My buddy Jaime is having a rough go of it lately and is quite angry with me for exposing his star candidate as a not so great choice for public office. He even took the time to stop obsessing over Tom Brown's slate of candidates to write a little special something to me. His anger clouded his judgement and now I have to point out where he's wrong.
We must first come to an understanding about what Jaime does with his blog and what I do with mine. Jaime actually picks candidates, advises them, props them up on his blog and attacks their enemies on that same blog. His relationship with the candidates are face to face, over the phone and through email. He nothing short of a campaign staffer for those he chooses to make kings. After all, Jaime is a "king maker" and kings he will make.
I, on the other hand, do not talk to candidates unless I have a prior personal relationship with them. I don't advise people on running for office. I don't plot with them at their headquarters. I don't care to know them in any way. I happen to know Cortney Niland and I've known her for quite some time (four years for those keeping score at home). When she wanted to run for Beto's seat I was in a primary against County Commissioner Dan Haggerty. She asked me what she should do and I gave her Morris Pittle's number, wished her luck and went about eating my prime rib (I was at dinner).
Here's an email exchange initiated by Dr. Noe as proof. I edited out his phone number and the doctor who told me about him because I'm not going to call that doctor and ask him permission to drag him into this.
Dr. Noe to David K (Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:58 AM):
If you ever want to talk, feel free to give me a call. Jaime does. 255-9XXX.
Noe
David K to Dr. Noe (Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:10 PM):
Dr. Noe,
I'm glad you gave me your contact info... however, I don't usually talk to candidates or politicians directly - it clouds my perception of them (not a good thing to disagree politically with someone you like personally and have a blog dealing with the subjects I deal with) and I don't want anyone thinking I want something from them.
The fact is, if you win - and I think you probably will (don't pay too much attention to my prediction of Mejia's win - she reads that and it makes her lazy) and one day you'll see a contract with my company's name on it when you're on council and I don't want there to be any conflicts of interest.
Also, Jaime wants something from you - not today, not tomorrow, but someday he will. He cover his bases. I'm not like that.
Dr. XXXX vouched for you and that's all I needed to hear. Keep working hard and stay out of the mud (where I reside).
David
Dr. Noe to David K (Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:42 PM)
Understood. Chris thinks pretty highly of you too.
Mike
-----------------------
That's how I conduct myself with people running for office. Jaime doesn't draw that line and has no desire to do so. However, he hates being called out for being "in the can" for a candidate. My advice to him is to stop having any relations with all candidates and he won't have to worry about it. This election he started out "in the can" for Ness, Mejia and Villanueva. Mejia's people pushed Jaime away. Villanueva was too hopeless to help. Ness is his only hope and he's fallen into every trap I've laid for him on the subject.
I try to pay the guy a compliment about his knowledge of the nuts and bolts of each campaign in town and he gets mad when I pick up some dirt he either didn't get or decided not to use. Then he accuses me of not naming the person whose name I don't know because that person is working for a candidate in another race! What?
The real story is that I got an email (or 23 of them) saying that Ness' treasurer quit. I didn't know her name (I'm assuming it isn't Kristen Prerez since she filed that last report for Ness), but I knew that whoever she was, she left. Jaime may have had something he was tending to, but he had no intention of relating the bad news within his candidate's campaign team. After all, he has left out all of the things I have stated about Ness during his "coverage" of the District 1 race. He was all to happy to report the shaky hearsay about Lilly's supposed used of a 10th floor copier for campaign purposes.
How does Jaime point fingers at me for doing anything he isn't already doing? I guess he can be "in the can" for a candidate, but nobody else can? If I was going to bitch at another blogger for doing what I do best, I'd... well I wouldn't cast a stone! I wouldn't do it!
What is worse is Jaime's BS whining where he compares the careless actions of a bona fide newspaper journalist (Marty "I should know better" Schladen) to my neatly laid trap I caught him in. You might remember when I posted a long missive on Ness' past problems with various entities and posted all the links to the official documents. You might also remember that after 1,000 words focused on the facts, I threw out a two bit rumor I heard from some of her law colleagues. Guess which part Jaime lost his mind over? The part nobody cared about - the supposed "married to two men" scandal that has nothing to do with anything. All of a sudden he was being fed documents from Ness herself and it proved to the world that Jaime was serving as Ness' personal attack dog. Actually, it wasn't the world that I sought to prove his connections to her campaign to - it was a mutual friend who didn't believe that Jaime was in the can for Ness. He never figured out how I set the trap on him.
Jaime is always the one who would say on his show "I'm not a journalist, I'm a blogger." Well, it looks like David K ("me" for those of you who are drinking and reading) isn't held to the same standard. I run a blog, but must be a journalist at all times! Jaime, not so much... How does that work? He doesn't realize the difference between what standards a newspaper reporter are held to and the nonexistent standards bloggers are held to.
Of course, he takes the time to do what he accused me of doing in his blog post when he mentions that he heard a rumor that Ann Lilly had been arrested. Sadly, he's so desperate to help Ness win that he contradicts his entire rant against me... in his rant against me.
Jaime doesn't have to be fair to the candidates. I don't have to be fair to the candidates. To whine and cry because I'm just as unfair as he is on his blog is ridiculous.
--------------------------
In honor of Jaime's anger at my writing about his candidate, we're going to write more about his candidate!
Hear all about how she wants you to pay for her investigation of Ann Lilly and how she's taking money from the very rich people she claims own Ann Lilly. It's a "pot and kettle" extravaganza here tonight with Jaime and Lyda as our honored guests.
(Would someone tell Lyda that if she'd stop using Jaime as an attack dog that I'd stop writing about her? I gave Jaime every piece of incriminating evidence I had on Ness over a month ago and told him that if she backed off the negative stuff and told her people stop showcasing their low IQ on my comments section that I'd never use the info. Tell them that this isn't about supporting Lilly, but instead exposing Ness.)
Why would you not post stuff about Ness if she backed off the negative stuff? Sounds to me like you are in rough ethical waters yourself.
Posted by: brownfield | May 09, 2011 at 07:16 PM
brownfield,
"rough ethical waters" how? I don't do this for a living. I'm not a policeman or a judge. I have no obligation to report anything I know.
I know something about every single elected person in this city i haven't written about. Why do you think I offer not to write about people for a year for $10,000? Because I'm "ethical?"
I was willing to stay out of the race if Ness hadn't gone negative when she had no business doing so. I decide what I do with the information I have on everyone. I have no requirement to give any info out. Jaime knows all the same stuff and doesn't say anything either.
Posted by: David K | May 09, 2011 at 08:07 PM
Ness did not back off the negative stuff. Watched her on the KVIA candidate interviews and she kept throwing jabs. Rather than just say how she felt about an issue, she constantly said, "the current rep voted this way" as if to criticize Lilly. She truly reminds me of Theresa Caballero.
Posted by: Diana | May 09, 2011 at 08:17 PM
The firm you work for does business with lots of the taxing entities around town. Not saying anything illegal is going on, but in my opinion it looks bad. When I say looks bad I mean things like GE and its taxes and then see what all their lobbying and campaign donating did to get them those breaks. Illegal? No. Rough ethical waters? Yeah I think so and it's standards and practices like this that are killing us as a nation.
We need to stop hiding and covering up for our favorites and be honest with one another and let the chips fall where they may. I think all of us citizens need to let our fellows know what we know and get it into the public square to inform one another so we can individually make an informed choice. Not a choice based upon censored/or selected information.
That said, it certainly is your right to post whatever you like.
Posted by: brownfield | May 09, 2011 at 08:27 PM
brownfield,
I do low bid work for one or two local taxing entitities. LOW BID. It does not matter if you have a blog, pictures of people doing bad things or a county commissioner's family held hostage - LOW BID WINS.
You are making false connections here.
Posted by: David K | May 09, 2011 at 08:36 PM
no "best value"? lol
Posted by: brownfield | May 09, 2011 at 08:39 PM
For those that don't know...BEST VALUE is a government term and rarely means that. I was joking with DK as LOW BID could never be confused with BEST VALUE.
Posted by: brownfield | May 09, 2011 at 08:41 PM
Brownfield: How does it look bad that my firm does business with "taxing entities". Those being I guess the City, County, EPISD and The hospital district? Other than the occasional construction bid award based on low bid only - - my firm has not been given any work because DavidK has a blog or supports a particular candidate. Other than me personally contributing once in awhile to a candidate in the last few elections (and in small amounts $100-$150 - read the campaign reports)- I don't do much of that. Simply because I will get villified for doing so - for exercising my right to support whatever candidate I want whether they are in my district or not.
You can do an open records request to all the "taxing entities" and ask for all contracts awarded to my firm in the last 10 years and trust me - you won't find very much compared to my competitors. Do the research. If you want - I will provide it for you. I have it all - got it through open records and my own records. You wouldn't believe what I have found in some of those documents.
Posted by: Eileen Karlsruher | May 09, 2011 at 08:44 PM
You also work as a sub for the prime on lots of government projects too? I would assume you do. I know a good bit about federal procurement. This local stuff is not my ballgame. I will say that from what I have seen in the paper it seems as if campaign contributions and access go hand in hand here. Big or small.
Posted by: brownfield | May 09, 2011 at 08:56 PM
brownfield,
since I'm short for this world I'll say something I wouldn't normally say.
Most of the corruption takes place at the city/county/state employee level, not at the elected level. Before a politician ever votes on a contract it has been through the hands of public employees. In el paso you will find lots of brothers, brothers-in-law, cousins, uncles etc et al that work for the city, county etc and have family members landing contracts left and right.
Need a change order? It's a lot easier when your primo is the inspector or the project manager.
The dirtiest part of El Paso is not at the elected level, it's at the staff level.
Posted by: David K | May 09, 2011 at 09:07 PM
No disagreement here. I wouldnt know for sure. WHat you say makes sense to me.
Posted by: brownfield | May 09, 2011 at 09:09 PM
I guess it depends on what type of corruption. You can have change orders, amendments etc. That is one kind. Another kind is getting the project approved in the first place and that is where access to electeds matter. A million ways to slay Joe Taxpayer at the procurement trough.
Posted by: brownfield | May 09, 2011 at 09:16 PM
Anyway my original point is that if I had dirt on someone wanting to get elected I would post it so long as it was true. I certainly wouldn't hold back because of some desire I had in terms of who wins or what kind of campaign it is. Those things are none of my business.
Posted by: brownfield | May 09, 2011 at 09:19 PM
my favorite part of Jaime's angry reply to you was when he posted the wedding photo of Ness-used to be Garcia and her hubby.
why in the world would he have that photo unless it was fed to him?
Posted by: mike | May 10, 2011 at 10:08 AM
Geez David,
You changed your post after my comments. Can't defend your position so you change it? weak....
Posted by: brownfield | May 10, 2011 at 11:15 AM
Brownfield,
Changed what post? Check the time on the post. That's the last time I saved it. Don't know what you are talking about.
Posted by: david k | May 10, 2011 at 12:32 PM
Also, you're the guy posting comments under five different names, so don't start making accusations. Especially untrue ones.
Posted by: david k | May 10, 2011 at 12:36 PM
Your original piece had a bit about you going to Jaime with the dirt you had on Ness. You said you wouldnt put it out there if Ness agreed not to go negative.
Posted by: brownfield | May 10, 2011 at 01:12 PM
Actually sorry. My bad it was in comments section under your name. Not the original post!
Posted by: brownfield | May 10, 2011 at 01:13 PM
5 diff names? more like 50!
Posted by: brownfield | May 10, 2011 at 01:14 PM
brownfield, dont worry about it. david even posts on his on blog with different names. we just dont have a way of seeing it is from the same ip address.
Posted by: my other name | May 10, 2011 at 01:54 PM
Now wait a min. DK, you said your firm has done work for one or two taxing entities. Yet your Mommy says your firm does work for four taxing entities. Which one of you are telling the truth?!
Posted by: Common Cents | May 10, 2011 at 07:35 PM
May 14 I have a counter that is counting down the days where Jaime no longer shoves a camera and microphone in your face and pretends to be a journalist whose real vibe is to attend functions with the premise that he is anything BUT important.
Now he is vaguely suggesting that another up in coming Blog may be the reason he sticks around...he never intended to quit, he just expected someone to care enough to ask him to stay...NOPE...not going to happen
Posted by: Hey Mickey | May 10, 2011 at 11:27 PM
Hey Mickey,
He's going nowhere, don't worry. He had a bad day and got a few people to encourage him to stay. He's going to continue. He thrives on the attention.
Maybe I'll take his place as the blogger who quits. Somebody has to go!
Posted by: David K | May 11, 2011 at 01:09 AM
Pfft -- Nobody has to go -- Blogging is like Stone Soup. Besides -- You are topical, funny (more funny than other bloggers who shall remain nameless,) and not prone to whining. That's 3 for 3 in the bolgosphere DK. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_soup
Posted by: Mojo | May 11, 2011 at 11:38 AM