If you are not redirected automatically, follow at http://dennert.blogs.vcstar.com/

Protest called against Tony Strickland and Mitt Romney for tobacco money

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar

( Mitt Romney talking about McCain's similarities to Bob Dole.)

The arguments over the ethics of the Ventura County Republican Central Committee taking money from a tobacco company to be used on behalf of their candidates, including primarily Tony Strickland, is not going away anytime soon.

Supporters of Hannah Beth Jackson and other groups upset with the introduction of a large amount of tobacco money into Ventura County politics will be protesting outside Tony Strickland's fundraiser next week.

(There also might be a group opposed to the idea of Mitt Romney being a candidate for VP working with them. )

They have been sending press releases to all sorts of media across the county and even into Santa Barbara County. This looks like this is just the kick off in the battle over what his opponents are attempting to show is dirty money.

I have always maintained that taking tobacco money was going to cost the Ventura County Republican Central Committee and Tony Strickland more than it was worth.

Republicans have been countering by pointing out that the State Democratic Party takes money from cigarette companies too. But this misses my analysis. I am not lecturing Republicans why it is wrong ( if they don't get why it is wrong for either party to take tobacco money they aren't going to shift their views anytime soon on it) as much as I am arguing it is going to allow many negative stories and a chance Tony Strickland to be defined as a candidate.

If the election is about campaign finance the Democrats will win. Like it or not voters hate cigarette companies more than they hate environmentalists, teachers' unions, and maybe even trial lawyers. (But tobacco company trial lawyers have got to be one step above DUI lawyers in the public's mind.)

If the election is about raising taxes on the average voter then Tony Strickland can win. This tobacco money storyline is taking away his chances to discuss his strengths as a candidate.

The VCRCC has put him on the defensive in a way that allows his opponents to define him as an ally of tobacco interests. I have watched Tony campaign many times but he has never been depicted as a tool of tobacco interests before. The VCRCC is allowing it to happen to him. Were they in need of money that bad?

Tony Strickland is favored to win.
But this is going to make it harder. He is a great campaigner, he has access to large amounts of money, he has decent name ID, and his field campaign is very well organized.

He also doesn't care if his critics make fun of his GreenWave energy company, he mentions it as a part of his stump speech. The more he talks about GreenWave the better for him.

Expect Republicans to hit back with full force looking into Hannah beth Jackson's campaign finance records. But that doesn't seem like a winning tactic as it just continues the conversation over campaign finance. Is that something Tony Strickland wants? Tony is best when he is on the offensive. This donation allows Hannah Beth Jackson to bring up old charges again with a fresh appeal to it.

So, are you going to be at the fund raiser on the inside or out on the streets?

Here is the press release from the protest group:



We will be protesting the Ventura County Republican Central Committee's acceptance of a $50,000 contribution from Altria (Philip Morris) on behalf of Tony Strickland. We view a contribution of this size as very significant and a further indication that the tobacco industry will continue to attempt to buy politicians in California. No other single company is responsible for more deaths of American citizens. Mitt Romney, keynote speaker at the Strickland fundraiser and on the shortlist for Republican Vice President, should speak out about tobacco and the cancer it continues to spread throughout our Nation.

Date: Tuesday, June 17, 6:00 P.M.

Place: Hyatt Westlake Plaza
880 S. Westlake Blvd.
Westlake Village


200,000 dead Americans each and every year from lung cancer caused by cigarettes. Strickland and his School Board member gumba think it is OK to take $50,000 from tobacco for political purposes!
These sick puppies are evil.

That comes to $0.25 per life...a bargain for Strickland when it costs so much more to campaign on the issues, inform voters and actually represent the interests of worker people and their families.

As a member of the Assembly, Strickland was bought and paid for by the tobacco lobby. In total he's received over $81,000 from the tobacco industry in direct contributions. This doesn't even count the $50,000 in support of him from the VCRCC.

On tobacco control legislation, Strickland towed the line of his benefactors.

· He failed to vote on a measure which would have prohibited self-service sales of cigarettes or free distribution of tobacco products on publicly accessible property. (SB 1510, 2000)

· He voted against allowing the Department of Health Services to conduct stings on business selling tobacco to minors (SB 757, 2001). Passed into law anyway.

· He voted against restricting non face-to-face sales of cigarettes (SB 1016, 2003). The measure passed anyway and was signed into law by Gov. Schwartz.)

In 2001-2002 Tony Strickland was California's second biggest recipient of tobacco funds ($63,000) in the legislature, and received $14,350 the previous session. What did that tobacco money buy? Strickland got a tobacco control policy score of 2.0 on a scale of 1-10 (legislature average 5.6), according to a report by the University of California San Francisco Medical School.

I think you may have to modify your "3 whores" to four and include Strickland.

If "Where there is smoke, there is fire on"'s numbers are correct, Strickland's received about $1 for every smoking-related death during the past year.

You don't think its possible that some people would deliberately encourage smoking just to make $1 for each horrible death, do you? No one can be so horribly cynical.

GS, you are on target. Few people would use the environment, use our gasoline price crisis, use our failed economy, use religion, use gambling and use cancer and the deaths that it causes to further a political career that lacks any semblance of conviction other than self enrichment. Strickland is indeed one of a kind.

Surf's up, my friend.

A pox on both their houses!

Bob Barr '08

Strickland and Romney are men of faith, they believe in the all mighty dollar and they pray to the almighty buck. Their religion does not guide their lives, money does and their zeal to impose their extremism on others as they stuff tobacco money, big oil money and gambling money into their filthy pockets.

Hannah-Beth Jackson had better get her own house in order before she starts criticizing the origin of Tony Strickland's campaign contributions. Here are a few tidbits:

1. Jackson takes money from Democratic candidates who have been funded by tobacco interests, as this money is passed her way through the Democratic Party. This is the pot calling the kettle black - big time.

2. Jackson takes huge sums of money from labor unions and trial lawyers. Both of these "special interest groups" wield tremendous lobbying power in Sacramento and are responsible for contributing to the State's budget problems over the years by pushing for inflated salaries for public employees and promoting legislation that costs taxpayers and consumers big bucks.

3. Jackson had a reputation as being aloof, disconnected, and unresponsive to the voters in her district when she served in the Legislature previously while readily sponsoring legislative proposals that served the interests of radical environmentalists, unions, and trial lawyers that helped finance her campaign.

This is just a preview. These facts and many other details about the real Hannah-Beth Jackson and her prior record of "service" are just beginning to come to light in this campaign and will be illuminated further as this campaign proceeds into the fall.

Stay tuned...

This is the best you can do Mongo? Accusing our teachers and public safety officers of liking Hannah-Beth?

Not sure where you got your "aloof and disconnected" from. I was her constituent for all three terms. She was great! Why else would I be such a loyal volunteer after all these years? She really takes the time to listen to constituents and works hard for them. I haven't known a more effective legislator in terms of getting things done and she has the legislative record to back that up.

She is not beholden to anybody who once contributed to somebody who later contributed to her. That's a really weak argument. You folks are just grasping at straws with that one.

Your guy has directly solicited more than $80,000 from tobacco firms and then voted against two bills that would keep minors from getting cigarettes. Then another $50,000 was solicited for him by his Republican buddies.

Can you name names or just make accusations?
It would be great to have a GOP candidate that I could vote for. Bottom line is I will never vote for the Tiger or his wife again.

Not sure where you got your "aloof and disconnected" from. I was her constituent for all three terms. She was great! Why else would I be such a loyal volunteer after all these years?
Because your a woman!... she thinks men are Bozos and have ruined the country. It was in the Reporter. Maybe thats why she wasn't very good at listening to her male constituents. How much does she rec. from Planned Parenthood? What does she get for every baby killed? Please stop presenting her as squeaky clean. Its obvious that you think that two wrongs make a right...as long as you believe your wrong is just not as bad.

Gee, you have to publish the REAL news yourself, because the Star won't do it.....

...such as Ventura School Superintendent Charlie Weis is leaving his elected office here in venutra County...for a new job in Santa Clara County...

...will receive $1 million from the kids education money to buy himself a new home in santa clara....and it will be an interest free loan...

$500,000 interest free
$500.000 at 3%



You mean Weis and his employers negotiated a deal under the principles of a free economy? Conservatives and libertarians must be happy as clams in a sea bed. You'll notice in the article that unlike MOST positions of this sort, Weis can be fired "at will"...which means he and his wife are taking a big risk. The degree of that risk is evidenced in the generous housing allowance portion of his compensation package....so that if, after a year on the job, he doesn't find himself stuck with a big mortgage and no income.

What does Weis have to do with Strickland & Jackson, anyway?

Faced with FACTS that Strickland has been the recipient of $135,000 in contributions from tobacco and voted accordingly, his supporters just start making things up about Hannah-Beth.

I have given you facts; you throw out baseless, unsubstantiated innuendo.

She has tons of endorsements from local male constituents, including those in law enforcement who support her past record of being tough on crime as a prosecutor.

I do not have any trouble with her support from Planned Parenthood. This organization has done incredible work with teens educating them on the risks of being sexually active. They provide low-cost comprehensive health services to women of all ages including annual exams, etc.

One more thing I want to note: You few bloggers (men, I'm guessing) slamming Hannah-Beth are all hiding behind pseudonyms. Why don't you have the courage to post as yourselves and tell us exactly why you support Strickland?

Real names, please and not those phony made up names Mongo uses sometimes.

I think I have been very clear that I distrust large donations from many sources. I asked Hannah Beth Jackson before if she ever disagreed with the CTA. I also asked if she would vow to take no money from casino or prison guard unions.

But all of that is besides the point.

When confronted with the local Republican Central Committee taking a huge check from a tobacco company their defenders mock the voters.

They refuse to discuss if the tobacco interests are doing it to buy access or because the tobacco interests and the local Republicans share policy preferences.

Instead they respond with attacks on Hannah Beth Jackson. Maybe the attacks are honest or maybe they are unfair. But either way they don't address the morality of taking tobacco money.

AS far as they other interest groups mentioned it is obvious that trial lawyers and labor unions support Democrats because they agree on many policies.

Tobacco companies give money to Democrats in California to buy access. They give money to Republicans to buy access in addition to electing legislators they agree with.

Do you Republican defenders concur? Did they give the VCRCC $50,000 to elect people they agree on in regards to policy? If so, what policies? The VCRCC should name them so voters can have clear choices between the two candidates.

If they are standing up for lower taxes on cigarettes or less restrictions on where you can smoke they should be up front about it.

Whole Foods Stores, Gyms, anywhere there are intelligent people who cares about a healthy America; they are the places we need to preach the good word of Hanna Beth Jackson.




I think the record is clear. Altria donates to both Republican and Democratic candidates, presumably, to buy access to whoever gets elected to a position of power. Most large corporations do this as a matter or practice. It should come as no surprise to anyone.


It's interesting that you continually try and play the gender card in your comments and questions:

"You few bloggers (men, I'm guessing) slamming Hannah-Beth are hiding behind pseudonyms."

Your claims are completely groundless. You say yourself that you're "guessing" that these bloggers are men, yet your inference is very clear. Let me remind you that Hillary's supporters also attempted to cast her as the victim of male chauvenism and we all can see how that worked out.


I think the record is clear. Altria donates to both Republican and Democratic candidates, presumably, to buy access to whoever gets elected to a position of power. Most large corporations do this as a matter or practice. It should come as no surprise to anyone.


It's interesting that you continually try and play the gender card in your comments and questions:

"You few bloggers (men, I'm guessing) slamming Hannah-Beth are hiding behind pseudonyms."

Your claims are completely groundless. You say yourself that you're "guessing" that these bloggers are men, yet your inference is very clear. Let me remind you that Hillary's supporters also attempted to cast her as the victim of male chauvenism and we all can see how that worked out.


In addition to trying to buy access do they agree on policy?

Is Tony Strickland the pro smoker rights candidate?


No, I truly do not believe that Strickland is the smokers' rights candidate. BTW, states have limited ability to affect public policy in regards to smoking issues. The federal government actually has more say in this area.

I think it's a non-issue that's being hyped up by the press, the Democrats, and Hannah-Beth's camp.

But, having said this, I think it might be wise for Tony to return the contribution. This would probably work to his advantage in the long run.

States have the right and the duty to prevent cigarettes from being marketed and sold to children yet Strickland has OBJECTED to every effort to keep kids from buying cigarettes. Other legislators, both Repubs & Dems have taken Tobacco money and yet SUPPORTED those efforts to keep cigarettes out of chidlren's mouths. There's a reason Strickland got $50,000 and its not a good one.

If he isn't in favor of their policy preferences then the only other option appears to me is that they are trying to buy access to Tony Strickland.

Mongo, I agree that it would be a good idea to take this issue away by giving the money back.

Better yet. Donate it to a local group that fights smoking in young people. That would earn them plenty of good press coverage.


Actually state and local governments make huge differences in policy that affect tobacco companys' bottom line: where cigarettes can be smoked, where they can be bought in the state, and how they are taxed, just to name three.

I think most voters would agree, regardless of party affiliation, that "special interest" money plays a larger than desired role in both Sacramento and Washington. Knowing that, however, does not prevent us from deciding the worth of the candidate by FROM WHAT SPECIAL INTEREST THEY TAKE MONEY.

Sorry, teachers unions and lawyers beat out
cancer peddlers.

Then he would also need to donate to charity the other $85,000 that he has directly solicited from tobacco companies and which went straight into his campaign account.

Check out the link I found here today.

The $50,000 to the VCRCC pales next to what he has taken directly. And his wife has taken another $20,000.

Brian asked us in another thread what our hobbies were. One of mine is research.

Just to be fair: here's how much BigTobacco gave to HBJ.....

What about indirect contributions (i.e., those that flow through the Democratic Party and other Democratic candidates)? In the Star article, mentioned $510,000 going to the Democratic Party from Altria. I'm sure a good chunk of this funneled through to the Jackson campaign.

Don't confuse the issue with verifiable facts...

Don't confuse the issue with verifiable facts...

I took the liberty of making it easier to reach. Don't want the stupid to not understand.


You didn't make it clear "Indirect" what your belief is in regards to the morality of taking tobacco money.

Do you think it is a moral wrong?

Donate the money.

Jackson should donate her share too.

Jackson has taken no money directly from tobacco. Period.

She did however accept a $2,000 contribution from Ron Calderon for Senate 2010. Only 1.12 percent of the $319,357 in his account came from tobacco.

That is the only donor to Jackson who took tobacco money.

So 1.12 percent of the $2,000 he gave her is $22.40.

Let's contrast that to Strickland who has directly taken $85,000 and has had another $50,000 solicited for him.

I agree. Please calculate her share for us.

Do you agree it is a moral wrong to work on behalf of tobacco interests?

She should hold a press conference in front of his fundraiser and donate the money then. Afterwards she should call on him to do the same.

Her indirect "share" would be $22.40. That would be the sum total of what the Strickland minions are squeaking about in a desperate attempt to deflect criticism. Sounds sort of silly now, doesn't it?

Then she should donate it and be an example to others.

Maybe to the American Cancer Society?

The protest made Tobacco.org as a news item.

It doesn't look like it was worth it to take this money after all.

Looks like other blogs are helping to push the turn out up:


That blog item in whazgoinon came from one of Mary Pallant's e-blasts. It went out to her whole list today.

Again, just to be fair...what is the amount Strickland received from other politicians and organizations that came INDIRECTLY from Big Tobacco? I'm certain it's more than $22.40.

Remember, we haven't even begun to discuss Gambling money, Alcohol interests money, Drug company donations....

If any of you actually read the Star article you'll find that Strickland hasn't received anything, as in 0 dollars, from the money the VCRCC got from Altria.

That would mean the HBJ has gotten more, no matter how you try to calculate it, tobacco money this year.

Your calculations are wrong though, you have to use donations from both Calderons, then you have to use this years contributions which add up to much more, and that doesn't even consider the gambling and alcohol cash than HBJ has received.

It is Strickland's vote, bought and paid for by the tobacco companies, that is the problem. It isn't the 'product'. Not using a tobacco tax to fund health care is all they care about.

Remember the tobacco companies defeated the children's health initiative SCHIP by bying votes. They don't want a tax on a pack of cigaretttes to pay for anything.

They spent over $12 MILIION to defeat the added tax in Oregon.

California MUST lead the way in the USA in health reform and that is the issue. We MUST get Hannah Beth in the Senate.

Sorry Voter! If you can't see the difference between the Strickland fund-raising machine going out and ASKING Altria to hand over $50K for the purpose of electing Strickland and the small amounts from BigTobacco that manage to find its way to Jackson via small personal donations from her Party colleagues, then you need to open your eyes.

This isn't a partisan issue...it's a matter of which candidate is working FOR BigTobacco. Calderon was mentioned earlier and he too should give his blood money back or get his arse voted out of office.

Voter has his/her loyalties so screwed up he/she cant seperate a central committee that operates for thegood of the party and a candidate controlled entity that is destroying the GOP in VC. The noise in Simi is the first cracks at the Reagan Library. Thanks TOny and Audra!

voter-your recent post is a weak attempt to protect the Stricklands and their control of the Central Committee. It is a candidate controlled organization and its sole purpose today is to line the wallets of the Stricklands. Many Republicans (myself included)do not support the Stricklands and the lack of integrity shown by the Central Committee over the last several months.

It is a blue county now, Bob Brooks is under fire and Simi is beginning to crack. The tobacco money is the latest fiasco. Get out of the way voter. It is too late.

Just because Hannah-Beth Jackson is successful in laundering the tobacco money she receives doesn't make it any nobler.


Strickland has received $85,000 in direct contributions over his legislative career from tobacco. In his State Senate campaign account he has received almost $7,000 in direct contributions from tobacco interests.

We left you the link to the Center for Tobacco Policy three times above and yet you failed to click on it and look at his contributions. But I think you already knew.

These sort of blatant misstatements are very representative of the kind of campaign Strickland and his supporters are running. If you have paid any attention at all to recent events surrounding the Bush administration deceptions, you will see that the truth always filters up.

Hannah-Beth has received no money from alcohol and gambling interests.

Strickland has direct contributions from Indian casinos, racetracks, and many, many alcohol companies.

The problem is when you really start to examine your guy's record you will find a pattern of contributions received from the worst of the worst and then a voting record to match. He has rarely failed to side with racetrack or tobacco interests after taking their cash.

As I mentioned before, I like to do research.

Strickland has the most gruesome record possible when it comes to environmental votes.

You can go on about Calderon's tobacco donations, but if you look at his record, he doesn't seem to side with tobacco in his votes.

Voter: Go run a campaign based on truth. Find integrity. Use your own name on the blogs.

Laundering?, where are you getting your info. We'd all like to know where you've come up with the idea that Strickland's opponent is also receiving money directly from BigTobacco, especially after you've claimed there's a conspiracy to commit money laundering. Such criminal accusations should not be taken likely...nor bandied about by liars and cheats.

Aside from the whole debate on how much Hannah-Beth Jackson took from tobacco, alcohol, and gambling interests, which even her most ardent supporters (except Marie) admit is true, what about her abysmal record as a legislator?

Tony Strickland represented his district very well during his terms in the State Assembly and was reelected by wide margins as living proof of this. Hannah-Beth was notorious for ignoring or not responding to constituent calls, especially when she or her staff knew that the person on the other end of the line disagreed with her stance on a particular issue.

Setting the tobacco donation issue aside for a moment, since both sides seem culpable here, the records of responsiveness and sensitivity to constituent needs should be the preeminent issue in this campaign. As such, Tony Strickland wins hands down.


You are right about one thing, Strickland believes in transparency. He puts his contributions out in public for all to see, while HBJ launders hers through a variety of surrogates.

And gs, the article clearly states that Strickland didn't ask anybody for anything. The article has quotes from Osbourne that he solicited contributions from a variety of sources and expects many more.

And gs, while this is a tangential issue, it would seem that your presidential candidate, Obama, is a huge supporter of tobacco interests, even to the point of using them himself.

Obama smokes, Strickland doesn't. There's a headline for you.

Nobody has a more abysmal record as a legislator than Strickland. He got virtually no legislation of substance passed.

His votes reflect who paid him to do their bidding. Aside from voting for tobacco and gambling interests....

He took huge chunks of cash from pharmaceutical interests and then voted against efforts to control runaway drug prices.

He took money from insurance companies and then voted against requiring insurers to cover maternity services.

I could go on and on here. It's all public record.

He even voted against requiring car seats for infants and toddlers.

It's Father's Day and I am done arguing online with a bunch of pseudonyms who won't even go public with their own names in support of this guy.

Side note: Tim Russert, I missed you today. Rest in peace. You were always a seeker of the truth.

Funny, Disingenuous & voter, I haven't heard anyone admit anything about HBJ taking money directly from BigTobacco, except you guys. You can't show any evidence that HBJ does take blood money and your attempt to introduce a straw man argument won't fly. Show us the proof and we'll listen.

Obama's not my candidate, never was. Besides, he's not running for local office....Strickland is. You party hacks can try as hard as you can to turn this issue into a partisan one but it'll never be anything more than a debate about simple ethics and possible corruption.

Give the money back!

Strickland's political gumbas have it down pat. When the facts don't help, then lie. When a lie is revealed for what it is, then tell another lie. Keep attacking the other candidate with untruths, then continue making up recognition from non-eisting organizations for Strickland.

Yep, Stricklan's gumbas have it down pat. Only problem is that Strickland is no Gallegly or McClintock. Strickland is always one step away from investigations and prison. This guy is a fraud, no matter what packaging his gumbas use.

Give it back, Hannah-Beth. We'll call it even...

Jackson takes no money directly from tobacco and is not beholden to those interests like Strickland is. He's bought and paid for by tobacco.

Please return the $135,000 Tony!
Please return the $20,000 Audra!

I am confused. Did the VCRCC change their story? Last time I checked they were very clear this money was to help Tony Strickland.

But either way it shows either A) The VCRCC agrees with tobacco companies on policy or B) They are charging upfront money to talk to them.

So which is it? Are they being bribed or do they agree with tobacco companies on policy?

Let us look at the figures:

Amount the VCDCC took from tobacco? Zero.

Amount the VCRCC took from tobacco? At least $20,000

School board members working for the VCRCC that asked tobacco companies for cash? 1.

To quote Ronald Reagan. Facts are stubborn things.

Any school board member that takes cash from cigarette companies should think about resigning.

What is the process to recall him? His party comes before children!

This tobacco deal is classic Kunicki; act fast and think later. In trying to kiss the rear of Strickland, he put him is a bad position. While the $50K is nice, Strickland could have gotten it from sources without the blood of 200,000 fathers, sisters, mothers and brothers on it. Strickland isn't usually such a fool. Kunicki, on the other hand, . . . well, Strickland is no McClintock or Gallegly, but Kunicki is no Strickland. Nevertheless, the Kunick/Strickland team should make the job that much easier for Hannah-Beth. Go Kunicki!

Hannah-Beth Jackson absolutely takes money from tobacco. There's no denying it. The difference is she's just sneakier in how she goes about it.

Jackson's hypocrisy is astounding. She is a big phony and will be outed as such as the campaign continues.

Without a direct tie there is no way to influence behavior. It's like saying every source of income from all her contributors has some bearing on her votes. Ridiculous.

We've also determined the sum total of any money that could possibly be linked to tobacco is under $30. Again, hardly an influence.

We've determined the only donor with any ties to tobacco is Ron Calderon. He took it and then voted against tobacco interests. Again, no influence.

Now let's contrast this to Tony who took $85,000 directly in tobacco cash and voted against measures to make it harder for minor to buy cigarettes.

And how much has HE indirectly taken? Much, much more.

There are no excuses for your candidate's shameful behavior and all the twisted logic in the world won't make it right.

Where are you getting this info? Please direct me to the source showing the link/s direct or inderect to HBJ and tobacco. With the language you are using the proof must be strong and credible, where is it?

She will be outed? You are reading too many comic books. Anonymous talk is real easy. Classic Strickland lies. Keep it up tiger. Bubba will make a great cellmate.

She should donate the money before Tuesday so when Republicans try to point out that Hannah Beth Jackson is also immoral she will keep the high ground.

She could donate a hundred dollars just to make sure.

Then ask the VCRCC to donate the $50,000!

They will regret taking this money.

Surfers, join me in endorsing Strickland. I like Tony because he can be anything I want him to be. He wants smaller government, but both he and his wife live off government. He doesn't smoke, but the tobacco industry knows he is their boy. He loves our beaches, but he supports oil/gas drilling off, and on, the shore. He loves our forests, but the timber industry knows he is their boy. He is for public education, but supports cutting funding to public schools. He is pro law enforcement, but oftentimes finds himself under criminal investigation. This is why I endorse Strickland. I urge my fellow surfers to join me.

Surf's up Strickland. Grab a board and meet me at the pier.

Notice the difference in tenor and tone from the comments coming from the VCDCC and fellow Democrats when they rail against Tony Strickland and his supporters. It contains a much more vicious and venomous sting to it than those calling for Hannah-Beth Jackson to display some honesty and integrity.

Tenor and tone hasn't changed. It is the same you would have heard over the last few years when someone is chanting lies and distorting the facts. The world sat silent when Hitler was chanting his lies. Strickland is a dangerous man. People can't sit idle while he tells his lies. This man is evil and will lie to anyone to better himself. Mongo/Gibson goes silent, but a dozen new "names" appear. Strickland believes that he can tell a lie over and over again and it will become the truth. But it will not this time around!

I will never go silent, baby. Here I am, back in your face, as quick as a whip.

So, now you're comparing Strickland to Hitler? How over the top is that?

Instead of demonizing a candidate and spreading false and venomous lies, why don't you try instead to distinguish your candidate from Tony Strickland by highlighting some of her accomplishments when she was in the Assembly? My only recollection of "Taxan Jackson" was that she never met a new tax she didn't like, nor a union cause she didn't support.

Tony Strickland, far from being a "dangerous man", will stand up for taxpayers and the concept of minimizing government's involvement and overreach in our daily lives.

Jackson, on the other hand, will advocate for more government and more taxes to support it. That was her record in the Assembly and I fully expect her to continue with these policies, if elected.

There now, I've given you some material to work with. Try doing something productive and meaningful now instead of slandarizing people you diagree with.

Mongo, state taxes went down when Hannah-Beth was in the Assembly. You didn't live in her district. You told me yourself awhile back that you lived in Port Hueneme for 12 years and then moved to Ventura. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Hannah-Beth had an incredible record of standing up for the people while in the Assembly. I was her constituent. I know.

She served Ventura well. She kept an office here the whole time she was in the Assembly. She was very responsive to us and helped us with many local projects.

Mongo, I really speak from my heart here and use my own name.

If you are hearing over-the-top comments from the other bloggers, it's because you and your pseudonyms have also been over the top and infuriatingly disingenuous.

Yea, Marie she kept an office. Who owned it? The taxpayers paid the rent but who'd they pay it to?

What's that, I can't hear you.

Could it have been a family deal?

Mongo, you slander Hannah-Beth over and over again and then get so deeply offended when I comment that Strickland behaves like a tin horn dictator. Ah shucks, Mongo, lifes a beach. Hannah-Beth has an education and has worked as a professional woman in the legal community for decades. Your main man, on the other hand, has been at the public trough his whole life. Strickland has gone to bat for the taxpayer? Not on your life. Strickland has a history of only going to bat for the Stricklands. Your great with rhetoric, as is your buddy, but in reality the issue is honesty and fraud. Hannah-Beth has a long history of honesty and Strickland has a long history of lies and fraud. It is a long way to November, Mongo. It will be fun to see if Strickland can keep the fraud going to the finish line.

Back on topic. Romney should disassociate himself from Strickland. He will be irreparably slimed by his visit to Ventura County.


Is Tony Strickland a career politician?

Brian, have you had a TIA? What else is Strickland other than a career politician? Oh yes, forgive me. He is a green energy consultant. What do you expect Gibson, sorry, Mongo to say?

I don't think being a career politician is a bad thing. I just like to hear the party that gets so angry about it so often to have to admit that locally they support career politicians.

If someone serves their whole adult life helping others as a politician that seems noble to me. John McCain has said many times that public service is a high calling for a citizen.


I think we've gone around the horn on this a few times already and you know my position on this quite well. But, as I've stated previously, the term "career politician" has a negative connotation and so the question you pose to me is a loaded one. It is clear by your follow-up comment to CAP-812 that is exactly what your intent was.

So, let me turn it around on you. Is Hannah-Beth Jackson a career politician?

Ron, you guys live in such a world of corruption that it must be really hard for you to accept that your guy is running against a decent, honest and hard-working person like Hannah-Beth.

She rented a legislative office at 701 East Santa Clara. The rent was paid to the City or County of Ventura. Since it was an official office of the Assemblymember, the rent was paid as part of their budget and paid directly to whoever was the master leaseholder.

She and her husband also owned a Victorian bungalow at 830 East Santa Clara Street for nearly 20 years, from about 1981 to about 2000. That's where their law offices were. That was an entirely different location.

Family deals are a Strickland specialty. The Jackson-Eskin clan doesn't do that stuff.

It just amazes me how far you folks are willing to go in your fabrications.

Why don't you try calling off the dogs, Marie? You and your band of Strickland-haters bring this stuff on yourself by your behavior on this blog. I'm not saying you're as personally reprehensible as some of the other bloggers on this thread, but you certainly encourage the negative banter and use very much the same tone and tenor as the others. If you and your band of hate mongers continue to post these comments, you're going to get back what you give - and worse. I promise you that.


I am not afraid to answer that question.

Hannah Beth Jackson served six years in the assembly and did some advocacy work with Speak Out California. So, no she isn't a career politician. She also was a practicing attorney and taught at a college.

If she serves eight years in the state assembly then I think it would be fair to call her a career politician.

Tony Strickland has always been involved in politics in his adult life. From his college campus to campaign work, to being a lobbyist for a short time ( GreenWave energy and charter schools) , to working for Bill Simon, Mitt Romney, his wife, and in his runs for state assembly and controller I think it is fair to call him a career politician.

But his long time interest in public policy isn't a reason to vote against him.

Of course the phrase has a negative reaction to it. But that is due in part because people deny that anyone they support is a career politician.

Mongo, my buddy, threats? Promises? Come on Mongo, lighten up. It isn't you being attacked, it is Strickland. After all, he is the one trying to get the taxpayer funded job. Let him take the heat. He is a big boy. Does he really need a goom squad to go after supporters of Hannah-Beth? How about tomorrow night he come out before his fundraiser and hold a debate about the virtues of the tobacco industry? The press will love to hear why he favors the tobacco industry based on his votes in the Assembly.

It would be great if he came out and issued a press release showing where he agrees and disagrees with the agenda of the tobacco industry. Then we could choose if we agree or not.

Ah, Mongo, you know I have no control over the other bloggers. I don't even know who most of them are. It is apparent to me that they all hold long-term grudges that were brewing long before you and I came on this blog.

Most of the time I am just responding to some little fire you (or your pseudonyms) or voter or Ron have set.

But I promise to work on my tone. Will you do the same?

OK, I went off and took a deep breath and pulled it together. I apologize for going off a bit. I guess I was just getting a little tired of the negativity.

Marie, I know you have no control over the other bloggers and you are far less negative and over the top than most of them and I, for one, appreciate that. You always present a reasoned argument. I agree to tone it down a little (remember though, I am Mongo).

In regards to the tobacco money, I have said it before and I'll say it again. I think he should give the money back and, if he's smart, he will. That would make a much bigger statement than doing a press release or hosting a debate.

I attended this protest, arriving earlier than other non-Strickland/Romney supporters. As I walked up the east side of Westlake Blvd. between two groups of Republicans, I was approached by a Republican enforcer, who ordered me to the west side of the street. [I was wearing clothing supporting the U.S. Constitution, which he apparently took as evidence that I was not a Republican.] When I asked to see some ID and proof that Republicans had sole right to that side of the street, he knocked my hat off and began yelling to the nearest group of Republican supporters that I had called him a "N...." and was a racist. Appropriate to his behavior, he was wearing a brown shirt.

I attended this protest, arriving earlier than other non-Strickland/Romney supporters. As I walked up the east side of Westlake Blvd. between two groups of Republicans, I was approached by a Republican enforcer, who ordered me to the west side of the street. [I was wearing clothing supporting the U.S. Constitution, which he apparently took as evidence that I was not a Republican.] When I asked to see some ID and proof that Republicans had sole right to that side of the street, he knocked my hat off and began yelling to the nearest group of Republican supporters that I had called him a "N...." and was a racist. Appropriate to his behavior, he was wearing a brown shirt.


Thanks for agreeing to be more calm in your comments.

I agree with you that Tony Strickland should donate the money to charity. Imagine the publicity it would generate if he gave it to a great worthwhile charity. He has been involved in a few and I am sure it would be more effective then the mailers, radio ads, or other campaign ads.

Then he could demand that Hannah-Beth Jackson join him in rejecting tobacco money. He could argue fairly he has done more to prevent young people from smoking or for health care personally.

Joel Angeles is still working for Audra Strickland during his supposed month long suspension for being a thug at the Westlake protest. The Stricklands are not honest people.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Thomas Jefferson

Sigh. I am tired of mob rule dictating that I should wear seatbelts (in the privacy of my own vehicle), telling me what I can or cannot eat, drink, smoke whatever I desire to... I am quite capable of making my own informed decisions without such tyranny. As long as my pursuit of my own happiness doesn't harm another individual, I would rather blaze my own trail, thank you very much.

If you haven't already, read the U.S. Constitution at (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html) for the first time...It's old, but, it's good.

In any case, you'll need to know the supreme law of the land if you expect to make any changes in this insanely overregulated nanny state. I would like to repeal the XVI Amendment of 1913, though. It's unconstitutional to Article 1's "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Oh yes. And, I occasionally smoke.

littlepear, in return for the state easing up on your personal liberties, inre, seatbelts, smoking, etc would you agree to waive all access to healthcare, entitlements and govt safety nets in the event you're in a crash or end up with lung cancer? After all, should everyone else be asked to subsidize the dangerous activities of others?

Mitch, you should be ahsamed of yourself. I expected more from you, but I guess I should not be surprised, especially since you are a lawyer. I have no handlers , so that statement is an outright lie and you should know better than to make statements which you can not back up and which you know perfectly well are false.I took no campaign donations and don't owe anyone anything. Perhaps you are just bitter because you spent a lot of money and did not do so well or perhaps because you can not do what you wanted to do to Sedell.I am not paid by anyone. I can not be bought, unlike attorneys and politicians. So your professional advice is worthless and is actually just a personal attack. It seems like you like to trash others, but not answer questions. Do you really want to be know for your lies? As they say, anything you say can and will be used against you.WM is not my buddies , so again you lie. It seems like a trend with you, but I guess that is to be expected from most lawyers. The truth does not matter, words are just a means to a goal. It is clear who your buddies are and you had best think about who they are and what they want.Please explain why, after all this time, that the task force, aka Barbra who is representing herself as City Council when in reality she is not representing the city.Yes, and the reasons behind the task force are not being shared with the public either. The system allows for WM to do what they did. I don't know the reasons and neither do you, but it does make for a good baseless attack.The bottom line is that WM did nothing wrong, but that does not stop some people from attacking. Most likely Mitch has done the same thing, but that is different for some unknown reasons.Ask why the task force refuses to come out in the open and put up a web site with their position. Why do they have their 5 points if they are just completely against the expansion? The real question to ask is what the motives behind their actions really are.

Leave a comment

Brian Dennert here

This blog is dedicated to Ventura County politics. Send in ideas for posts to briandennert@gmail.com
Follow me on Twitter Twitter.com/dennert The Facebook page for this blog is facebook.com/briandennerthere You do not need to register to comment but keep it classy. Report abusive language to me at my email address.

  • Mayumi: Mitch, you should be ahsamed of yourself. I expected more read more
  • gs: littlepear, in return for the state easing up on your read more
  • littlepear: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when read more
  • Brian: Joel Angeles is still working for Audra Strickland during his read more
  • Brian: Mongo, Thanks for agreeing to be more calm in your read more
  • Nick: I attended this protest, arriving earlier than other non-Strickland/Romney supporters. read more
  • Nick: I attended this protest, arriving earlier than other non-Strickland/Romney supporters. read more
  • Mongo Flamo: OK, I went off and took a deep breath and read more
  • Marie: Ah, Mongo, you know I have no control over the read more
  • Strawberry Fields Forever: It would be great if he came out and issued read more