Stephen-thanks for the blog. Its nice to see a fresh new angle to offset the others. I'll be reading.

HBJ, a law breaker? Can't be, just ask her surrogates.

This doesn't really surprise me. What does is her accusation that others will do anything to get elected. It appears that she thinks laws are for everyone else.

Steve,

Thanks for the fresh perspective. I'm getting pretty worn out fighting the liberal machine cranking it out on the Dennert blog. Look forward to the opportunity to offer my views.

Mongo:

You seem to be of two minds. Don't worry your secret is safe with me, I won't tell anybody that you are writing to yourself on your new blog.

You have the best hair of any political operative in the country. Congrats on the new blog Steve!

I remember Hannah-Beth as my representative in the Assembly when I lived in Santa Barbara. She was absolutely horrible in terms of being responsive to her constituents and listening to their viewpoints, unless, of course, she agreed with your position.

If you had a complaint, or wanted to express an opposing view on something, she didn't even want to hear about it. Her staff were all trained in the same mode of thinking. Rather than listening respectfully to your opinion or complaint, they would actually interrupt you as you were speaking and try and persuade you to see it their way.
It was extremely frustrating.

She is largely beholden to the Santa Barbara/Montecito limousine liberal crowd who support her campaign financially and worship the ground she walks on. Her other base of support is the unions and the trial lawyers who also give generously to her campaign and expect her to support all the labor and (so-called) consumer protection legislation that their lobbyists can muster.

I thought I had escaped her when I moved to Ventura, but, lo and behold, she is now running to represent me again in the State Senate. Yikes!!!

I am sure you don't mind when President Bush poses with the military in uniform as did during ther last election for political gain. I smell hypocrisy. Talk about real issues not this kind of junk. The right is out of step and ammunition in this election.

Brian,

Well, since you brought up the issue of hypocrisy, how about Hannah-Beth Jackson getting tobacco money laundered into her campaign, via Senator Ron Calderon, and then getting up on her high horse and criticizing Strickland for doing the same thing?

These are real issues, my friend, not just the ones that suit your agenda.

Dear Mr. Flamo,

Ok, let's talk about Tobacco money and its influence on those who take it.

The first thing I want to make clear is that I am opposed to any politician taking money from special Interests such as Tobacco, Oil or the Pharmaceutical industries. I am even more opposed to politicians looking out for theses special interest groups over the greater good of the people.

The facts are that Republicans take far more money from special interest groups like tobacco. Here is a nice little breakdown of the facts.

Republican candidates received 78% of the Tobacco industries contributions in the 2005-2006 election cycle and 100% of party contributions in 2005-2006 went to the Republican Party. In the 2003-2004 election cycle, $55,000 was given to the Democratic Party and $624,654 went to the Republican Party. In the 2005-2006 election cycle the Democratic party received no monies from the tobacco industry and the Republican Party received $1,433,300 in contributions. In the 2003-2004 election cycle, the tobacco industry spent $258,694 in campaign contributions to Republican legislators and $132,500 to Democratic legislators. In the 2005-2006 election cycle the tobacco industry spent $316,320 in campaign contributions for Republican legislators and $90,500 for Democratic legislators. In 2003-2004, of the $1,083,448 that was contributed to the Republicans and Democrats, $895,948 went to the Republicans (83%) compared to $187,500 that went to the Democrats (17%). Of the $1,895,584 that was contributed to the Republicans and Democrats in 2005-2006, $1,797,484 went to the Republicans (95%) compared to only $98,100 to Democrats (5%).When you talk about money going to democrats indirectly you are talking about a few pennies compared to the Republicans. That money did not go far among all the candidates.

Now let's talk about what the Tobacco Companies got for their money from their Republican friends.

Tony Strickland voted against SB 757, 2001 which allowed the Department of Health Services to conduct stings on business selling tobacco to minors, SB 757, 2001. The bill was passed into law anyway. Strickland also voted against restricting non face-to-face sales of cigarettes ,SB 1016, 2003. The purpose of this bill was to make it more difficult to sell Tobacco products to children over the internet. The measure passed anyway and was signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger, a Republican in case you hadn't noticed. Tony Strickland failed to vote on a measure which would have prohibited self-service sales of cigarettes or free distribution of tobacco products on publicly accessible property, SB 1510, 2000).

This voting record shows that Tony Strickland is for allowing the Tobacco industry to peddle poison to children. Even if Hannah-Beth Jackson did receive a few dollars indirectly from the Tobacco Companies, it was unsolicited, unlike Tony Strickland who has asked for the Tobacco Companies support, and it did no affect her positions on anti Tobacco legislation. The Tobacco Companies got nothing for their money from her unlike what they got from the Republicans.

The photograph in question of Hannah-Beth Jackson is old, taken when she was still in the State Senate and her posing with them was not a violation of the law.

So, your point seems to be that it's OK to accept money from tobacco companies, as long as you know how to launder it into your campaign. Interesting thesis...

FYI, Jackson never served in the State Senate, she served in the State Assembly, where she was an abysmal representative of the interests of taxpayers, having voted for every tax increase that came before her. Thus, the nickname, "Taxin' Jackson."

Even if the picture was taken when she was in the Assembly, it was still a violation of law to pimp herself through a local fire department.

You know my point was not that it is ok to launder money. The current administration has shown us the perceived virtues of that.

I am sorry I swapped her past service for her current caniddacy. I am doing this at work and in a hurry. You know that in paragraph two of my comment, It is not ok to take money from the tobacco companies or other special interest groups such as oil and pharmacueticals. My point is that even if she did get a small amount of money from the tobacco companies, see the statistics in my previous post, they got nothing from it in the way of favorable votes on pro tobacco legislation. Where Tony Strickland has received large amounts of money from the Tobacco companies and in return he voted to block legislation that would restrict the sale of tobacco products to children. Something I found rather foul, how about you?

What about Jackson's record as a tax-and-spend legislator? Don't you think we have enough of those in the Legislature already?

Have you forgotten about the $15 billion State budget deficit that Jackson helped perpetuate when she was in office by continually voting in favor of spending more and more each year on programs that State revenues could not possibly sustain?

I think we need someone who is going to act as a watchdog for taxpayers, not another taxer-spender. Tony Strickland has proven himself to be someone who will look out for the taxpayers, vote conservatively on the budget, and help get the State's economy back on track. Those are the most important issues this election year.

Hi Flamo,

The major contributor to the states budget deficit is Califonria's initiative structure where the money is allocated to programs by the voters. The funds are mandated by law and state legislators have to spend that money regardless of state revenues. We need to remove initiatives from the ballot.

The budget increase by more than 40% has occured since Hannh-Beth Jackson was termed out so don't blame her.

The states financial crisis has gotten much worse since Arnold became Governor. His special elections cost millions and were an absolute waste of money. His solution to the budget crisis is to borrow a play from the Bush administrations book on how to tank an economy and country by borrowing like a school kid with a credit card. He should be recalled for financial mismanagement.

There are other reasons for the states financial crisis and many of them can be tied to the horrible national economy courtesy of the Bush Administration. Our disgraceful national budget deficit caused by tax cuts for the wealthy during a time of war, his borrowing has caused the dollar to become next to worthless, the only currencies doing worse than ours are a handful of developing African nations. State revenues are down due to a huge drop in property tax revenue caused by the sub-prime loans debacle, put in place by Republican deregulation of the mortgage industry. Republicans spend without any regard to revenues collected.

Personal income tax revenues are down due to the high unemployment rate again a gift of the Bush and Republican administration.

The last time there was a budget deficit was under a Democratic Administration. If you want a fiscally conservative responsible government you have to vote Democrat. The only tax payer that Tony Strickland will look out for is the top 1%.

Tony Strickland does not look out for the well being of the citizens and tax payers of the State of California

Brian,

Wow, typical liberal. Blame the electorate for the State's budget problems instead of the Legislators who vote to adopt the State budget each year. If only those dumb voters out there would get in line and support our wonderful liberal, spendaholic elected officials, everything would be just dandy.

Pretty unbelievable, but, at the same time, quite predictable, considering the source.

Hey Frank,

Did you even bother to look into whether or not that was an official City of Oxnard Fire Dept. patch? It's not. Sorry to ruin your "gotcha" moment.

I just looked at the Oxnard Fire Web site. Sure looks like their patch to me...

Flamo,

Your tendancey to over simplfy any statement that doesn't support your narrow understanding of how our government works does you and your cause no service.

You know I didn't say that the voters were dumb. What I said was that the states initiative process is a major contributor to our states budget problem. Quit twisting statements and start entering into a productive discussion of issues. Perhaps I should give you a basic civics lesson so you can better understand the problem.

When an initiative is passed the money allocated by it must be spent even if there is a budget deficit. Often preventing the full funding of other programs. If you want the legislature, Republican or Democrat, to be better able to manage the budget and tighten spending in tough times we need to change our states system so they have better control over it.

I understand you may have run for office in the past, so it is surprising to me, you don't understand this. However most people in this country have no idea of how government works.

I think the reality is you rather posture, use untrue talking points and bluster than really discuss an issue. This is the typical Republican brutish behavior that has reduced the number of people willing to identify themselves as Republicans down to 27 percent, and turned this county Blue. Keep it up Flamo, you and Stephen Frank are our best ads for Democratic candidates in our area.

Mongo Flamo, you are incorrect. Here is what an official City of Oxnard Fire Dept. patch looks like:

http://glasgowfirstaid.org/patches/State_Patches/california/oxnardfd.jpg

Also, there are no photos of Oxnard City Fire patches on the Oxnard Fire Web site.

Brian,

Forgive my ignorance of "how government works." Mea culpa, a thousand times. In the future, I will defer to such experts as yourself for a more complete understanding of the chaotic and non-sensical processes and systems of government you so righteously defend and argue in favor of.

Excuse me, but by stating that the State's initiative process is a major contributor to the State's budget problem you are, in effect, casting aspersions on the people's ability to weigh in on policies, practices, and laws they feel are not being addressed by their elected officials, including spending priorities in the State budget. Are you actually saying we need to give the Legislature more control than they currently have over the State budget process? Heaven help us. We'd probably have a budget that would be adopted by Christmas of each year, rather than July 1st.

Any time you're ready to conduct that civics lesson though, I'm more than happy to be in attendance. Let's just be sure the teacher shouldn't be the student first, huh?

Sure there are, Oxnard Fire. Check the Photo Gallery. You're wrong (again).

The firefighter in the photo is wearing a union patch. That is not an official Oxnard City firefighter patch. No laws were broken.

I would say Mr. Frank has some serious credibility issues here. He owes the Oxnard firefighters and Ms. Jackson an apology. I am very surprised the Star would allow something of this nature.

Hi Flamo,

You are still evading the fact that the initiative process cause budget control problems. It locks in billions in mandated spending every year. The problem is not the voters it is the process. I am sure you are ignoring the point that most initiatives mandate more government spending usually for things like firefighters, teachers and other public works projects usually blocked by Republicans. The fact is there is a full third of the states budget can not be adjusted to take into account revenues and changing priorities. It is like having a high credit card minimum you always have to pay. You will not be able to get the state back into the black unless there is a change in the initiative process, you can check it out int the LA Times.

I agree, "ballot budgeting" is a major cause of the current budget problem.

So, it looks like the liberals would like to stop the practice--and we should.

But, I find it hard to believe that they oppose the continuation of Prop. 98, which mandates 40% of ALL tax revenues go to government education, k-12.

This is possibly 75% of all "Ballot Box budgeting" allocations. So, they want to get rid of Prop. 98.

Unless they do, they should stop blaming the ballot box. Liberals like having it both ways--they were the ones supporting Prop. 98, now they blame it, but want to keep it.

Until we demand balanced budgets, end "off budget" spending, sell the Lottery, the LA Coliseum, the Cow Palace and other government owned businesses,special interests will control the families and jobs of Californians.

Hi Steve, as I recall from the last election Prop 98 was about eminent domain in California not education and did not pass. 98 was supported by California Federation of Republican Women, California Republican Party, California Libertarian Party, Orange County Lincoln Club, Riverside County Libertarian Party. The Democrats supported 99 which won. You would think a former educator would have this right.

Prop. 98 was passed several years ago. It is then used for the measure that mandated 40% of all tax revenues go to government education.

The Prop. 98 you mention was about eminent domain....different measures.

This confusion is what happens when we "re-use" ballot numbers. In the 2010 primary we will agian have a Prop. 13!

Steve,

Don't listen to this pro-union proproganda. HBJ got her hand caught in the cookie jar and she will pay dearly for it during the campaign. She has yet to speak to anything of substance and has been intent thus far is being the attack dog. That's not going to work for her at all, as Tony comes across looking like the statesman.

She may as well give up now. Looks like Strickland is killing her in the polls as well. Back to Willy Wonka Liberal Land, my lady...

I don't even know why we're wasting our time debating this issue on the blog. It's clear to me, Jackson is not going to win in this district.

Mongo is quite right. "Liberal Land" is the only place she's a good fit.

Hey Taxin Jackson,

I have some news for you. There are now more Democrats in Ventura County than Republicans. Welcome to Liberal Land.

Democrats in Ventura County aren't as plentiful as they are in Santa Barbara (the real Liberal Land I was referring to) and that is Jackson's stronghold. That's one of the main reasons she's going to lose this election.

Sorry Taxin" Jackson,

There are currently more 5,000 more Democrats registered in Ventura County than Republicans. The city of Santa Barbara has more registered Democrats than Republicans but the county has a Republican majority that is shrinking. There are more Republicans in the district for the Hannh-Beth Jackson Tony Strickland race but at current rates that district will be fifty fifty by the election. In the last election Republicans still had a majority in Ventura County but it still voted Democrat. Check with the Register Recorders office.

Hannah-Beth Jackson has the support of our firefighters and other first responders. Read this article about how Elton Gallegly and other Republicans deny them the equipment they need to protect us. http://politicalwatchcentralcoast.org/elton-gallegly/eg-environment/elton-gallegly-firefighter/#comments

Hannah-Beth Jackson has the support of our firefighters and other first responders. Read this article about how Elton Gallegly and other Republicans deny them the equipment they need to protect us. http://politicalwatchcentralcoast.org/elton-gallegly/eg-environment/elton-gallegly-firefighter/#comments