David Barton has been caught in yet another lie, this time about recent history instead of the founding fathers and religion. On his radio show, he lied about the election of Houston Mayor Annise Parker. He’s opposed to her because she’s a lesbian, of course, so he’s inventing facts to support his arguments. He said:
Five million people in Houston and she ran and was elected mayor two years ago. At that time, a whole bunch of churches and pastors got together and said this is unacceptable, not in Houston, not where we’ve got this kind of vote and so they started recruiting two years ago to get a candidate to take her out, because that was the problem they had two years ago, just not a good candidate. So they worked for two years and they come to this year and still nobody is willing to step up. So a fireman stepped up … I think the fireman spent like fifty thousand dollars and he came within eight hundred votes of beating her.
Right Wing Watch points out that the fireman was actually one of five candidates who challenged Parker. And she got 42,000 more votes than him, not 800. Quoting an article from the day after the election:
Houston Mayor Annise Parker won a second term Tuesday, but she faced fierce competition from five opponents.
Parker was challenged by Kevin Simms, Amanda Ulman, Dave Wilson, deputy fire chief Fernando Herrera and Jack O’Connor.
Parker received 58,939 of 115,881 votes. O’Connor had 17,153 votes, Herrera had 16,646, Wilson was fourth with 13,589 votes, Simms had 7,733 and Ullman had 1,821 votes.
The man is immune to facts.
14 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
anandine
April 19, 2012 at 11:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Barton said, this is unacceptable, not in Houston
Apparently that’s not true, either. 50.8% of the people said they were just fine with a lesbian mayor.
In San Diego, we have a lesbian and a gay guy running for mayor, but he is a right-wing nut, and she is the current DA, so I’m voting for the straight white guy liberal Democrat.
suzysalaksartok
April 19, 2012 at 11:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well see, according to the founding fathers and RIGHT THERE in the constitution, votes cast for gay or lesbians only count as 3/5ths of a vote, so really her total is 35,363 votes.
Also, according to the declaration of independence, votes cast for a conservative running against count double. So he really got 33,292 votes.
And the father of our country, Abraham Lincoln, taught us that really if you have 1200 votes less than your opponent, then the opponent clearly doesnt have a mandate from God to rule, so you’re put in under the ‘might as well’ clause (which the Supreme Court at the time agreed with.)
So you see, he really was just about 800 votes away from getting it, its just your ignorance of history and removing CONTEXT to support your liberal agenda.
Area Man
April 19, 2012 at 12:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I was thinking that the vote total for all the opponents was 800 less than hers, and hence the confusion. But it’s actually about 2000 less, so either Barton made a double error, or more likely he just pulled the whole thing out of his ass.
John Hinkle
April 19, 2012 at 12:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And by recruiting, they meant finding someone who definitely isn’t homosexual. But how to prove someone isn’t homosexual? You can’t just ask them. Those damn chameleons can dress and act just like us, confound them. The only way to do it is to tempt a potential recruit into some hot sweaty butt pounding man sex. So yeah, that’s why they’re still looking, everyone keeps failing the buttsecks test. And I bet there’s still a lot of gay bars left to go “recruiting.”
jimmiraybob
April 19, 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ #2 suzysalaksartok
What is that? Some kind of fancy US Supreme Court cypherin’?
cjtotalbro
April 19, 2012 at 12:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In the immortal words of Richard Hammond in Jurassic Park, “I really hate that man”.
Captain Mike
April 19, 2012 at 12:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
– John Hinkle
Lesbians generally find it quite easy to resist being tempted into man sex, butt pounding or otherwise.
Modusoperandi
April 19, 2012 at 12:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And also the GAYCORN* something something something SOCIALISM!!!
* The homosexual ACORN.
Captain Mike
April 19, 2012 at 12:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I thought ACORN was the homosexual ACORN. Aren’t all of those groups in bed together, shoving their radical agenda down our throats, faster and faster until it climaxes, shooting socialism all over the place?
suzysalaksartok
April 19, 2012 at 1:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@5, just trying to channel David Barton.
andrewlephong
April 19, 2012 at 3:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Houston has a population of five million? Or did he mean the entire metropolitan area? And if so, does everyone in the area get to vote for Houston’s mayor?
Francisco Bacopa
April 19, 2012 at 3:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I should remind everyone that with Houston’s quite charming free for all non-partisan off year elections, a win with 50.8% out of a field of five candidates is a HUGE victory. Parker won her first election the more typical way, in a runoff.
Around here, winning without a runoff is a major sign of public support.
And yes, the population of Houston is a little over two million. Five million sounds about right for the metro area, which includes a few smaller cities in the 20,000 to 100,000+ range, and quite a bit of suburban sprawl
mattmichaliszyn
April 19, 2012 at 5:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I like Mayor Parker, and so do a lot of us who live here in Houston. Its the crazies that hate her and only generally hate her because she’s a lesbian, luckily they dont have a lot of pull in the inner loop which from my own experience is significantly more liberal than the suburbs.
patrickashton
April 19, 2012 at 6:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Mayor Parker avoided a runoff by about 1,000 votes which is about as close to a “win” as any of her opponents could wish.