Your Friday Dose of Irony [UPDATED]

We've all had a good laugh at Gary Polland's hypocrisy in criticizing Republican candidates who take court appointments to do criminal defense when he brought in over $400,000 in appointments last year.  Now, we can also have a laugh at Jared Woodfill who has joined the Juvenile or Family Court appointments list, as well.

Both Woodfill and Polland have violently opposed the creation and continued existence of the Public Defenders' Office, and now you know why.

They seem to be a little worried that the more cases the PD's Office gets, the less money there will be to go around for them.  If the PD's Office continues to thrive, Woodfill might even be forced to sell his house in River Oaks.

[UPDATE:  Several people (who are apparently in the know) have pointed out that Woodfill is not doing appointments through the juvenile courts, but as ad litem through the Family Courts.  If the distinction of what type of appointments Mr. Woodfill is taking matters to you, this is my notice of that distinction.  Either way, he's still taking appointments.]

What's so "Republican" About Pat Lykos, Anyway?

I've been running this blog for about three and a half years now.  According to my Stat Counter, this will be my 788th post.  I've received 10,482 comments.  I've gotten 1,143,398 "hits."  Other than a brief dalliance with something called "Ad Sense" in my second year, I've never taken a dime for what I write.

I've gotten used to the trends and the writings of commenters.  I know what posts will have prosecutors bashing me.  I know which ones will have the defense bashing me.  I know that I can write a post on liking puppies and Rage will find a way to get into a fight with someone over it.  I can usually make a pretty good guess on who the anonymous authors of substantive comments are.

I know my blog and I understand it for better or for worse.

But the one thing that I have never understood is the fascination the Republican Party has with Pat Lykos, and why they seem to consider her such a Republican Juggernaut for the 2012 election.

In the 2008 Republican Election, Kelly Siegler received 58,208 votes (41.31%) versus Lykos' 44,014 (31.24%).  As we all know, that election went to a run-off where Kelly Siegler received 18,962 votes (47.32%) and Lykos won the election with 21,106 votes (52.68%).  Yes, all is fair in love and run-offs, but I have never quite gotten why Lykos so many people think that the general voting Republican loves Lykos so much.  If you add the numbers of both elections, Kelly still received 77,170 votes compared to Lykos' 65,120.  That's a difference of 12,050 votes.

Lykos had her "ringers" in the 2008 election with Leitner and that odd Doug Perry guy that forced a run-off, and that, my Republican friends, is the only reason she won.  So, I suppose if the Republican Party Leaders thinks that their best example is the one who best manipulated the election system, that's a pretty sad statement.

Some die-hard Pat Fans will point out that she was one of only a handful of Republican survivors in the 2008 Democrat Sweep, and therefore, she must be the Chosen One.  Lykos did not win the 2008 election; rather, she simply failed to lose it.  In a race against a disgraced former police chief who had some of the City's worst scandals permanently tied to him (DNA lab, K-Mart raids, etc.), she won by a stunning margin of 4,784 votes (.42% of all votes cast).  She certainly didn't carry the rest of the ticket, did she?

In running against someone as bad as C.O. Bradford, that margin should have been higher, regardless of whether or not Obama Fever was sweeping Harris County.    Amusingly, if you were to add up Siegler's numbers with Bradford's, they still got more votes than Lykos ever did.

I understand that there are some diehard Pat Fans that have known her since 1982 and would vote for her even if she was running against Ronald Reagan.

But to the rest of the Republicans who have a mind of their own, I'm kind of wondering what you think is so Republican about Pat Lykos in the first place?

I'm sure she can give a fantastic speech about being Pro-Life and a long-time Republican.  That's super.

But the position she has run for and won is that of Harris County District Attorney.  Her abortion beliefs have about as much relevance to the job as whether or not she drinks Bud Lite because it tastes great or because it is less filling.

She's supposed to enforce the laws set forth by the Texas Legislature and administer Justice -- nothing more, and certainly nothing less.  Her administration of the job she was elected to do has flown in the face of the principles the Republican Party is typically known for.

Traditionally, the Republican Party has been known for its Pro-Death Penalty Stance.  Pat Lykos has dodged those types of cases religiously.  Her decision to plead Randy Sylvester to life in prison for the murder of his two children was nothing short of cowardice.  If anyone ever deserved the death penalty, it was Sylvester.  Lykos is now so celebrated for her anti-Death Penalty stance that she was even invited over to England on behalf of the Innocence Project.

Republicans are known for shunning ideas of "political correctness" and forging ahead with what they believe is right.  Pat Lykos attempted to destroy the careers of two highly respected prosecutors by bashing them in the press when she thought they had done something politically incorrect.  She didn't even bother to get the facts straight before talking.

Republicans are known for the unwavering support for police officers.  Pat Lykos pled a cop killer to 40 years in prison.  He wasn't even convicted of Capital Murder. It is no wonder the police unions spoke out against her. (NOTE:  For those Lykos supporters who want to grumble that Republicans are anti-Union, please remember you are talking about a group of POLICE unions -- not the Teamster's).

Republicans (at least, theoretically) are supposed to be the Party of Lincoln.  Yet, Lykos' early personnel moves showed retaliation and racism.

Republicans are generally thought of as the "tough on crime" Party, yet Lykos created the DIVERT program which gives all DWI first offenders a free pass on their DWIs, and has now made it possible for a person to have three DWI cases against them before it is considered a felony.  Additionally, her decision not to file crack pipe residue cases has not made the police very happy, seeing as how the Penal Code kind of allows for it.

Most importantly, Lykos has lacked integrity since the day she set foot in that Office.  Actually, she lacked it waaaay before then, but I only have so much time to write.  She has promoted political cronies (like Roger Bridgwater, Jim Leitner, Hannah Chow and Lana Shadwick) to soft positions where their lack of intellect won't be blatantly revealed, while running off experienced prosecutors with excellent reputations in droves.  Those experienced prosecutors who still remain at the Office have had their discretion and authority taken away from them to the degree that courts have become gridlocked with otherwise resolvable cases.

In short, Pat Lykos has virtually destroyed the Harris County District Attorney's Office.

So Republican activists, when Jared Woodfill or your Precinct Chair comes to you and tells you that a vote for Pat Lykos is good for the Party and she is a shining example of your Conservative Values, you may want to ask them for some examples.   I'd like to hear the answers.

I know that I'm going to get bashed by several sections of blog readers for this post.  That's okay.  I expect it and I understand it.

But, I'll be damned if I can understand why the Republican Leadership seems to think that Pat Lykos is a candidate that adheres to their values.

The Vileness of Terry Lowry

In case you haven't noticed by now, I'm not a fan of Terry Lowry.

In the Harris County political system filled with people you love to hate, Lowry has distinguished himself as an almost cartoonish caricature of all that is wrong with the system, and the Republican Party seems to have no qualms about embracing him as their own.

Lowry publishes his FOR PROFIT crappy little LINKLetter that goes out to all Republican voters and he also buys time on a radio slot where he can spew out his "values" on a program called "What's UP".

And of course, under the 1st Amendment, I support his right to do so, even though I recognize the fact that he is a schmuck.

Lowry sprinkles in "articles" in his endorsement-laden "LINKLetter" which should offend even the most conservative of Republicans.

In his latest issue, he opens up addressing Pat Robertson's idiotic statement last month that the Haitian Earthquake was "the manifestation of God's punishment".

Does Lowry condemn what Robertson said?

Nope. He discusses it though, pointing out that "Back in 1791 some Haitians banded together and made a 'pack with the Devil' promising him their souls if he would help drive out the French". He never disagrees with it.

Are there really Republicans out there that believe publishing this crap is somehow helpful to their Party?

But the more amusing part of the LINKLetter is Lowry's article on "How are Endorsements Made?". The reality on how Lowry's endorsements are made is that Lowry opens a bidding war for ads in the mailer. Whoever buys the biggest ad wins his endorsement (for what it's worth).

But Lowry's "explanation" of how he makes his endorsements gives him a real chance to shine as the hate-mongering biggot that he is. He begins the article by lamenting how it more difficult to make endorsements now than it was 20 years ago when all you had to do was figure out if a candidates was "Pro-life vs. Pro-choice, Pro-family vs. Pro-homosexual, and liberal vs. conservative".

He continues on:

"Some candidates even sought and received endorsements from gay and lesbian organizations. This cycle has a practicing gay seeking to represent the Republican Party. He has even brought his partner to various functions. I will defend his right to run, but I will never endorse him nor encourage you to vote for him."

And his definition of a "Wise" candidate? "They avoid even answering Pro-homosexual questionnaires."

He also is kind enough to publish his suggestions for resolutions to take to your Precinct Chairman such as "We support the definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and natural woman."

Okey dokey, then. Are y'all getting the picture on why I said I wouldn't be endorsing anyone who bought advertising with Lowry?

So congratulations to Rachel Palmer, Danny Dexter, Glenn Devlin, Natalie Flemming, Jared Woodfill and others for your full page ads and your financial support to a rodent like Lowry and his hateful beliefs. (NOTE: And don't forget Pat Lykos' ad from 2008!) I didn't give any money to any of your campaigns, but if I had, I'd be demanding it back right about now.

And by the way, members of the Harris County Republican Party, you might want to be taking note of the fact that you got slammed in November 2008 because the Democrats schooled you on Public Relations and the Power of Inclusion.

If you want to make a significant step in the right direction for your party and keep some excellent candidates on the bench in the future, you could make a great statement by disavowing Terry Lowry and all that he stands for.

Just a thought.