How would Attorney General Kamala Harris feel about facing Orly Taitz in the November election — gleeful excitement or abject horror? It could be either or both. Photo credits to whoever that is in the URL for Orly and to AP for the *purely* illustrative reaction shot.
Proof that nobody else in the journalism (or quasi-journalism) community but me seems to be checking out the daily reports from the OC Registrar of Voters may be found in the fact that, almost a full day after this was on the Intertubes, we seem to have a scoop: it looks like Orly Taitz really is running for Attorney General against Kamala Harris.
Seriously. Take a look.
Yep! That looks like pre-filing, all right! And why would she be faking anything?
This is the wrong decision for Orly Taitz (although it’s not a bad one) — and it’s a very wrong decision for California’s Republican Party, because while she can’t likely beat Harris (I’d forecast a 70%-30% margin for Harris at first blush) she CAN probably beat anyone else the Republicans put up in order to get into the runoff. (Seriously — if someone else of note was going to run, wouldn’t they be running already?)
The GOP will likely get indigestion from this — and an extra dose from the synergy between Taitz and Tim Donnelly’s gubernatorial campaign. Taitz’s presence in the primary will further bring out the sorts of voters who would likely vote for Donnelly, making the prospect of a … let’s call it “non-mainstream” … ticket all the more likely. You won’t see many Dems crying over that. (But some Dems may cry a bit over the nres in the next paragraph.)
Taitz is going to strike many of the right chords in the libertarian gullies of OC. A personal friend of sometime OJB writer Debbie Tharp, she’s pro-marijuana (medical, at a minimum, and perhaps legalization as well), which will put Harris into an odd position. This is a year when marijuana legalization efforts are becoming more thinkable (although it’s not clear that legalization advocates in CA have the chops to pull it off.) She’ll face the choice of either standing with her good friend Barack Obama — who will surely be Taitz’s rhetorical target no matter who else is on the ballot — and his surprisingly intolerant policies or else letting Taitz pull her further to the left (or whatever direction legalization is) than she’d like to go.
I’m an admirer of Harris (who is on my short list of “I would like to see that person become Governor someday” along with names like Debra Bowen, John Garamendi, and Dave Jones), so I do wish that this were happening to a more deserving target, but I hate to see her have to move to the right in response to Taitz to maintain her “political viability.”
What should Taitz be running for instead? That’s easy: AD-73.
Wendy Gabriella, the sole Democrat in the race, will probably do well enough to make the runoff in a field where four credible and fairly evenly matched Republicans — Bill Brough, Anna Bryson, Jesse Petrilla, and Paul Glaab — are going to beat the tar out of each other all year long. (And once they file for this race, they cannot unfile. Thanks, Abel Maldonado!) Let’s say that Gabriella — an appealing and tireless campaigner who will likely have reasonably decent funding as the race shakes out — has a floor of 25% of the primary vote (and I think her floor is more like 30-33%) even in South County, thanks to the (D) after her name and her work ethic. So that leaves 75% to divide up four ways — meaning that the bottom two of that quartet have to be held to about 14% to have a prayer of keeping Gabriella out of the finale. But, add Orly to the mix, and two things happen: (1) Gabriella starts raising money from frightened (or gleeful) Democrats she was Google stock (2) Orly cuts the legs out from under Petrilla and probably goes up to about a 25% floor of her own. Scott Baugh could try to chase all but one candidate out of the race over the next couple of weeks, but it would not be easy — and it would be even harder to do so once he decided to anoint someone to hold off Orly. In fact, that might even backfire!
Who would win a Gabriella vs. Taitz runoff? Either result would be spectacularly unexpected — and I honestly don’t know how to call it. Gabriella’s a thoughtful moderate Dem who could attract a lot of Republicans and independents — and Orly would be like a liquid fire, amassing a huge warchest. I could imagine Republicans deciding that it would be better to suffer through two years of Gabriella than to raise Taitz to prominence as a national spokesperson — but, would they really be willing to do that when the Democratic supermajority might hinge on the result. So, they’d go with Taitz. But can they really count on Taitz?
I’ll tell you who would definitely win — political bloggers! But if she really wants to run for AG, well, we’ll make the most out of that too, even if it means that the Republicans have to dig up someone like former AG Dan Lungren to be their sacrificial lamb against Harris — IF he can beat her!
(Note: I don’t want to give Taitz the idea of running for SD-36 — for fear that too many Democrats would vote for her over Pat Bates as, essentially, a prank. So, no, I don’t want to even mention that.)
Greg,
I like you. And I like this post because it shows (relative) brevity.
I have one writing tip for you. And I will only post this once. You make great points, but you need to be much more concise. You are way, way too long-winded. This is why Gustavo calls you the “bloviator.”
It takes a long time to write so many words and make so many points. But it takes even more effort and intelligence to make the same points clearly and concisely.
I leave you with this brilliant quote from Mark Twain:
“I would have written you a shorter letter, but I didn’t have time.”
Best of luck.
First and overriding, thank you both for the kind words and for taking the time to offer constructive criticism!
I think that that was Voltaire rather than Twain, but it represents my views entirely. I’m trying to run my legal practice, be a good husband and father, and serve in a pretty demanding political role on top of working (for free) on this blog — and I can only justify the time taken from the other activities if I’m putting out essentially first or second drafts (at least most of the time.) Completing polished products does take a lot of extra time and effort. In my case, though, writing “stream of consciousness” is pretty easy — I’ve literally been doing this since 1986, starting with the University of Michigan’s proprietary system — and “writing long” takes me less time than you probably think. “Writing polished,” by contrast, is not beyond my capabilities, it’s just beyond my available time.
(I admit that there’s one area where I do put in way much more time than I should — the graphics. What can I say — I just really enjoy doing that most of the time. So, that’s what I do instead of hanging out on the street corner smoking, or whatever else I’d do with my time. I love that, this late in life, I’ve begun to do something that, on my good days, looks a little bit like art!)
I don’t much care what Gustavo calls me. I wish that we got along better than we do, but the man simply can’t take criticism and so will lash out by any available means. (Remember, the Weekly is the publication that at one point attacked for posting comments after midnight, like that was deeply weird.) He’s a mostly smart guy with a mostly good heart, and I think that thicker skin would serve him well. But if he refuses to grow some, then that’s his choice; I’ve already developed it. I’d point out, though, that he’s completely wrong about the definition of “bloviate” — it refers not just to prolixity (to which I admit) but also empty verbiage. I’m long-winded, but it’s not empty. And, my fans often tell me that the richness of the text — the being able to follow my thinking, with its detours and caveats and inferential leaps — really is worth it. It’s not to everyone’s taste, but it’s true of many of my favorite authors, from Melville to Vonnegut to Heller to many writers from the glory days of the Village Voice, who helped to develop my taste. I’m happy to publish boiled down and polished versions of my writing from anyone who wishes to do that work.
Here’s another reason that I write long and write from very much of a first-person perspective: I’m a diarist/essayist, not a reporter. Like others of the genre, part of my joy in writing comes from expressing my subjective take on the world to others — and those who are most willing to read and follow my thoughts are the ones who I am most interested in reaching. I’m not concerned primarily with persuasion or I’d write (in form, though not in content) like Art Pedroza, who crafts his writings emotionally, tendentiously, and for the eighth-grade reading level — just like you’re “supposed to do.” That’s just not my motivation as a writer. I want to have an effect, but I also want to, pardon the expression, “let my freak flag fly.” I’m writing for, perhaps, the enjoyment of my kids and grandkids (and whoever) way down the line — which, if it does not happen, will also be OK with me, because by then I’ll be dead.
In the totality of my writing, I’m trying to demonstrate how someone of my intelligence, cultural and political background, and ethical sense of the world responded to the concerns of the day. Most likely, nothing will come of it; it will be like a long and heartfelt suicide note blown into the ocean before anyone can read it, or a (less horrific, I hope) Dorner-style manifesto that was burned up before it hit a newspaper editor’s desk. But, so what? It pleases me that it’s out there, it’s in tune with my sense of ethical action in the world — and I enjoy writing this way. I develop good friendships with people who “get it” and appreciate it — Cynthia, Ryan, Vern, and others here being examples of disparate people who think and write similarly — and if the burdens of weeding through the thicket of my writing (although I prefer to think of it as “prancing through the meadow” of it) are too great for some, then it’s fine with me if they don’t read it. I don’t charge for my writing; all I do is invite the reader to spend time exposing themselves to my take on the world — and showing others how as well as what I think. That’s the “payment” I ask. If my writing is “not for you,” then I really wasn’t writing to you. And that’s fine — people differ. (My wife doesn’t like trying to get through my writing, in her third language, but I love her as much as if she did.)
So, thanks again, quite sincerely, for the criticism. “Writing long” (as, what do you know, I’ve done right here!) does, I’m sure, make me a little less effective as a communicator and as an activist — though I think that I do a pretty good job of both. It does, I think, make me more of a fully realized human being as an author — and if and when any any reader, now or years from now, appreciates that, then I’m thrilled for it. That’s what writers who write for the love of writing want out of life.
(By the way: when I have to write concisely and effectively, which is usually for professional purposes, then I can — it’s just not how I express my inner self. And I like doing that!)
I’ve got Orly’s cell # thanks to Tharp. And Orly’s glad to talk to anybody – as witness her Stephanie Miller appearances. I bet I can get us an exclusive videotaped interview!
illuminate, i have been saying the same thing all along he just goes on and on and never shuts up! theres another saying I’m not sure who said it but it goes: “if you’re talking long you’re talking wrong” so greg when trying a case doesn’t the judge ever tell you to shut ghe hrll up?
Sure I get told to “shut ghe hrll up.” Most attorneys do at one or another time. More often, I get pretty good attention paid.
Anyway, jose — I’m really not writing for your taste, though in saying that I don’t mean to diminish you. To each their own taste.
Maybe she can hire Dan C’s buddy Ryan Trabuco from San Diego, Texas, Irvine or wherever to help coordinate her campaign.
I saw ol’ Ryan the instigator of the “great blog” war was vilified tonight for helping LOSE the San Diego Mayoral election of David Alvarez, to a Republican opponent.
Now this wide margin loss is not in the hands of a lowly blogger and self professed “social media expert”, there is plenty of blame to go around: from Filners behavior to the SDDP AND everyone who supported his behavior for two decades.
But, progressive politics (rightfully so) pay the price.
Native son David Alvarez, likely suffered from the support from his “ultra-liberal” supporters from Santa Ana and the San Joaquin Valley. His ignorance of the moderate political base of the city CRUSHED him.
zzzzzzzzz…..