.
.
.
Now that Vern has reinserted the headlines from “Art Pedroza’s ‘New Santa Ana'” onto OJB’s front page, I am once again able to see what’s happening on what I’ll call “Pedrozapalooza.” I noticed that Art raised an interesting point today in his post “Tom Daly is a threat to Latinos in the 69th Assembly District.”
Art writes about how Daly has, he alleges, been bad to Latinos in his position in Anaheim, and I’ll presume that there’s a decent case to be made (although I’m sure that Daly would come up with a rebuttal.) But the question that arises for me is: who is Art’s audience here? Is he writing just to Latinos, or is he writing to Latinos and sympathizers, or what?
I’m a Latino sympathizer — though I believe that every demographic group has its better and worse apples among its politicians and that politics is not necessarily designed to ensure that the better apples get picked — but my reaction to Art’s writing today doesn’t really derive from that. It derives from my being, unlike Art, a lifelong Democrat.
Let’s cut to the real meat of what I’m feeling, (and even what Art, who now ranks Julio Perez ahead of Daly among his AD-69 preferences, though still below Michelle Martinez) is feeling, and what I think what lots of people are feeling:
I think that it is unseemly for Tom Daly to run in this AD-69.
I think that it hurts the Democratic Party’s overall election efforts.
This is not because I have anything particular against Tom Daly. He’s a relatively conservative Democrat, though my guess is that he’d call himself a moderate. As I’ve said; I don’t know him, but I do know and like his Dad. I would probably support him in many other races. And I understand why, without malice, he would want to run in AD-69 — it’s a seat from which a Democrat should have the easiest time being elected.
Where else, after all, could he run? I’m guessing that he lives either in SD-29 and doesn’t think that he could beat Sen. Bob Huff there (although for him it might be a winnable district) or SD-34, on which Jose Solorio has already called dibs among Establishment Democrats in 2014. He’s not going to run against Loretta in CD-46, nor probably meddle in the CD-39 “Royce-Miller” smackdown (although with some bad blood spilling in the primary he might stand a chance there) or the as yet unopposed Dana Rohrabacher in CA-48 or Darrel Issa in CA-49 (both likely being suicide missions.) So where’s he going to run? No one thinks he should just stay around City Hall and do the job of Clerk-Recorder, right?
He’s going to run in the seat that he has the best chance of winning. That’s the logical move from his personal perspective. From a party perspective, though, it’s pretty rotten.
Why?
Because Latinos are a critical part of the Democratic Party coalition, because this is the most heavily Latino seat in the entire state, and because for a moderate-conservative Caucasian guy to step in there with a big campaign war chest and take it away tells them that they don’t matter.
That’s harsh, I know. But the momentousness of Daly beating (most likely) one of two decently qualified Latino candidates in the most Latino district in California doesn’t seem to have really sunk in. It’s time to discuss it.
It’s not wrong for Daly to run; Daly has every right to run. It’s just insulting. It’s dismissive. This is not how one treats a key constituency that has been fighting so long for its share of power in Sacramento and that was at least somewhat screwed in Senate redistricting. It smacks of the white establishment playing three-card monte with Orange County Latinos — “now ya see the Latino seat, now ya don’t!” As someone who goes out and meets with everyday Latino voters, as I did in the Brown for Governor campaign and in Esiquio Uballe’s Assembly campaign last year, it just flat out rubs me the wrong way.
The big task for Democrats this year — and most every year — is to register voters (and yes, especially Latino voters, because that’s where the biggest deficit is), ideally by vote-by-mail ballots, and to turn them out to vote. Part of the success of that effort comes from showing them due respect.
I get a lot of “but we can’t insult X” comments thrown at me in my Democratic activism — “we can’t insult unions” (when it comes to wanting to shut down San Onofre), “we can’t insult developers” (because we need to raise money from them), “we can’t insult the religious community” (for obvious reasons), “we can’t insult Northern California or Southern California” (when it comes to balancing the ticket for state constitutional officers), etc.
I would expect no less of a sentiment for the proposition that “we can’t insult Latinos.” As with all other interest groups, that doesn’t mean that we must accede to everything that anyone claiming to represent Latino interest wants, or that every Latino politician gets an automatic free pass — but it does mean that when something is very close to the core of Latino interests, we should have and show some respect.
We, as a party, cannot place Tom Daly’s desire to go to Sacramento over the notion that the OC Latino community deserves and should get its fair share of political power in the county.
I look at the people I know who were on the endorsement list for Tom Daly’s fundraiser on Wednesday and I don’t think that they’re bad guys. I think that, as a group, they’re overwhelmingly white, pretty wealthy, generally moderate to conservative and quite clubby. But that’s not the same as being bad — these people who could easily be Republicans by class and temperament but do not. I accept that, however much I sometimes don’t like all of its implications, that they are themselves an important part of our party as well.
But, dammit, so are Latinos. They work hard, they campaign hard, they cooperate well, they have real concerns, they have lots of potential votes, they can make the difference in the county, and we should show them the respect they are due as a part of our coalition. And that means that when a district has in effect been drawn to be a Latino district, and where there’s no hint of corruption or incompetence among either of the main Latino candidates running, we as a party should be inclined to want AD-69 to be a Latino seat. It’s just common decency.
I don’t blame Tom Daly for running. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and politicians gotta run where it’s easiest to win. I do have some problems with the many party regulars among the group that promoted his fundraising party — Bill Lockyer, Jose Solorio, Gail Eastman, Bruce Broadwater, John Hanna, Brian Conley, Leonard Lahtinen, Donna Miller, Jordan Brandman, Jan Domene, Anna Piercy, James Vanderbilt, Tom Umberg, Todd Ament, Frank Barbaro, Dan Callahan, Cynthia Contreras, Lucy Dunn, John Erskine, Alden Esping, Linda Esping, Juan Carlos Flores, Mark Gaughan, Frank Garcia, Gary Hunt, Dan Jacobson, Charles Kim, Paul Kott, Mike Levin, Reuben Martinez, Carrie Nocella, Tom Phelps, Michael Ray, Geoffrey Stack, Bryan Starr, Steve Sullivan, Bill Taormina, George Urch, William C. Waggoner, and John Withers.
I know and like a fair number of these people. And I think that they’re acting in part out of moderate Establishment policy preferences, in part because they think Daly does a good job, and in part because they know Tom Daly and he is “one of the gang.” I completely understand why they would want to support him.
But I’ll tell you something: I and other liberal/progressive/Left activists within the party have to swallow our bile all of the time, have to accept that the party will be more conservative and less activist than we’d like, have to convince people to support politicians that we know are far from their interests, have to “wait until things get better” before getting what we want. When push comes to shove, we can insult environmentalists, we can insult peace activists, etc. We can insult anyone, out of plausible necessity, who can’t contribute the money that the party desperately needs to compete in elections. (Yes, I know that there’s another side to the argument. I tend to make it.) But I also know that in an imperfect world sometimes your coalition will require you to put up with things that you don’t like.
And as that goes for us on the left, so it goes for Tom Daly and that list of supporters above. One gives way on some things because it’s necessary. But one shouldn’t cut too close to the bone when it can possibly be avoided.
It would be theoretically possible for union members to descend on a meeting of the Sierra Club or Greenpeace and take over their membership and officers and turn the local chapters into ones that valued jobs over the environment when the two seemed to conflict. It would be possible … and it would be horrible. It would demoralize environmentalists, drive them elsewhere, poison future relations.
Well, that’s how moderate-at-best Caucasian Tom Daly coming into the district in California most designed to be represented by a Latino and taking the seat away feels to me. Latinos, I think, will feel it even more acutely.
Our institutional interest as a party should be to say that that shouldn’t happen. That statement didn’t seem to come out this week. But there are other places where Daly will be able to run — like others, I wish that he’d run for the Board of Supervisors last year — and I hope that he will run elsewhere. If he doesn’t do it on his own, I hope that Orange County Democrats will put the party’s interests, and yes, the interests of our critical coalition partners in the Latino community, ahead of Tom Daly’s.
Disclaimer: I support Julio Perez for AD-69, but don’t speak for his campaign, and I surely did not speak to him or anyone associated with his campaign about this. (The same goes for Michelle Martinez.) I don’t know how either will react to it — and it’s really not their business anyway; this is me speaking from my heart.
“.. two decently qualified Latino candidates ..”
THAT is just not a credible statement.
Having endorsed him, I obviously consider Julio to be qualified. Michelle has not, so far as I can recall, faced major scandals on the Council and having been on Council for as long as she has would suggest that she clears the low bar below which one panics and us willing to vote for a Republican?
Anyway, do you think that Daly is running only because he finds neither of the other to be qualified? I highly doubt it, but if /that’s/ the case he wants to make then this is going to be one hell of a race to watch!
A couple of light-weights, a union business agent and a councilmember from a near bankrupt city? .. come on!
He is running because, as you suggest, he needs a job. I also think that of the 3 he is the most qualified and connected and is most able to get the job done for his soon to be constituents.
And your suggestion that this is a latino seat is racist and preposterous.
We clearly back different horses, stranger.
As for your accusation of racism, I presume that you understand that I believe that Daly has the right to run. My issue us whether Democrats should be supporting him in this race, one of a relative handful in the state where California Latinos can be expected to compete and win. That, in turn, is a matter of deference to the legitimate interests of a coalition partner that has often itself been asked to defer.
At any rate, please elaborate on why you feel entitled to bring out the big stick of calling this view “racist”; I want to give you plenty of rope. I’d also appreciate knowing what party, if any, you lean towards, so that I can provide you examples of actual racism in your party that will be strong enough to make you choke.
Choke AND rope? This cat is doomed. 🙁
Hmmm. You have a point. I didn’t note the juxtaposition when I wrote that. Violent intention disavowed.
And this skallywag clown who is calling you racist is the same person who a few minutes earlier, quipped:
“.. two decently qualified Latino candidates ..” – THAT is just not a credible statement.
Let’s hear it for racism, double standards, white self-pity, and rightwing I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I projection all rolled into one!
“.. two decently qualified Latino candidates ..”
The intent here, admittedly not well stated, was not to disparage the Latino heritage of anyone. In retrospect, I should have made the quote appear like this:
“.. two decently qualified .. candidates ..” THAT is just not a credible statement.
Which do you think unqualified? You’re not really helping the Daly campaign until you specify.
“At any rate, please elaborate on why you feel entitled to bring out the big stick of calling this view “racist”; I want to give you plenty of rope.”…….. Hmmmm
Why don’t you do same re antisemitism!……. which you accusing me of.
Only Jews are entitled to bring out the big stick of calling any view “anti-Semitic”?
No, not only Jews can do it. I, for one, do it rarely, but you seem like sort of a throwback.
I presume that this is where you will want to deny being anti-Semitic, so let’s get that over with. Ready? Go.
“I presume that this is where you will want to deny being anti-Semitic, so let’s get that over with.”…….. Hmmmmm
I am not denying anything!
I have constitutional rights!
Esq. Encino,
Your legal training should qualify you to answer the following:
In 20’s centuries two evils emerged, on the left Josef Stalin and, allegedly on the right, Adolf Hitler and the both hated and oppressed Jews.
FAQ: Why?
I dare not hazard a guess, Stanislav. What’s your theory?
I doubt that that my question is a theory if it is based on historically known facts.
So answer the question.
If it’s based on facts, Stanley, tell me the answer — if you know.
I was under the impression that you are advising clients re deposition.
So the question was to you so answer.
OK, here’s my answer: “for no good reason.” Now, you’ve made the assertion, so have the guts to follow it through and give the reason that you perceive.
OK, here’s my answer: “agree”
Your question, Stanislav, was this:
“Agree” is not an answer to the question “Why?”
So, you’re welcome to admit that you don’t have an answer, or have suddenly become too coy or cautious to provide one, or otherwise to disavow the legitimacy of asking what sure seemed like it was headed in the direction of an anti-Semitic observation — or you can give your real answer. I don’t care which you do, but I’m also not inclined to let it rest.
[“Agree” is not an answer to the question “Why?”]……. Hmmm
Neither is “for no good reason.”
Question was what is the reason?…… “Why?”
Question wasn’t whether a reason is “good” or “bad”.
Since you have failed to show “reason” I do agree with what ever that reason may be.
So try again Esq. Encino. and do not gave me that bad lawyerism crapola.
You really don’t have the courage of your convictions. I’d say I was surprised, but I’m actually not.
“For no good reason” is not only a good answer to why, but plausibly the most accurate one.
When you say “I do agree with what ever that reason may be,” what sort of reason do you have in mind — if you’re not too cowardly to say?
“what sort of reason”……. Hmmmm
That was my original question and if you would answer it you wouldn’t need to ask.
You said “no good”!……. no good what?….. no good hamburger?….. no good day?….. It is idiotic answer which only moron mongoloid can provide.
Obviously you do not know your own language!
The subject of the question “why” is “reason” so to answer “no good” does not show the reason but would liquify it as “no good”.
Esq. Encino do you have one of these internet degrees?
They’re going to kick you out of the Anti-Semite Guild for cowardice.
“My issue us whether Democrats should be supporting him in this race, one of a relative handful in the state where California Latinos can be expected to compete and win.”
You don’t even realize that this is a racist statement – that is a pity. Your reference to a “relative handful in the state” either exposes your ignorance or is an inentional falsehood.
Relative to the Latino population, and particularly the growth in Latino population, there are relatively few districts of this kind. If you want to debate particulars, let’s.
I doubt that you would object to someone’s saying that the Democratic Party must be respectful of the interests of doctors and hospitals, or farmers, or seniors, as bigotry. Why then do you single out Latinos (and other ethnic groups that — sorry if this surprises you — over the years have generally not gotten consideration commensurate to their numbers from the government or the Democratic Party as “racism”?
That’s a mighty convenient position for you to take — that treating minorities as a segment of the electorate that should get their fair share of benefits like representation in the legislature is “racism.” I hope that you’ll expand your analysis so that we can all fully appreciate it.
According to the LA Times, the percentage of Latino voters in the state is 21% – the percentage of Latino’s in the California Assembly is 21% – where is the unfairness?
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/27/local/la-me-0927-poll-20100927
“I doubt that you would object to someone’s saying that the Democratic Party must be respectful of the interests of doctors and hospitals, or farmers, or seniors, as bigotry.”
What you are espousing is racial quotas for legislators – big difference. What happened to judging a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin?
Re “fairness” — refer to various publications by LULAC and others dealing specifically with the 2010 redistricting. It’s also telling (and I’m sure deliberate) that you refer to Latino “voters” while redistricting takes into account the number of “residents.” Latinos are disproportionately under 18 and disproportionately non-citizens — even those here legally — yet that is the proportion to be taken into account in redistricting.
My guess is that you knew that already.
Who’s calling for a racial quota? Daly may do what he wants. The Democratic Party can do what it wants. I’m just saying that in my opinion the party should be as attentive to the interests and aspirations of Latinos as it is with other groups — including much smaller groups — and show them some basic respect. That is not a set number of positions set aside for a given demographic or other group, i.e., a quota.
My guess is that you already knew that too.
Is it not up to the voters of a district to elect who they want to represent them?
Comparing the vote tally of Umberg to Correra to Solorio, the white guy got more than ten thousand votes in his win above the two Latino’s got in their wins.
And then there is the local Latina who’s last election win, to the Santa Ana city council had more votes than the 3 named above. Most would say it is now her time to take that seat and not the junior council woman.
“two decently qualified Latino candidates”
the only qualification needed for that office is, a short residence test., there is a disqualification, can not have served 6 years, {you can not be a felon (can’t find a site)} (my mistake, it is A OK to be a felon in the state assembly) .
Of course it’s up to the voters to decide. I don’t mean to shock you, but it’s also fair for individuals, and for a party as an institution to have a stance.
And Loretta Sanchez got fewer votes than Chistina Avalos did against Ed Royce. Which is a long way of saying: so?
Are you talking about someone who ran unopposed? Don’t you think that to be fair to your readers you should have included that tidbit in your comparison?
“Decent qualification” is not the same as “minimal legal qualification,” but would include such things as honesty, competence, creativity, hard work, good political positions, and the ability
to relate to their constituents. I’d like ti believe that this is not news to you.
Greg, each race in my example were hotly contested. And I know that Loretta has won all her elections with less vote than the losing candidates in surrounding districts.
Is it fair for “a party as an institution to have a stance” if the two main parties control over 99 percent of all elected and appointed offices? I think we have an illegal monopoly between the two that needs to be broke up and disbanded.
The people get to vote only for those that these two parties allow them to vote for, after the back room deals have been made and the ring has been kissed and allegiants have been sworn to those who control the power and the money. (Let the voters be dammed)
Well then you should be less coy in giving your examples.
It’s called “endorsement,” and there’s a long tradition of it. On what basis do you consider the “monopoly” between the parties “illegal”? Seriously — do you think that the phrase “illegal” has an actual meaning?
as@+w&axhryhd*&^ yj&* nrysngeeppoiuy775#n
That’s all I can say in response “Greg”
One of your best comments, thanks.
Now that Vern has reinserted the headlines from “Art Pedroza’s ‘New Santa Ana’” onto OJB’s front page — a courtesy that Art has not reciprocated (and let the record show that Vern is a much, much, much, much, much nicer guy than I’d be in a similar situation)
Oh, Art HAS restored the RSS feed to our blog (he DID reciprocate); he also deleted that one paragraph of inappropriate innuendo about a certain young politico’s sexuality – I think I made him see how wrong that was; and in return I agreed to delete that wild photoshop that paragraph provoked you to make of Art as Drudge’s wife – hope you don’t mind!
In short we’re all friends again and we should all have a beer some time (although these days it’d probably be an O’Doul’s for me.) Friends need to expect we are all going to disagree sometimes, sometimes vehemently, and friends need to grow a thicker skin in this rough and tumble blogosphere. And I see that you and Art basically agree, and so do I – hopefully Daly won’t run for this seat.
I like that idea of him going against the useless Huff – anyone know where Tom actually lives?
Really? I checked just today and didn’t see it. Good for him.
Deleting the photoshop is your editorial call. (And in the original photo is was Drudge’s mother! Drudge’s wife? That would have been sick!
I tried to find out where Daly lives and couldn’t. Tried for Joe Dunn (re CA-47) too, and also couldn’t. SD-29 only has a 5-point Republican majority, but it’s now largely in OC — territory that Daly has represented and Huff has not. It’s social conservative — and Daly’s not a firebrand crazy. He could win there. I think that it’s more likely than AD-69, actually, because there I think he won’t win.
(Can I still call Art’s blog “Pedrozapalooza”?)
“I think I made him see how wrong that was;”
Pedroza would never admit it – he is a weasle and a homophobe.
“Not if he is not American”. No if he is Mexican, like the rest of his county NO!
BIG NO!
gee greg lets give some example of some democrat racism that you think you party does not have . lets see donna braziel = the republican party is the party of the white boys .. hillary clinton = he has the plantation mentality if you know what i mean .. how about the best person for the job , NOT BY RACE , YOU BIG LIBS ARE ALL LIKE PINOCHIO . THE NOSE GETS BIGGER N BIGGER WHEN THEIT LIPS MOVE .
I’m looking at the time stamps at all your posts. Either your self-employed or robbing from your companies. So, you can say there is corporate greed out there, but, they realize you steal time on their books and screw up their productivity; hence, layoffs.
I’m self-employed. That was a good idea for you to avoid defamation by saying “it’s either A or wrongful B” before building your whole attack on it being “B.”
You, on the other hand, are either a child molester or an at least occasional reader or this blog — and child molestation is horrible.
[That was a good idea for you to avoid defamation by saying “it’s either A or wrongful B” before building your whole attack on it being “B.”]…….. Hmmmmm
WRONG: The key element of defamation is prove malice! Malice is triable issue! There is no malice in the above statement, actual or implied.
Pleas make note of it! Esq. Encino.
For “public figures,” yes.
“I’m self-employed” said by Greg Diamond.
Greg, that make you part of the 1 percent, those who learned they don’t need permission from a corporate, government, or other type of employer to earn a buck.
You are not cattle or sheep, and I statute you.
No, making $300,000 or so a year would make me one of the 1%. I don’t.
“You, on the other hand, are either a child molester or an at least occasional reader or this blog”……. Hmmmmm
However, based on the above, if I would be Mark Abrams I would have a good reason to contact real attorney.
Greg D,
Of course I am talking voters – if you don’t vote how can you expect to be represented? – duh ….
I can only presume that you don’t understand how the population is divided into districts. Children don’t vote; do you believe that they are not “represented’ in the sense of their population included in the figures used to achieve equal-population districts?
What the hell does this have to do with the price of butter – or a “Latino Assembly District”?
Are you saying the 69th Assembly District should go to a Latino because they have children ??? WTF?
Sheesh. OK, here’s goes:
Well you could, for example, be a minor — in which event redistricting still takes you into account.
so what – you can’t vote – there is no selection process for candidates except by vote
Do you understand that the redistricting process intrinsically involves matters of representation?
You said “how can you expect to be represented other than by voting?” The answer is: through redistricting, which gives your community a certain amount of power in the legislature.
I can get even more basic than this if you’d like.
Gary Hunt and Lucy Dunn? That right there ought to make you choke.
Wait ’til the Internal Auditor reports on the 433 W. Civic Center Dr. fiasco. $2.1 million for a building bought by Daly 3.5 years ago and it’s still empty.
Hard to believe there isn’t a single decent candidate in this whole freaking district.
Tony, in such a situation I suggest that you settle for competent and honest. You are, I’ve been told, not a fan of unions; nevertheless, Julio Perez is a smart and honest union rep with whom I think even his opponents can usefully converse. Sometimes there really are plus-sum solutions to problems; it’s best to have someone smart and honest on the other side of the table.
Of course, there’s a view that one wants someone weak and corrupt on the other side of the table because they’d be easier to roll. In that event, Julio is not your guy. That could be your preference, but I’d like to think better of you.
I am not a fan of public employee unions.
So I have heard. Nevertheless, my comment stands.
“my comment stands”…….. Hmmmmm
On what leg?
On your leg.
This is nothing more than racism. Please define latino – is a latino someone that has came to the US from latin America during their lifetime? During their parents lifetime? Their grandparents? Is the more recent arrival more “latino” than another? Where do you draw the line? Does the pigmentation of your skin qualify/disqualify you from membership in the “latino” clan? If you are from Spain or Italy (the place of origin of many “latinos”) are you more or less latino than others?
This kind of debate is simply ridiculous. You can no more use racism as a tool and call it proper than use it as a weapon and find it heinous.
I define it as the Census does: self-definition.
Of course, some self-definition can be simply absurd. If one who is not a Latino claims to be a Latino, but can only explain their Latino identity feebly, they won’t be taken as one, and they won’t satisfy the longing for representation that Latinos (like others) feel.
You’re essentially saying that the longing — well recognized by both major parties — for ethnic representation in government is illegitimate and racist. You’d be OK with lawyers or Tea Partiers or whatnot seeking such representation — but not Latinos. That’s “nothing more than racism” to you.
I think that restating your position plainly goes much of the way towards rebutting it.
So it’s OK to have a “Latino” site even if that is as you correctly point out, entirely self-defined. The not so funny thing is that you could never have a discussion about a “European” seat because that would be viewed as racist. Double standards are the standard fare of the left.
Yep, the White Man just can’t catch a break, can he.
It is all about ability to govern.
If you look Europe itself the only Germany and Central Europe including Bohemia are prosperous country there.
So do you want Zorba for president?….. He is European?
You don’t think that there are “European seats” in Orange County? Seats where the candidacy of a non-white would raise eyebrows and create obstacles in the mind of political consultants? Really?
You’re right, though: we don’t discuss them as much (at least in public.)
I submit that Europeans are not hurting when it comes to legislative representation. When that day comes, it will be a different argument. But if the day ever comes when Latinos dominate even non-Latino majority district, you tell me how you think a future hypothetical Latino candidate is likely to fare when muscling in on Newport Beach or Mission Viejo.
If you need hints, take a look at “white ethnic” neighborhoods in the Northeast and Midwest. They don’t take it kindly. Do you wonder why?
“You’d be OK with lawyers or Tea Partiers or whatnot seeking such representation — but not Latinos.”
On the contrary … conservatives happily accept (as if an acceptance were necessary) lawyers who happen to be Latino or Tea Partiers who happen to be Latino.
Your segregation by race is, well ….. racist.
Do you understand what segregation is, or did you just hear someone use the word once and figure out that it is bad?
It’s truly lovely that you think that race doesn’t matter. But, of course, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. So, historically, how happy are Caucasian voters to be represented by minorities? (You may want to ask a political consultant about this.) Sometimes it does indeed happen — but rarely enough to warrant note when it does.
So, if we conclude that, pretty much of the time, Caucasians-dominant electorates are going to vote to me represented by Caucasians (or sometimes by Asians, but rarely by Latinos or Blacks), then the population of districts where Latinos can be likely to enter the legislature is pretty much limited to Latino-dominant districts — of which the new AD-69 is the most Latino-dominant in the state.
Now there’s no rule saying that a Caucasian politician can’t horn in on such a district; Tom Daly can certainly try. The problem isn’t that it’s wrong; more like that it’s rude and destructive to good working relationships. There is nothing illegal (anymore), for example, about your seducing your business partner’s mate — it’s just a bad practice if you care about how well you will get along.
There’s a reason that this post was not entitled “An Open Letter to Tom Daly: Scram!” He’s not my audience. My audience is Democrats particularly (and you semi-, almost-, should be- and other onlookers secondarily.) Do we care about, in Orange County, our Latino district, packed more full of Latinos than anywhere else, being taken away from Latinos? My answer: yes, we do.
No one is talking about blocking Daly from running or taking office. The question is: is it seemly? Should Democrats hesitate to support it?
That Republicans would probably love to see such a rift develop between Democrats and Latinos pretty much answers that question for me.
Everyone knows that only a Latino can properly represent Latinos. The end.
I see that you’ve tried twisting events to arrive at a advantageous framing before! That was no amateur effort, so congratulations on a job well done.
One would have to be an idiot or a scoundrel to interpret this essay as saying that “only a Latino can properly represent Latinos” — in many districts, Caucasian politicians have been chosen by Latino communities to represent them. Now, those districts tend to have certain characteristics — like the person has been a liberal incumbent, dedicated to Latino causes, and has not been running against Latinos who have popular support, have no stench of corruption, and who many would think would do a good job.
So, I’m happy to discuss with you whether AD-69 fits that template. I’ll just be over in the corner making chicken-clucking noises at you while awaiting your reply.
AD-69 should be prepresented by a qualified person, PERIOD.
To say that a Latino should be prepresented by a Latino is why our state is in dier straights. Race is not the answer, wisdom is the answer, excise wisdom, it does not cost you nor us a dime.
Ask yourself, what qualifcations shall one bear in order to prepresent “ALL” and not just their own race, after all, were all in the same boiling pot.
One could credibly argue, the seat isn’t currently held by a Latino (at least Politically speaking)!
Jose exemplifies “political sellout” all to common in these parts.
Jose Solorio is a Latino. The defense rests.
Greg Diamond:
I am interested in your answer to the following hypothetical:
Let’s say two candidates run for AD-69. Bob Whitebread, Democrat, and Julio Emilio Zaragosa de la Paz de la Cruz of the GOP.
Both have no stench of corruption, both have done an equal amount of good for the Latino community and shown equal dedication to their causes, are not beholden
to special interests, etc.
Which candidate would you support?
I’d say, still too many unknowns. Are those the only two choices? It would depend, for me, a lot more on what their positions are on a lot of different things. And I’d guess that the Democrat would probably agree with me on more of the issues. (And that Latino loses a couple points for such a ridiculous name, but that’s your doing.)
But this is a light-year, or maybe a portion of a light-year, away from the scenario we have and which Greg is writing about: the Democratic establishment coalescing around a white candidate in a majority-Latino district where there are already two perfectly fine Latino candidates.
I’d support Roberto Panblanco, because he’d be part of the Democratic caucus and I think that’s good. I don’t think that the Republican caucus “does good for the Latino community.” But if the people chose otherwise, I’d probably be less bothered than I would if JEZ of the Cross of Peace being in office than by any of the actual Republicans we have around.
However, that’s not the issue here: I’m a Democrat writing, primarily, to other Democrats, asking about what we should want as a party. I think that in this instance, in the Latino-est district in California, having a conservativish Anglo swoop in and take the nomination would be, as my forebears would say, a shonda.
Vern I was being silly with that question. I do agree that it’s unseemly for him to run and he is stepping on toes but I do NOT agree that AD-69 should be a “Latino seat,” or that Latinos are owed a seat for that matter.
Well, damn then, Le Dai Khoa, it looks like we all agree.
Again, Greg was mainly addressing establishment Democrats who are backing Daly – and saying that it’s a bad idea for our Party.
I think that your Party is insanely obsessed with race.
Hmm… The case could be made. For some of us.
“Your party.” Your slip is showing, skally.
Headline: Republicans want to see Daly as Democratic candidate in AD-69.
(OK, your comment isn’t proof it it — but I suspect that it is true.)
I am a registered Republican – I call myself a Conservative Republican. So what – I cannot have a voice?
If voters want to elect an Anglo of any stripe, that’s up to them. The question is, who should Democrats want to see carrying the blue banner in AD-69?
If you’re in a coalition, you should act like it.
In what part of the Democrat Party candidate selection process would your “preference by race of candidate” fit? How can you best accomplish your goal of eliminating the cracker candidate?
I don’t even understand your question.
If I catch your drift, it would be the “endorsing, contributing to, volunteering for, and voting for” part.
I haven’t called Daly a “cracker,” so don’t stoop to the level of ascribing it to me. Or “reach for the level,” as the case may be.
Sudden realization — you used the term “Democrat Party.”
So you’re not a Democrat. (We know the difference between a noun and an adjective.) And you’re not on the left. So are you a Republican, Libertarian, American Independent — or a Decline to Think?
“The question is, who should Democrats want to see carrying the blue banner in AD-69?”
My question is: Who should be making these decision for the Democrat voters (or Republican voters, etc) before the election?
How many registered party members even know who the central committee members are or even read their party platform?
And what’s your answer to that question? One conceivable answer is: big-money donors, who are already active. That’s OK with you?
You seem not to perceive any distinction between “making decisions for people” and “trying to influence people.”
One other thing: the adjective is “Democratic.” Using “Democrat” as an adjective just makes you look ignorant.
“Democrat voters” being used as a noun or pro noun.
“just makes you look ignorant” I am. That is why I ask many silly sounding questions.
“And what’s your answer to that question?” I have none, so I keep watching.
Your laying your grammatical knowledge bare like this touches my heart. If you’d like, I’ll gently explain to you what an adjective, noun, and “pro noun” are.