In part of the Chronicle write up this morning, Alan Bernstein notes that the shots are already being fired across the bow between Lykos and Bradford. Bradford fired the first shots, but it wasn't anything outrageous.
What makes the article so damn funny is Lykos' response:
"I am very disappointed in Mr. Bradford," Lykos said. "I was hoping we could run an issue-oriented campaign."
I nearly spit my coffee out on the computer when I read that.
The Queen of Mean has been dodging the issues since January to take personal shots at Kelly Siegler and the ADAs, but now she suddenly wants to tackle them with Bradford.
And it's worth noting that Bradford hasn't called the ADAs a bunch of drunken racists, like Lykos gladly did. I wouldn't be too surprised to see a lot of the ADAs getting behind his candidacy now.
I know that I'm liking Bradford more and more . . .
10 comments:
I had the exact same reaction. Ms. "clean campaign" Lykos lecturing on taking the high road. What a crock!
Leitner really took a hit with me in this whole debacle. People aren't stupid. If you say one thing and do another, then you'd better count of people remembering.
I can understand you not wanting to look at him. I just see him as a typical two faced politician. I'm just sick and disgusted with two faced politicians.
Looks as if the voters saw this differently, Ron. And they're the ones that count.
The was a vote of no confidence for Siegler.
Those that think Mrs. Lykos just won something should remember the following numbers,
Bradford.......227,954 votes
Lykos...........44,014 votes
Lykos (runoff)..21,001 votes
If Bradford took more votes than all the candidates in the Republican party put together, why is it that you think she should be making any plans for November?
10:31
The voters clearly reflected the Republican establishment. I'm not so certain that it was as much a vote of no confidence as a vote for the party backed candidates.
I'm not saying it wasn't a vote of no confidence, it just seems that the Republican establishment got what it wanted.
Whether it was no confidence or not, it is clear that having the "backing of law enforcement" meant nothing to the voters.
What is clear, however, is Sielger misjudged those voters. The voters are obviously wanting some huge changes. She may be able to connect with jurors, but she couldn't do so with the voters.
Could that be because the demographics of Harris COunty are changing rapidly as well?
Siegler and a lot of those bureau chiefs probably need to start fine tuning those resumes. Whether it's Lykos or Bradford, a new day is coming and it is unlikely the exisitng management staff will be around by this time next year.
Any thoughts on whether the Republican party's decision to reduce the number of polling locations suppressed Siegler-voter turnout?
Lykos and her followers are absolutely deluding themselves if they think that SHE is the one who defeated Kelly Siegler.
Kelly beat her to the tune of 9,000 votes in the March 4th election and she lost to her by 2,000 on April 8th. I know how much Lykos enjoys her math, but if you add up the total votes, Kelly still generated a total of 7,000 more votes than Snookems ever received.
What beat Kelly Siegler was apathy.
http://harriscountycriminaljustice.blogspot.com/2008/03/kelly-sieglers-opponent-apathy.html
And, sadly, it was the one prediction that I've made that seems to have come true.
I'm not silly or whistful enough to spend a lot of time whining about how the election process wasn't fair.
It was fair, it just sucks.
However, if you do look at the raw numbers the C.O. Bradford got through a very energetic Democratic primary, the argument of who-beat-who in the Republican Primary may end up being massively irrelevant.
Anon 2:39,
Your comment got lost in Cyberspace, and apparently reappeared this morning. Don't ask me why.
I do think that the problems with polling caused a disadvantage to numerous Kelly supporters (because Lykos got her margin with mail ins, it didn't really effect her as much).
Although I do think it was a factor, I don't think it was a controlling one. I think the public's lack of interest was probably the biggest factor.
Currently, the Harris County DAs Office rewards racism and retaliates against those who would stand against it. To have integrity, to be ethical, one must leave that office. You would think that those traits would be exactly what the state of Texas would want in their employees; after all, aren't they supposedly the voice of the victims? So sad. Yet factually and honestly true.
Anon 1:49,
I'd really be curious as to what you base your comment on, because I couldn't disagree with you more. Perhaps you should do a little more research before you just go with bombastic statements that you can't substantiate.
Post a Comment