Locke's Lawyerly Response
It probably took Gene Locke about two seconds to come up with his non-response to being caught with his pants down with Steven Hotze and the right wing ministers who are planning an organized anti-gay hate campaign in the mayoral race. After all, he makes $640/hour off the taxpayers, representing Metro, the Port, and the Sports Authority. I would expect for that kind of hourly rate, he is very skilled at giving the answer that satisfies the letter of the law, but doesn't go any further. And, that's what we got. Here's the timeline:
1. It was rumored he was sleeping with Hotze.
2. He got fourth place in most of the Republican precincts on Nov. 3rd.
3. Rumors surfaced again that he was sleeping with Hotze in order to be a part of a mailer (and possibly TV, robocalls and radio) that would attack his opponent for being gay. The anti-gay campaign would target conservative voters and would have a "family values" message. I heard rumors that Hotze would be spending $250,000 to $500,000 on this effort and that Locke wanted to be a part of it so that he could revive the pincer strategy, getting blacks and conservative whites to vote for him around the gay lifestyle issue.
4. The Houston Chronicle confirmed that he met with and sought the endorsement of Hotze, as well as appeared at the Pastors Council annual gala.
5. Having been caught actually in bed with hate mongers, the affirmative action law making, gay friendly, civil rights activist Locke had this to say:
As I have previously stated, I reject any association with the style of campaigning that was the subject of an article in the Houston Chronicle today. We have serious issues to deal with in our city that requires us to work together as one Houston and I trust that Houstonians will choose a new mayor based on the issues that effect our lives every day and not to be swayed by divisive rhetoric.Does Locke confirm or deny he's going to be a part of the anti-gay campaign? No.
Does Locke specifically disavow the gay-hating rhetoric of Hotze and the Pastors Council? No.
Does Locke give a reason why he was meeting with Hotze and asking for his endorsement? No.
Does Locke assure voters if he ends up as part of the "family values" campaign, he will strongly condemn it? No.
Are we buying what Locke is selling with this lawyerly response? No.
As Kuff rightly notes, this is only one baby step above his spokesperson's namby-pamby response to the Chronicle:
Locke spokeswoman Kim Devlin said he has met with “thousands of people” and promised from the outset of his campaign to be “mayor for every Houstonian … no matter their political party or their ideology.”When that laughable "Mayor for all Houstonians" lawyerly response didn't work, what was a lawyer to do, but throw out another one.
Locke's responses dodge the facts. The Chronicle has strongly condemned the rhetoric of hate. Kuff and John have more. Question is, does Locke have more? I'm waiting for some real answers.





