Monday, April 12, 2010

City Reps Byrd & Ortega Hypocritical on Chavez Statement

If you remember back to the primary election there was a mini-scandal that never materialized in to a big deal. It dealt with the now-infamous Playboy article.

If you remember, I backed up Commissioner Veronica Escobar on that one because I felt people where making a mountain out of a mole hill out of comments that, even if they were really made (which I don’t think they were), weren’t that big of a deal. I argued that it was nothing more than political opportunism by people attempting to create division in the community in order to damage the image of a candidate and score political points in the process.

Escobar has done a lot for the Latino community and El Paso at large and doesn’t need to reinforce her credentials or prove herself to anyone.

And neither does State Rep Norma Chavez. The same thing is happening in the case of Norma Chavez and her comments at the Ramona Elementary Forum.

Back then I was critical however of comments made by City Rep Susie Byrd in the article about soldiers at Fort Bliss. In fact, we had it out pretty good about those comments.

If you recall, City Rep Steve Ortega came to her defense during that time period when he was guest hosting for the Strelz.

Now the two are part of the group of “Democrat leaders” that signed a letter condemning Chavez for her comments in a forum where she referred to her opponent, Naomi Gonzalez, as a “lesbian gay woman”.

First of all, when in the hell did Byrd and Ortega become Democrat leaders? They are leaders to be sure, and to my knowledge they are Democrats, but they are in no way, shape, or form, leaders in the Democratic Party.

But I’ve been thinking about this letter for a few days now and I think someone needs to call the Shapleighites on their shit every once in a while. This is one of those times.

Where do Byrd and Ortega come off pointing the self-righteous finger at Chavez about comments affecting a portion of the El Paso community? I don’t remember any group of elected officials banding together along with the Times’ Editorial Board calling for an apology from Byrd about her comments regarding Fort Bliss troops.

Chavez’s comments have been characterized as an attack on the gay community. Team Shapleigh is made up of some pretty smart people, so I have to think that this is intentionally being done to mislead the public. Chavez’s exact words were “…I’ve never attacked her for being a lesbian gay woman.”

Where is the attack in that sentence? Byrd’s comments on the other hand were much more negative than Chavez’s, yet there was no call for an apology from Byrd. In fact, Byrd remained defiant and defended her comments while Chavez has apologized for her remarks.

So who has the better moral position?

The point is, this is nothing more than political opportunism on the part of Byrd and other members of Team Shapleigh.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

i agree with you 100 percent, but dont let up on escobar. she was just as bad as byrd. they are both shapites to the core. if you, norma, or a conservative would have said what they had you would have been hung from the nearest tree.

gabriel h.

Read my IP said...

Sorry, but you're reaching for straws here. Norma Chavez had no right to bring up any individual's private life when such things have no bearing on that individual's capacity to lead. Further, the intent on "outing" her was to play off on the bigotry and narrow-minded attitudes of some voters. It was dirty, it was under-handed.

Byrd's comments-- which probably have an element of truth to it and can be supported by actual data such as crime rate changes, data on the perpetrators, etc.-- were not meant to score cheap political points out of desperation. They may have been foolish or perhaps best unsaid, but simply not the same things. Totally manzanas and aguacates here.

And, as to your comments on "Democratic leadership." A leader by definition is applicable to any individual who wins an elected office like Susie did. If she is a member of the Democratic Party, then it makes her a Democratic Party leader. Or, are you going to argue that Barack Obama is not a leader within the Democratic Party and that only Govs Tim Kaine or Dr. Howard Dean qualify as leaders because they headed the DNC?

Tim Holt said...

So, if she had said "“…I’ve never attacked her for being a Nazi Sympathizer” or “…I’ve never attacked her for being a pedophile" that would have been okay with you?

She attacked by mentioning it, and it cost her the election.

T Holt

Julie A. said...

Quote: Chavez’s exact words were “…I’ve never attacked her for being a lesbian gay woman.”

Jaime, here's another true statement: I've never attacked you for being a pot-smokin' stoner guy.

What those two statements have in common is, they are LOADED statements, intended to be provocative while denying the provocation.

Chavez could easily have said, "I never attacked her for being gay." or "I never attacked her for being a lesbian." She did not. She said, "I never attacked her for being a lesbian gay woman" which on its face sounds odd, and possibly contradictory.

What it was, was a dog whistle out to those who are inclined not to tolerate gays.

Norma was a fearless champion if she was your ally and a formidable foe if you crossed her. She put her heart and soul into her constituency, but she tended to be somewhat parochial in the political choices she made.

One wonders now what the future of the local party will be with the Moreno and Shapleigh factions ascendant (actually, I call the Shapleigh-ites the Kern Place Liberals). The path is certainly clear now for Shapleigh to make a run for Silver's seat.

And as for all the hoopla about Gonzales taking money from TLR, have you asked who co-sponsored Prop. 12, which caps economic damages to Plaintiffs in medical malpractice suits? Answer: Norma.

Anonymous said...

jaime, the link on talkradio1150 for your show is wrong. Are they trying to keep all there website visitors from checking out your blog?
little puppet