Shaking My Head Over Chronicle Dual Endorsement

I'm finally seeing the Chron's co-endorsement of Parker and Locke. It leaves me feeling like they wimped out, and that they should have said what they really meant: Anybody But Peter Brown - and given the reasons why. That's something I would be curious to know.

Here's the rundown of why the Chronicle's editorial board thinks both Parker and Locke are worthy of being mayor of Houston:

Parker:

• Rice University graduate
• Worked in energy sector for 20 years
• record as a civic activist
• served as president of the Neartown Association
• won six citywide elections
• instituted performance audit in city departments as controller
• oversaw replacement of an antiquated mainframe computer system with new technology that allowed city to shift to cost saving paperless payroll and invoicing
• will replace HPD Chief Hurt
• will look for savings in the public safety sector
• will encourage a coordinated response among various law enforcement agencies
• supports light rail
• will seek new leadership at Metro

Locke (things that seem problematic to me, rather than strengths are in red, along with explanations and links):

• was a civil rights leader at UH in late 60's
• earned political science degree at UH
• was a steelworker and union member
• passed Texas bar and joined staff of Mickey Leland
• served as president of HCC
• became an influential attorney
• served as counsel for Port Authority, Metro and Sports Authority (reporting on Locke's Sports Authority problems have been numerous, as well as his campaign donations from all three entities)
• was appointed by Mayor Lanier in 1997 as city attorney
• supports creation of regional crime lab
• won't say if he will replace Chief Hurtt
• looking for police chief who will use state-of-the-art policing techniques
• find economies such as renegotiating insurance for employees
• increased cooperation with Harris County on parks and library projects
• joint jail and booking facility with Harris County (how will he pay for a joint jail? Also, a joint booking facility is already in the works)
• supports light rail
• says Metro must make more efforts to be transparent
• Locke is self admitted consensus builder and deal maker
• negotiated stadium deals (which now have taxpayers on the hook for millions)

Some things that are assigned as strengths to one, but not the other, are actually common ground issues among numerous citywide candidates (support of light rail, increased cooperation with Harris County parks and libraries, state of the art policing - we already have a real time crime center and have increased use of modern technologies over the past several years, finding efficiencies in city government, support of regional crime lab, and coordinated response among public safety entities).

The Chron admits the two have very different styles, and it may come down to just that as each voter makes their own decision.

My recommendations for the citywide races are here. Like the Chron, I believe you can make your own decision after looking over multiple strong candidates. But unlike the Chron, I've weighed their strengths and weaknesses, and told you what I really think. I think the time for "oh, they're all so good!" is over.

UPDATE: Kuff has more, including this good suggestion:

I might have suggested running two separate endorsements, one by a supporter of each candidate. Surely they have someone who could make the case for Parker over Locke, and vice versa. I think that would have served the voters better than this.