Let's just go ahead and get this out there.
Despite my below "pandering" request, and the calls from several Assistant District Attorneys pleading for Jim not to endorse anyone, he issued a statement stating that he would be voting for Pat Lykos. And, of course, our beloved literary Lykos Bodyguard, Alan Bernstein, has already gleefully written about it on his blog. I find it amusing that Leitner tried to qualify it by saying it wasn't an "endorsement" because he wasn't "telling anybody else how to vote". Um, was that your idea of "splitting the baby", Jim?
I'll be very honest with you. There are a lot of folks at the D.A.'s Office that are stunned that Jim is endorsing, um, I mean "voting" for her. He had told numerous people that he wouldn't endorse her if he didn't make the runoff. Remember, the postings from Clint Greenwood, I mean, BubbaJoeSixPack on Mark's blog? Clint was Jim's treasurer.
I guess in his reasoning, he kept his word.
In the big scheme of things, although there are a lot of disappointed prosecutors who believed what Jim had told them, it really isn't all that surprising. Kelly Siegler had actually called this one all along, even though some prosecutors didn't want to believe it.
Leitner and Lykos go way back. He endorsed her over Rosenthal when he didn't make the runoff in 2000. He is apparently one of the few lawyers who wasn't treated like dog crap by Pat when she was on the bench in the 180th back in the olden days. They are personal friends.
However, I can't help but recall something that I heard that Jim Leitner said when the first candidate "debate" was held at the Spaghetti Warehouse in January:
He said that the District Attorney's Office needed a trial lawyer to lead the younger Assistant District Attorneys, because it was important that they have someone who had done the job and they could respect.
Pat Lykos can call herself a "litigator" until the cows come home, but she's never tried a case, so is thus, no "trial lawyer".
And Jim had it right when he indicated there wouldn't be respect for a non-trial lawyer.
It's too bad that he's contradicting himself now.
33 comments:
Jim is voting for Lykos....But endorsing "Snookems".
big difference.
I am personally not surprised. In the end I don't think this will affect the outcome of the race. The only thing that will happen as a result of Jim announcing his "vote" for Lykos is that his image will suffer. Jim has always quietly claimed he is a Christian, but in endorsing (oh, I am sorry voting for) Lykos he has finally succumbed to the devil herself.
I don't know that I will be able to look at Jim the same way from now on. I thought he had judgment. I was sadly mistaken. Oh well, I tend to agree with Grits. I don't think it will make a difference. All the defense attorneys I spoke to said they do NOT want Lykos to be the DA.
And if that woman mentions "the rule of law" crap one more time, I think I may actually hurl. What a load of BS. Can was say meaningless soundbite?! What is "the rule of law" Pat? Is it something only a "litigator" knows? heh heh.
Didn't Lykos lie to Jim's face and tell him that she wouldn't run if he threw his name in to run? As a matter of fact, I thought she had told him that she would endorse him.
Why would he back such a liar?
I guess he got used to it when she used to make the lawyers apologize to juries when SHE was the one who took the two hour lunch breaks.
I'm so disappointed in Jim that I want to cry.
Forgive the typo. Meant to say: Can you say meaningless soundbite?!
If Clint Greenwood was Jim's treasurer, does that mean he would have been his First Assistant? If so, all I can say is, thank God Jim didn't win!!!
Golly gee! I wonder if Lykos bartered something for Leitner’s “vote”?
Hmmm…
Please allow me to idly speculate for a moment…
Perhaps, in the event of a Lykos victory, Harris County will be minus one defense attorney come November?
Could that be possible?
Time will tell, won't it?
And Alan Bernstein, you truly are that gift that keeps on giving! Big ol’ hugs to ya, buddy!
In the grand scheme of things I don't think it will mean much. As has been pointed out in the past, Leitner's name ID is pretty low in the general public awareness. It sounds like within lawyer circles (defense and prosecutor) most minds are made up, so it's the general public left to persuade.
Having said that, I can see how you'd be disappointed in Leitner's action.
Horrors - someone in politics saying one thing and doing another? I've totally lost my faith.
I'm not surprised at all. Politics is a crazy thing.
Jim and Pat have one thing in common, they both know how to lose elections. Jim and his religous bs is no different than Chuck. Jim is a politician, Kelly is not. Jim lies and Kelly does not. As a defense attorney, I wish I wouldn't have given him money. Not one of us want Pat Lykos and Jim knows that. I feel like I was used.
I am disappointed in Jim. I think he could have promoted the changes he feels necessary, without giving up on having a trial lawyer at the helm.
I noticed either Lykos or Bernstein attempting to use Randy Burton's Child Advocacy as support for her. I took it upon myself to email Randy as an old friend and encourage him to take a stand, knowing that would not be his position. Hope it does some good.
Enough with the attacks on Jim Leitner for his "religious BS" and the like. Jim is a well-respected and active member of my church. I can assure you that he's not just "claiming" to be a Christian or peddling faux-piety. I'm disappointed that he's endorsing Lykos, too, but that's no reason to smear the man's religious belief.
Ah, the anonymous commenters with their unsupported assertions! I'm not a big Lykos fan, but I'm a big fan of Truth, and there's not a lot of that in this discussion, with its personal attacks on Jim, who is and always has been a man of great honor.
We know that there was one defense lawyer supporting Lykos before the primary, and there are more today than a week ago. (I can't provide a cite to that, so you'll have to take my word for it, backed only by my name.) Lots of defense lawyers see a Lykos Office as a lesser evil than a Siegler Office. So why would anyone believe that 7:29 is a defense lawyer? Because he/she says so?
And, 8:59, have you really never heard of "the rule of law"? Or is it just that you think it's meaningless coming from Lykos?
Mark,
Good research!
Wikipedia is a bs source.
Go ahead and click on that little link now, y'all. You'll learn ALL about that "rule of law". :-)
Holy cow! You people have really never heard of the Rule of Law? Citing to Wikipedia on this one is like citing to Wikipedia on "clouds" -- something about which every educated person knows a good deal, but might need a refresher.
After all, even The President, whom nobody would argue is well-educated, seems to know what the Rule of Law is!
But I sometimes forget that near-total ignorance nevertheless qualifies one to express opinions on the web.
"The rule of law, sometimes called the 'supremacy of law', provides that decisions should be made by the application of know principles or laws without the intervention of discretion in their application."
That's from Black's Law Dictionary, and it's a wholly uncontroversial proposition. Even the Sicilians have a proverb, la legge é uguale per tutti, that means the same thing.
The opposite of the Rule of Law is the Rule of Man, under which the law is different for one person than for another.
I see the fact that I even need to explain that to you as a crushing indictment of the American educational system.
Okay, they kept hassling me, so I changed it back.
Still, Wikipedia is about as reliable as Lykos.
Mark,
Obviously, you're not getting it.
Naturally, everyone knows what the rule of law is. But thanks for the lesson.
The comedy is that Lykos keeps parroting that term around instead of actually...oh, I don't know?... RESPONDING to the questions tossed her way.
Just like with her use of the word "litigator", she's using another official-sounding term to fool the public into thinking that she's actually qualified.
You guys need to read this comment in reply to AHCL's post at Lone Star Times.
http://lonestartimes.com/2008/03/06/guest-blogging-the-harris-co-da-race/#comment-253869
Well, that was three minutes that I'll never get back...
Great post over there, AHCL. :)
AHCL
Damn girl, your post at lonestartimes.com got quite a few comments.
I expect a comment surge over here soon.
What a load of bs. One Defense attorney was stating on Wednesday tht Lykos had promised Leitner the First Assistant Job. I was skeptical, but not so much now. Of course neither Lykos or Leitner would cut such a deal because it as a crime to make promises of appointments in exchange of support! Yeah right.
And time is indeed telling...such an indiscrete mistress she is!
"Backhanders" at work…
Mark, you clearly missed the sarcasm in my post. Do you really think you are smarter than the rest of us? Thank you to Anon C for clearing it up. Yes, I know what the "rule of law" is. We all do. But Pat uses that term to make people think she is something special and that it is a new concept. Just like she uses the term litigator to imply she is something special. It might work on the lay person, or nonlawyer voters, and this offends me as a trial lawyer. It should offend you too. Mark, give us a little credit. You are not the only smart one here. ANON 859
859,
Sarcasm is a little bit hard to read in a blog comment, and the Rule of Law seems to be taking a beating here; that's why I asked. Thanks for clarifying what you meant.
As for me, I'm in favor of the actual Rule of Law, but I haven't heard anything from Pat to make me think that it is anything more than a cynical electioneering slogan to her. So I think you and I probably agree.
And, incidentally, it's hard to give much credit to anonymous sources with no history of providing information that was later proven true, and it's unreasonable for you to expect it. A smart guy like you should know that. I know the identities of a few anonymous commenters but, for all I know, you're a guy doing a 20-year stretch in a New Mexico prison for fraud.
Wow! I agree with Mark Bennett! :-) Is there a blue moon out tonight. This is awesome. :-)
Have a good evening Mark. Thanks for keeping us on our toes. You too, AHCL. Anon 859
Nice try at the ninth inning save, Mark. :-)
Good one!
Hehe!
Oh Mark. I am tickled that I know you, yet you don't know me. I see you all the time at the CJC. I've known you since your ponytail days. I like your new look much better. I see you on your MacBookPro all the time, probably blogging away. I read your blog from time to time. Sometimes we agree, frequently we don't. Trust me, I am not in the pen. That's all I'll tell you for now. Perhaps when this mess is over, I'll buy you a drink at Char. It's too fun to watch you from afar to disclose my identity right now. But soon. Anon 859.
JAGJO writes:
I so agree with ANON859 post from 9:06pm...
Let's all meet after this is over for a few drinks. I think it will be, well, entertaining at worst. And extremely surprising for some to find out who certain anonymous posters are including myself.
At this point it is purely nudum pactum but if the blogger host would be agreeable to such and post a place and time to meet in Nov. that would give it the necessary validation. Anyone else think this is an awesome idea?
~JAGJO
Mornin'!
That image really cracks me up, JagJo.
"Hola, y'all! Anon C here!"
“Hi, I’m roninhouston”.
“Pro.v. Present and accounted for!”
Hehe!
Good times!
At this point nothing would surprise me, Jagjo. You could be Kelly Siegler and 859 could be Vic Wisner (it's generally the ladies and the gay men who comment on my new 'do). I won't even bat an eye.
If Casey -- oops I mean AHCL is buying, I'm there.
JAGJO writes:
Anon C - Roll call? I am so there! whoot! You know it will be 'good times" and infact, I will invite the local news media to join in on the festivities. I will also ask the bar to create a special " blogger cocktail" just for the occasion. It's gonna have to be something sassy with a little "BAM" factor added in! Maybe a drink with a shot on the side!
If our esteemed blogger host does not want to participate, I will post a meeting place for Nov 7th.For those who " dare to bare"...their identity.
And Mark, Mark, Mark.... you so do not intimidate me. Not in the least. LOL Nice try, though. Very transparent. A few days ago you were trying to bait me with being Bill Moore or one of his entourage, and today your pulling Siegler's name out of the hat. Anon bloggers must strike a nerve with you for some reason. Oh what could that reason be? LOL For some, in part, their language and way of writing gives clue to who or what they are. For others, it's a case of can't out fox the fox! If someone has to "buy" your drinks in order for you to show up at the blogger meet n' greet, after all your anonymous criticisms, business must not be that good and with all the PR you are doing on the blogs.....
Also, my condolences to your man, Jocher re: the primary. Or maybe I have already told him myself?
The curiousity will get the better of you..one eye lash at a time for each time you bat an eye.
Cocktails and bloggers.. be there or be sqaure!
~JAGJO
PS... Banging the drum yet one more time for Bill Moore in the 174th court the run off... :-)
JagJo, show me the way home, honey! :-)
"Bartender, I'd like a BAM! With an extra shot of whoop ass, please. Thanks!"
And, what the hell?! Go, Bill Moore!!
Post a Comment