Mt guess is the site was created by the Tigers camp.

...because there can't be any Dems who dislike more taxes.

I think it's legit. I would like to know who the people are behind it.

Come on pal, of course it was set up my the Strickland campaign, thats why they paid an extra 60 bucks to have the domain name's buyer remain anonymous. Im sure if there was a Democrat out there that really wanted abortion outlawed, new tax breaks for oil companies, cutting the education budget and using the Bible as a textbook in schools(all Strickland positions), then I do not think he or she would go to such lengths to hide themselves.

Say NO to more of the same Bush/Rove style smear campaigns.

Come on pal, of course it was set up my the Strickland campaign, thats why they paid an extra 60 bucks to have the domain name's buyer remain anonymous. Im sure if there was a Democrat out there that really wanted abortion outlawed, new tax breaks for oil companies, cutting the education budget and using the Bible as a textbook in schools(all Strickland positions), then I do not think he or she would go to such lengths to hide themselves.

Say NO to more of the same Bush/Rove style smear campaigns.

All of which that will never happen so that can't really be used as a reason. But a Democrat not wanting more taxes, which will happen if HBJ is elected, is a strong possibility. It is a free site that hosts so little info needed. I say its Judge Jackson. Its getting expensive to own all that property while keeping their lawyer friends busy. I guess they can have Planned Parenthood overcharge the state some more to cover it. Its all good

Any word on a Republicans for Hannah-Beth Jackson group?

Why wait and always allow Strickland supporters to call the tempo of the game?

There is an excellent new web site out there which is covering the local campaigns:

http://politicalwatchcentralcoast.org/

It is being produced by the Vote Blue organization which is partially responsible for the gains the Dems have made in registration in this county. They aren't afraid to publicize who is behind it.

I am highly suspicious of anyone who won't attach their name to their beliefs and sends Brian an anonymous email. They have zero credibility, just like the bloggers who don't bother to do fact-checking when they post.

I'm a pro-business, pro-religion moderate Democrat who was a registered Republican for many years and I enthusiastically support Hannah-Beth. She is brilliant, hard working, tough, and conducts her life with the utmost integrity. She is incredible at listening to her constituents and getting things done.

Nearly all of the legislation she authored responded to concerns communicated to her by local residents and groups. There are numerous examples of that, such as her having authored the "Vicki Schade Law" to protect women against stalkers following the murder of Ms. Schade. The local DA's office came to her (not Strickland) with that bill because they wanted it to be enacted into law.

The parents of students walking to school along Cathedral Oaks in Santa Barbara inspired her bill to regulate speed limits and impose higher fines on those who speed in school zones.

Constituent services was a very high priority because that is the way she learned about the needs of those she represented. This is who I want representing me in Sacramento, not some phony politician who needs to reinvent himself to get elected.

Huh?

Marie,

What exactly is a "pro-business, pro-religion moderate Democrat" as opposed to some other kind of Democrat?

I am not quite what you are trying to say with such a description. As a life long Democrat, I would like to know how such labeling sheds light on your position on issues such as choice, immigration, worker's rights, environmental laws, taxation, government regulation, health care, academic freedom, etc.

What is the value of using such vague pigeon holes in which to put oneself or others?
Most of us (regardless of party) do not fit neatly into any of them.

Fair enough. Those two issues are where I sometimes get into arguments with my fellow Dems. (But not Hannah-Beth, to make that very clear)

Examples: I sit on the Board of Directors for a group which owns the Father Serra Cross in Ventura. I have had more conversations than I care to recall from progressives who question why on earth I would care about a 250-year-old religious icon. Discounting the great role religion plays in people's lives is foolhardy.

I used to do work for the Chamber of Commerce. I have also had some progressives recoil about that, too.

Harold Godwin, (wasn't that the name of an English king?) of course I have opinions about all the issues you listed, but I don't have the time right now to go into it all. Nor would anybody be very interested.

I agree none of us fit neatly into stereotypical molds.

Good for you, Marie. We shouldn't all be painted with one broad brush. I respect your individuality and I see it in your comments. You have the ability to sort through the issues and take a position based on your personal beliefs and convictions. A bit like the Mongster in that regard.

Sounds like old Harold there was rolling out the litmus test for you. Don't let him paint you into a corner.

I am sure the people that came in contact with Spain and their cross are fully aware of the great role religion plays in people's lives...

Thanks for keeping them honest Harold.

I'm a democrat for Strickland, I'm all for him going straight to hell where he belongs. He and Audra need to get real jobs and we need to drag these two hogs away from the taxpayer trough they have been gorging at for years, while doing nothing for this area!

Marie,

No litmus test here, but I do believe that the biggest problem with communication is the assumption it has been achieved. Your answer did not really address my basic question of why you or anyone else feels that labels are needed to differentiate between other members of his/her own party. Such labels make nothing clear and so I wonder why anyone feels compelled to use them.

For example, I still do not know what some volunteer work for the chamber of commerce means (if anything) on a Democrat's self-described "pro-business" label? It says nothing of matters of greater substance. Can you be pro-business without supporting outsourcing of jobs beyond our borders? Where does that put you on "guest workers" or the rights of workers to organize or have grievances addressed through negotiation or in the courts? Does supporting environmental and safety regulations in the workplace necessarily mean that someone would be anti-business? The "pro-business" label simply does detail positions on the specific issues.

Does being a "pro-religion" Democrat just mean protecting the right of the government to preserve and display the religious relics and icons of historic Spanish California? Or does it extend to teaching creationism as science in the schools? Does religious law or secular law apply to the issue of the right of a woman to chose to terminate a pregnancy? If religious law should apply, whose religious law? A label like "pro-religion" is vague to the point of being meaningless.

My point: I believe that all real politics deals with the details on issues - large and small - not with vague labels. Fewer labels and more clear delineation on issues will lead to informed and meaningful discussion. Cut the obfuscation! Intentionally or not, it is misleading and does disservice in stereotyping yourself and your fellow Democrats.

Marie,

Hope you appreciate that almost every comment I leave connects you to the faith page for a candidate.

I checked around the blogs and I find it funny that a blog reported this story as if it were a known fact that the Democrats for Strickland site was put together by a group of Democrats.

Maybe, mayve not but it isn't a known fact.

I did paid PR work for the Chamber. I believe in their goals and still support them. For that I have been castigated by some of my fellow Dems.

"Nobody" up there just proved my point about the cross.

My point in all this reverts back to the original post and these supposed anti-tax moderate Democrats who won't leave their names.

I am as moderate as they come and I support Hannah-Beth.

You don't like labels, Harold. I get that. But sometimes you can't avoid them when trying to communicate. And I don't think you're really interested in a litany of all my views.

http://store.theonion.com/stereotypes-are-a-real-time-saver-p-80.html

Harold,

Creationism is as much a science as evolution, so if you're teaching one, you have to teach the other. I know this conflicts with your secular progressive view of the world, but it's a fact. Sorry.

A lot of people don't want to leave their names because people like you will jump on them and subject them to being bullied because they don't support Jackson. I suspect there are a lot more Democrats for Strickland than you know. You will find out on election day for sure.

Mongo, which Creationism belief do you consider science? The Lakota belief that a great turtle formed the basis for the world? Perhaps the Hindi panoply of creation gods? Maybe you're referring to the one god who created all in seven days and eventually sent his only son to earth to suffer for our sins, which is the classic creationist view of pre-Assyrian and Egyptian religions?

And then, to be considered a teachable science, are you prepared for tens of millions of school kids to watch as each facet of religio-based creationism is challenged and tested and, if found wanting, discarded... as are all faulty premises in all other fields of science?

I guarantee you that if you teach creationism as a science Christianity will be extinct within two generations. I, for one, would not wish to see that happen. Be careful what you wish for.

Hey, nobody has been more bullied on this blog than me (except maybe Katie) and I post under my own name. Ask Brian how many things he has had to remove that have been directed my way. Dreadful stuff.

I am always very respectful of the opinions of other bloggers. Bullying is not my style at all.

We have many local Republicans like Katie and Leslie who have been outspoken critics of Strickland and the VCRCC and aren't afraid to blog under their own names, write letters to the editor, etc.

Bob Larkin showed incredible courage and conviction with his letter decrying the tobacco donations. Good for him.

Okay, Mongo. Again, you are once again pulling us off the topic that I was addressing with Marie (labels and stereotypes), but I will bite!

The creation story in the bible is literature written to provide an answer for the question: "why we are here?" It is a part of the Judeo/Christian religious tradition and, as such, it is a matter of faith. Therefore, it is NOT subject to scientific methodology for support or validity and therefore not science.

Evolution is a theory constructed using the scientific methodology to explain the likelihood of "how things got the that way they are." Unlike matters of absolute faith, it IS subject to amendment as new data is discovered and better understood.

Most Christian and Jewish theologians and teachers of religion understand the above and see no conflict between religion and science as they attempt to answer different questions.

My point in even mentioning this to Marie was that a vague label like "pro-religion" does not tell voters anything about where the individual using the label stands and can actually mislead voters about a candidate or his/her advocated positions. For accuracy sake, it is better to detail, position by position, what someone supports lest someone stereotype.

P.S. - You might want to think about stereotyping those you see as having a "secular, progressive view of the world." The product of Catholic education from 1st grade through post graduate school, the position I stated relative to differences between science and faith is that of my Church's theologians. I am a believer in God - as was Darwin.

Flamo,

Creationism is not an obsession of most Christians. Go ask your local Catholic school if they teach it in their biology classes much.

It is a "science" pushed by a conservative faction in the broader Christian community. I understand they are trying to show life has meaning but most people already believe that without this theory.

Thanks, Harold and Brian. You have both helped make my point here convincingly.

As Harold so rightly states, evolution is a "theory" and not a "scientific fact". Creationism is a teaching of faith and can thus be considered (strictly from a scientific point of view) as a "theory" as well.

That is why Catholic schools do not teach either one in their biology classes (I went to Catholic elementary school, high school, and college).

Public schools, however, which are under intense pressure from the secular progressives and moral relativists, are teaching evolution as if its a scientific fact, which, of course, it is not.

Flamo,

You might be surprised that many Catholic schools have new methods and subjects since Vatican II.

Anyways, here are the state standards on Biology. Please let me know where you see it saying evolution is a fact.

http://www.cde.ca.gov/BE/ST/SS/scbiology.asp

Are there any creation stories you wouldn't include in a science class?

Mongo,

Wrong! I learned all about the theory of Evolution and as well as Darwin's quite traditonal Christian religious viewpoints in Catholic high school and university here in Southern California in the 1960s.

Wrong again! Once again you are perverting the argument to suit your mistaken argument: the word "theory" means something different in science than it does in the way you are using it. (Click on the link to see the difference.)

Mongo is a Republican organ grinder monkey.

Hmmm, I went to St. Martha's Elementary School, Bishop Amat High School, and Loyola University. I took Biology, Physical Science, and Chemistry in high school and college and never once studied the "theory" of evolution.

Where did you guys go again?

You mean he evolved from an organ grinder monkey...

My kids have recently gone to a very Orthodox Catholic school. Before that, they went to a very fundamental Lutheran school.

The Catholics teach that evolution as we understand it is fine as long as God is recognized as the ultimate "designer" of life and of the soul.

The Lutheran school taught Creationlism - the Earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaurs and humans co-existed, evolution is wrong, etc.

I recently graduated from UCSB with a degree in Neuroscience. I had to take a number of developmental biology courses, chem courses, etc.

It is clear that evolution exists but life is so complicated and so beautiful it is beyond human understanding. I see why the Catholics believe what they do. I don't see Creationalism at all.

Mongo,

Small world!

Here's a funny coincidence: I was also a lion (undergraduate and graduate) at LULA. That was where I learned a great deal about the theory of evolution and Darwin's personal views on religion. I was in a different department and Darwin was a subject of study and discussion in my classes on British Literature, History of Western Civilization and Theology. It was a long time ago, but it was an excellent university then -as it is now with its new identity as LMU. The Jesuits - as you know - encouraged open thought and discussion and were true academic taskmasters. (Can you find me in your yearbook?)

I will let you guess the high school. My school was in the Santa Fe League in CIF and we played Bishop Amat. Regarding evolution: I recall we touched on the general parameters of the theory in our general science class - 9th grade. I did not take biology there, but opted for Chemistry and Physics.

The Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondolet never discussed it during my grade school education.

Flamo,

Maybe it is a recent move for more Catholic schools to include evolution. But I think it is clear from the other people speaking that the creationism movement isn't being lead by Catholics.

Look at this quote:

"....that Pope John Paul’s declaration that “evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis� is “a fundamental church teaching� which advances the evolutionary debate."

If you want to see the larger context go to:

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

Seems to be the Church has clearly spoken out against Intelligent Design being considered a scientific theory.

There are differing forms of the theory of intelligent design that bear only a slight resemblance to Creationism.

St. Thomas Aquinas had his "unmoved mover" in the 13th century. Deist thinkers in the 18th century had their "great clockmaker." (Click on link.) These were brilliant theological and philosophical concepts, but not scientific theory.

Harold,

Did you attend St. Paul High School in Santa Fe Springs? I thought they were in the Angelus League? They were one of main football rivals. I played receiver at Amat and remember the Swordsman defense as being pretty fierce. Truly a small world!

What year did you graduate LMU?

Mongo,

I am an old guy.

The Santa Fe League was where our high schools were in the 60s. (Hint: My senior year, Amat beat our varsity football team 18-14 despite an All CIF co-player of the year on our team!) Amat had a great sports program at that time. In alphaetical order, the league contained: Alemany, Amat, La Salle, Paraclete, Pomona Catholic, San Gabriel Mission and St. Francis.

LMU was Loyola University of Los Angeles when I received a B.A. and M.A. there. (Hint: LBJ was president when I received my B.A.; Nixon when I got my M.A.) You obviously are younger than I am from the course work you mentioned might have been in pre-med, science or engineering. Go to a reunions or BBQ lately? I was there last year. Really great what they have done with the campus, but I miss the little "pitch and putt" course and the open space that they used to have. There is still the bluff!