One thing about Tony Strickland, he is not going to try to buy the 19th State Senate seat. Yes, millions will be spent. The total cost of the race, for both candidates, when you include Independent Expenditures might top $10 million...with Hannah Jackson spending about $7 million.
Yet the Strickland campaign, in April started walking the district, household by household, from Santa Clarita, to Simi Valley, Carpentaria, to Buellton.
Now the campaign has started what they call the "Burma Shave" portion of the effort. On many days, in different parts of the district during the morning and the evening drive times, you will see Tony Strickland and his supporters at key intersections holding signs and waving at the cars as they go by. That is old fashioned campaigning. I almost expect him to hop a train from Santa Clarita and do a whistlestop throughout the district.
My good friend Dr. Greg Cole has also written about this and even has photos, you should visit the web site, http://flapsblog.com/2008/08/13/tony-strickland-watch-burma-shaving/
In an age where many candidates have special interests giving them large sums of money, spend it on slick mailers, radio and TV ads, it is refreshing to see a candidate that is approachable and seen throughout a district each day.
Based on the number of "Burma Shave" days already under his belt, and the tens of thousands of homes already walked, this campaign is going full steam ahead.
Which do you prefer, a candidate that personally walks precincts, speaks to groups, is seen in every community, or one that just raises money and sends out mailers, does TV and radio ads?
Support for Tony "Gimme A Goverment Paycheck" Strickland really says a lot about a persons IQ.
Right-O! We'll talk to you on November 5th when HBJ is but a distant memory...
The old infamous Steve Frank fiction has returned. Steve says HBJ will spend 7 out of the projected 10 million race. Bulls***. Strickland fundraising is FAR FAR ahead of Jacksons.
Which tax raising, illegal immigrant loving, union hack do we want to elect? Where is the Green Party when you really need them.
Thanks, Steve for the mention.
In my many years of observing Ventura County politics I have only met two or three pols who have ACTIVELY walked precincts and met people one on one.
Tony Strickland is one of the few.
When Tony represented Thousand Oaks in the California Assembly you could keep time by seeing him on the corner before and during election day.
He wants the job and will win it.
They really need to have Butt Man join them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ5R2i1yAl0
Hannah-Beth Jackson is a hypocrite as she has accepted tobacco money as well.
The Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouth on this issue.
Only one candidate HAS VOTED WITH BIG TOBACCO 100% of the time. Tony "Gimme A Government Paycheck" Strickland. A lifelong politician who has never held a real job in his life.
Strickland:
Never had a private job
Useless in his public job
Is all about the campaign
Hannah-Beth Jackson:
Claims to have a job in the private sector, but has really been living off the government dole for years.
Panders to unions and trial lawyers for support & money.
Can't wait to get back in the Legislature, so she can return her old tax and spend ways.
Is apparently not all about the campaign, since she hasn't even started one yet, as far as I can tell.
Hannah Beth has years of experience running a business. Strickland believes in living off the government dole as a welfare king.
Yeah, right. What business?
She used to work for the Santa Barbara County D.A.'s Office (government job) and was a member of the State Assembly for 6 years (another government job) where she taxed the beejeezus out of us all - thus the well-earned moniker (Taxin' Jackson).
She was supposedly in private law practice in Ventura for a short time, where she catered to her husband's (Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge George Eskin) clients and lawyer buddies and built up her trial lawyers' connections to bolster her campaign contributors' list. Hardly qualifies as running a business. More like a campaign office.
Strickland--
panders to corporate polluters, cancer peddlers, and insurance companies who deny benefits
learned about living on the taxpayer dole from the best (Gallegly, McClintock)
believes Ventura County residents are idiots and will fall for his faux-green credentials as head of the Wave Energy scam
has one of the worst legislative records in California Assembly--unless of course, you love Arthur Murray dance studios
could teach a class on campaign finance corruption--and apt pupil Audra is head of the class
has NEVER been seen in my neighborhood of Ventura County--although he and Audra widely used their franking privilege to send me countless mailers arguing for more prisons and more tax cuts
I choose not to waste my vote on people who don't care about me, my children, or my future. I'll be voting for Hannah-Beth.
Given our Legislature's "nanny bill" reputation, I'm actually pleased that Strickland has sponsored very little new legislation. That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats believe the government should be involved in our lives in every possible way, thus all the stupid bills coming out of the Democratic-controlled Legislature telling us how to live.
Republicans believe the less government the better, and Strickland reflects this philosophy well in his approach to new legislation.
BTW, has Jackson set foot in Ventura County yet during this campaign?
Folly--Republicans believe the less government the better?
What rock have you been under the last 8 years? Our Decider in Chief has ruled over the biggest government in the history of this republic, and not only is he now telling me what I can and can't do with my reproductive organs, his goons are listening to my phone calls, confiscating my laptop at the Canadian border, and reading all my emails. How's it hanging, fellas?
Strickland doesn't introduce meaningful legislation because he's not interested in government. Audra's just the same--obstructionist all the way. Funny, though, how people who don't think government should be in their business want to make sure that it does get in every one else's business--women can't have reproductive freedom, gays can't get married, terminally ill people can't get access to medical marijuana or doctor-assisted suicides, school kids can't exercise their freedom of speech while on school grounds, parents can't protect their children from pesticide spraying, the list goes on and on.
Folly, for someone who comments at a VC Star blog, you sure are uninformed about local political events. Hannah-Beth has been in Ventura County numerous times, including at my house for a BBQ mid-July, and at a candidate forum in TO this past Wednesday night. She'll be in VC at various functions this weekend. The three people I never see in TO--Tony and Audra Strickland and Elton Gallegly. Representatives in absentia.
Got_Hope,
More like Audra Strickland is protecting us against the oppressiveness of government (i.e., trying to stop the prison hospital in Camarillo).
Get your facts straight. Gays can get married now because of the government's/State Supreme Court's recent ruling. The will of the people (Prop. 22 - approved by 61% of the voters) was defied by the government in that case.
The only good thing the government is doing for us, you're against - protecting us from Islamo-fascist terrorism (by tapping phone lines for Al Quaeda sympathizers and fund-raisers living here amongst us and willing and able to do us harm).
You need to wake up and smell the coffee here!
Folly, I was speaking of the never ending attempts by the neocons and religious right to take away the freedoms of others. Think the gay marriage issue is dead in California, or the country, simply because a judge says that all people are finally free to have their dedication to the one they love recognized by the government? Ever heard of Proposition 8? I notice you didn't try to argue your position about the other freedoms wingnuts try to take away from all Americans.
Audra Strickland is a typical hypocritical wingnut--she wants lots more prisons as long as they're in someone else's town and she has no idea how to pay for them. Maybe if she hadn't been so obstructionist in her 4 years in Sacramento, she might have worked with her peers to try to solve the fiscal problems of this state, rather than making more. Tony Strickland tries repeatedly to pass meaningless legislation (oh, but he does like to rename CA highways)--he's uninterested in government, unless it can enrich his cronies and limit the freedoms of others.
As for islamo-fascists, well I see you've memorized the Republican talking points very well. With regard to freedom, I think Ben Franklin said it best. I choose not to live my life in fear--also, I tend to read columns and blogs of people who are informed on the Middle East, and therefore, I know how little power bin Laden currently has and why. I'm certainly not going to formulate an opinion based on some bloviating, obese drug addict spewing filth and lies on the radio or some aging, foul-mouthed man guilty of sexual harassment who has a penchant for falafels and loofahs.
Got_Hope,
You say Osama bin Laden has little power, huh? I look forward to talkign to you the day after our next major city gets hit with a terrorist attack. It's not a matter of "if" this is going to happen, but "when". Wake up!
Folly,
Why don't you use the Internets and the Google to try to educate yourself? Terrorism worldwide is decreasing, but terrorism in Iraq is increasing, due to Chimpy in Chief's well planned invasion of that sovereign country. Of all the people killed in "terrorist" attacks last year, well over 50% of them were Muslims. Are you Islamic? Then don't get your knickers in a wad.
Increased terrorism in Pakistan in second half of 2007 is a result of Musharraf having Bhutto assassinated and ousting the judges, putting the country under even stricter rule than it was before. Increases in Afghanistan are the result of the resurgence of the Taliban. Again, this is a reflection of the total debacle the Bush cabal has caused in Iraq, not completing the job of capturing bin Laden in Tora Bora, and putting his faith in Musharraf even though Musharraf was violating US-Pakistani diplomatic agreements left and right. If you're going to hide in your bathroom waiting for an attack that never comes, at least base your fear on something substantive, and not the right-wing lies that Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck repeat night after night.
http://wits.nctc.gov/reports/crot2007nctcannexfinal.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081502981.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Anyway, I thought this blog entry was about Strickland; I can assure you, Tony Strickland will do nothing to combat terrorism, imaginary or otherwise.
Got_Hope,
Hmmm, let's see if I can follow your logic here. Terrorism in the world is decreasing, but terrorism in Iraq is increasing due to President Bush's invasion. Huh? Who hasn't been checking his facts again?
Terrorism and violence in Iraq happen to be on the decline over the last year, in case you stopped getting your paper delivered recently. And this is precisely because of President Bush's policies there. The surge has been largely responsible for causing this to happen. Even the tire pressure expert, Barack Obama, is admitting this.
As soon as we have an assurance of political stability in Iraq, we are going to re-focus our military efforts in Afghanistan, so that that country has a chance at succeeding as well. That is what John McCain is proposing to do and Barack Obama has taken his cue on this and agreed that this is the right approach to take (since he knows nothing about foreign policy, what else could he say?).
FYI, I won't be hiding in my bathroom waiting for the next attack, I will be voting for a president who actually has the leadership ability and foreign policy acumen to help us avert another terrorist strike (if that's possible). I won't be voting for the guy whose idea of a solid energy plan for the future is keeping our tires inflated.
Folly,
Surge didn't work--the whole purpose of the surge was to get the "assurance of political stability" you're talking about. It didn't happen! Therefore, Bush's own benchmark for success was not met. And we're billions of dollars in the hole accomplishing nothing but destabilizing the region and murdering 4,000+ American men and women. Great job, Chimpy!
As for the violence, the fact is that Muqtada al Sadr decided to give it a rest. That's the most likely reason for the decrease in fighting. I notice you had no responses to my comments about increased terrorist attacks against native Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Hmmm, why is that?
The Star had an article a couple of weeks ago about a young vet who came back, in a wheelchair with no left arm, who got a tricked-out van donated through charity. Great story about community giving back to a young man who's got a real hard road ahead. When asked if he supports the war in Iraq, the vet says: "We have no mission there. We're bomb sponges. We travel from place to place trying to keep people from blowing each other up." Ask him how successful the surge was.
Good luck with your foreign policy expert McSame, who doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia, has to be told (by Joe LIEberman, no less!) that Iran is not arming Iraqi insurgents, and who confuses Somalia and the Sudan. Yeah, he's an expert. Bwahahaha!!!!!
Here's a news flash for you: Maliki wants American troops out on the same timeline recommended by Obama.......McSame was forced to reluctantly admit that timeline would work. Of course, he has no choice because the Iraqis don't want us there, which must disappoint McSame given his 100-year Iraqi occupation plan. And as far as "refocusing" troops in Afghanistan.....Obama said we needed to do that months ago. Once again McBush is a day late, and a dollar short.
Got_Hope,
I hate to disagree with you (not really, actually, I love to disagree with you), but the surge did, in fact, work. It was one of the reasons Muqtada al Sadr decided to back off (not the only reason, but, certainly, one of the reasons).
Your conclusion on the impact of Iraq's political stability on the region is far more pessimistic than even those within your own Party (namely, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama). Each of them have made statements to the effect that a success in Iraq will have a positive impact on the rest of the Arab world. Do your research next time, bub.
Regarding your disparaging comments on President McCain, I would much rather have a man with deep-rooted principles and strong courage of convictions than the lightweight, elitist your Party is putting out there as their nominee. The guy doesn't know where he stands on issues half the time. The other half of the time he's spending flip-flopping (er, sorry, adjusting) his views.
This country needs someone who will be able to hit the ground running at this critical time in our history. That certainly disqualifies Mr. Goodyear, I'm afraid..
Folly,
Once again, like most Republicans, you show that you are long on opinion and hyperbole, short on substance. Do Republicans in VC actually formulate their own opinions, or do they get a constant audio feed from Rupert Murdoch? Always the same tired old lines, it's really boring.
Obama is not elitist, but he is highly educated. And frankly, I far prefer a highly educated President than the next to bottom of his class at Naval Academy McSame, who wrecked 4 jets (5 if you count the one he crashed in because he didn't take evasive maneuvers) and who admits he doesn't understand economics. We've had 8 years of a President who doesn't read newspapers, but reads people's souls (like Putin's), and what has that gotten us? A lot of brush cleared in Crawford during his never-ending vacations, and a lot of mess everywhere else.
Unlike in the lock-step Republican Party, Democrats can disagree on all sorts of things and still remain Democrats--we realize the world isn't black and white and there are numerous shades of gray--therefore, I can formulate my own opinion of Iraq based on the informed comments I read from Middle East experts, and I don't have to take what Hillary or Joe or anyone else says at face value. And "a success in Iraq" hasn't happened yet, the fragile parliament they have could still all fall apart, despite that wonderful troop-killing surge you crow about. Oh, and violence decreased in late 2007 in Iraq because the ethnic cleansing al Sadr's army was engaging in was basically complete, and the Pentagon started bribing insurgent groups not to shoot US troops. I'm so happy my hard-earned tax dollars are going to pay off the terrorists instead of paying for policemen and firemen here in California. What a wonderful use of my money!!!!!
Flip-flopping: you mean like I'm against the tax cuts, I'm for the tax cuts; I'm against offshore drilling, I'm for offshore drilling; ANWR is off limits, drill right here, right now; I voted against tax incentives for alternative energy repeatedly while in Congress, now I'm the champion of alternative energy when I'm pandering to get the Presidency;--are those examples of the "strong courage of conviction" you seem to believe McBush has? Even the McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for the McCain of 2008!
Got_Hope,
Republicans are long on opinion and hyperbole and short on substance, eh? Re-read your first two paragraphs and then tell me how much substance is contained there. Your comments reflect the ongoing hypocrisy of the Democratic Party (the womanizing party of the next century - Edwards, Clinton, et al). I wonder when the next revelations will come out about Obama banging his campaign aide.
Obama is an arrogant elitist. Karl Rove said it best - "He's like the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a cigarette and a martini, who stands against the wall making snide comments about everyone else who passes by."
Folly,
You're arguing that McCain did not wreck 4 jets prior to crashing and being taken captive in Vietnam?
You're arguing that Bush actually does read newspapers when he's been quoted repeatedly as saying he gets all his info predigested by his lackeys?
You're arguing that Bush hasn't taken more vacations than any other President?
Wow, the cognitive dissonance in the wingnut realm is truly magnificent to see.
Womanizing--well McCain is the poster boy for that wonderful masculine trait. After all, it takes a real "man of conviction" to leave his ailing wife in a hospital bed to go shack up with a filthy rich blonde bimbo who's addicted to painkillers. Heard of David Vitter? Rudy Giuliani? Newt Gingrich? Dick Cheney (who do you really think he was spending time with when he shot that poor man?)
Let's try the other side--heard of Larry Craig? Mark Foley?
Man, Repubs who throw stones really shouldn't live in glass houses.
What year are you in? 2006? Karl Rove is old news--he left DC with his tail between his legs, his reputation blackened, and his power non-existent. If that's the best your side has got, no wonder the Repubs are running scared.
Got_Hope,
I don't waste my breath arguing with lame brains over falsehoods that are pushed on blogs. Case in point, the McCain jet-crashing bull**** you keep throwing out there, hoping it will stick.
I like the way you defer to other supposed indiscretions (most of which are totally contrived - Giuliani, Gingrich, Cheney) while conveniently avoiding acknowledging the real womanizers - Edwards & Clinton.
Karl Rove, by the way, since leaving the White House, is a respected political analyst for Fox News, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal, hardly old news or irrelevant, as you make him out to be.
Folly,
Oh, you cut me to the quick...... how can I ever recover from your rapier-sharp wit?
Typical neocon, wingnut trash you're throwing--all emotion, no facts. I'm tired of trying to educate you against your will. You clearly love to be uninformed. Good luck worshipping your beloved slimeball leaders and eating Rush Limpball's crap.
Ta!
Got_Hope,
So, tell me one thing in your little hissy-fit rant here that speaks to facts, rather than emotions. This is all emotion (and rather girly-style emotion, I might add).
Talk to me when you have some real facts to share, not just some fuming rant because I put you in your place and refuted all your previous claims masterfully.