Candidates for Ventura County Sheriff faced off in a debate Wednesday night, with an unforced error by Dennis Carpenter giving Geoff Dean the momentum that carried him over the finish line.
A panel comprised of criminal justice and public policy students at California Lutheran University, where the debate was held, took turns reading questions to the candidates. During one of the early questions, concerning the success of community policing programs, Carpenter lost his train of thought twice before taking a pass. Dean took his turn and asked for the softball question and quickly gave it a solid whack.
Dean waited toward the end of debate to capitalize on Carpenter's mistake. When asked what an important quality for a Sheriff to have is, he replied that the Sheriff needs to be able to think on his feet.
It was barely noticeable, and that was about as heated as the debate got between the two men, who agreed on much and disagreed on little. [continue reading]
Eric Ingemunson's commentary has been featured on Hannity, CNN, NBC, Inside Edition, and KFI's The John and Ken Show.
Eric was born and raised in Ventura County and currently resides in Moorpark. He earned a master's degree in Public Policy and Administration from California Lutheran University. As a conservative, Eric supports smaller government, less taxation, more individual freedom, the rule of law, and a strict adherence to the Constitution.
Geoff Dean did not capitalize on Carpenter's mistake - and showed remarkable restraint when one of the questions/comments from the audience was on Bob Brook's attempt to deny the voters a right to actually participate in the election process. Geoff Dean was illegally fired. His career and reputation was compromised very willfully by Brooks. He fought back and will continue to fight for the safety of the community. This quality is much admired as is his reputation and committment to the office.
Now there is an ugly attempt to capitalize on his record that has one blemish - the one imposed by Brooks - and it isn't going to work.
Did I see Katie Teague's name listed on Susan Jordan's endorsement page?
I agree with Katie. Mr. Dean was a true professional and stayed on point expressing his ideas and communicating his plan and vision. He didn't need to make Carpenter look bad, Carpenter did that on his own. A retired law enforcement officer who attended last night told me that if the forum were a promotional exam, Carpenter would have been disqualified. From what I have seen, I don't think that Carpenter has the ability to communicate his vision. I am not sure that he has a vision. Dean is a leader. He speaks like a leader and he has the experience to lead. Vote DEAN for Sheriff. He is the only qualified candidate.
To be clear, Dean didn't kick Carpenter while he was down--he was cordial and respectful about the gaffe, and waited until the very end of the debate to score a debate point (which he would have been remiss not to).
You will also see my name on Linda Park's page as an endorsement. Yes, that's right. She is a Republican candidate even though she and many others aren't listed on the Ventura County Central Committee Webswite.
Eric, your observation was a very minor detail. The big picture was that Geoff Dean was the much stronger candidate in the debate and this point was not brought out in your thread. What I noticed is that some of Geoff's ideas were co-opted later by Carpenter in the debate. Care to comment on this?
You will also see my name on Linda Park's page as an endorsement. Yes, that's right. She is a Republican candidate even though she and many others aren't listed on the Ventura County Central Committee Webswite.
Eric, your observation was a very minor detail. The big picture was that Geoff Dean was the much stronger candidate in the debate and this point was not brought out in your thread. What I noticed is that some of Geoff's ideas were co-opted later by Carpenter in the debate. Care to comment on this?
Katie, I hardly think that focusing on Carpenter going blank helps Carpenter, so I'm not sure what your beef is.
That moment was the turning point in the debate in Dean's favor, so I think it deserves attention.
I did notice that Carpenter said that a college education is one of the most important things a deputy can possess. Dean had a better answer, common sense. Then when it came up again, Carpenter emphasized the importance of common sense.
Is that what you mean?
Eric, I didn't even mention about Carpenter going blank - that can happen to anyone. Jeez. And then you say I have a "beef"?? I pointed out that you picked up on a minor point versus the whole debate. A tree instead of the forest.
Yes, Common Sense was one of the examples. Collaborative effort was also one. There were two others but my memory is failing me right now.
I see in my first post I reference Carpenter's "mistake" but I didn't elaborate. Nor was it the focus of the debate or my point in either post.
So let me get this straight...
Someone who prides themselves as pro-life and has spoken passionately against abortion is endorsing Jordan?
A personal friend of mine inquired about Jordan's views on the subject and was told by her campaign that she is 100% pro-choice and does not favor parental notification.
How do you justify this?
I justify it easily. Ingegrity trumps all.
The abortion issue is a very personal view and I resent it when it is used as a rallying cry for action. I participate in Pro-Life rallies and I know the author of the Parental Notification Bill(s). I have never seen a local legislator or wanna be legislator partipate in the rallies or Life Centers. No local legislator has helped with the parental notification bill. I may not agree with Susan on everything - but she does walk the talk.
Eric:
It never ceases to amaze me how much contemporaneous cyber-blogging politics has become like the old Roman Circuses..
Feed the masses brutal, up-close, personal, bloody-blogging cyber-combat, and it will take their minds-off what really matters..
Now even the Dean-Carpenter Sheriff's race has degenerated into how-much of a Pro-Life RINO Katie Teague is or is not.. Who cares?
And here we are, less than sixty-days before the June 8th Election!
And to the best of my personal knowledge, neither candidate for Sheriff has articulated a credible, practical, and transparent plan on how they will respond to the "Double-Whammy" loss of Prop 172 Sales Tax/General Fund Property Tax Backfill dollars for the Sheriff's Department when they take office next January.
Longer response times? Reductions in gang-prevention services? Cuts in Public Safety pensions? Lay-off Deputies? Increased revenues (taxes)?
No wonder that government, at all levels, is dysfunctional in the all too tarnished Golden State!!!
Ciao Cyber-Plebs!
NostraDemus
While the issue I brought up does address a different issue than the Sheriff's race, I think it's entirely relevant. The blatant hypocrisy and exposure of Katie's pretzel logic could have been revealed in any forum and on any of the many topics in which she claims to be the only sane and practical voice in the crowd.
Consider her response. Integrity? It takes a complete LACK of integrity to claim that local elected officials have not participated in pro-life events and activities and then, to use that as some sort of justification for supporting a candidate who seeks to fight the very thing these rallies are designed to prevent. It's flat out shameful.
Consider the first two sentences: "The abortion issue is a very personal view and I resent it when it is used as a rallying cry for action. I participate in Pro-Life rallies and I know the author of the Parental Notification Bill(s)."
In two sentences she both resents using abortion as a "rallying cry for action" then brags about her participation in Pro-Life RALLIES where the SOLE PURPOSE is rallying people to action on the issue of abortion. She then goes on to shame local elected officials for lack of participation.
I know for a FACT that there are current representatives in Ventura County who have participated in CPC events all around the County, the Walk for Life, Sanctity of Life Day and other pro-life events.
Besides that outright falsehood, what kind of logic are you using when you use the perceived lack of event participation by pro-life candidates (with voting records to prove it)to support a "100% pro-choice" candidate? It's like saying that after failing to find a suitable babysitter after many interviews, you decided to go with John Wayne Gacy. Stellar reasoning.
You're right, Katie, you don't agree with Susan on everything. You have led us to believe you view unborn children are worthy of protection as innocent human life. Susan Jordan is willing to allow and fight for the continued destruction of that human life. But hey, she's got integrity right?
How many people at these "rallies" support candidates who proudly advertise their "100% pro-life, anti-parental consent positions? How many pro-life rallies has Susan Jordan attended with you? Maybe instead she's across the street screaming that we must keep abortion legal. You know, "walking the talk".
Feel how you feel, Katie. That's fine. But you might want to tone it down a bit and get off your high horse. You've made a full time gig out of shaming everyone for lacking the sensible views you hold. Frankly, it's a joke.
Second to last paragraph should read "100% pro-choice..."
Wow. High Horse did a number on Katie Teague!
He didn't address any of my issues re: the lack of legislative support for true education on the Pro-Life front nor did he address the ingerity issue. So I'm staying on the horse.
I'm guessing that the front page of legislative pro-life manual would read "Start by not endorsing/supporting/voting for pro-life candidates" Katie logic FAIL.
Stay on your horse as long as you wish, Katie. It will only reinforce the negative views most people on this and other blogs have of you. To continue with the horse metaphor, you might think of Katie as a one-trick pony for her rants against anything Republican in Ventura County.
Oh Mike, I have an excellent reputation for truth on the blogs and most people enjoy what I say.
I love all the comments on Brook's recent op-ed piece against Geoff Dean. There are 59 comments and counting and they are all dogpiling on Brooks and defending Geoff. These are comments from people that work in the department. They certainly didn't appreciate the fact that the sheriff used his office, a taxpayer paid computer to send a lengthly e-mail to other taxpayer paid offices/posistion/computers trashing Geoff. It is appalling to find out what has occurred and the one poster is right in that it will take years to undo the damage to the VCSD that has been inflicted by Brooks in his personal vendetta against Geoff.