Saturday, May 07, 2005

Hooray Schubert Conceeds!

Schubert just conceeded to Hardberger. Why not to Castro, who last I checked was in the lead? Hell, I don't care who he conceeds to as long as he appologizes to all the citizens of San Antonio for his pathetic excuse for a campaign. I guess he wants his votes to go to Hardberger. This was to be expected, but it still does not bode well for Julian in the runoff.

19 Comments:

At 7:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, great. Schubert gets his name recognition. So he spent a ton of money for nothing.... at least for SA.

 
At 9:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, Schubert was a fine candidate. You may not have agreed with him on everything, but you always knew were you stood with him and he never attempted to be someone he wasn't. I am a liberal democrat who thinks SA has lost a great public servant. Phil doesn't know what he's talking about and Julian is just a kid whose made stupid mistakes. At least in a Schubert/Castro run-off, it would have been a clear demarcation of what the two stood for. How are Hardberger/Castro going to differentiate themselves? By age?

 
At 10:50 PM, Blogger Marcus Tullius Cicero said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 12:31 AM, Blogger Marcus Tullius Cicero said...

A fine public servant? Fine public servants don't waste 3/4 million dollars to come in third. There is a difference between frankness and smug insensitivity. Schubert always tells you just where he stands because he honestly doesn't care what you think. I take your point about demarcation, but when have we ever really had a choice? Heads we lose tails the Developers win. So it goes every election in San Antonio for as long as I can remember. Don't let ethnicity fool you. Remember Henry Cisneros? That vato was in the Developers’ pocket at sure as Carroll. Hell, he eventually became one, and a sorry one at that.

Contrary to common perception in both Parties, it is not conservative to always favor powered moneyed interest against the public good. A conservative favors the disengagement of the public sector from the private sector. It is a Fascist that equates government subsidy of oligarchical business interests with Nationalistic moralism. The two are often confused in the public consciousness at great peril to the liberty of us all. It is just such public/private partnerships with developers that Carroll favors. He may not have the shinny black boots, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then its probably not a turkey. I take no pleasure in the fact that the next mayor is going to be either an old numb nut or a young one. Either way we lose but ain't it always so. Like the South Park boys so astutely observed, it comes down to a choice between a douche bag and a turd sandwich every time.

 
At 8:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem I have with your arguement is you obviously never researched Carroll. You and others labeled him the developers boy because he knew in texas vested rights were not going to go away just because a city government wanted them away. Texas is a property rights state: that won't change.

However, my public service comment was directed to his work on his non-profit that he chose not to publicize but if you look at the Ken Rodriguez column from several months ago you will see Carroll founded a non-profit that got disabled individuals jobs. He never mentioned it in the campaign because he didn't want it to seem like he was using it for campaign purposes. He also never publicized his work with the YMCA for the same reason.

Your right, he doesn't apologize for how thinks, but he's not afraid to hear how another side thinks. I think the biggest problem in his campaign was he could not meet with people who had your and similiar views of him. I think if you had met him you may still not have supported him, but you wouldn't blanketly state he was one-dimensional. and you would enjoyed a discourse with someone who listened to your reasons and actually debated you and still would want to go out and have a lunch with you.

He is a good guy.

The run-off will be interesting for all. I don't think Phil can count on getting all of CWS vote. A lot of CWS supporters aren't going to vote for either and many of them don't think Phil has enough city experience.

Also, there won't be a tax-freeze on the ballot so the older residents won't have the same incentive to vote.

It will be interesting.

 
At 10:56 AM, Blogger Marcus Tullius Cicero said...

I come here not to praise Carroll but to bury him. The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Schubert. The other candidates said Carroll was ambitious, and they are honorable men. But did they not sing his praises when the Developers’ ransoms did the local coffers empty? When the disabled workers cried, Carroll wept. Ambition should be made of sterner stuff. But the other candidates said he was ambitious, and they are honorable men, so are they all, honorable men. Did not Carroll toot his own YMCA horn in the WOAI/KLRN debate? Did he not propose the YMCA provide cake to the poor? But his opponents said he was ambitious, and they are honorable men.

History shows that Antony was indeed a traitor to Rome and Octavian was no friend to the Republic either. Yet Caesar was indeed ambitious. If Carroll was ambitious, it is grievous crime, and grievously hath he answered for it.

 
At 5:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marcus,
Go back and read Julius Ceasar again. Your eighth grade English teacher did you wrong.

 
At 11:38 AM, Blogger Marcus Tullius Cicero said...

My teachers taught me that when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he betrayed Rome. They also taught me that Cassius was a bad guy.

Behold yon David Earl; he hath a lean and hungry look. David Earl and Carroll Schubert attend the same big money orgies. On principle, I distrust anyone who can raise $300,000 in one night from people who wouldn’t be caught dead in a room with persons of my modest socio-economic bracket in it. I consider myself a conservative, so I might in fact have several points of agreement with Carroll Schubert on specific issues. But once a candidate felates the Devil, he’s off my Christmas card list forever. You can’t unscrew the money pooch. I would rather support a candidate that disagrees with me but has integrity, than one that is beholding to oligarchs, but tells me what I want to hear. The lesser of three evils is still evil. I am an equal opportunity critic, not the Devil’s advocate.

My 8th grade teacher taught me “if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.” From your reluctance to admit that a spade is in fact a spade, it seems maybe you should go back and do a tour of duty with my 8th grade teacher, it might do you some good. While there, you might pick up a copy of Cicero’s "Philippics" and learn how a real patriot operates. But then again, I suspect that you might be one of those old dogs that refuse to learn new tricks, or admit when they’re wrong.

 
At 12:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

david earl was a person non grata with almost all council. he rarely had any zoning cases on the north side (with the exception of district 8). again, you know not of what you write.

 
At 3:06 PM, Blogger Marcus Tullius Cicero said...

If David Earl is such a persona non grada, then why are all his clients paying him the big bucks? I’ve looked at the names on his list and most of those people didn’t get as rich as they are by handing out money for no reason. I tried to pry cash out of some of these people personally for philanthropy, and they don’t part with it easily for that reason either.

You do seem to have more of the inside tract on poop down at City Hall than I do. But this is kinda creepy and doesn’t necessarily buy you credibility in my book.

David Earl is not important to me. What is galling is what he represents. What he has or hasn’t done lately is academic. What is certain is that if not him, others are doing the very same thing. If a major lobbyist tells his long illustrious list of clients to show up to a fundraiser, if they know what’s good for them, that’s exactly what they do, checkbooks in hand. Having the support of a lobbyist is worth more to a candidate than all the endorsements he could accumulate from more visible PACS. He may be only able to legally donate $500-$1000 personally, but the lobbyist is essentially responsible for much more than this.

Come on, $300,000 in one night, in one place, in a San Antonio election! That simply doesn’t pass the smell test. If Carroll Schubert can’t see this, then neither does he.

 
At 11:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I worked with Schubert years ago in Dallas. He was a lazy, inefficient attorney, and would make the same kind of mayor. Oh, he whines a lot too.

 
At 4:42 PM, Anonymous Buy Levitra said...

Great article! Thanks.

 
At 10:04 PM, Anonymous Phentermine said...

Thanks for interesting article.

 
At 4:57 PM, Anonymous Anonimous said...

Nice! Nice site! Good resources here. I will bookmark!

 
At 2:43 AM, Anonymous Maxwells said...

I see first time your site guys. I like you :)

 
At 2:29 PM, Anonymous Anonimous said...

Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!

 
At 8:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://13dfgsdfg57.com/

 
At 1:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, guantanamera121212

 
At 12:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

не факт

 

Post a Comment

<< Home