Monday, June 4, 2007
DMN makes non-issue of the gay issue in the Dallas mayor’s race
Sherry Jacobson writes an article today about Ed Oakley's bid to become the first openly gay mayor of a large U.S. city.
See article here.
I've been surprised how little this has been reported on, but it's great that Mr. Oakley has been able to run on his record. By writing a story on how this as a non-issue, it really makes it into an issue. There are a lot of people in Dallas who still did not know of Mr. Oakley's sexual orientation.
On a personal note, this is why I don't like for sexual orientation to get automatically lumped into the same category as racial issues. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not always the same as discrimination based on race.
Gay and lesbian candidates can run on the issues important to a campaign without having to wear his or her orientation everywhere he or she goes. At the same time they are able to mobilize their base who is fully aware of the candidates preference. Black or "minority" candidates are subject to all biases that people have based on the color of their skin or country of origin. The same is true in other areas of life.
I had made up my mind not to discuss this, but I felt the need to respond to Ms. Jacobson's story. It's hard to me to trust the motives of what's coming out of the Dallas Morning News these days. Since it was reported that the publisher of the newspaper was courting Texas/OU (didn't mention any overtures to PV/Grambling), I've been skeptical of the positions that some of the writers have been taking lately.
Email
|
Print
|
23 Comments
|
Contribute
|
-
»Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert discreetly puts Preston Hollow home on the market
-
»Former Dallas mayoral candidate Jennifer Gale found dead near UT campus in Austin
-
»UPDATED: Dallas Observer muckraker raises ethics question over fund-raising activities of DART Board chair Lynn Flint Shaw
-
»An open letter to Tom Leppert
-
»Dallas City Council finally in place after runoff election
|
an event
|
a restaurant
|
|
a garage sale
|
a drink special
|
|
a movie showtime
|
local music
|
a job
|
a house
|
|
a deal
|
a pet
|
Alan Cohen, says:
Your point is well taken Shawn. You can't draw absolute parallels between any two groups of minority status. In this case, you are right that if you walk down the street and pass a gay man, you can't know that he is gay. But when you pass a black man on the street, chances are that you know he is black.
I think there is some potential for very interesting studies looking at how much of a difference this specific distinction makes in a political election.
While I certainly believe this distinction exists, I have to admit that it always makes me uneasy when we begin comparing the discrimination faced by different groups of people. In this case, I'd point out is that the visual difference is responsible for discrimination or at the very least enhanced discrimination for both the GLBT community as well as the black community, but for the complete opposite reason. Part of the problem for the GLBT community is that their sexual orientation can't be known on site. In fact, supercharging that is that a member of the GLBT does not know that aspect of their identity until they reach their teenage years. As a result, there is the closet effect of feeling unable to let the world know the entirety of their identity for fear of extreme discrimination. This has led to staggering numbers of teen suicides in this country.
My point is that we can and should point out distinctions and differences in the type of discrimination faced by members of different minority group. I just want to guard against the urge to compare who has the largest societal obstacles to overcomes. The larger issue is that systemic bigotry and discrimination does exist. In my opinion, we need to continue to work hard to shine light on and eliminate obstacles that are faced by members of any minority-status group.
As Shawn notes, we can't pretend like the issue does not exist. Without question, it is a very real issue in this mayoral runoff.
Staff
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
twisteddog, says:
The DMN story is not about Oakley's gayness or how it affects his candidacy. (Though, the poor subhead and rambling lead on the story could make somebody assume it is.)
Rather, the story is an overview on how sexual orientation has become less of a factor in city politics.
BTW, Oakley wouldn't be the first openly gay mayor of a large US city.
Anonymous
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Andre Bohren, says:
Oakleys sexual orientation should not have any bearing on his performance as mayor. I do have concerns about his integrity after the mean spirited flyer against Lepperd arrived in my mailbox, followed by the TV ad. This was not called for,totally unnecessary, and only made me reconsider my vote.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Sanders Kaufman, says:
I didn't think Oakley's flier was mean-spirited.
It simply pointed out the fact that Leppert was fined thousands of dollars locally for dumping construction debris on other people's land, and MILLIONS of dollars by the federal government for fraud.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Michael Davis, says:
How about the fact that the above comment was addressed in several debates, not discounted by Oakley and it was proven to be lies?
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Sanders Kaufman, says:
It was not "proven to be lies", as you claim. Leppert really was fined both times, and he really paid the fines.
Leppert himself doesn't even deny it. In fact, he says that the fact that he paid the fines shows what a great citizen he is, and what a great mayor he would be.
So who should we believe - Leppert, who admitted to his crimes and paid his fines? Or those of you who deny the crimes ever happened?
Do you really think that contradicting Leppert is the best way to defend him?
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Sanders Kaufman, says:
Oakley's sexual orientation IS an important issue.
Here in Texas, there's a HUGE push to legislate against homosexuals. In fact, there are even several well-funded initiatives to modify our state constitution to reflect those anti-gay beliefs.
You may not WANT it to be an issue - but it is. So to ignore what so many Texans feel is so important would be foolish.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Michael Davis, says:
Ask yourself if those violations with the lawsuit came before Leppert was there? If they did not, produce the information to your claims. But you can't prove it.
And by the way, did Oakley ever address his buying and selling of property in the same Trinity River at the same time he governed the Trinity River Committee for City Hall.
The answer is, no he did not.
Readers, forgive me for going off thread but some things needed to be addressed.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Sanders Kaufman, says:
The violations occurred before Leppert was hired on as CEO.
In fact, Leppert was hired on for that very reason - to help them avoid criminal charges.
As an Abramoff Republican, Leppert was able to help them avoid criminal charges by taking advantage of his close ties to Rev. Bush's massively corrupt Justice Department.
Then, as soon as the settlement agreement was made, he "retired" with a big fat retirement package.
Leppert himself cites NOTHING else that he did for that company except to negotiate down their punishment for cheating the taxpayers.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Sanders Kaufman, says:
Now that you've got the whole story... again... about how Leppert helped that company after they cheated the taxpayers, I'm curious about something.
Leppert was also fined several dozen thousand dollars for dumping construction waste on other people's property. In that case, he didn't even bother to defend himself. He just paid the fine.
How do you defend his actions in this matter?
I mean - this wasn't some far-off, federal thing and he wasn't hiding behind a corporate shield this time. This was right here at home, and while he was in charge.
And this isn't just some whiney, liberal crap about the environment. He just picked various parcel in Dallas and dumped tons of garbage there.
He could have just paid a small fee and taken it to the appropriate landfill - but he wanted to save a few bucks, so he dumped it on some folks property.
That's just skanky... and especially so for a man who wants to be MAYOR, of all things.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Michael Davis, says:
Does Oakley Own Land Around the Trinity?
<object height="350" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bzT9wmrMHxc"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed height="350" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bzT9wmrMHxc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" wmode="transparent"></object>
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Michael Davis, says:
This would be what you call backing up your claims...
Oakley's conflicts of interest are nothing new.
From the DMN, May 1st, 2003.
Paper: Dallas Morning News, The (TX) Title: Oakley touted bond projects near his land - Council member says improvements wouldn't affect property values Author: DAVE MICHAELS Date: May 1, 2003 Section: METRO Page: 1B
City Council member Ed Oakley helped add two projects to the city's 2003 bond program that would make improvements close to his own property, according to city records and interviews with officials.
Mr. Oakley owns eight pieces of property in the Trinity Industrial District, an aging warehouse zone founded by Dallas' influential Stemmons family. Mr. Oakley pushed for a $2.29 million improvement to a portion of Turtle Creek Boulevard that runs through the district and earmarked $550,000 for the design of a trail that would connect the area to the Katy Trail.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Sanders Kaufman, says:
That's a potential conflict of interest, not a realized one. Oakley does benefit from these improvements - but there's nothing wrong with that. We ALL benefit from them.
Leppert, the Abramoff Republican, has already been convicted of betraying the public trust twice.
All you've got against Oakley is that he benefits from making Dallas better.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Sanders Kaufman, says:
Oh yeah, I almost forgot...
It's also worth pointing out that the improvements in the city that Oakley pushed through - didn't even go to his own property. They just happened on public property NEAR his property.
Furthermore, they occurred in the TR basin - which I think we ALL can agree has not been improved upon enough.
Beyond that - the TR Basin is where Leppert illegally dumped his business's garbage.
So who do you want to be mayor - the guy who improves the TR Basin, or the guy who illegally dumps his business's garbage there?
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Michael Davis, says:
Yeah, sure...nothing wrong with crafting legislation that benefits you personally. THAT'S what we want in a Mayor.
Do you even know what you're talking about when it comes to the Trinity? I'm one of the five people that signed the ordinance that gave people a petition to sign in the first place.
A list of property that Ed Oakley either bought, sold, or traded while he was the head of the Trinity River Committee.
You can find these records at the Dallas Central Appraisal District under account numbers 00000634204000000, 00000634207000000, 00000775396000000, 00000634645000000, 00789000230450400, 00789000230450600, 00789000240400000, and 00789000250180000. Look for "history" and click on it.
Here is a map of the above properties...and then you can explain why it's somebody else's fault this the land is directly next to the Trinity.
<img src="http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/4015/oakleypropertymapfp2.gif">
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Sanders Kaufman, says:
re: I'm one of the five people that signed the ordinance that gave people a petition to sign in the first place.
Good for you - but what does that have to do with the fact that Leppert was convicted of illegally dumping his business's garbage on other people's property?
I keep asking you about that but your answers are not responsive.
Is there a reason why you don't want to respond to questions about his criminal convictions?
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Michael Davis, says:
Pull up the records dude. Show us all these criminal convictions.
The Dallas Observer (which is the source of your information) already said that the things in the ad that Oakley put out twist all of the issues written in the observer, to which Oakley's campaign had no response.
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfai...
One quote from Matt Pulle.
"To be honest, I didn’t spend a lot of time trying to research a construction company’s 10-year old contract with a bond issuer. So maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Leppert deserves some blame, even if the Justice Department doesn’t seem to think so. But at this point at least, nobody and nothing -- including Ed Oakley and his dirty-politics Web site -- has shown me that my conclusions were false. So instead, they have chosen to distort them. Actually, distort is one way to describe it. Bald-faced lie is another. Say, what's our lawyer's number again?"
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
interestedcitizen, says:
I would never knowingly vote for a gay man or woman for public office, closeted or uncloseted, for the same reason I would not vote for an adulterous heterosexual man or woman, closeted or uncloseted, or for that matter, a monogamous unmarried man or woman. I do not think I would be an informed voter if I did not know a candidate's sexual orientation and some indication about his or her discretion in sexual matters generally. It is highly relevant. If a gay man does not openly declare himself gay, he is dishonest.
I am not saying a person has to disclose all of the blemishes of his or her past if he or she has overcome and abandoned bad habits or an immoral lifestyle. I do think, however, that a person seeking public office should be forthcoming about his or her present major lifestyle choices, whether they include polyamory, abuse of alcohol, the use of drugs, the consumption of child porn, gambllng, frequenting X rated movies, or the homosexual lifestyle.
By contrast, if a person's lifestyle choices include singing in the choir, jogging three miles a day, eating healthy food, supporting the symphony, reading history, teaching a constitutional law course, teaching Sunday School, tutoring children, or coaching a youth sports team, I would be inclined to vote for someone with that character, provided his education and experience otherwise demonstrated leadership, and provided that he was sufficiently prudent in the use of public funds.
We know that illicit sexual liasons can lead to blackmail. Leaders should be as pristine and uncorrupted as possible.
Sexual behavior is an important issue for public office. A stable marriage of a man and woman with with no hint of ongoing infidelity, and children of the marriage who have reputations for decency and honesty reflects a leader who abides by his or her long term commitments and is as consistent in his or her private life as he or she is in public. A tendency to bend the rules in private life will lead to disrespectful children and a frustrated or vindictive spouse.
The tendency to live by non traditional rules that are destructive of a good and ordered society reveals weak moral character. It reveals the politician and the pragmatism in a person. It reveals a person who will compromise with the truth. It reveals a person who will do whatever he wants to do so long as he thinks it doesn't hurt other people, rather than a person who foregoes his own will in favor of a higher principle. It reveals a person who looks to himself as authority rather than an outside source of authority. It reveals a person with a tendency to flaunt authority. It is not the type of humility and statemanship I look for in a leader.
Anonymous
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Michael Davis, says:
The reason that Turner was fined was because they were moving dirt from that same construction site. The material was already there.
The fine was because the subcontractor needed a permit to move dirt from one place on the site to another and didn't get the permit.
It wasn't an environmental fine like you and Oakley's site claim. It never was, and there was nothing toxic about it. Know the facts before engaging in rumor and presenting it as fact.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Michael Davis, says:
sorry to interestedcitizen for taking the thread off track again..we must have been typing at the same time
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Chad Jones, says:
In response to interestedcitizen's belief that being gay suggests *"a person who will do whatever he wants to do so long as he thinks it doesn't hurt other people, rather than a person who foregoes his own will in favor of a higher principle* . . ."
I don't know him, and I haven't made up my mind which way I'll cast my vote, but what if Ed, like many others, is openly gay because he subscribes to the "higher principle" of being honest about his feelings, no matter the cost? Just a thought.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Sanders Kaufman, says:
re: Pull up the records dude. Show us all these criminal convictions.
That right there is what's called a non-denial denial - and it's kinda pathetic.
I mean - Leppert paid the fines; that's a matter of public record, and not even he denies it.
And since Pegasus has asked me to stop repeating myself, I'm done with you, "dude".
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Sanders Kaufman, says:
re: The reason that Turner was fined was because they were moving dirt from that same construction site.
No - moving dirt is not an violation of any code, and it's not a crime for which he was charged.
He was charged with illegal dumping of garbage on other people's land. He plead guilty to the charge, and paid a fine.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal