Texas Conservative Review: Parker is a Fiscal Conservative

I blogged recently about the Texas Conservative Review (TCR) and noted that they graded Annise Parker a B. On page 3 of their November Voter Guide, they had this to say about Parker:

TCR was pleasantly surprised that Annise Parker scored near the top. Clearly her answers indicate she is a fiscal conservative. She is a former executive at Mosbacher Energy and has been involved in City government for 12 years. She is a skeptic when it comes to more sports stadiums at City expense and is running on her ability to control spending and run an efficient City Hall.

TCR has a post-election update (the emphasis in red is mine):

Conservatives Impact City of Houston Elections

As conservatives, we should be involved in non-partisan elections. This year in the Houston City Elections, conservatives were the main battleground and were instrumental in victories and runoff candidates success. TCR, as a public service, sent out a questionnaire of ten questions related to fiscal issues and public safety. Based on the results, TCR endorsed or editorialized about the choices and mailed and emailed the results. Eight of the nine candidates endorsed by TCR were victorious, four won outright (Clutterbuck, Bradford, Sullivan, and Pennington) and four are in runoffs (Khan, Stardig, Christie, and Costello) and the mayoral candidates with top grades, Morales and Parker, got a combined 51.29% of the vote. All of which proves that our votes matter and candidates, regardless of party in a non-partisan election, want our votes. This creates an opportunity to encourage fiscal conservatism and advance our common sense agenda. There is a runoff coming on December 12th and yes, you should vote for the most fiscally conservative candidates running and there are differences. TCR in a future mailing and email edition will make recommendations and comments on those choices.

They graded Locke a D in their Voter Guide. Let's stay tuned to what they put in their future mailing. I've already made it clear why I think Annise Parker is the fiscally conservative choice. She's got a track record of saving the City millions of dollars. She is focused on basic city services in tough economic times - police and infrastructure - while her opponent, Gene Locke is promising stadiums and museums. He's got conflicts of interest from his $640/hour government lobbyist/attorney work representing Metro, the Sports Authority and the Port that caused cityethics.org to ask if the responsible thing would be for him to not run at all, as well as comment that good government advocates are right to hound him.

I think there's a reason Parker performed well in Republican precincts and that's because of her proven, common sense leadership, and because city voters, who by their very nature are good government advocates, questioned Locke's agenda. In round 2, there are more of these voters who are up for grabs, and the questions are will they vote - I believe they will - and who will they decide is the fiscally conservative choice.