Skip to comments.Houston biggest US city to elect openly gay mayor(Why she won: Hint, it's not that she's gay)
Posted on 12/14/2009 6:00:13 AM PST by bestintxasEdited on 12/14/2009 6:02:13 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Houston became the largest U.S. city to elect an openly gay mayor, with voters handing a solid victory to City Controller Annise Parker after a hotly contested runoff.
Parker defeated former city attorney Gene Locke with 53.6 percent of the vote Saturday in a race that had a turnout of only 16.5 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
Does this pedigree sound familiar to anyone?
The backlash is coming as a tsunami.
I thought it might be that she knew where the city’s money was being spent and ran a campaign on reform and cutting costs.
“her only opponent is black, a lawyer and is distinguished as a commmunity organizer. “
Strike 3 LOL!
I agree. I have family in Houston, they say she ran a good campaign.
Most voted none of the above......
Houston, the new 2nd City of San Francisco......
That and that only 16.5% bothered to vote.
So, is she a Gay Libertarian or Conservative?
The single biggest reason she won is her only opponent is black, a lawyer and is distinguished as a commmunity organizer.
There were more candidates in the race originally and this was the run off. These two got something like 26-29% of the vote each in the first round.
The sad thing is that any candidate that had the backing of 10% of the registered almost 1,000,000 voters could have won this race easily.
dont be racist..its not because he was black..its because of the community organizer...
It’s a shame that some “conservatives” were less interested in, at least some, fiscal restraint than in trying to prevent a gay woman from becoming mayor. Better to let the corrupt and connected Democrat “community organizer” win than the lesser of two evils.
And the SoCons wonder why many of us don’t think they’re interested in our cause.
The color Houstonian voters were focused on is green, not black or white.
I've lived in plenty of places in my 55 years. You won't find a more diverse or welcoming state than Texas.
Nope, that would be Austin.
THE most socialist/liberal city in Texas, bar none.
Incidentally, Parker is not one of those Drew Carey-looking butch dykes. I assume she's the "wife" in her lesbian "marriage".
..just as there are in your city, my city, all cities.
Don't be so quick to judge.
Houston was very nearly bankrupted by Lee Brown. Although I don’t live there, I think that Houston wasn’t buying the “elect a liberal black mayor so you can be a world-class city” line anymore. Brown, BTW was the candidate of the downtown business interests. Another indication of what geniuses Ken Lay and his friends were.
Parker is bad news, but slightly less bad than Locke.
Oh, come on......the truth is (I live in Houston) that Houston’s been a one party town for decades. The Party Elite decide long before an election who’s going to win; they give that information to the Chronicle who “endorses” the candidate, which for all practical purposes amounts to the “nomination” of the new Mayor and the election is held as a formality; it’s just a “confirmation” of the selected candidate. They know the early vote is largely Republican or other wise not Democrat; they count those votes and pony up a number of votes greater than that count for their candidate from their “machine”. That’s the real reason turn out is so low.......turnout doesn’t matter and what turnout does occur on the day of the election is selected and loaded up onto buses driven by the Acorn types.
I’m not judging. I lived there over 10 years. It’s a first hand account. Anybody that has lived there will say the same thing.
She is what they call a “lip stick lesbian”...
I don't think so.
Better to let the corrupt and connected Democrat community organizer win than the lesser of two evils.
How can you say such a thing? A corrupt democrap would do more long term damage. A gay conservative could promote good fiscal agendas and would be good for the public. I’d rather overlook one point (gay) than all of them (gay, abortionist, tax and spend, corruption, connected - we all know that that means -, etc etc)
Yerdley Smith, with hips!
[Better to let the corrupt and connected Democrat community organizer win than the lesser of two evils.]
I, as a “conservative,” don’t care if she is gay, because what she does in her house is NONE of my business! But, what she is going to do with my money IS my business, so that is the topic upon which many of us “conservatives” based our votes! Since our options were either a known corrupt lawyer or a gay woman, we just shouldn’t have voted?!?! What she does in her bedroom isn’t going to affect my taxes and cost me millions in bad, corrupt business deals! But Mr. Locke is a lawsuit and tax increase waiting to happen!
I am not sure where you get your “lessor of two evils” claim from, but the last I checked, we are fall short of the One! And he who is without sin should cast the first stone! Please, get off the soapbox and get YOUR priorities straight!
While I do not understand lesbianism, I cannot figure out why we should care if the mayor-elect of Houston is a lesbian.
A few years back I had neighbors who were lesbians. They did not advertise it, and were very friendly with everyone. They kept up their yard, garden, and were fun to be with. No one cared if or what they did in their bed, as they never talked about it. They were educated and were employed gainfully.
Although I do not approve of homosexual activity, I really don’t think it affects whether someone is qualified to be a mayor - unless that person decides to abuse the position and proseletyze.
For some people, everything is about sex, which is why the AP keeps telling us that this woman is a lesbian. My local newspaper this morning ran a headline about it with the word “Lesbian” in the headlines. Goofy!!!
Maybe she softened the look to get elected. It will be interesting to see how she styles herself once she has the reins of power in her hands.
I voted Locke for several reasons:
1) The Houston Chronicle endorsed Parker, and she was proud of it. Anyone proud of that endorsement is not the conservative they pretend to be.
2) As time went by, I could see there was a lot of money behind Parker. Given her lifestyle, it was not hard to figure out exactly where that money came from.
3) There was a major irritation factor from the Parker side by their willingness to lay siege to my telephone with all their automated messages. The one that really, really annoyed me was the 90 year old woman voting Parker because of bla-bla-bla. As if being 90 was some sort of qualification for influencing the votes of others.
4) I reasoned that I could tolerate the perceived corruption a Locke administration would represent as better than having someone committed to the gay agenda in place to further influence Houston elementary education. It was possible that Locke would have made enough of a hash of it, Leepee style, he would be tossed out next time. Locke had the feel of a “little Leepee” about him.
The election was held on a very cold, dreary Saturday high of 49, 16 below mean no matter what time of year, that is cold in Houston. Even with early voting, that will influence turn out.
How can you blame them?
Had I been a Houston voter I’d have voted for one promising more fiscal responsibility.
Dec 13 2009 4:06AM Smiley N. Pool / Chronicle
Annise Parker, center, and her partner, Kathy Hubbard, left, celebrate the
election night victory on Saturday at the George R. Brown Convention Center.
Is she wearing a Red Chinese military uniform in that photo?
“The single biggest reason she won is her only opponent is black, a lawyer and is distinguished as a commmunity organizer.”
How would you explain Parker’s victory at citywide office in, 2007, 2005, 2003, 2001, 1999 and 1997?
Looks to me that she can't win in even years.
I also voted the same way for the same reasons you spell out.
The phone calls were so irritating that I had to tell each caller in their spiel to not call me anymore as I was supporting the other candidate.
I also asked several people who were long-time Houstonians who said Locke was supported by the business establishment, which I thought better than the support you mention in 3.
“dont be racist..its not because he was black..its because of the community organizer...”
So now I am racist because I voted FOR a black candidate?
How about the fact that she got 10x as much in out of state contributions?
If you say so.
You only vote “none of the above” if you actually go to the polls and leave that office blank. Otherwise you exhibit apathy towards elections and the Democrats win because they claim “mandate” and the GOP sez “you won’t go anyhow”.
I voted for Locke although I didn’t like him. I know several of her agenda items I oppose that will probably get through. Didn’t hear Locke pushing for them (same sex benefits or green “solutions”).
I left the City Council races blank.
I voted for the City Controller.
Those “no votes” are tallied just as the candidate votes are tallied.
If you stayed home, you did not vote.
A guest on Dan Patrick’s radio show (700AM KSEV) last week ran the numbers. She got something like $750,000 to Locke’s $75,000 in such donations.
If it is going to be called “historic” and her agenda is going to be “championed” perhaps the public should have been able to debate that agenda. It isn’t genetic, it is moral.
The out of state homosexual activists contributed to her campaign because they thought it would be good for their agenda.
I want a mayor for Houston. Not some other interests.
Brown and White are carpet bagger who blow through town now and then but do not drop anchor here or care about the city’s past or future.
I thought she ran on a campaign of fiscal responsibility not on making everyone else gay or gay tolerant.
And Obama ran to the center in 2008. We shall see.
Trust me, I was dismayed when the first thing on channel two was her speech talking about how gays can do it too....but I did like the part where she said if they work hard and if they prepare themselves for success.
At least it didn’t sound like she was going to hand out patronage jobs based on gayness.
As you said, we shall see.
Not so much patronage jobs. But city paid benefits for same sex partners.
Think that will reduce the city budget?
I’ll add that I think she is competent to do the job (unlike say Lee P. Brown) but she has several agenda items (including “green” energy agenda items for Houston) that I oppose.
Man-made global warming is a fraud. Spending our tax dollars on such bunk is a waste of money.
It isn’t just about sex. It is about liberalism.
Not that I had a vote in this election but didn’t seem like any other vialble choices. IMO.
What? I was saying that from the point of view of SoCons who joined in with Locke’s campaign, as they seemingly rather would have the corrupt Democrat than a gay woman.
I am in agreement with you. I am being critical of some “conservatives” who are so involved with being anti-gay that they would rather help grow government and arbitrary power over the individual than see a gay person triumph.
Did you misunderstand me, friend?
I think I’m in agreement with you. I basically stated what I believed was motivating some social conservatives to vote for Locke, not stating my own beliefs.
I’m libertarian anyway. I don’t care for leftist gay politics but then I don’t care for leftist identity politics, in general.
The fact that someone is gay, especially if open about it (closeted could mean vulnerable to blackmail,) is of no significance to me.
If there were a Ronald Reagan II who was even more popular and he said he was gay, I wouldn’t care a jot. It’s much more important that EVERYONE be free than worry about someone’s sexual proclivities, tendencies, etc.
I apologize for the tone then, as I read that you were more worried about the fact that a “gay” person won, instead of a crooked lawyer. My regrets.