardeway and Lori Chambers Gray are both regulars at the CJC, and I dealt with both of them during my career as a prosecutor. I never tried a case against either of them, and neither of them have a campaign website listed with the Harris County Democratic Party as of this writing.
I know Grant better than I know Lori, and he has always been very nice to me. However, I'm not sure that everyone has had the same positive experiences with him that I have. I can't really speak to his legal ability or trial presence because I've never seen him in trial.
The same applies with Lori. In my dealings with her, she has always been very sweet, almost to the point of seeming shy. But I've never seen her in trial.
I like both candidates very much on a personal level and have nothing negative to say about them.
I just don't have enough information about them to make a call on who would be the better candidate.
19 comments:
I am humored by the ineptitude of the Democratic party.
I am humored by the statements of APC as to what is required to be a qualified Republican candidate for judicial office.
Hilarious. At least every single Democrat running has more criminal law experience than APC's loyal Republican Lykos and Wood.
Rage
Rage, every D has more experience than that "Genius" Danny Dexter too! But my doesn't he speak well?
Lest you forget, Lykos was a District Court Judge. I know about her ratings and feel uncomfortable with the beginning of her tenure as DA, but, she at least following the principles set forth by the Republican party. She could be like that lunatic in Dallas that sets people free for publicity.
My point was that the Democratic candidates are nothing but a joke. I just read Black Ink's post on the state of the union and I couldn't agree more. I know Black Ink thinks I am a twit but he surely gets it. Some of you twits definitely do not.
Our country is headed for the toiilet and the revolution starts at the grass roots. I stand firm in my roots.
Revolution is treason APC. I guess it's ok when a Republican says it, but when liberals like Alec Baldwin do you people tell them to leave the country. I'll tell you what your party tells everyone with a dissenting opinion: if you don't like it here, go live in another country. The recession is endind and the bailout money (that was approved by Republicans, by the way) is being repaid. But you know as little about that as you do the courts in Harris County.
Go sell crazy somewhere else. We're all full up here.
...you mean the ineptitude that lead to all but ONE incumbent judge in 2008 being defeated by Democrats.
I am humored by the ineptitude of someone who thinks they lend themselves any sort of credibility by using the name "Aggie" in their name. Nothing against Aggies...I know many intelligent Aggies. It's the ones like you (and the twit in Austin running for re-election) that give the rest of them bad names and lend credence to the stereotype of Texas A&M as a school for rednecks and racists.
Get a life. Get some common sense, and then maybe you'll be able to think and post on your own.
The roots of the American Republic can be found in the writings and activities of Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and Franklin, all radical liberal progressives.
Perry a twit? You are absurd to say that. he is the best Governor we have ever had.
anon 9:53,
Maybe so, but if put in contemporaneous context, they'd all be limited government states' right advocates of the conservative movement....with the exception of Alex "father of American big gubent" Hamilton, of course.
XI you are attempting to deny the thinking of these radical liberal progressive. Do you think they would have remained static in thinking? No they would not have remained static. These were great thinkers who wrote a document that was fluid with the idea it would continue to grow as society, economics and government changed. I would not even attempt to guess where they would be in today politics other than to say I suspect they would remain progressive.
Anon 12:33,
I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is?
The radical liberal progressives of the 18th century would be appalled by the 21st century radical liberal progressives.
Progressives today are the descriptive term used for the left wingnuts who think gubment is the end all answer. Thomas, Ben and John Q. would vehemently object to that line of concrete reasoning as not embracing a dynamic and fluid line of thought. So if by "progressive thinkers" you mean common sense dynamics as opposed to the liberal elite gubment dominance, then I agree.
Do you think Obama, Nancy and Harry would agree with Ben's analogy differentiating a democracy from a republic: a democracy is like 2 wolves and a sheep voting to decide on what's for dinner while a republic involves a well armed sheep prior to the casting of votes.
Somehow Ben doesn't come across as an insipid Nancy Pelosi so called progressive...but who the fuck knows?
Xi, I don't know anybody who defines progressives as left wingnuts except Rush, Glenn, Bill, Fox "News" and those of that thought or lack thereof. Progressives address social, economic and political ills. There is actually a period of American history defined as the Progressive Era. Included in the political arena as progressives were Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson . I would never characterize them as left wingnuts. I would not venture a guess as to what Ben Franklin would say about any current political group other than to say I suspect he would remain a person who thinks forward. I suspect he would be an independent with a liberal leaning. The political thought of our founding fathers is certainly not as clear as so many today believe. I took several political philosophy courses covering the evolution of democratic political thought from Greece through and including the founding fathers. The depth of reading was extensive and the professor demanding. It completely changed my political thoughts. One thing I learned and appreciate is the depth of the thinking of the founding fathers. Tea baggers they were not. Sound bites would never do for them. My post was not to engage in a discussion of the founding father and their political thought other than to say, when APC says he is going to his roots, I don't know where his roots are. I can tell you if he thinks his roots are in the founding fathers, he is sadly mistaken.
Anon 3:59,
Agreed, APC is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
My point with respect to the term "progressive" as it relates to political philosophy is that what it meant to Jeffersonian democrats is diametrically opposed to what it means to the so called liberal elite of 2010. Their hijacked use of the term would,in comparison, define oxymoron. Teddy and his Rough Riders way out class today's liberal cocksuckers on every level. The liberal progressives you referenced (with the exception of Woody Wilson who, as you know, sold America out to the Federal Reserve), opposed governmental tyranny and are not the same liberal progressives as those who are bankrupting Greece and the USA today.
I know you think Bush is a bad dude but the liberal elite is sinking our economy in turbo drive.
Xi, the Greece I was talking about is the Greece of antiquity when it changed from an oligarchy to a democracy after the rowers organized and demanded a vote.
Consider the changes in our social and economic world from the late 1700s to today. Important questions would be how the economic structure of the 1700s compare to the present time and how its structure influenced the thinking of the founding fathers. I know of no business existing in the 1700s that could bring about the collapse of the world economy by going bankrupt. Certainly there were monarchies that depended on the riches from their empire and if there was a failure, the government faced bankruptcy. Spain was famous for living in such a situation but the Spanish monarchy continued to rule by doing exactly what our government has done. If such an economy had existed in 1700s what would the economic view of the founding fathers have been. Again these were liberals thinking outside the accepted box. In addition, remember, in the 1700s the people in the frontier could not count on a central government for help in a crisis. There simply was not the rapid communication available to us (Battle of New Orleans) nor did the central government have the ability to response by rapid mobilization and transportation. (Many dead still lay in the fields of Gettysburg November 18, when Lincoln gave his address, the duty to bury the dead was largely left to the local citizens after the Union Army left the area) Now take Jefferson and put him in Washington today. I suggest he may well express a different opinion on government than he did in the 1700s. He may well say we need government monitoring and intervention in the economic system. Also I would suggest he would be disturbed by the current method of picking nominees for office. It pains me to say it but read John C. Calhoun's Disquisition on Government. (I am not really a fan of John C. Calhoun and yet I will not call him names) (You students of history probably would enjoy the story of the congress' weekend dinner in Baltimore during the nullification crisis and the toast given by Andrew Jackson) Even in the early 1800s the US of 1787 appears to have disappeared.
As to the economy, please review the numbers from the GAO as to who have been the big deficit spenders. Ok, I will give you Franklin Roosevelt was a deficit spender and Lincoln before him. I hope you will allow it since we were fighting a civil war and then the Nazis and the Japanese empire. Until the current economic crisis, Reagan was the largest deficit spender with Bill Clinton having a surplus at the end of his term. If the Clinton surplus had continued, the national debt would have been paid off by now. I am undecided as to the full impact of the current economic actions of the government. I did not major in economics so I have to read. I have found Paul Krugman to be very interesting and have been reading his columns.
Having said the above and with you deciding I am a c*********r (I consider myself a liberal), I conclude my side of this discourse. Whenever a discussion is reduced to name calling, the discussion, the trading of ideas, the education of the speakers and readers is over. Bystanders, I hope you found this discussion interesting and more hopefully thought provoking. Education is the primary need of the American electorate.
Now getting back to the point of this blog, I am glad Murray invites those who know the candidates better then he, to comment on their qualifications.
"they'd all be limited government states' right advocates of the conservative movement...."
Uhh, Bush created homeland security and increased government more than any president since Reagan. After Katrina DHS disarmed law abiding gun owners in New Orleans and cut all remaining phone lines so only the feds could communicate into the area. Since when do states rights and "conservatives" have anything to do with each other? And what was the first thing Bush wanted to do when Massachusets legalized gay marriage? He wanted a federal constitutuonal amendment prohibiting it. Do you even know what states rights are?
Similarly, Perry tried to steam hundreds of thousands of acres (including, potentially, about 450 of mine) to give to a foreign corporation. That particular "conservative" has no propblem violating individual rights and liberties.
Both call themselves conservatives. Neither are.
Rage
Rage,
Life in contextual snippets suits your one dimensional mind well.
But you do have a few valid points.
1.Why disarm Katrina thugs? The chaos in NO was not that big a deal in the storm's aftermath and the National Guard needed to be kept on their toes. But if the thugs were disarmed the liberal elite would be enraged if the law abiding citizens were allowed to bear arms, hence total disarmament.
2.There's no way you have 450 of anything unless daddy gave it to you, but if he did you, not Perry, should be able to squander it on your own. Did you get a make believe mule to work your land as well?
3.Massachusetts is a moral cesspool (but is turning the corner)and boys should be allowed to play with boys. Do you and yours have a place in Martha's Vineyard as well?
4.Bush and Perry might be just a few neurons above you but they are no comparison to Obama and dead Teddy when it comes to federal government oppression.
5.California is the place you ought to go.....liberal elitism gone unchecked results in bankruptcy
6. if Sr Newman publishes my morning response to the self anointed one you can amuse yourself further.
1.Why disarm Katrina thugs? The chaos in NO was not that big a deal in the storm's aftermath and the National Guard needed to be kept on their toes. But if the thugs were disarmed the liberal elite would be enraged if the law abiding citizens were allowed to bear arms, hence total disarmament.
So you're fine with violating the 2nd amendment, as long as it's being done by Republicans and they're disarming black people? By the way, the thugs weren't disarmed. The law abiding people who made known that they would defend their property were.
2.There's no way you have 450 of anything unless daddy gave it to you, but if he did you, not Perry, should be able to squander it on your own. Did you get a make believe mule to work your land as well?
Nice racial slur. My land has been in my family since 1834. I've actually repurchased several hundred acres of the original patent that had been sold or given to distant family over the years. Sorry if your family has no history and nothing to show for their existence.
3.Massachusetts is a moral cesspool (but is turning the corner)and boys should be allowed to play with boys. Do you and yours have a place in Martha's Vineyard as well?
From racism to bigotry and homophobia. Nice. Again, you're fine with states rights, as long as it's a right you like. That's real "conservative" of you.
4.Bush and Perry might be just a few neurons above you but they are no comparison to Obama and dead Teddy when it comes to federal government oppression.
Obama has been oppressive? Good God you're dumb.
5.California is the place you ought to go.....liberal elitism gone unchecked results in bankruptcy
I'm no liberal. Just pointing out that folks like you are no conservative.
6. if Sr Newman publishes my morning response to the self anointed one you can amuse yourself further.
I guess I'll have to amuse myself, you sure aren't doing it.
Rage,
you personify the old adage that you just can't fix stupid....
Post a Comment