Ventura County Star reporter Timm Herdt wrote an article that says the campaign between Hannah-Beth Jackson and T. Strickland is between a candidate from the liberal wing of her party and a candidate from the conservative wing of his party.
The contest is going to be a battle to see which candidate proves their ability to work with people from the other party and which candidate has the ability to connect with people regardless of their party.
( He even has a green shirt! Way to stay on message!) The Tony Strickland campaign has spent resources and time to introduce West County and Santa Barabra voters to Tony Strickland as an environmentalist in an effort to look more moderate. He has also put "independent" leadership on his campaign signs. I am curious. If he is independent of his party, how has he also been a leader in his party? If he is not a partisan in his party, who is a partisan in the Republican Party locally or at the state level?
But will it work? Will a leader of The Club for Growth, which has often gone after moderate Republicans really be able to show he has the record to share the same vision with moderate voters?
( Hannah-Beth Jackson with the Santa Barbara Sheriff, Bill Brown. I think a testimonial from a criminal she helped locked up would be great. If the criminal attacks her that makes her look great. If he talks about her helping to lock him up and how he has reformed that looks great too. Start researching Team Jackson. Maybe win a Poli Award?)
On the other side we have Hannah-Beth Jackson. She has been trying to show that her top priority isn't social issues but the basic local issues that matter to people of either party. For example, in Simi Valley she is pushing her record of legislation related to Rocketdyne/SSFL, her opposition to the expansion of the Simi Valley area landfill/dump, and her past support in successfully keeping Ahmanson Ranch as open space. She has also been fighting the stereotype that liberals are soft on crime by bragging about her past as a prosecutor, her legislation dealing with crime, and her endorsements from people or groups involved with public safety.
But will she be overwhelmed by attacks calling her "Taxin' Jackson" when budget problems are the top issue Sacramento has been dealing with? With bank failures, massive government bail outs being proposed, and a budget passed that legislative Democrats, Republicans, or the governor aren't proud of could any candidate win while being the target of ad after ad that says they will raise your taxes without cutting spending?
I am a Democrat but I realize there are major problems in Sacramento. I want to elect a Democrat that knows that big money doesn't just influence the Republican Party and recognizes that Californians are willing to pay for our government if we are assured that the money is being used wisely. I also don't believe that the closing tax loopholes on yachts will make a real impact on the budget. I am bored with Democrats bringing up an imaginary flotilla of minimally taxed yachts that could make a major improvement in our budget.
Is Hannah-Beth Jackson a different type of Democrat?
What do you think? Has the branding of the candidates started to work?
Which candidate is able to connect on issues that motivates voters in the middle?
Sidenote: If you write a political blog about Ventura County politics but you don't know her name is Hannah-Beth Jackson are you really staying informed? We all make typos from time to time but you have been getting her name wrong for weeks. You should correct your errors.
If you see a typo, misspelling, or grammatical error on my blog I'd appreciate an email from my readers before it goes into google cache. Thanks!
Ms. Left, Mr. Right face off in 19th Senate District
By Timm Herdt
When Hannah-Beth Jackson and Tony Strickland were termed out of the Assembly in 2004, having spent six overlapping years together in the state Capitol, they knew that they were facing at least a pause in their political careers.
What they chose to do next was revealing.
Each stayed involved in politics as an activist, setting out to advance the ideological agendas of the most committed loyalists of their respective parties.
Democrat Jackson launched an Internet site called Speak Out California. Its goal was to present issues from a progressive perspective, and its point of view was decidedly liberal. Jackson wrote a blog for the site in which she regularly praised Democrats and assailed Republicans.
In one entry, for instance, she said it was the job of Democrats to "housebreak" big business by cleaning up "the messes big corporations have made in their pursuit of nothing other than profit." In another, she wrote Republican intransigence had so stymied state budget negotiations that "maybe it's time to cut them loose from the debate entirely."
Republican Strickland, an admirer of the national anti-tax crusader Stephen Moore, launched a California sister organization of Moore's Club for Growth. The national conservative group has so harassed GOP officeholders who stray from its shrink-government orthodoxy that one of its targets, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, last year referred to it as the "Club for Greed."
The goal of the Club for Growth, Moore had said in 2003, was "to get the word out to even the lowest grass-roots level that if you're a Republican, you're not allowed to vote for taxes." That same year, Strickland invited Moore to Sacramento to speak to the Assembly Republican caucus to deliver his message about party discipline.
Pitted against each other
It's now 2008, and Jackson and Strickland are trying to return to the Legislature. They are pitted against each other in the 19th Senate District, which covers most of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. One of them will be elected to succeed Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, in a district that is seen by both parties as the most significant state Senate battleground in California.
It's a moderate district, with the number of Republican and Democratic voters almost evenly split and with nearly 1 in 5 voters not affiliated with either party. Both candidates seek to present themselves as moderates.
But a case can be made that this campaign shapes up as a race between Mr. Right and Ms. Left.
Consider the legislative scorecards compiled by four interest groups during the last two years Jackson and Strickland served in the Assembly. The scores could hardly be further apart.
The state Chamber of Commerce and the California Taxpayers Association, two conservative groups with limited-government agendas, gave Strickland nearly perfect marks while flunking Jackson.
The League of Conservation Voters, which scores lawmakers based on their environmental records, and the California Labor Federation put Jackson on their honor rolls and gave Strickland among the lowest marks of any lawmaker in Sacramento.
"They have a track record," said Rob Lapsley, an executive with the California Chamber. "You couldn't have a clearer choice."
"A person's performance in office is pretty indicative of how they will vote in the future," said David Allgood, Southern California director for the League of Conservation Voters. "In this case, it's hard for the choices to get much starker."
Throughout the six years when each represented portions of Ventura County, Jackson and Strickland cast opposite votes on the high-profile issues of the day: paid family leave, tailpipe emissions standards for greenhouse gases, domestic partnerships and a mandate that large and mid-sized businesses provide health insurance benefits to workers. In each case, Jackson voted yes and Strickland voted no.
The differences continue today. On perhaps the most controversial proposition on the November ballot -- Proposition 8, which would prohibit same-sex marriages -- Jackson says she'll vote no, while Strickland says he'll vote yes.
As they ask voters to compare their records, both candidates are issuing the same warning to voters: Their opponent is too extreme.
Comparing records
An independent group called the California Taxpayer Protection Committee, headed by a longtime conservative ally of Strickland's, delivered the first blow with a TV ad that referred to the Democratic candidate as "Taxin' Jackson" and asserted she had recklessly voted to increase all manner of taxes.
Last week, Jackson struck back with a mailer that proclaimed, "If you like George Bush you'll love Tony Strickland." It cited 10 reasons to support the claim of a Sacramento Bee editorial included in the mailer that calls Strickland "a rigid ideologue."
The Star asked both campaigns to cite five examples of why they believe their opponent is out of the mainstream. The lists provide a glimpse of the campaign to come, and both candidates -- seeking the middle ground -- were eager to rebut the other's claims.
Strickland said efforts to tie him with the national polices of the Club for Growth -- such as privatizing Social Security or trying to defeat moderate Republican incumbents in GOP primaries -- are off-base because his state group's charter forbade it from dealing with federal issues.
He noted the California Club for Growth never took sides in any Republican primary.
To the assertion that he is a "global warming denier," Strickland said his views on the issue have evolved since the 2003 incidents cited to document his belief at the time that there was no scientific evidence to support the notion of man-made climate change.
"I do believe in climate change," he said. "Obviously, things have changed dramatically."
Still, he says he would vote again in opposition to the state law mandating a reduction in global-warming gases emitted from cars and trucks. "I think California cannot go it alone," he said. "It's a global economy."
On the abortion issue, Strickland said he must have made a mistake on "a questionnaire I filled out 10 years ago" in which he said he supported abortions only in cases in which the mother's life is at risk. He said he has always supported exceptions in cases involving rape and incest and in which the mother's health is at issue.
Strickland called it "a ridiculous charge" that he does not support laws protecting children. "I love kids. I'm a kid at heart," he said. "I'm going to do whatever I can to make sure our kids are protected."
Bristles at allegation
Specifically responding to a vote he cast against a bill to allow authorities to use minors in sting operations to catch retailers selling cigarettes to underage customers, Strickland noted he voted for the bill in committee when that's all it did. He said he voted against it on the Assembly floor because an amendment had been added that prohibits bars from selling tobacco products from vending machines.
Jackson bristles at the Strickland camp's allegation that her vote on a key bill during the 2001 electricity crisis contributed to the state's economic losses.
The decision to put the state into the power-buying business, she said, was necessary "because we were being gouged by Enron and other power companies. Taxpayers got ripped off because people like Tony Strickland voted against bills that would have capped the amounts that could be charged by electricity generators."
The Strickland campaign also cited two bills she supported that were vetoed by then-Gov. Gray Davis, implying Jackson's political positions were to the left of a Democratic governor.
"I'm not sure that Gray Davis is the arbiter of all that's been good and visionary in California," Jackson countered.
Jackson said her support for a vetoed Internet sales-tax bill was based on a belief the tax system shouldn't penalize traditional businesses. "We were trying to protect our local businesses who want to be able to compete," she said.
As for her support for another vetoed bill, written by former Ventura County Republican Sen. Cathie Wright, which would have allowed people who had past drug convictions to receive food stamps and CalWORKS assistance, Jackson said it was only for people "who had served their time."
The benefits would have been available only to those who had completed a drug-treatment program, been off parole for at least five years and who agreed to submit to periodic drug tests.
Citing laws she wrote to toughen penalties against repeat drunk drivers and to expand the rights of crime victims, Jackson said, "Nobody can accuse me of being soft on crime or not protecting the rights of victims."
Jackson said she does not shy away from the term "progressive" as a description of her political views. "I look at a progressive as someone who is committed to looking at issues as they affect the people you represent, and not as they affect big special interests."
Brian wrote:
"...The contest is going to be a battle to see which candidate proves their ability to work with people from the other party and which candidate has the ability to connect with people regardless of their party. ..."
I think the answer to that is pretty clear when you have a group of prominent Republicans who have endorsed Hannah-Beth. No prominent Dems have come forward for Strickland, as far as I know...
I think Timm was trying to be really balanced with this article, but by only concentrating on examples of "extremes" from each candidate he racheted up the rhetoric.
I would have rather had him ask "What have you done to work in a bipartisan manner?" Hannah-Beth was part of a bipartisan group which was working on budget reform and co-sponsored legislation with Republicans. I know Strickland co-sponsored legislation with a Democrat.
We really need bipartisanship now more than anything.
The Republicans who have come forward for HBJ are so far left, they have little or no impact with their endorsements. They just haven't gone to the trouble of formally changing their political Party designation.
Who Care? - don't belittle Republicans you don't agree with - they came forward, crossed the aisle and supported a Dem. That doesn't make them left - your response is a classic "eat your own" response that has lead to this county turning blue. When are you going to learn?
I still support Mickey Jones.
I still support Mickey Jones.
With the exception of the two Ventura School Board members all the Republicans supporting HBJ are old and out of touch has beens that are only interested in settling old scores. Their reasons have nothing to do with politics, and have lost them what few friends they still had. I don't consider Parks a Republican and at her next election the voters won't either.
In every other campaign HBJ has run Larkin and Robings worked against her and called her a typical "tax and spend liberal." Cathie Wright endorsed people she had never even met against HBJ.
These are the actions of small minded people who could care less what happens to California.
As far as the Vta. School Board members are concerned all I can think of is that they figure HBJ will be a bigger cash cow than Strickland.
Has it ever occurred to you they are doing it because they JUST DON'T LIKE STRICKLAND and that his organization is slimy and dishonest and threatens those people who stand against them?
One of the things a DTS voter looks at is which campaign is attracting the most cross-over voters.
Yes, there are many of he old school Ventura County Republicans supporting HBJ over Strickland. I have no doubt that part of it is a settling of old scores.
Historiically, I think part of the idelogical split in the VCRP has also been generational. Keep in mind that many of those Republicans did not come of age politically in the time of Reagan, but rather came of age in the time of Nixon, Rockerfeller and Eissenhower. Many of the old school VC Republicans were already middle aged by the time Reagan came along and had been socialized to think differently. That's why it is no suprise that many of them have a more moderate outlook. Much of the GOP before Reagan was moderate and the conservatives were a distinct minority within the party untill the 1980s. Many Republicians jumped on the Reagan bandwagon after it became fashionable. The younger Republicans who are the future of the party in VC are more conservative and it is quite obvious they came of are during Reagan. I think that in 10 or 20 years many of the HBJ Republcians will disapear from VC politics altogether.
What will be interesting is how low will Tony go. The mailer featuring the kid with Cerebral Palsy holding a dog so far holds the position. I liked the pleading tone about how mean that Hannah-Beth is and to just ignore her.
In the meantime, his helpers can trash the names and reputations of Republicans that support HBJ and make calls and threats to those that might.
Actually, most Republicans are moderate and it is the older generation that tends to be more conservative. Reagan began the era of Moderation - which is why he captured the votes of so many Democrats. The future of the Republican part under the current leadership is grim - just look at this county, this state, and possibly the nation.
New Republicans: You are correct that when compared to the right wing nutjobs of today Reagan was a moderate.
I am a recovering Republican. For half my voting life I was faithful to this party. I grew up in the typical Rockefeller Republican (Wikipedia it) household. We were strong supporters of the business community and my family ran a large commercial real estate operation. But we were socially moderate. Pro-choice, against discrimination of gays, pro-environment and in favor of public education.
I have photos of myself when I was a little kid holding a "Nixon's the One" sign and later just out of high school I worked on George HW Bush's first presidential campaign. He won the Iowa caucuses but later lost to Reagan and ended up as his VP.
As Republican politics evolved to the far right and completely discarded my social ideals, they just lost me. And they lost my family, too. We're all now either Democrats or DTS.
I am a textbook case in how the Republican Party has lost membership. Hannah-Beth also grew up in a Rockefeller Republican household.
I witnessed Phony Tony trying to debate HBJ in Thousand Oaks yesterday. What a joke. Five people would clap after he spoke and more than 100 would clap for HBJ. The guy is a second team high school debater on his best day. I can't imagine someone of this caliber in Sacto. What a sorry state of afairs for the Republican Party.
Strickland's latest incarnation, as environmentally friendly, family-oriented, ethics-minded saver of taxpayer money is laughably at odds with his legislative record as a despoiler of air & water, as an anti-kid & family health obstructionist, as the spoiled child of the 3 Sluts and as one who's done more to raise energy prices in CA than almost anyone else except the Texas Natural Gas suppliers.
As for who's more conservative or not, Strickland is one of those politicians who have abandoned any pretense at true conservatism and are of a new breed of power-hungry politicos who hide behind the GOP.
In Tony's defense, wasn't it a mostly Dem audience? Of course, it begs the question - what are Dems doing in TO? Don't they know that East County is Republican territory?
I think the debate is going to be posted on http://politicalwatchcentralcoast.org/ later today.
In "Tony's defense"? Are you up for the Mother Teresa award of the year or are you trying to make a difference? Sometimes sounds like you are a misguided missile as your Republican buddies in VCRCC have oftentimes stated. You can be middle of the road until hell freezes, but your accomplishments will be few and far between. How about you finally suck up and take a firm position. Any position.
There are very, very few people on the CC that even know me - much less my politics. Actually, right now there are very few people on the CC period. If I am known as a "misguided missile" that is coming from just a few disgrunted extremists.
I personally am right of center but I realize this does not represent most California or voters of this county. I choose to be associated with an organization that does - CAPC. I left the CC because it was become nutso. Deal with it.
Katie, they are trying to intimidate you. They've tried to intimidate me, too.
They cower in their holes and post anonymously on blogs, make threatening phone calls and send nasty emails. They tell other Republicans they will run someone against them if they endorse Hannah-Beth.
I don't like bullies.
Stay true to what you believe.
Reagan, while not that socially conservative, built a coalition to win his election by bringing in the "Dixie-crats" - the socially conservative Democrats of the South. This gave the social conservatives power over the party, and suddenly they, rather than fiscal conservatives, controlled the platform. Their power has grown year after year as they purge the evil moderates from their party. Many see the moderates as more of a threat to their power than Democrats, and that is why you see them stay at home and not vote when a moderate is on the ballot.
Many Republicans have stuck it out because of their fiscal conservatism, seeing the Democrats as the party that never saw a program they didn't want to spend money on. But with the current history of Congress where the Republicans spent money like drunken sailors too, the fiscal conservatives have been left with little reason to stay with the party. This is why the number of Decline to State voters has increased every year. Those voters can't trust either party to look after their interests or be responsible with their tax dollars. They will vote for the candidate, not the party.
Jeez Marie - I know you don't make stuff up! Sounds pretty Gestapo-like and pretty stupid. I know most Republicans do not engage in this type of behavior. My guess is that in the county less then 1/2 dozen bad apples are giving all Republicans a bad name. I feel sorry for the good Republicans that are in office right now or are running for office. This type of behavior reflects poorly on them.
Leslie made some interesting points that warrant further discussion.
I am not sure Reagan was a social moderate. I also don't think he was a big social conservative either. He had strong feelings on the issue of abortion and wrote a book while in office which outlnied his strong pro-life position. Was the book a cleaver ploy to pacify right wingers or were they his true feelings?
On Reagan's coaltion buidling...
Do you think that one of the bad uninteneded conseqences of forming the coaltiion was control of the platform by social conservatives? Was this a bad short term decision on Reagan's part to get himself elected? Why didn't the moderates put up more fo fight during the 80s when the anti abortionists gained a foothold? It would seem to me that that they should have in order to avoid some of the long term conseqences we are seeing as a result of the social conservatives.
Then again, in many ways, weren't the social conservatives very insrutmental in making the GOP a powerful force in politics? If the moderates had put up more of fight in the begining would the GOP assended without them?
Finally, where exactly do the pro-life and other social conservatives fit into the party? Evidence has shown they have been very crucial in many GOP victories. Have they outlived their usefulness? Should these groups be bannished to the fringes of poltical life like libertarians and other third parties?
Common sense would say that pro-life & social conservatives AND moderates are vital parts of the GOP. Perhaps the real question should be what part of the GOP is it that's leading the party to disaster.
Ask who's encouraging the most extreme ideologies of the religious right and pandering to the worst of the greedy power brokers. Identify who's acting in a manner wholly at odds with true Republican values of fiscal restraint and social responsibility. And ask who it is that's burdening future taxpayers with debts that no amount of tax cuts can ever hope to pay back.
You can't help but come to the same conclusion: Neo-Conservatives...like Strickland. They have no loyalty to the GOP and instead place their personal, self serving agendas above any sense of conservatism. These are the sorts of people who goose-step along with whoever it is they perceive to be the winner, including Bush for the past 8 years.
I think that the moderates have always been more accepting of other views because their most important ideal is individual liberty and proper handling of tax dollars. They saw this as a "big tent" welcome to the additions to the party. Unfortunately, many social conservatives are single issue voters over the abortion issue, and have made it very clear that pro-choice Republicans are not welcome. This hurt the party as moderates have been purged, when they should have been working to grow instead.
I believe that Reagan was pro-life like McCain is pro-life. While important to them, they clearly are not single issue candidates, and do not consider their fellow Republicans that are pro-choice to be evil.
As the Republican Party shrinks in percentage to the population it becomes less influential and less able to produce a win. Likewise the Democratic party has less influence (percentage-wise) than it used to. This is why new coalitions are being courted.
But, McCain obviously believed he could not win without a social conservative as a running-mate. It would have split the vote in his party had he selected someone that was pro-choice. The social conservatives would have stayed home (even allowing Obama to win) and he could not have gathered enough independent votes to win. Fortunately, he found a social conservative for a running-mate who also shares his passion for reform.
I cant help but compare the Chinese milk poisonings to the SSFL perchlorate poisonings. 53,000 (and the number is growing rapidly) young children have suffered serious kidney damage from contaminated milk. Though authorities had known the milk was contaminated they waited for several weeks before acting, due to the story leaking out.
Compare that to the perchlorate problem, a nationwide disaster in the making. Authorities have known about the dangers of perchlorate in our drinking supplies yet some, like Strickland, tried to keep us from knowing.
Perchlorates are directly responsible for an array of illnesses, from thyroid cancers to kidney damage to disruption of fetal development. Not only did Strickland oppose telling Californians how much perchlorate was in the water we drink, he also opposed health legislation that would have given perchlorate victims an early chance of catching these illnesses.
Chinese milk poisoning & Strickland's perchlorate poisoning....one and the same?
Taxin Jackson sure is a cute slogan. Too bad her name isn't Smith or Jones. But those new campaign signs springing up all over the District sure do tell another story: "PHONY TONY". It doesn't take too much imagination to know what they mean either, does it?
"Taxin' Jackson" has a much better substance behind it and will hit home with a lot of voters, particularly those who are concerned about higher taxes in a down economy that's bound to get much worse before it gets better, with all the financial institutions failing, etc.
"Phony Tony" is more of an inside joke that some Democrats (who are already voting for Jackson) will get, but the majority of the voters that Jackson needs to win this race (DTS'ers and fence-sitters) will be more concerned about Jackson's position and voting record on taxation, which is abysmal. "Taxin' Jackson" sends a clear political message, while "Phony Tony" comes across as childish name-calling.
The financial institutions are failing because of corporate greed, the same sort of greed that is causing them to donate to Tony Strickland to influence legislation to vote against measures to protect our environment and health.
His votes on children's health issues are rock bottom. It just turns my stomach. The health of our children is more important to me than anything else.
Hannah-Beth has voted for a lot of tax cuts for average folks and small businesses. I've listed them here numerous times. I'm happy to do so again.
I think people are getting the Phony Tony. Everyone has caught onto this alternative energy facade.
Add up the +s & -s and you'll find that while HBJ has been saving CA money, Strickland has been driving up the costs of survival for every Californian and helping load our kids with debt they'll never be able to pay back.
You all may want to take a little stroll over to Timm Herdt's blog.
For all you Strickland supporters just sit back and watch the blood shoot out of the Jackson people's eyes.
Let's see, Jackson got a few has been low level republicans. Let's see you leftys trump this one.
LMAO
GS,
How is T. Strickland a neoconservative? I normally see the label attached to foreign policy, not as an indicator of domestic issues.
I know the three ----- line is powerful but think of another phrase please.
The area of foreign policy offers the most obvious examples of Neo-Cons at work but their philosophy is power at all costs, of making Democracy safe for themselves, and that policy's trickled down to local politicos, like Strickland.
Brian, will you also ask posters to lose the "Taxin" phrase?
I for one love the battle for the decline-to-state people. Are they both expecting a good turnout for this voting block? HBJ will probably get more Republican votes than TS will get Democratic votes. I think the DTS voters might vote they way they do for President. If the DTS voters think about it, the state is going to go for Obama anyway so are they even going to vote? Are the DTS voters going to think about this and not turn out? Hard to say.
Does an advertiser pay every time we click on their ad?
This weekend I read a letter published in the Acorn by a man I greatly respect. It was an eye opener.
HBJ voted in favor of testing for contaminated water from the Santa Susan Field Labs. Tony Strickland voted against it, allowing Rocketdyne to hide its responsibility and shame.
There are many in the Knolls, Chatsworth and surrounding areas that have long dealt with illness and the related coverups.
Tony now portrays himself as a born again environmentalist. Of course, you can't be born again - if you were never concerned about the environment to begin with - and his voting record betrays him.
I've met Tony Strickland on several occasions. He is not the evil demon some make him out to be - he is not even an ideological extremist - that's all image and rhetoric. He is simply a shameless sellout.
And Jackson is not a hero, she simply did the right thing.
I previously had absolutely no desire or intention to vote for either of these candidates. But on this most telling, important and very personal issue - Jackson's record shows me she has been consistent in trying to defend and protect people against harm. That is government's primary job - as Tony's right wing entourage is apt to remind us. Yet he chose to protect Rocketdyne instead.
I intend to get the word out because not enough people know.
This weekend I read a letter published in the Acorn by a man I greatly respect and this weekend I made up my mind to cast a vote for Hannah Beth Jackson.
Marie,
How'd you like the Erin Brockovich ad. I guess that answers your question about high profile Democrats that support Strickland.
I've got to agree with Ron, this endorsement puts HBJ's goofball sheriff, small town school boarders, and washed up old republicans to shame.
And the silence from you and your little gang of HBJ groupies says it all.
Way to go Tony!
Anybody else notice that Louis Masry, a man with political ambitions, a failed council run in Moorpark and connections to a certain forgotten female celebrity donated $2,000 to Tony's campaign?
Brockovich is for sale to the highest bidder. She hustles the TV channels for Texas ambulance chasing law firms; she hawks herself after the quick buck at every turn. She fought the utility industry and then supports the right wing nut job Phony Tony who is supported by the utility industry. An endorsement from Brockovich is worth what you pay for it.
Finally, a high profile Democrat that support Tony Strickland. He needed to show he can get across the aisle support - I hope she is put on his webpage under endorsements. HBJ has a ton of Reps and Dems on her page.
Where's Michael Bradbury is all this? He is keeping a very low profile. I'm suprised he isn't quoted in TS's public safety press release.
Is Louis Masry related to Ed Masry, Erin's old law firm?
I do know she had a mold problem in her house in TO and went after someone - maybe the contracter? Her neighbors were not happy because it threatened the value of their homes.
Answered my own question. Yes, Louis is the son. Ed used to sit on the TO City Council. I love google!!
"LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Attorney Edward L. Masry, champion of
the underdog for decades before Albert Finney portrayed him in the
Oscar-winning movie "Erin Brockovich," died Tuesday. He was 73.
Masry died of complications from diabetes, son Louis Masry said. He had
resigned from the Thousand Oaks City Council on November 30 due to ill
health."
Goofball sheriff? So Strickland's supporters are calling the sheriff of Santa Barbara County a goofball?
Found in VC Star:
Masry is an opportunist
Re: your March 10 article, “Masry seeks to follow father on council�:
Louis Masry is nothing but an opportunist.
When I lived in Moorpark in 2002, I read that he sold his home in Thousand Oaks and was buying a home in Moorpark to run for City Council. Because of people like me, he decided not to pursue this.
Now, he is selling his Moorpark home to come back to Thousand Oaks and run for our council. What has he done for us? Has he served on any major committees or volunteered his time to benefit the residents of this city? The answer is no.
He is the son of one of our finest council members. Since when does genetics make one a good council member or even entitle someone to move from city to city to run for office? Ed Masry was a lawyer who served this community well as a mediator. Louis Masry is an investment manager who is interested in lining his own pocket and ego.
I say Mr. Masry should stay in Moorpark and not waste his time here. If he wants to serve this community or any other, volunteer.
— Ruth Kronenfeld, Thousand Oaks
No Longer Undecided,
The reservations about both candidates that you express above are identical to mine, but your logic in this situation is clear and compelling:
"I previously had absolutely no desire or intention to vote for either of these candidates. But on this most telling, important and very personal issue - Jackson's record shows me she has been consistent in trying to defend and protect people against harm. That is government's primary job - as Tony's right wing entourage is apt to remind us. Yet he chose to protect Rocketdyne instead."
The letter in the Acorn (see link) by a long time resident of the Knolls and a personal friend of mine powerfully details the importance of the right choice here for all of us, our children and our grandchildren.
Hi voter, not silent, just busy!
Interesting about all the stuff that was posted above here.
One quasi-celebrity (and now looking dubious) endorsement does not trump the endorsement of real people that Hannah-Beth has helped throughout her legislative career.
I wonder if Erin knows Strickland voted against the bill that Hannah-Beth sponsored to keep our kids safe from pesticide poisoning? Or the one that he voted against that would provide health coverage for children with cancer in clinical trials? Or the one that would've removed mercury from children's toys? Or the one that would protect children from pollutants? ... I wonder if she knows about his gruesome environmental record at all...
One thing to keep in mind about the labels....Phony Tony was given that name by local lefties. The Taxin' Jackson label was given to Hannah-Beth by her own hometown paper....three different times.
Nobody subscribes to the News-Press any more. It is a joke now.
You HBJ people crack me up. If Brockovich had of endorsed HBJ you would all be calling her a super star and champion of the little guy.
Quasi-celebrity? Not to HBJ apparently. I have it on good authority that HBJ was actively seeking the Brockovich endorsement, and they may have even had a face to face meeting.
Now for a moment of truth, Marie, with your close ties with HBJ, did HBJ ask Brockovich for her endorsement?
You may want to be careful with your answer, you never know what the next ad will say.
I'd also like to know where Mike Bradbury stands on this Senate Race. It was odd getting the most recent Strickland flyer and not having him on it.
Ron, did you ever think you were being manipulated?
By who, and for what?
I have no idea Ron. That's the truth.
Oh, and Ron, in the interest of full disclosure, I want you to know that I am a volunteer only for Hannah-Beth's campaign. I don't sit in on the campaign staff meetings. So I would have no idea about endorsements, etc.
I am there for my friend, that's all. I am very loyal to my friends.
Brian,
Neo-con is the right-wing philosophy that took over the Republican Party with the rise of Reagan. It applies to both foreign and domestic policies. While it began as a strong anti-communist political movement, it took on moral relativism and became a tool of the religious right. Anti-communism became anti-socialism became anti-liberalism became anti-tax, became anti-government, became Club for Growth, Christian Coalition, etc.
I believe Strickland qualifies as a Neo-Conservative.
Hey Ron, are you still around? I made a good faith attempt to get your question answered and no, Hannah-Beth did NOT seek out the Brockovich endorsement.
http://www.brockovichblog.com/
Here is her blog.
Brian Dennert Politically Left, Grammatically Right!
I am glad you mentioned the importance of getting the candidates names right, it really is a big deal.
I am still for Brain Derennt
~Johnny~
Support Natural Selection
Brian Dennert Politically Left, Grammatically Right!
I am glad you mentioned the importance of getting the candidates names right, it really is a big deal.
I am still for Brain Derennt
~Johnny~
Support Natural Selection
Brian Dennert Politically Left, Grammatically Right!
I am glad you mentioned the importance of getting the candidates names right, it really is a big deal.
I am still for Brain Derennt
~Johnny~
Support Natural Selection
I don't understand why people keep insisting that Tony is bad for the environment. Your voting record doesn't necessarily translate into your worth on an issue, which is true in Tony's case. It's clear that Tony is a true conservative; he doesn't want the government to control every aspect of our lives. Tony understands what I understand. Alternative energy needs to be handled in the private sector, not forced into energy companies by the government. We work best when people like Tony invest their own money to start companies to work out actual solutions for our energy problems. Tony has answers for our crisis, does Hannah Beth? I haven't heard any solutions from her that don't involve expanding the government.
Oscar,
Why would a "true conservative" not want the Rocketdyne site cleaned up and made safe for the residents of the area?
Oscar,
I have been paying attention to the senate race and I haven't heard Tony Strickland's energy policy, beyond that he is involved with a start up, have you?
Where did you see his energy policy?
Phony Tony is going down. It will be the bread line or Wasco. His gumba Jose Angeles is going with him. No more knocking down senior citizens, women and children.
The Phony's energy company is as phony as Tony. NO money, no science, no engineering, no product, nor process, no, no, and no. Just another phony of the Phony Tony.
I don't call him Tony the Phony, I call him Tony the Scumbag. Tony Strickland is in bed with these Wall Street Criminals who have bankrupted the Country. Now Tony's buddies are trying to steal another 700 billion dollars from the taxpayer before they are run out of town in November. If you want a depression and if you want to pay $15 a gallon for gas vote for Tony the Scumbag!
For those Tony Supporters: Oh such hyperbole! Why can’t we just put facts and history out there and let voters decide? Tony Strickland had never voted (not his wife) for a California green energy bill in all the years he and she have served (2006- 2008) in Sacramento! Enough said.
How exactly is Tony Strickland responsible for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout or the price of gas? Last time I checked he wasn't employed by wall street, the federal government or an oil company. The lefty lunatics on this blog will make up anything, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. You may as well accuse Strickland of being somehow responsible for tooth decay.
You wacky liberals crack me up.
This blog is the local left wing noise machine. When Tony wins in November, it will once again prove how gone from reality the local left has become on this blog.
Hannah Beth is going to lose Marta Jorgenson style. Everyone in the real world knows it except the left wing bunker bloggers here.
And good riddance. We don't need anymore public employee union marionettes in Sacramento.
We just had our Senate forum at CLU tonight. It is ironic given the title of this thread "Hannah-Beth Jackson And Tony Strickland Battling For The Middle Ground" that Hannah-Beth was the only senate candidate. The questions were formulated by the Star, the forum was moderated by a CLU professor, Dr. Greg Freeland and CAPC did the legwork. Ferial Masry, 37th Assembly candidate, presented her platform. All eight of the eight CVUSD candiates were there and introduced themselves and their platforms.
Well said, guys. Hannah-Beth seems to be running scared. She didn't show for a debate in Buellton on September 11th sponsored by the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. What say you to that, Miss Katie?
Tony Strickland is going to win this thing hands down. He's so much more engaged than Jackson. She's is exhibiting her usual aloof, distant persona while Tony is out there shaking hands and winning over voters.
Go Tony!!!
Well, IMHO I think 9/11 is a bad day for a political debate. Having said that, I don't know the particulars of how much scheduling effort went into that particular forum. I know we sent out NUMEROUS e-mails to zero in on a date that worked for everyone. The Oxnard forum we are having was a bear.
I've only seen HBJ speak twice - I don't think she is the type to run scared so I believe the spokesperson in the article today. I don't think the SB Taxpayers Association got back to her. An inability to participate due to scheduling or outside circumstances is legit and the reason should be given to the public. Instead, the SB Taxpayers Association tried to lambast her. Makes them look bad and candidates in the future will remember.
I have no clue who will win the race - it is very close. I don't think either candidate is going to win "hands down". The fight will be for the middle and for cross-over votes.
Tactical error to not appear at a forum sponsored by Centrists, the local paper and the political science department of a local university.
It is sad you hold police officers, firefighters, and teachers in such little regard. If you really think the Jorgenson/Gallegly race is going to be as close as Jackson/Strickland then the oxygen on your bubble needs to be turned down. Maybe calm down by listening to your socialist leader Bush some more!
Katie, don't take this the wrong way, but I'd hardly consider CAPC a centrist organization. The reason Strickland didn't appear was the perceived lack of objectivity of this group. It seems to be top-heavy with Democrats and is clearly anti-Strickland. Even the fact that Joe Howry was formulating the questions didn't help. The guy's clearly a Jackson supporter, as are the rest of The Star's editorial board.
According to the VC Star, "Executive Director Joe Armendariz said his group offered to reschedule the Sept. 11 event to accommodate Jackson but went ahead with the Strickland-only presentation after being told Jackson could not accommodate any September dates. He said he understands the candidates have busy schedules, but felt that Jackson should have been able to find at least one open date in September. 'I don't think John McCain and Barack Obama have that problem,' he said".
People on this blog keep excusing HBJ by claiming that she was simply unavailable on 9/11, but it seems obvious that the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association tried to work with her to find alternative dates in the month of September. It is clear that HBJ simply didn't want to participate in an event hosted by the taxpayers association, most likely because she considers them to be a conservative organization. I fail to see the difference between Jackson refusing to participate in a SBTA event and Strickland refusing to participate in a CAPC event. Both candidates seem to be playing the same game of cherry-picking their forums. It is disingenuous for Jackson supporters on this blog to critisize Strickland for skipping out on the CAPC event when their candidate did the same exact thing to the SBTA.
Is it true that Mike Gibson is a member of that group?
Also, the meeting she dodged Strickland for, had 3 other dates it was to be held later in the month. These meetings were not to honor Firefighters but to make the public aware of procedures in the case of another fire like the Gap fire. SHOULD HONOR FIREFIGHTERS EVERYDAY and not use 9/11 as an excuse for political means...HBJ what a FRAUD!
Mongo, we have prominent Republicans both on the Advisory Council and in our membership. It is very much a Centrist organization. Strickland should have appeared. It isn't a good reflection that he lets personal problems color his judgement.
BK - it isn't obvious that the SB Tax goup work to find alternate dates. And the CAPC/CLU/Star forum can't be compared to the SB Tax Association forum - it is apples and organges.
I still think 9/11 is a bad date for any political debate. Somebody wasn't thinking.
Gopher out from under rock. Long time, no see. Grab your traps and poison. This is a public service message from the Ventura County Gopher Awareness Network. When you hear this message, grab your traps and poison.
Bubba, Interesting how you overlook what her campaign manager said, that the group did not come back to them with alternative dates. I know she had things already on her schedule that day.
9/11 was a very poor day to schedule a forum for political candidates, anyway. But since the rank-and-file public safety folks really don't like Strickland anyway, I guess he had nothing better to do that day.
Katie Teague apparently offered multiple dates for her forum.
However, they both accepted at the forum at the Temple last Sunday. Strickland did not do very well, so I see why he's ducking debates.
Did you really just go on the attack for her honoring firefighters on 9/11?
Katie, are you really going to keep pushing the 9/11 excuse? It is plainly obvious that the SB Taxpayers Association tried to find alternate dates that would work for Jackson and she simply refused to participate. Repeating the same excuse over and over does not make it true, especially when the known facts say otherwise. At least be honest for a moment and admit that Jackson dodged the SBTA event. It is her choice to attend whatever events she wants to attend, and avoid events hosted by organizers that she perceives to be hostile toward her candidacy. The same also applies to Strickland. You can't have it both ways.
Also, your claims that CAPC is a "centrist" organization is your opinion. There are many people that are highly suspicious of that claim. Your repeated history of inflammatory attacks against the Stricklands bring into question your impartiality and damage the credibility of your organization. If the leadership of CAPC are Strickland haters it raises serious doubts that they can be fair or impartial in hosting this event.
BK - I don't think it was "painfully obvious" that the SB group tried to find different dates. How is it obvious to you?
Re: CAPC - there are a few people who are suspicious and these are the ones with the most to lose if the status quo is challenged. Can't control that.
I've been very neutral on the Senate Race and the Assembly Race. I have not been neutral on firing Joel Angeles. And now I hear a criminal complaint has been filed. Does this make me a Strickland hater? I don't think so.
In our forums, the questions are provided by the Ventura County Star and the forum itself is moderated by a CLU professor. Pretty impartial if you ask me. But you keep spinning, that's what you a good at.
So, here is how it works. Lefty bloggers here read a newspaper, then connect the story to Strickland.
On this blog Strickland is a "neocon" who is behind the bipartisan bailout, who created the gas crisis, and gives cigarettes to children.
Today, it'll be why doesn't Tony Strickland support gun control in Finland or he'll be behind the bad milk from China.
You Strickland conspiracy nuts need more family visits to your mental institution.
Can't wait to read how Tony is connected to Hurricane season.
Sorry BK I misquoted you - make it "plainly obvious" not "painfully obvious". Perhaps you can back that statement up with some re-scheduling request e-mails. Until then, it looks like an opportunistic ploy to me.
Funny - more often than not, CAPC has been accused of being a stealth Republican organization. To now be accused of being a Democrat organization means we must be doing something right.
We are educating and informing people on the issues and candidates so that they can make the best choices. Boycotting any opportunity to introduce yourself and present your agenda shows disrespect for the voters you hope to represent. I have no idea what happened between HBJ and the SB Taxpayers - wasn't involved, and it's up to them to get the truth out. I do know how hard we worked to give the candidates an opportunity to present themselves to the public.
At last night's forum, all eight candidates for the CVUSD attended and appeared glad to have the opportunity. I don't know the party registration of any of them. They got to meet each other, hear each other's platforms, and got a chance to practice their campaign speeches in public. All worthy of our time. Attendees told me they were better informed and know better how they will vote.
Yes, it's true Mike Gibson is a member of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. How clever (and conincidental) that their forum was scheduled on 9/11 knowing that Jackson had previous commitments and would have to turn them down, thus negating the bad press Phony Tony was getting for not attending the CAPC forum.
Gibson and his cronies are Machiavellian to the end I see.
Sorry Not Gibson, I don't even compare the two forums. One was fair and one wasn't. One was for people interested in hearing from the candidates and the other was a set up. I don't see CAPC dissing a candidate for not showing up. They are a class act. The Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association has a right wing agenda.
9/11 is a terrible day for a political forum. Just terrible.
I agree with you, Conservative Republican. The right-wingers, like Gibson and his band of goose-steppers, are contending that CAPC has some sort of liberal political bias, which is ludicrous.
While it's true that Katie Teague and Leslie Cornejo, its co-founders, may have a beef with the Stricklands, this shouldn't taint the entire organization and the other co-sponsors of the event (The Ventura County Star and Cal Lutheran University).
Once again we have on display the typical liberal tactic of making up your own story when it doesn't fit with the facts, then repeat it enough times until it becomes the truth. The Executive Director of the SB Taxpayers Association stated that his group offered to reschedule his event to accommodate Jackson. That statement was printed by the VC Star, and the accuracy of that statement has not been challenged by the Star or by Jackson. Why is it so difficult to admit that Jackson dodged the SBTA event? The lefties on this blog are like little children who deny that they had their hand in the cookie jar even though their face is covered with cookie crumbs.
Last week in the LA Times they published an article about a study in Europe that proved Conservatives are three times more frightened than Liberals. This proved what I already knew that guys like Bubba Kidd and Mango Flamo are gutless cowards. Strickland/McCain/Bush pushed to have "deregulation", they wanted to break down barriers so corporations could steal money and in return they give contributions to punks like Strickland. Strickland is scared sh*tless because if he and Audra both lose they may not be able to make their payments on their massive mansion in Moorpark that is paid for by the taxpayer and their political donors. I was watching the movie "300" last night and it was clear the "300" were Liberals who believed in freedom and the cowards who stayed back were Conservatives like Bubba and Mango who would rather surrender than fight like true patriots.
Last week in the LA Times they published an article about a study in Europe that proved Conservatives are three times more frightened than Liberals. This proved what I already knew that guys like Bubba Kidd and Mango Flamo are gutless cowards. Strickland/McCain/Bush pushed to have "deregulation", they wanted to break down barriers so corporations could steal money and in return they give contributions to punks like Strickland. Strickland is scared sh*tless because if he and Audra both lose they may not be able to make their payments on their massive mansion in Moorpark that is paid for by the taxpayer and their political donors. I was watching the movie "300" last night and it was clear the "300" were Liberals who believed in freedom and the cowards who stayed back were Conservatives like Bubba and Mango who would rather surrender than fight like true patriots.
Last week in the LA Times they published an article about a study in Europe that proved Conservatives are three times more frightened than Liberals. This proved what I already knew that guys like Bubba Kidd and Mango Flamo are gutless cowards. Strickland/McCain/Bush pushed to have "deregulation", they wanted to break down barriers so corporations could steal money and in return they give contributions to punks like Strickland. Strickland is scared sh*tless because if he and Audra both lose they may not be able to make their payments on their massive mansion in Moorpark that is paid for by the taxpayer and their political donors. I was watching the movie "300" last night and it was clear the "300" were Liberals who believed in freedom and the cowards who stayed back were Conservatives like Bubba and Mango who would rather surrender than fight like true patriots.
Sorry for posting three times, I also forgot to mention the new times poll showing in Ca Obama 50% and McCant 40%. Also bad news for Bubba and Mango that Prop 8 is going down big time! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks butt flea for once again putting on display the ravings of the left-wing lunatic fringe. What other goofy, illogical liberal responses can we get posted here? I haven't seen a gopher alert in the last hour.
I don't think it's ever been realistic to expect McCain to take California. It's a long shot at best. Prop. 8 - just being used to turn out right wing voters. But Californians won't vote to take away rights/cross the state Supreme Court/change the Constitution.
Let's clear the air!
How many times did you contact the other candidate to attempt a reschedule (please don't include wrong numbers dialed, statements to reporters saying you'd "be happy to invite him/her",etc)?
What form did these contacts take (email, snail mail, blog challenge, bullhorn, etc)?
Who was responsible for generating the questions for the candidates?
What excuse did your candidate give for NOT attending?
Maybe both candidates' teams can answer.
Bubba Kidd you are trying to reinvent history just like you did with the Joel Angeles fracas. HBJ's team did say they were not contacted by SB Tax and it was published in the Star. You are lying.
But what really sticks out is the inappropriateness of the date of the forum - 9/11. Really bad day.
Let's put that to the test and see who is attempting to reinvent history. My information comes from a VC Star article titled "Some candidates snub events, sponsors say", published by Tim Herdt on 9/24/08. In it it clearly states that Executive Director Joe Armendariz of the Santa Barbara Taxpayers Association offered to reschedule the event to accommodate Jackson but was told that Jackson would not accommodate any September dates.
But don't just take my word for it, click on the link I have provided and verify the article for yourself.
Our friend Reinvent History says that I'm lying and states, "HBJ's team did say they were not contacted by SB Tax and it was published in the Star."
OK then, please provide a link to the published article from the Star that backs up your claim that Jackson was not contacted by the SBTA or offered a date other than 9/11.
I'm waiting.
It is soooo close to going over 100 posts!
GS, we write numerous e-mails. When we don't hear back we USUALLY call. Scheduling an event is hard and we try to accomodate everyone. We start with a general block of time and go from there. In our forum last night there were lots of e-mails and lots of calls. Tony Strickland did not participate because of me and because of CAPC.
The questions are formulated by the Ventura County Star. NOBODY else sees them - not even me. The forum is hosted and moderated by the political science department of CLU.
I'm not with either campaign but this is what happened with the CAPC/Star/CLU forum. I hope this answers your questions.
BK - are you being delibrately obtuse?
From that same article "Sandra Sanchez, Jackson's campaign manager, said the Santa Barbara group did not follow up by proposing any specific alternate dates."
I just gave GS the details he wanted for the CAPC forum. Sounds like it would be helpful if SB did the same.
It has been my experience that one has to provide concrete information because candidates are busy.
All Timm's article basically says is that one team said this and the other said that. Not much proof of anything. Since we won't be privy to the actual communications between sponsors and candidates we can only rely on each other's words. So this issue really is a wash.
That leaves the issue of which forum can legitimately claim objectivity and which can not. I know that the VC Star has tried its best to remain neutral in the past and so expect Howry's questioning to be as fair as can be expected. I don't know anything about the SB Taxpayers group nor whether it's the group's leadership who' generate the questions. Anyone know more?
Thanks, Katie! I believe Jackson's team when they say they could not open up dates for a September forum. To be honest, I don't trust Strickland's team.
I'm curious though: Strickland's spokesman claims Republican candidates wouldn't participate in the forum because of the sponsor, CAPC. Yet CAPC stated all along that it had no input on the matter of the questions the VC Star's Howry would ask.
Is it the position of county republicans that the VC Star is so tainted by political bias that it refuses to speak to voters through the county's broadest media vehicle?
Or are county Repubs sending voters a message that, as state senator, Strickland's lobbyist handlers will not allow him to sit down with Dems to collaborate on new legislation?
Since Stricklands' already signed a pledge to act as spoiler& obstructionist on virtually all legislative activity, which would continue Sacramento's budget gridlock through the next election cycle his reasons for NOT attending the forum are highly suspect.
I don't know what you guys are whining about. Both candidates appeared together at the men's group event at the Temple Adat Elohim, which was apparently cordial and informational according to the organizers. They are also both scheduled to make joint appearances at the Ventura Chamber of Commerce and at a forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters.
If Strickland wants to blow off the CAPC event that is his prerogative. It is certainly understandable given the attacks that that have been made against him in the past by CAPC leadership. Attending this forum would give the Stickland haters in CAPC legitimacy, which is something that Stickland apparently doesn't want to do.
At the same time, it is clear that Jackson has no interest in participating in a SB Taxpayers Association event, otherwise she would have found a way to work with them to schedule an appearance. Perhaps she considers the group too conservative, or that the leadership contains people that she considers hostile to her candidacy. It is Jackson's right to blow off that event as well for all the same reasons.
It seems like both candidates will have the opportunity to reach out to voters at the forums of their choosing. Both seem interested in events hosted by neutral parties who don't have members who have a history of antagonistic activities directed toward either candidate. If CAPC wants to take their ball and go home they can do as they please. In the end it will be the voters who decide the election, not CAPC and not the SBTA.
Gopher Alert. The gopher has come out from under its rock to spread its hate. Grab your poison and traps. This is an official alert from the Ventura County Gopher Termination Program.
Ventura County will be far better without gophers. Do not attempt to communicate with gophers. Terminate them.
Just back from our West County Forum tonight. Should be an article in tomorrow's paper on the BOS debate. Had about 45 to 50 people. Also heard from Dr. Mark Lisagor and Dr. Ramon Flores - they are running for the Ventura County Board of Education. Dr. Mark Lisagor is running in the third district. Dr. Florez is in the 5th. Both were great!
Also had a pro/con presentation on Prop 11 - Redistricting and a pro/con on Measure U - Unification.
Vote Yes on Prop 11 - CAPC endorsed it!
Katie,
If you write a report or send in photos I will post them.
Grab your air freshener and toilet bowl cleaner. This is an official CRAP alert. Don't listen to his hate, just flush him.
Yep, down the drain goes the dead gopher. That is one option. I prefer, however, to feed them to the crows until the new "no feed crows" law starts. Until then, happy crows; unhappy gophers.
Wow CRAP-925, did you think of that one all by yourself? Golly.
Let's see, so far your contributions to this thread include gopher alerts and hurling random insults at Stickland, Angeles, and Brockovich. The good news is that you only misspelled your own name once (CPA-854).
This was posted on another political blog - Democracy Watch by Helen Conly.
Why don't the Stricklands fire this guy! He is Audra's Chief of Staff and Tony's campaign manager. Bad news for both of them.
He gives all Republicans a bad name.
By CAP-082 on September 26, 2008 9:16 AM
The Sheriff forwarded its investigation of the alleged crimes to the District Attorney with a request that criminal charges be filed against Jose Angeles, Chief-of-Staff to Audra Strickland. Mr. Angeles was represented by an attorney during the investigation. The Case No. is 0816326. This report contained interviews with more than one dozen witnesses as well as medical records of the victim(s). The investigation took three months to complete.
The District Attorney received the complaint from the Sheriff on September 9. The complaint was assigned a Case No. of 2008037706. After more than two weeks, the District Attorney apparently determined that he would recuse himself from the Case and forward it to the State Attorney General. It is my understanding that the recusal letter was prepared three days ago and forwarded to the County Counsel's Office.
You will all notice that when Bubba Kidd tries feebly to insult people he always uses terms like "Butt Flea" or "Crap-925". I asked a psychiatrist friend of mine to read Bubba's posts and give a diagnoses. He believes that Bubba constantly refers to the male rectal area because his sub-concious is trying to suppress his acute feelings of latent homosexuality. I for one don't support Prop 8 (which is losing big time in polling) but Bubba does. You often find that men like Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggart and others publicly bash homosexuals, yet practice homosexuality in secret. I think this goes back to the study from Europe and in the L.A. Times that Conservatives are three times more frightened of everything than Liberals. Gay men who are liberals have the guts to come out of the closet and say who they are, Conservative males who are gay hide in the closet, or bathroom stall, and lack the guts to come out. On a side note everyone in Washington DC agrees that McCain was worthless in terms of the bail out and if you want to really laugh hard read the L.A. Times today, main section on media and read Sarah Palin's direct interview quotes, they really show what a complete moron she is!
Ah shucks, the gopher is upset and even found a spelling error. This is one sharp gopher. Now down that hole, my little furry blind vermin. Down your hole you go. Plug up the hole with dirt. Watch out, my furry little friend. Traps are hard to spot in dark tunnels. Poison tastes like sugar, but it leads to one heck of a bleeding tummy.
Now down the hole you go, furry one. Oh, by the way, I just saw a five foot gopher snake heading down your hole.
I think it speaks volumes when our friend CAP once again engages in gay baiting by using accusations of homosexuality against others as an insult. And when are the local liberals going to speak out against this type of behavior, or does he once again get a free pass because he is one of their own? This from the same guy who called Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter a "whore". I guess this makes him both a misogynist and a gay baiter. Your parents must be so proud.
Anybody else tired of the same one note rantings of Elaine Freeman and Mike Gibson? Can't they move to Wyoming or Alaska please? Nothing can ever be discussed with you two around.
And Cap - give the gopher BS a rest. You have much more interesting things to say without your own one-note stupidity.
Keep sputtering gopher. Where the heck the vermin came up with "gay bashing" is beyond me. By the way, I can't recall anyone calling Palin's daughter a whore. I think the phrase was "whoring around". In gopher speak perhaps this would have been better understood as "sleeping around" or "having unprotected sex out of wedlock". But then again, I can't speak gopher squeek.
In order to spot a gopher, keep the following in mind. Gophers range in length from 5 to 18 in. (13 to 45 cm), including a short, sparsely haired tail. They have chisel-like front teeth; long, strong claws on their forefeet; and large fur-lined pouches that open externally on each side of the mouth. Coat colour varies from almost white to brown or black. Gophers live alone in extensive, shallow underground burrows marked by a series of rounded earth mounds on the surface. They feed on the underground parts of plants, which they obtain as they tunnel along. Gophers are deadly afraid of gopher poison, gopher traps and Jim Dantona.
Three f-in stooges, that's what you guys are.
Come on Mongoose. Make it four. Gopher control is a public health & safety issue.
Gay baiting? Bubba you are the one who constantly talks about Crap and Butts, etc. You are the one who is for Prop 8, not I. I said I am against Prop 8 as I believe the Government should stay out of the bedroom. Guys like McCain and Bubba claim they want less government, but that is a lie, they want big government telling people who they can love and marry. If you go to the CNN website today you will read the another Conservative writer has said Sarah Palin should step down as her interviews have proven her to be in over her head. In terms of "whoring around", don't you know CAP that Bubba and Conservatives believe that if you are white, 17 and pregnant, no problem, but if you are in the same situation and of color, then you have whored around and will be on welfare. Of course Bubba and the GOP have no problem in giving Wall Street millionaires 700 billion in welfare, I mean a bail out.
You hit the nail on the head, Daddy. The right wing world of Palin, Gopher, Strickland, etc. live by a double standard. They can lie, cheat on their spouses, have moral and academic failures as children, take illegal drugs, drink and drive, commit fraud, commit crimes against humanity, and still be self-forgiven by the grace of God. Then they regroup, redefine virtues and continue to attack the poor, gays, and those less fortunate. They are unworthly of any respect. It is for these reasons that I call them gophers.
Bubba,
If you are waiting for me to delete the references and gay baiting, you know it is my policy to do so by email.
Once again, I now need to go through and not only delete the first post, but posts that refer to it, and posts that refer to posts that refer to it.
I don't have time tonight to go through and do that but I will soon.
I delete gay baiting references more frequently then you know.
Actually Brian, I think that those types of posts should remain so that everyone knows the folks who engage in that sort of hateful behavior. Honestly, I find it astonishing how often this issue seems to come up. Gopher alerts are harmless enough, but you have to be a real dirtbag to engage in repeated gay baiting. People can think whatever they want about me, and I'm not asking anyone to come to my defense. But at the very least folks should speak out against gay baiting.
BTW, I've never said a thing about Prop 8, but for the record I fully support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. There are some narrow-minded goons around here to want to like to stereotype anyone that disagrees with them politically, but, ironically, those individuals seem to be the most intolerant and prejudiced of all.
Has it occurred to anyone that Strickland's offering the voters the promise of a part-time elected representative?
If he's so involved in developing alternative energy and running his lobbying business will he have time to attend to the increasingly growing, complicated needs of his constituents?
And as a private sector exec who's industry is regulated by the State, will Strickland be working against all Californians as he's done so many times in the past?
Gopher out from under rock.
OK, Brian, I'm ready to debate the debate now.
HBJ and Strickland Bloggers et al:
With apologies to Shakespeare, "..me thinks the ideologbloggers protest too much.."
Each of your candidates refused to participate in a debate sponsored by an organization which each thought (rightly or wrongly), was biased towards their opponent.
It seems that both of your candidates, in a spirit of bipartisan-banality, have followed Senator Obama's dubious lead in June, when he ducked Senator McCain's proposal of ten, one-on-one, town-hall style debates before the voters.
Had Senator Obama agreed, it might have revolutionized our political process and started a real change in the tone of Presidential debates!! But alas, "The One," is more comfortable with a Hollywood set background of Greek columns, relying on teleprompters, and pontificating before an adoring crowd of thousands, kept at a respectful distance in the nose-bleed seats at a stadium.
Too bad both for the Country and the 19th State Senate District voters. Local political score: HBJ: 1, Tony Strickland: 1, 19th State Senate District Voters and Taxpayers: ZERO!!
This is battling for the Middle-Ground? NOT!
NostraDemus
NostraDemus,
Have you read Bacevich's "Limits of Power"? If so, what do you think of his notion that both Obama & McCain, if elected, will naturally attempt to expand the Imperial Presidency? If Bacevich is correct, doesn't it explain WHY no candidate really wants to encourage town hall-type democracy?
Nostradamus,
But, alas, you are correct. Obama dodged McCain's proposal for the town hall style debates in favor of a large stage, with a regal backdrop, reminiscent of ancient Greece, where he could launch his pearls of wisdom into the awaiting throngs who would respond predictably with thunderous applause, with the occasional person collapsing in the midst of the crowd, so overcome by the emotion that filled the air.
Did you notice Obama's posture at last night's debate by the way? There he stood, looking off into the distance like the second coming of JFK. Gimme a break!
Mongo,
Appearances matter: Richard Nixon learned that in 1960.
If McCain wants to come out on stage and posture himself as the national curmudgeon, it probably isn't going to help him except with the other curmudgeons out there.
I believe Nostradamus was referring to the Senate race. Both HBJ and TS are trying to entice the DTS voter and the cross-over voter - the mailbox of the DTS voter has been inundated with mailers. But does either candidate have a history to back up their words?
Words are cheap - who walks the walk?
Harold,
I guess when it comes to foreign policy and national defense matters I'd rather have a seasoned, knowledgable curmudgeon than a vague, philosophizing novice.
How about the curmudgeon's "seasoned, knowledgable" choice for VP? (Click on link.)
Beg to disagree NostraDemus- I find it hard to believe that voters had any interest in 10 debates. It is tedious enough to listen to talking points through 3 of them and there are not enough voters watching the 3 that are scheduled. Like much of what the Late Great Straight Talker proposes these days (gas tax holidays, Palin for VP, cancellation of debates to "save" the economy) it is pure gimmick.
And with all due respect Mr. Gibson - just because the curmudgeon repeatedly states, "Senator Obama does not understand" (to try and convince both the public and himself that he is vastly more knowledgeable, and his young opponent naive) does not mean that it is so.
While it is true that many of us may be "older but wiser," continuing to fight past wars by substituting Iraq in their place is not a very wise strategy at all.
Sad to watch a man whose political stewardship I once respected become a shadow of his former self.
McCain has a great deal of experience, in being wrong. Wrong about campaign finance, wrong about his S&L involvement, wrong about Iraq, wrong about the Economy, wrong about his backing by DC lobbyists, wrong on VP choice, etc etc. His experience says he should have been dropped from national politics long ago.
OFF SUBJECT: but I just want to let everyone know that AB 2447 has passed in the Assembly and will be going to the Governator for signature. The content of the bill is something that we've been pushing for several years now and mandates strict oversight of development in fire-prone areas like the Knolls, especially when those areas have limited means of escape.
The practical effect for the Knolls is that it is extremely unlikely that any subdivision or development will take place there until major public safety initiatives are undertaken to protect lives and property in the event of a fire.
Thank you Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento)!
GS:
Greetings fellow Dennert-Blogger.
I have not had the opportunity to read Bacevich's book, "Limits of Power," but I soon will. Notwithstanding that, your question as to whether Senator McCain or Senator Obama might be more inclined and tempted to use personal persuasion and the powers of his office to increase the "Imperial Presidency" is an excellent one.
My analysis of both Presidential candidates' personal life-stories, geopolitical world views, and political records tells me that the Senator Obama, more than Senator McCain, would be more inclined to do so, for reasons of political opportunity, messianic temperment, and overtly provocative geo-political rhetoric.
Regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, it is my view that there will be a much larger Democratic majority in Congress, come November 5th. Perhaps, even a 60+ vote cloture-proof Senate. Sadly, history has given us multiple several examples of Messianic-Presidents, armed with overly compliant Congressional majorities more concerned with advancing the President's personal or their own partisan political interests, rather than what arguably were the Country's best interests (witness President Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin's Resolution and President Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom).
The best American geo-political foreign policy is bi-partisan, requiring hard-fought compromises won in the political trenches by strong leaders from both sides of the aisle (witness the historical, bi-partisan combination of political leadership skills and talents exercised by Democratic President Truman and Republican Senator Vandenberg, in devising, supporting and sustaining the "containment doctrine" for the Soviet Union. And, more than 30 years later, the unprecedented landmark efforts by Republican President Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neil to support the hard-fought struggles by Lech Walesa and Solidarnosc to break the scrouge of Soviet Communist imperialism in Poland, which ultimately lead to the dissolution of the Soviet Union).
Unlike Senator Obama, Senator McCain, has personally experienced the horrors of war and the brutality of torture. In spite of that, he, along with Senator Kerry, another Vietnam War veteran, were instrumental in negotiating a historic rapprochment with Vietnam, in order to bring some sense of national closure to the issue of POW's-MIA's and provide a basis for future international cooperation between our two countries.
Finally, I find Senator Obama's repeated public pronouncements regarding his willingness to unilaterally use military force to violate the territorial sovereignity of the State of Pakistan, a nuclear power, dangerously provocative and geo-politically, immature. Senator Obama needs to understand that trying to "..Out-Cowboy," George Bush is not the way to "tack to the bi-partisan center" in foreign policy.
Before he continues to utter such provocative statements before rapt audiences, Senator Obama should crack the history books and take head the lessons of the past by consulting the writings of President Theodore Roosevelt, ("..Speak softly, but carry a big stick..").
To paraphrase Saint Thomas Moore, the patron saint of lawyers, philosophers, and politicans, "...What does America profit if it sells its political soul in pursuit of an ill-conceived promise of the hypothetical capturing and/or killing of a renknown Wahabist spectral monster, who may or may not be in Pakistan.."
Especially when the current political situation in Pakistan is so fragile, so dangerous, so amenable to the siren song of Islamo-fascist mullahs who mobilze scores of thousands by threatening to use the "Islamic Bomb against the Crusaders," if Pakistan's territorial integrity is violated by American troops.
NostraDemus
Well said, Nostrademus, though my viewpoint of the use of force is clearly opposed to yours. I don't support the Bush Doctrine but I do support the idea of hot pursuit, ie, chasing a serious threat across sovereign borders....IF it makes military & political sense. Pakistan has always been a greater threat to the US than Iraq and has been, for some time, openly protecting Taliban & other global terrorist groups. They've also traded nuke wherewithal at will, despite Musharif's claim to be a western ally. As far as I'm concerned Pakistan has waived the right to sovereignty. We lost that country to the islamo-fascists long ago.
With regards to McCain, I believe he is a self-obsessed power seeker who would rationalize his way into an American Dictatorship, as soon as conditions offered the opportunity. Obama, I'm not certain about. I'm not sure he WOULDN'T
grab such an opportunity but I feel he'd do it only under the most extreme circumstances. After all, for a short while even Lincoln reigned as virtual dictator during the war years.
I think Hillary Clinton would have been the only one of ALL the candidates who would actually have tried to place limits on the imperial presidency. Her entire political career seems to have been one of empowering Congress and the People, rather than the Presidency. But unless the choice of Biden as VP was part of her deal with Obama, we may never know.
GS:
Thank you for the complement and spirited cyberdebate on the advisability of hot pursuit border crossings by U.S. Special Forces in the Northwest Froniter provinces of Pakistan.
From my point of view, it's not so much that your viewpoint on the use of force is opposed to mine, as it is that it's different. As Maurice Chevalier was fond of saying, "...Vive la difference!.."
Only history will decide which is the optimal course of action, Senator Obama's or Senator McCain's, regarding benefits not only to the United States, but to the international rule of law espoused by civilized, sovereign nations.
The essential point I'm trying to make in my argument is that it in the Great Game of Geopolitics, it is not so much the impulsive skills of an "American Cowboy," be it far right or far left that matters most, but rather the discrete, dispassionate and dispositive skills of Michael Corleone.
Discretion is the better part of counterrorism operations, as it is valor!
To that end, so far, in my view, at least rhetorically, Senator Obama appears to me to be much more like Sonny, than Michael Corleone.. And we all know what happened when Sonny's hot temper clouded his judgment prior to taking consequential actions.
Ciao Commendatori
NostraDemus
I find this debate about acting in Pakistan a little stale now that we are actually doing it. Seems like the Pentagon has said Obama is correct.
Are you telling me IF we find out Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan and their government refuses or cannot do something about it you would not want our government to act?
Unfortunately, history unfolds too slowly for my tastes...and the only thing wrong with getting old is that it takes up all your time.
Have you forgotten that Michael Corleone started out as innocent, naive and also rash...and, if not for being led step by step by faithful, well-intentioned advisors, would also have been sleeping with the fish?
Realpolitikally speaking, however, Obama's Pakistan stance is mere political pandering (but in a good way!). I don't believe he'll invade Pakistan any more than he'll charge into Quebec but its a stance he needs to take to compete with McCain (who I believe WILL use a tactical nuke in the MEast at some point just to prove what big cajones he has).
GS,
He didn't say he was up for invading Pakistan, but what is the difference between Barack Obama's position and the Pentagon, which has been going into Pakistan?
IF Pakistan wouldn't act but we knew where Bin Laden was you wouldn't support action across a border?
No. He didn't say anything about "invading" Pakistan, other than in the sense of violating it's borders IF there was a realistic chance of capturing or killing Bin Laden (who I don't believe exists any longer). But that's hot pursuit and I'm all for it. Like I said, through its activities Pakistan has forfeited any right of sovereignty.
Obama may have adopted the Pentagon's position on hot pursuit but I think he only did it because he realized that his No Preconditions statement was about to relegate his candidacy to the has-been pile. I happen to agree with his statement but at that point in the campaigning it was clearly a foreign policy blunder.
GS,
Isn't that just common sense that is widely agreed upon? If almost everyone agrees why did you bring it up?
Depends on what you mean by "that". Obama's talk of invading? The idea of hot pursuit? His adoption of pentagon policy? Pakistan's sovereignty?
The reason I bring them up is that the conversation with Nostrademus has led to these things.
Brian - THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for pointing out what McBush loyalists conveniently ignore. We ARE crossing Pakistani borders. It is 7 years too late - but Obama was right when he pledged to do so and a lame duck Bush administration has finally discovered the balls to begin doing so.
NostraDemus, unfortunately your own thoughtful intelligence betrays you now (influenced no doubt by your anger at Hillary's loss)
Sonny McCain is the emotional reactionary still seeking vengeance for wars long passed while Obama views this war with a far more objective eye - an eye that has always been on the real target.
And since you are fond of Godfather parallels - you should recognize Obama's stance on openly talking to the enemy.
"Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer."
Reagan understood this. FDR understood this.
Tragically, we have distanced ourselves from both friend and enemy in the last 7 years of "with us or against us" absolutism.
Cosa NostraDemus - it is time for you to make peace with your Democratic "familia" again.
Let me clarify:
Do any of you really support NOT going crossing into Pakistan IF we know where Osama Bin laden or top Al Queda targets are hiding AND Pakistan will not or cannot do anything about it?
I think I was clear: I'd chase the SOB across ANY border if it makes military & political sense. Obviously we're not going to chase him imto Red Square and start WWIII. Nor would we send a battalion of Marines if we found out he was hiding in Switzerland. But Pakistan's fair game, IMHO.
I am glad you agree with Barack Obama on this issue.