Berry Drops Out of (Houston) Mayoral Race

City Councilman Michael Berry rocked Houston's mayoral race this morning when he withdrew as a candidate, indicating he did not want to play a spoiler's role.

Instead, the first-term City Council member will run for a different council seat than he was elected to two years ago.

The last-second decision leaves Orlando Sanchez, Sylvester Turner and Bill White as the major candidates in a race that most political pundits believe will be decided in a runoff -- required if no candidate wins a majority Nov. 4.

Berry's decision most helps Sanchez, who had lost some of the support he received in his 2001 mayoral race to Berry in the early weeks of the campaign.

A recent Houston Chronicle/KHOU-Channel 11 poll indicated that White had support from 25 percent of likely registered voters while Sanchez had 20 percent and Turner had 19 percent. Berry left the race days after the poll showed he had but 8 percent.

Chris Begala, who had served as spokesman for Berry's campaign, said Monday that the councilman was not able to generate enough money to mount an effective campaign. He said that because of the expensive nature of the four-man race, Berry's estimate that he needed $1.5 million was roughly half of of what would be required.

"Michael did not want to play a spoiler's role," Begala said. "He wanted to win the race and he didn't have what was needed to win."

Begala said that Berry will run not seek re-election to the At-Large Position 4 council seat that he won in a run-off victory over Claudia Williamson in 2001.

Earlier this year, Berry told District G Councilman Bert Keller that he would not seek Position 4, clearing that seat so Keller could jump to the citywide race. Keller faces Sue Lovell and attorney Ronald Green for Berry's old seat.

Berry will run for At-Large Position 5, the seat being vacated by term-limited Councilman Carroll Robinson. Others running for the position include Dwight Boykins and Hector Longoria.

No way Berry is legit. Just like the Democrats have poverty pimps, moral high grounders, children’s advocates, elderly reps, and all the other hustlers that would be devastated if their causes were solved, because they would be out of power, and a job we have the same type from time to time on our side.

You see this mostly in empty-headed conservative radio talk show hosts who really don’t understand the conservative ideology, and just pay lip service to the dangers of liberalism, because it gets ratings, and if they expose this they have work. We have the same thing with politicians. The local Democrat quota for white boys was all full up with the Chris Bells, union lackeys like Gene Green, and older downtown boss types who handed out the spoils. There was no more room for new meat.

If you are a young white boy who is glib, and says the right thing you have a huge audience with conservatives in Houston. Berry saw a possible slot.

Michael Berry is not thought of highly in the inner loop real estate community. They have seen the likes of John Connelly, Ben Barnes, Bennie Reyes, Joe McConnell, Mel Powers, and a legion of others who talked a strong line of BS. Berry’s BS was so painfully weak that folks saw right threw him from the get go. Just as most of the dynamic new local real estate trends begin there, most of the scammers start there, so they have been screwed by real pros, and Berry didn't get to first base. As a matter of fact he turned an old apartment building on Brandt Street in an historic neighborhood into a crack house just to get the occupancy rate up so he could flip it. That pissed real estate people off. Nobody is against making money, but under no circumstances do you harm the integrity of the neighborhood unless you don't care about becoming a pariah.

Orlando ain’t perfect, but he has been anointed, so we may as well get behind him. If he starts screwing up too bad he will be pulled back in line. I hope I'm not bursting anyone's bubble, but top GOP strategists at the national level are managing this election. It would be an important national statement to have the forth-largest city run by a Hispanic, even though he grew up in Bellaire.

Bill White is also a dyed in the wool Clintonista just like Brown. Bob Lanier was a good guy who is really smart, and ruthless. He saw early on that if he was a Democrat he could work the system better. Lanier is, or was one of the largest slumlords in the history of the area. Remember Grant Park Village in Pasadena?
That bunch needs to be stopped.

FreePaul, the only thing that I have heard you say you didn't like about Orlando concerned his views on illegal immigrants - a position that I agree, he appears to have been a little less than consistent on. However, even if he was in full support of allowing open borders (which he definitely is not), that should not be a show-stopper.

Show-stoppers are issues that fit two criteria. 1) The position that the candidate is running for can have a significant effect over the issue in question and 2) the issue in question must be one that is so important as to threaten the very fabric of the society over which the position oversees.

1) The Mayor does not control the borders. At worst case, the mayor's office could only have a minimal effect on the overall illegal immigration issue. There are times when a candidate's position on a single issue is enough to justify a vote against him, but the issue of illegal immigration, as concerns the mayoral race, is certainly not one of them. It would be a much more important issue if the office in question was President, Congressman or Senator.

2) Although illegal immigrants are a problem in Houston, the problem that they create is nominal and their presence in Houston is far from being a threat to our overall society. Compare the issue of illegal immigration in Houston, with such important issues as getting the police department under control and improving the treatment of firefighters. Those are issues that affect everyone in Houston and might very well justify changing your vote, should the candidate be on the wrong side of the issue.

Not only does the Mayor's office not have a significant impact on the issue of illegal immigration, the issue itself is much more a national issue than it is a city issue.

Now, lest you think that I am one of those robot "my party, right or wrong" Republicans, I will give you an example of a single issue that I believe is worth changing one's vote over and the positions to which it applies.

The issue is honoring the Constitution of the United States of America and the positions are President, US Senator and US Congressman. The Republicans that currently hold all four of those positions for whom I can vote (Dubya, Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Cornyn and Kevin Brady), have all actively supported and voted for (Dubya signed) legislation that is a direct and unequivocal assault on the US Constitution (the Un-Patriot Act, HSA, etc.) and for that reason, I not only cannot vote for them, I will actively campaign against them. I do not yet know for whom I will vote, in each of those positions, but it's a sure bet that it will not be the Republican incumbent. (Actually, Hutchison has announced that this will be her last term as Senator.)

In each of those cases, the two criteria mentioned above are solidly met. 1) The position in question has significant effect over the issues concerning the US Constitution and 2) there can be no greater issue than disrespect for the Constitution, that is the basis for ALL of our freedoms and thus, an attack on the Constitution threatens the very fabric of our society.

When it comes to the Houston mayoral race and Orlando, the office of Mayor has little effect on the overall issue of illegal immigration and the issue itself, though significant, does not justify ignoring other issues that are far more important to the city of Houston. Orlando may not be the ideal conservative candidate for Mayor of Houston, but he is by far, the BEST.

True enough, FreePaul.

But, my point was that even if the mayor (any mayor) was to set out to do the most that he could to help illegal alliens. it would be but a grain of sand compared to the boulder that Congress controls. It makes about as much sense to worry about how a mayor will treat illegal aliens as it does to worry about his views on foreign policy with China. Even the governor has very few things that he can do regarding illegal aliens. It's a national matter. True, it affects states like Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California most. But, the bigger hammer on this issue still resides in DC.

Now, if Orlando were running for Congress, I might have an entirely different opinion and I would have to research his position on the issue much more. But as Mayor, his position on illegal immigration is mostly immaterial, since he is bound by numerous federal laws and court rulings, that place a strict limit on what any mayor can do about illegal aliens.

My point was and remains that the help or damage that a mayor can do concerning illegal aliens is miniscule, compared to the help or damage that Congress and the President can cause. If the mayor wants to play hardball with illegal aliens and the BCIS (formerly INS) is soft on them, then he would be wasting taxpayer dollars on something that will have little, if any, return. On the other hand, if the mayor is soft on illegal aliens and the BCIS is tough, there won't be much of a problem, since the BCIS will be doing their job.

What it all boils down to is that anything that any city official, up to and including the mayor, can do about that problem is going to have virtually no effect, compared to what the feds do. It's a matter of SCALE and RELEVANCY

I don't worry about it for the same reason that the IRS doesn't waste their time going after some guy who cheated on his taxes to the tune of $5.00. It's immaterial, just as what the mayor can do to effect the problem with illegal immigrants is immaterial. That's SCALE. When you go to the hardware store and buy 50 feet of rope, are you going to complain if, when you get it home, it is a half inch too shore or too long. That's SCALE.

However, as I said before, should Orlando some day run for a national office, then I would think that his position on illegal immigrants was worth my attention. But, as mayor? Worrying about his position on illegal immigrants would be like worrying about his position on our China policy or his position on guns in the cockpit. That's RELEVANCY

Like you, I believe that illegal immigration is a major problem in this country. It's just not the mayor's problem.

You need to reexamine your priorities and stop worrying about issues where the mayor can have, at best, a nominal effect and consider the real issues where the mayor routinely has a significant effect. SCALE and RELEVANCY. SCALE and RELEVANCY. Just keep repeating that phrase. SCALE and RELEVANCY.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.