For those readers of this blog who are not also Facebook friends with me, one may not know that I am in Houston this weekend. Among other reasons, I wanted to do a little bit of campaigning for my father (James Horwitz) as well as attend the Johnson-Richards-Rayburn dinner.
I have seen a variety of familiar faces at the early voting locations, including (but not limited to) Roland Chavez, Eric Dick, Michael Kubosh and Assata Richards. Also, as I was walking out of the polling place yesterday (after voting), I literally walked into Ted Cruz. But that is another story for another day.
When I got home today, I found some campaign literature by the front door (most of which, my dogs did not eat/destroy). Among these were fairly unexciting mailers from the “Save the Dome” people and the Ronald Green campaign. The “Texas Conservative Review” came in the mail as well. Again, somewhat unexciting. The only surprise was the endorsement of Ben Hall for Mayor, and that is simply because of the sheer ubiquity of Eric Dick advertisements throughout the booklet.
Then, there was this:
Everyone and their uncle knows that Burks is often **disruptive** on the City Council. I’ve heard some salacious rumors about why this is, but figure them all to be false. Personally, I think the confrontational style is just his way of doing things. One may recall his “interrogation” of a constituent earlier this year.
As for the tax issue, I have already covered –and roundly criticized– Burks for the blemish. The drunk driving allegation, however, is new to me. I take the mailer at its word, but will double-check the story to make sure it is true. Assuming he was, in fact, convicted of DWI, this is yet another blemish on his personal record.
Who, one may ask, is behind these dirty mailers? At this point, I would recommend consulting the fine print on the other side of the mailer:
In case you cannot read the fine print in the bottom-left corner, the mailer was funded by his main opposition candidate, David Robinson. As the astute will recall, I endorsed Robinson over Burk, but not really for the reasons he outlined in his ad.
While I agree that someone with such personal blemishes (specifically, violations of the law) deserves to be criticized politically, I always maintain that it is a better bet for the challenger to explain the political disagreements he or she has with the incumbent. In the case of Burks, he has some bizarre positions on things like food truck reform where he advocates conspiracy theories. He is an easy target. Although I thought it was wrong that the well-organized Robinson would choose to run against Burks and not Christie, I still thought he would be the better choice.
Bearing that in mind, I am utterly disappointed by this ad. It is beneath his campaign.