Recall Update - Monday Edition

There's been a lot of stuff to ponder over the weekend in relation to the recall effort.  Do you want to use numbers today?  I do.

1.  The No Recall folks have made what might be a fatal error in judgement this past weekend. They have now decided to frame their argument as a "gay rights" issue.  This is a terrible move given that most El Pasoans aren't on the gay team as demonstrated by their vote against gay benefits.  Pastor Brown will make hay with their claim that this recall effort is an up or down vote on gays and he will get very strong support in the Northeast, East and Lower Valley. 

By adding "gay rights" to the mix they've given El Pasoans two fronts, or two reasons to sign the petition.  The first being the overturning of the "people's will," and the second is now "gay rights."  Any seasoned political consultant will tell you that you should never add fronts to your issue-based battles because it makes for strange and powerful bedfellows who might align against you.  Always limit the appeal of opposition to your issue.

2.  I got a few emails from people I know in the No Recall crowd and they indicated that they are "frustrated." They told me they feel like the movement is focused on social gatherings and nothing else.  I had to ask them - what more they could be doing other than illegally blocking people from signing the petitions?  They didn't have an answer to that. 

I have seen what those emailing about their frustration have been talking about firsthand starting with the election of George W. Bush in 2000.  The Westside/Kern crowd thought that by drinking lots of wine and eating exotic cheeses on a weekly basis at what they thought were campaign events would get Bush elected.  If it were only that easy.

I think the only thing they can do right now is sit, wait and RAISE MONEY!  They're going to need to defend the recall targets.  However, if I were them I would stop inviting Byrd, Ortega and Cook to their events.  If they make an expenditure trying to save the El Paso Three (that's what I'm calling them now) and are in daily contact with the No Recall folks - they can get into some real trouble.  It's called "collusion" and if they really want to avoid talking to the Texas Ethics folks, I would tell the El Paso Three "we love you, but you gotta go hang out somewhere else while we are spending money on your behalf."  All Pastor Brown has to do is get pictures of the "recalled" at No Recall events or find an email chain with their address on it and he's got grounds of a serious Texas Ethics claim.

Now that Brown has retained the two most powerful attorneys in West Texas, they (No Recall) might want to tighten up their operation.  The opposition is no longer a goofy preacher and his minions - they have formidable representation from a duo who will make your life miserable if you give them a chance.  I would seriously advise the No Recall people to ask those on Facebook using their logo to stop commenting on El Paso Times articles.  All they have to do is say something stupid and what they say gets tied back to the No Recall group.  Don't for a second that the Dynamic Duo won't sue the person who made the comment and the No Recall group that provided them the logo for their Facebook profile. 

To be honest, I'd keep my minions from commenting period - they tend to do more harm than good at this point.  You don't want to rally the opposition through your own group member's uninformed, angry rantings.  And for God's sake stop attacking people who believe in God and go to church in the comment forums!!!  You hurt your cause by attacking all people of faith.  You have a narrow group you're at war with here, don't open up the fight to all church going, God fearing people in El Paso (see paragraphs above).  

3.  A tax hike in the news does not help the El Paso Three.  People are going to be livid if City Council passes the half cent tax hike tomorrow.  I expect there will be people seeking out the petitions to sign them even though they could care less about the gay benefits issue.  This could not have come at worse time for the Mayor who is the face of the council.  You've got the goofy guitar antics, the plumber comment, overturning the "will of the people" and you can now add "tax increaser" to that group.  Things are looking worse for him every single day.  

4.  Any investigation District Attorney, Jaime Esparza was looking to conduct into Pastor Tom Brown's political activities is now dead.  With Leeds and Caballero in the picture Esparza knows he's got no chance of winning.  There isn't a judge in El Paso that Leeds and Caballero doesn't instill sheer terror in.  Esparza knows he probably needs to go find something else to do now that the Dynamic Duo have entered the picture.

And please don't send me a bunch of email about Leeds and Caballero.  I don't have to like them to understand the grip they have on the legal community in El Paso.  I'm a direct victim of the fear that exists on the respective benches in the county courthouse - and beyond.  In a way I have to respect them - if you're meaner and tougher than everyone else, you're gonna be right even when you are wrong.  I like that a lot.

5.  I have to say that I'm not sure Pastor Brown has the signatures at this moment given he has had to deploy a massive grassroots effort to get the public to come participate.  I figured he'd have it in the bag by now if this was going to be successful.  I have my doubts now.  But, like I wrote yesterday, maybe he's just spiking the football and doing an end zone dance. 

Comments

[Edie]

Whether you agree or not, the issue is about gay people.

There would be no recall if there had been no vote to repeal the health benefits for domestic partners.

People who say they are upset that their vote didn't count are the people who voted to repeal the benefits.

They voted to repeal the benefits because they don't like gay people. That's why the recall organizers are passing out fliers talking about homosexuality being immoral.

It's time El Paso takes on this issue. If El Paso wants to be a homophobic community that excludes people, so be it. But that doesn't mean that people fighting the recall should be afraid to acknowledge what this whole thing really is about: bigotry rearing its ugly head.

[David K]

Edie,

Your hardheadedness isn't going to help you.

You do realize that if Pastor Brown recalls all three and replaces all three with the most vile bigots on earth that they'll never overturn the ordinance or amend it, don't you?

That's why it's not about the gay thing. Everybody knows that the gays have benefits now and will have benefits after this whole thing blows over - no matter who wins.

Your inability to understand your political reality has you fighting for "gay rights" when they've already been granted. For some reason you don't get that.

What you're doing now would be no different than marching in the street demanding freedom of speech... you already have it.

[Texaswoman]

Problem is the election itself was illegal.

[McFadden]

My thoughts were that Cook, Byrd and Ortega should start saying "Adios." The reason behind it and who it benefied (CITY ATTORNEY) has nothing to do with the issue, it is more about 55 to 45 and I still dont care what you say.

NOW I would like to further add Jaime Esparza should PACK his bags now as well. Theresa was not appealing in the last election but she sure as heck looks Good now...GIRL Take some Name and Kick some AS........

[Texaswoman]

Doesn't make a darn bit of difference if it was 99% to 1%. The election was illegal in the first place. You cannot vote to take away a group of citizens Rights and Privileges via a vote.

[McFadden]

Well this may be true Texaswoman but when the City put it on the ballot and then waited after they LOST the vote, whether or not it was really legal was moot?

If that is the case then the City should be sued for wasting taxpayers time in allowing a Proposal to be placed on the ballot when it was in fact illegal to place there in the first place.

Either way it is a no win and both sides are screwed. Until then I am liking Caballero more and more these days...

[David K]

Texaswoman,

You are mistaken - no "right" was taken from someone. You don't have a "right" to health insurance benefits and your significant other surely doesn't have a "right" to them either.

Sorry, you're way off here.

[Texaswoman]

Actually you are. You cannot have an Election to remove the Rights and Privileges of another group of Citizens which is exactly what the Tom and Barney show managed to do.

[Tim Collins]

Texaswoman - just curious, if the ballot initiative had failed and the council over turned it would you be as vocal in defending their action? Again, as David K stated there is no right to health insurance benefits. Once established I agree that selectively offering them is wrong without defined eligibility rules. The conundrum here is that Texas Law with the support of DOMA on the federal level does not recognize gay couples as legal dependents.

[Old Fart]

It is really interesting to observe how a rag-tag group of church people can have so many people running scared.

[Diana]

McFadden, do you have proof the City Attorney benefited? That is slander if you have no proof.

[David K]

Texaswoman,

That's most moronic thing I've read in quite a while. You do know this went in front of a judge who laughed it out of court, right?

I really hope you aren't stupid enough to believe what you wrote. You don't even understand what was voted on. It was benefits for dependents, not the employee. I shouldn't have to let you in on that, but I feel sorry for you.

[McFadden]

Dianna would the City Attorney benefit from it if the City Attorney opted to enroll a dependent under the benefit that the Mayor overturned is not slanderous, it is a right that the City Attorney could take advantage of if the City Attorney choose to do so.

The fact that this right may not have been available to the City Attorney had it not been overturned by the Mayor is more likely a good reason the Mayor may or may not have persuasive reasoning as to why the Mayor considered it something that should be available?

Now are you suggesting that there is something wrong with the City Attorney? If so, tsk tsk...