As you may have heard, I was removed last night from my position as DPOC Vice Chair on a vote of 35-15. (There are questions as to the legitimacy of some of those votes, which I will pursue — I’m not actually removed from office until May 26, pending certification of the results — but even if I dodged the bullet this time by cancelling some illegitimate votes those votes would be eligible in a later revote. It’s clear where people stand.)
Previous image deleted on demand. Transformative use of image of DPOC Chair used for identification purposes only.
I have two main problems IN PRINCIPLE with the DPOC’s actions last night, which I will address more fully at a later time. Neither of them involve caving into the pressure from the Building Trades; bowing to the demands of the powerful is part of life, in both parties, and I can’t say that I’d always be pure in that respect, depending on the stakes — especially if the persons to be harmed by my actions were others. And I’m not opposed in principle to my being removed at all, if there were a legitimate reason. My two problems were this:
(1) The DPOC has, without advance warning and against prior precedent, transformed the basis on which an officer can be removed from “commission of certain discrete wrongful acts” to a nebulous standard that reduces to “we just think we’re better off without him in that position.” The chilling effect on watchdog efforts within the party — and on the ability to exert checks and balance on this or any other DPOC Chair, should be obvious. (Nevertheless, given how many DPOC members didn’t seem to get it, I guess I’ll have to explain it in detail.)
(2) Far more importantly, the procedure itself was engineered to be almost as unfair as possible: conceding on small points of due process after the most critical point — that I did not have to receive written notice of the charges to be made against me until five minutes before I was supposed to have to rebut them — was lost. They literally wanted me to rebut eleven paragraphs of charges — something I’d prefer to have done in writing that in a certain-to-bore-people impromptu speech — as well as the speech of my chief accuser, Florice Hoffman — within five minutes, and then able to rebut a coordinated presentation of two-minute accusations by a dozen or so speakers in a short rebuttal. (I had no control over who would speak for my side or whether they would answer specific charges made against me.)
When a group of proponents in a quasi-trial come up with a set of procedures — known to them ahead of time but not to me — that is that insulting to basic principles of due process, the only response should be taken from Willy Wonka’s statement to Charlie after he violated the rules of the Chocolate Factory: YOU LOSE! I asked for such a determination, I didn’t get it, and the DPOC will have a harder time living down that result than I will. A lavish display of details will be presented later — in a series that for all I know will take weeks.
Republicans and other non-Democrats, of course, are trying to use this to harm some of the people who are LEAST culpable, but whose tarring with the DPOC’s sins provides the most benefit to them: Democratic elected officials in tight races. If anything, I hate that even more.
I would love to be talking more right now about the bad decisions of the party. But if Republicans like Art Pedroza and my clever young friend Daniel Lamb and my newish friend JM Ivier are going to use this to try to slam the likes of Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva and Congressman Alan Lowenthal, then they put me in the position of having to defend them — because, as much as such critics might want to think otherwise, they were not the problem. Do you want to know one reason that I know that they were not the problem? Because they — none of whom were there but were represented by alternates (or proxies) — didn’t know in advance that any of this was going to happen.
Let’s take them one by one.
Sharon Quirk-Silva:
Sharon’s alternate on the Central Committee is former Stanton Mayor Sal Sapien — a longtime union member and one of the hardest-working and most conscientious people in the DPOC. I can barely imagine what sort of pressure she must have been under by the unions to vote to remove me.
I have a sense of proportion in politics. As great an injustice I think was done to me last night, if the unions were leaning on Sharon as hard as I think they were, many more good people would have been hurt by her principled stand than would be hurt by the relatively meager harm of my removal. So I contacted her and told her that while I didn’t think they had made the case for removal, I would completely understand her abstaining — and even her voting to remove me if doing so was necessary. Party politics pale in importance next to real politics.
Sharon politely told me to take a hike. She told me that she would instruct Sal to listen to the evidence (which, not being written, could not be presented to Sharon) and vote his conscience — which is exactly the right position for her to take.) Sal did so. He listened to the evidence, was apparently not convinced either way, and made his own decision to abstain. Hanging that around Sharon’s neck is simply absurd.
But I want to tell you one other thing about Sal’s vote. (I’m sorry that this part is a little complicated.)
One of my supporters raised the problem prior to the vote that an alternate can’t vote unless the member on whose behalf they act had paid their $60 annual dues: this affected the alternates for at least five ex-officio members: former 74th Assembly District candidate Bob Rush, former 37th State Senate District candidate Steve Young, 46th Congressional District Rep. Loretta Sanchez, former 49th Congressional District candidate Jerry Tetalman, and 65th District Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva. (There may be others as well; I don’t yet know.) Ex officios who are not involved in party affairs not paying their dues is not unusual, and the rule invoked generally hasn’t been enforced, so there’s nothing sinister about being on that list.
I was later informed that Bob Rush’s alternate, our own Greg Ridge, paid Rush’s dues so that he would be able to vote. Steve Young’s dues were paid by Gila Jones, who appears to have been the main strategist (and an extremely active lobbyist) for the removal effort. (Ironically, Young’s alternate, 68th Assembly District candidate Anne Cameron, had already left prior to the vote under the impression, after a ruling of the Chair, that she would not be able to vote, so that donation to the DPOC didn’t have any effect.) I believe, by the way, that paying someone’s dues — which I’ve always understood are a political contribution — is a violation of campaign finance law. Ridge’s doing so on the basis of his being told that he could do so by the party puts the legal responsibility on the DPOC; I don’t know what Jones knew about this law.) Another ex officio member, former Congressional candidate Sukhee Kang, was reportedly actually issued a voting card without having paid his dues, used it to vote once, and then was clued in that he had to go pay his dues. That’s not his fault; that’s the party’s fault.
So, going into the vote, only three potential voters hadn’t paid their dues: Loretta’s alternate Misha Houser, Tetalman’s alternate Henry Vandermeir — yes, the Chair — and Sal Sapien.
Henry went a bit ballistic at the notion that he wouldn’t be able to vote because of a rule he should have understood. Finally, they worked out an arrangement with the Acting Chair Eric Bauman (the Los Angeles County Party Vice-Chair, brought in to prevent the appearance of bias — more on that perhaps another time) to reopen the opportunity for people to pay their dues. Houser, informed by the party that this was legal, did so. Vandermeir, who is charged with understanding these campaign finance rules, paid for Tetalman. Sapien was apparently still mulling over pay Sharon’s dues. And then — and I didn’t see this myself, but I was told that it was as he got up to do so — they suddenly re-closed credentialing before he could get to the table.
Now other people went ballistic. You just don’t do that to someone. The Chair eventually decided that Sapien, too, would be allowed to pay his dues — and he paid his $60 for Sharon. And then he abstained.
Sal Sapien paid $60 to abstain on a vote, apparently because he wanted it to be on record that he did not vote to remove me.
So if you can tell me how that reflects badly on Sharon Quirk-Silva, go ahead and try. It wasn’t her decision, she had no basis to make the decision before the meeting but had had the foresight to appoint one of the most honest people in Democratic politics to make judgments on her behalf — and he actually paid money to do the right thing. Those of you criticizing Sharon for this have no idea what you’re talking about. It makes me sick to see you do it.
Alan Lowenthal
Alan Lowenthal’s alternate on the Executive Board is Melahat Rafiei — previous longtime Executive Director of the DPOC and a campaign manager and fundraiser. Melahat (as everyone calls her) has in my experience taken on two primary sorts of clients within Orange County politics — liberal longshots who have little chance to win and “business Democrats” who have a very good chance to win. She is, you will not be surprised to learn given the above, the campaign manager for Jordan “Future of the Democratic Party” Brandman. And, until recently, she lived in Long Beach, Lowenthal’s base. Because the DPOC had arguably had no requirement than an alternate live within Orange County, and because the face that she usually shows to people is that of a progressive rather than of an agent for developers, she was an obvious choice for Lowenthal to choose. I’m sure that many Business Democrats from OC told him so.
Recently, Melahat move to the City of Orange — that is to say, back into Orange County but out of Lowenthal’s district. As we require that people live within their principal’s district, I presumed that that disqualified her as an alternate. Apparently not. I challenged her right to vote. Vandermeir stated that her right to be Lowenthal’s alternate had already been established long ago — which is true, when she lived at her previous address! By that point, though, even I knew that it was time to stop criticizing the Chair for brazenly breaking the rules (as my doing so is apparently one of the things that pissed off his supporters.)
Maybe Lowenthal instructed Melahat to vote to remove me — but I doubt it. (And, if he did so, it would likely be under threats by the Trades to torpedo his election, and “the greater good” would lead me to say that of course he would have to give in if they’re going to be that way. I didn’t talk to him about this beforehand, but I would absolutely respect his right to vote their way because in politics the responsibility to cast the tough votes lies primarily with those most able to withstand the consequences. Apologies to my idealist friends, but if I knew that Lowenthal’s election was in trouble because he was about to go on a suicide mission over my being DPOC Vice Chair, I simply would have resigned to prevent that vote. Chair Vandermeir may have been happy to see the baby cut in half to get his way, but I’m not!
My guess is that Melahat received the same instructions that Sapien did: listen to the evidence and vote the same way. Lowenthal spends most of his time in DC. He lives in another county. I have no reason to think that he’s even much aware of DPOC internal affairs — or that his effusively smiling alternate is the campaign manager for a man who makes common cause with law-breaking Republicans.
Do I blame him for Melahat’s vote? Hell no. That’s crazy. Stop doing it.
And if he did instruct her to vote against me because in return he got some concession from the Building Trades over the 405 Toll Roads — people have speculated that, but I have no idea whether that’s true — then my going down in flames will have been a more important piece of activism than almost anything else I’ve done in office. If my opponents had to pay that sort of price to get rid of me, then I could not be more proud of myself — and of the public officials who accepted that sort of good deal. Because that’s just how politics works — and I’ll take substance over symbolism almost every time.
So, whatever the basis that led to their votes, Quirk-Silva and Lowenthal are completely exonerated in my book. Tom Daly and Lou Correa (who sent alternates there to vote against me despite no political need to do so) and various other voters — feel free to go after them, but not the people who acted properly and with the public good in mind. Politicizing my removal for bullcrap causes pisses me off.
And I look forward to when the June election is over, so I don’t have to censor myself and say only “bullcrap.”
One thing I glean from this is that the Democrat elected officials hold the DPOC in such low regard they can’t even pay their dues to the club.
” A lavish display of details will be presented later — in a series that for all I know will take weeks.”
Bloviator: Please don’t. You were hung out to dry by Vandermeir and his minions yesterday, which only shows how pathetic they are and how fucked the Dems are with the likes of him running the ship. With this loss, you have an opportunity to reform the Dems toward a true progressive bent instead of the corporatist idiots they’ve supported for years. You and the rest of your bloggers stay above the fray, and you can do good; bloviate, and you will remain the Bloviator for life. The choice, as they say, is yours…
I’m willing to listen to reason, Gustavo, but I honestly don’t understand your point about “staying above the fray.” I’m fighting hard to do exactly what you suggest about party reform — and, as you can see, I’m willing to take heat for it. Maybe we should talk offline.
Simply put: Fight, fight like crazy against those idiots—but don’t write about the fight until you can report back with some results. This story isn’t going to go away, but it can get drowned out if you regale everyone with inside-baseball minutiae. I say this as a peace offering—I still think you’re a bloviator, but what the Dems did to you was flat-out wrong.
YEA! PEACE ON EARTH!
The fight is done. Now take the next fight to them. Not in their Union Hall, but from the DA’s office.
Greg, Gustavo makes worthy points, especially about rhetoric. Listen, my friend.
For the record, as Greg’s future brother-in-law and an opponent of his removal, I am appalled that he would attack Melhat in such a way as to cast aspersions on Congressman Lowenthal’s actions at last night’s meetings. I spoke with Melhat upon her arrival and was very clear that he had taken Greg at his word that he would be understanding of the difficulty ex-officios were being placed in. I find Greg’s comments to be a double standard and wholly inappropriate. Congressman Lowenthal is a dyed in the wool lifetime progressive and in my mind as well as most others,regardless of the above described flawed process, he is to be regarded with the highest esteem.
Jeff, I’m exonerating Lowenthal. I doubt that he instructed Melahat — and if he did I respect his reasons for doing so — AS I SAY EXPLICITLY IN THE ARTICLE. Please read it again if need be.
As for Melahat herself — she ain’t no Lowenthal. Lowenthal is an amazing progressive leader. Melahat is not even in his league. Lowenthal would never be something like Jordan Brandman’s campaign manager. I don’t hold him the least responsible for what Melahat does outside of his view.
If you want to see the comment slamming Lowenthal, which I am REBUTTING here, here’s the link: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2014/04/an-invitation-to-democrats-only-thats-not-my-rule-by-the-way/comment-page-1/#comment-531502. Read up and down from there to see my replies.
I’m glad (sincerely glad) for you to show up and emphasize where we disagree, as some people see to think that we’re entirely on the same page. We’ll probably argue about this around the Thanksgiving table.
Jeff, I’m the one who blasted MY Congressman. You will find MY take on the actions of his “representative” at: http://losalnews.com/congressman-alan-lowenthal-sells-out/
The Trade Unions want Greg out for a variety of reasons, and while I’m sure Anaheim is the “big one” you have to remember that all politics is local, and local for those of us at the county line is the fiasco in the making called the 405 expansion.
Toll roads or no toll roads this is something that the Trade Unions are fighting for. They think that the 100 or so jobs that it will generate will somehow offset the fact that the road is a road to nowhere (very similar to Palin’s bridge to nowhere except in this case it will carry thousands of cars that will get shoved into a funnel with what, 8 lanes going into 5 lanes?). When the freeway hist the 22/605/405 county line traffic will stop. Not slow down, stop. You can’t force all that additional traffic into those fewer lanes. It’s a physics issue. So, the traffic will act like water and will seek the path of least resistance, which is to fill the surface streets of Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Rossmoor, Cypress, West Garden Grove and portions of Westminster. My guess is that about 200,000 of Lowenthal’s constituents will be negatively impacted.
Since this decision is being made by CalTrans and OCTA, Lowenthal and his office have almost no power or leverage to help represent these 200,000 people. But a leading voice in the DPOC does. And so when they silenced the leading voice last night, and did so with Lowenthal’s vote, that was 200,000 people that were sold out to the Trade Unions.
Unless Lowenthal’s office was to get the Trade Unions to change their position on the 405 expansion, the deal was bad for every one of those 200,000, very bad.
You may regard him with “high esteem”, but you aren’t the one who will have to travel these streets when the overflow hits. You are one of those people that will be effected by this. And for the record, if the 405 expansion was all the way up to the Long Beach Airport with lane reduction along the five mile path so that the funnel could actually funnel the traffic without creating a massive parking lot, you would find that the feelings about the project in this corner of Orange County would be far different (we still wouldn’t want the toll roads, but we would be fine with the expansion).
It was HIS representative that said the reason for her vote was “because the Unions.”. So, it’s pretty much out there that HIS representative shot Greg “Because the Unions.” and it’s those same Trade Unions that are attempting to ruin the quality of life for a hell of a lot of people. People it was my understanding that the Democratic Party is there to protect, the working class.
Wait…Jeff is going to be Greg’s brother-in-law?! Tres Game of Thrones.
If you say so.
What the fuck is the matter with you Diamond?
People in your position don’t use words like “BULLCRAP”. That is majorly disappointing.
People who are strong and principled say: “BULLSHIT”. You’ve earned the right to say it and you should. This is not the Central Committee and courtesies need not be offered.
This comment is an attribution to Professor Robert Sutton. Author of the acclaimed book on bullying in the workplace: “The No Asshole Rule”. Adam Elhmark (or whatever) may disagree.
I’m just thinking of the children who happen to glance at other websites that take our RSS feed. I always try to think of the children.
jesus christ, you people are as fucked up as the republicans
Greg, you don’t know me from a hole in the wall, and I’m fine with that. But I’m totally with Gustavo on this. Give his advice SERIOUS consideration.
Just my two cents worth. Might even be worth less than that.
Please, please, please learn to communicate in less than 50,000 words and you might be taken more seriously.
Diamond of Desmadre! LOL
Gustavo’s crowd just love to tell everyone else how they should be writing and what (and oh, what an epitome of literary style is the OC Weekly). Well, they don’t speak for me, Mr. Diamond. I’ve been very impressed with how frank you’ve been in all this, and certainly not in spite of the length and detail of your writing. And isn’t bringing inside baseball to the light of day part and parcel of what you’re standing for?
And you can tell Mr. Vandermeir and the Build Trades for me: this sort of conduct is exactly why I’ve resisted the pull to register as a Democrat. I’m anti-Republican; but, looking at them, it’s hard to see where Republicans end and jackasses begin.
Greg,
It’s been a very long time since I’ve seen such a diverse group of individuals in agreement over a something. Like you or not, agree with you or not, we all pretty much feel the same way.
Labor showed their true colors, once again, and flexed their muscles a bit in the process with the, this is a union hall comment, truly unneeded under the circumstances.
Integrity and inclusivity took a holiday and the strong arm tactics of unions are never far from memories of many of us. The message sent out, loud and clear, was sit down and shut up, if you want to sit at the big table. God forbid you might actually think for yourself and have enough fortitude to make common sense sometimes and actually think about what’s legal or what is going to be beneficial to the community.
The worst part is they showed just how dysfunctional they are by their votes, yes – no maybe so….what the hell? The petulant children got what they wanted.
You on the other hand are trying to be as cool as you can, at least here, but I bet in person too. Be cool in this little hot spell Greg, be cool.
I’d like everyone who has avoided the Green Party all these years because we’re “too disorganized” to read this.
like
Now I am going to jump in and say stop saying “GOP” when you mean a handful of Republican bloggers, because it sounds like “the GOP” as in “the party” and the party has not attacked these candidates. Yet. Keep in mind the DPOC just left themselves WIDE OPEN for GOP challenge and rule number one in politics is when your enemy is hurting themselves, do not get in their way. That was hands down the biggest fuck-up I have ever seen in politics, the DPOC shot themselves in the foot and then through the fog of pain somehow found the presence of mind to reload and fire again.
And yes eventually it WILL be fair game to go after Dem candidates, not because of Greg but because they somehow wish to represent a party this monumentally screwed up and it shows a decided lack of respect for ethics, morals, character, or the intelligence of their own constituents. Every elected leader in that room who valued their own ass over doing the right thing deserves to lose. I don’t care ho much you like them Greg.
“GOP” fit better in an already pretty long headline.
As for the rest: well, that’s depressing. For me.
I doubt if this is even a blip on the “GOP” radar screen. Quirk’s problem is she has an opponent with a bunch of money.
@Mudge: I don’t think you’re too disorganized. I mean, you might be. I just think you’re a bunch of naifs pissing into the wind and usually represented on the ballot by my old community college’s Intro to Philosophy instructor. I can’t really speak to your organizational prowess.
@Carl Overmyer: Well said.
Woohoo! another chance to shamelessly plug an old blog entry of mine that treats some of these objections to the GP:
http://kitchenmudge.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/chickens-and-eggs/
@JDWMOORE: Point taken, except when you look at the quality of candidates the two major parties have put forth in recent years, your old professor doesn’t look all that bad.
Greg,
After absorbing your response, I know why DPOC had you purged. When the revolution comes and it’s time to storm the train station, you will tell your fellow comrades to get in the queue.
You’re the one who wants to use it to inspire a revolution that I consider wrongheaded. If you attack the people who did wrong for what they did wrong, I have no problem with it. If you use it to try to win elections with morally deficient candidates such as Young Kim and Gary DeLong, I will storm you barricades. There’s a legitimate story to be told here — and then there are several illegitimate ones. I care about that difference.
P.S. You probably have no idea how tasteless that comment was, but just ask around.
I am going to ignore the quip on tastelessness because I have no clue as to what you are talking about…
I am not trying to “use” this to inspire a revolution, I am trying to bring attention to an event that speaks volumes re: OC’s political culture.
When you have no clue about something, start asking around.
No, you’re simply trying to use this for political ends that I find noxious. I won’t let myself be used that way — at least not without a fight.
If you want to comment on OC’s political culture, go ahead. If you want to say that it indicts the DPOC, well, unfortunately it has earned whatever fair and factual criticisms it gets.
But, if you want to say that this specifically indicts XYZ candidate, when that candidate had little to do with it but happens to be running against someone you’d like to see elected, then you can expect me to push back at THAT injustice as hard as I push back against others.
“Fair criticism good; foul criticism bad.”
greg is correct, you cannot indict XYZ candidate! but he can indict the whole GOP. that’s fair.
Greg, you are being dishonest and insincere. I have been just as critical of Republicans, and I was prepared to go after OCGOP in that exact same way. Of course candidates XYZ can be held accountable for their votes as CC memberts, anything else is idiocy. Take a step back and get some perspective.
Diamond thinks that your “que at the trains” comment is a referral to Jewish holocaust victims being loaded in cattle cars at the train station.
That’s a secondary problem, not the main one I had in mind.
And politicians wonder why their approval rate is so low…. DRAMA. DRAMA.DRAMA. It’s a total turn-off…
As a voter, I want to know what you will ACTUALLY do for the citizens. I don’t just mean you, Greg, I’m talking to ALL those running for office. Why should we vote for you?
All this arguing is bullshit and a distraction from real problems.
I like to always ask.
“Please state three things that you would do once elected to office that your opponent would not do.”
If you can’t provide me an elevator pitch on the three things that differentiate you from your opponent, then you aren’t worth my time.
For instance from a candidate for the US House I would expect something along the lines of:
1) Expand the ACA with a public option, the ability to purchase MediCare, in order to force costs down.
2) Increase the Federal Minimum Wage to $15.00 an hour
3) Revert to the 1958 tax code of Dwight D Eisenhower with the dollar figures adjusted for inflation in order to reduce income inequality
For a State Legislative Candidate…
1) Eliminate the corporate giveaway loopholes in Prop 13
2) Eliminate the Bullet Train and invest all the funds in light rail and mass transit
3) Increase the CA Minimum Wage to $15.00 per hour
1) Be willing to prosecute anyone who breaks the law, regardless of their power, money, and status.
2) Provide serious, aggressive, and reliable investigations of public and private wrongdoing.
3) Ensure constitutional practices both in the DA’s office and in law enforcement — including respecting the Fourth Amendment.
I hate it that you limited me to three. I’m used to slower elevators.
Greg, that’s a good list. And your list differs significantly from those of the candidate you are challenging (and his actual past historical record).
I limit it to three because I don’t think that you can put any fluff into three items, and if you do it stands out like a sore thumb (unless all three items are fluff, and then you’re a bullcrap artist, not a reasonable candidate).
When I was a CTO of an Internet company and we were on the VC trail (we ended up with in excess of $60mil) I found that I was using this technique all the time to fine tune the message from the 20 reasons that someone should invest in the company down to what I could say while I was waiting for the PC to warm up to go into the powerpoint presentation. I also leaned that anything more than the top three bullet points made their eyes glaze over. Yeah, they were physically still there, but their minds were on where they were going to play golf and who they wanted in their foursome.
Voters don’t have the time or interest in getting to know all the fine points of your campaign. They are overwhelmed with data and information all day long. If your three top points won’t hook them in sixty seconds, you aren’t going to hook them 10 minutes later on point 14.
When going door-to-door I advise the candidates to say “these are my top three priorities” give the list and then say “I would love to hear what you think, and if there is anything important to you that I missed.” The same thing when they are working a room. Give the three point stump and then hit the individuals with the “I want to hear from you” line. Be sure to use that feedback time to determine if there is a need to change the top three list because lot’s of people are mentioning your number six item.
I recently attended a small gathering with one of the people running for Supervisor (No, not Jose, Jose hasn’t shown up anywhere near Los Alamitos) and the candidate hit their #2 item which was pensions. When the candidate came to me I asked for more details and the candidate hemmed and hawed about how Carona was still getting his even after being a criminal in office, etc. So I asked why no one has discussed capping the pension outlay at 20% above the median income for the community that they work/represent. For instance in Los Al the median income is about $50K, so why not cap the public pension payment at $60K? The Los Al City Manager makes $170K, if he wants to save more for retirement put $6K of that $170K into a 401K on top of the pension cap amount. This would eliminate a massive liability, but also not reward higher salaries with pension much greater then what the taxpayers are making to help pay for those pensions as well as stopping things like pension spiking, etc. At the same time there is nothing to stop these same public employees for saving for their own retirement just like those of us in the private sector have to. Now this candidate was actually really good. The candidate stopped, asked some more questions and even made a few notes. If I were to vote tomorrow for this non-partisan office the actions of this candidate would actually have me considering voting for this candidate rather than just voting the party line (See, this is what happens when Jose doesn’t come to Los Al). Have the three bullet points. Give them fast and easy. Get input and actively listen.
Oh, not to pick on Jose, but Jim hasn’t found Los Al either…
JM — thanks for the comments.
Look — I thought Spitzer was going to run against Racky, so I had had no intention of running until the OCGOP endorsed Racky unanimously, which was a pretty broad hint that Spitzer wouldn’t run. (I would have held my nose and voted for Spitzer, because he’s interested in public attention and doing a good job as DA is a good way to obtain it, so I figure that he’d be better.) So I got into this very late, without having raised a dime — and then the Trades came after me and cut off my access to traditional Democratic voters. (That’s why I suspect that the genesis for this whole thing was perhaps a Business Democrat/Racky supporter production.)
I am not walking precincts because there are 1.6 million voters in my district and it’s simply not worth the effort. I’ve been meeting with small groups of people who are shocked that a DA candidate gives a damn about them and their problems. That’s much of what I’m going to do for the next month. The other tactical surprises will be … surprises! I think you’ll enjoy them.
And that is why you get 2 votes from the Scott household Greg. I agree with JM, more than 3 is too much for the average voter to remember.
Daniel, “I know why DPOC had you purged” was pretty insensitive. Do you go to the homes of the recently divorced and tell them you understand why their mates dumped them? Or in this case committed suicide? OK now I am being insensitive. The whole thing sucks.
You are correct. At the same time, I can not imagine what compelled Greg, who is also a candidate for DA and counsel for CATER, to provide live commentary on an event centered around himself. I never thought I’d say this, but Greg needs to hire a consultant.
OK but I hear Dave Ellis is busy these days….
I’ll do it.
No, I don’t really need consultants. I need people to spread the word across the county.
As for my replying “live commentary,” until Monday I’ve been wearing four hats (not even counting those of husband and father and plaintiff’s employment lawyer): Democratic party official, prolific progressive blogger, government accountability attorney, and District Attorney candidate.
It would be much better if four people who can and are willing to do what I do to wear those four separate hats. But others have not stepped up — or at least not with the ability to throw a scare into the powers-that-be as I apparently can, even when dividing my time.
I look forward to a moment when I can wear only one (maybe two) of those hats. In OC, we’re not there yet. Until then, I beg people’s indulgence — and if I don’t get it, people can criticize away. I think that my priorities are in order.
By the way, if I am elected, I take off all of these hats (in my public life) except for District Attorney-Public Administrator.
I am tempted to take the “Prolific Blogger” shat, but, then life might never be the same and Chmiliewinski would blow a gasket!
I do have a question: who makes up the central committee and why is it so hard to find out who the party leaders are locally? Is this some kind of secret? A google search comes up with you a dozen times and Henry V. that’s it.
It is not just that Greg… let Ryan do it.
You have a forum as a public figure. It was beneath you, and unnecessary, to reply to my post and report on the event itself.
The whole thing was a corrupt joke from the threats voting members received ordering them to vote for the resolution to the lack of any charges at all that violated any party rule to the buying of votes. It was a call from a member regarding the receipt of multiple threats from proponents that caused me to change my plans and show up at the meeting.
Look. If the DPOC doesn’t want you to do unpaid work for them, i guess you will have to charge next time. Or you could write a skit for Saturday Night Live. They won’t believe any party could do anything so stupid at first but there are enough witnesses.
Now, the most important thing is to elect you district attorney. You can defeat the corrupt behind the scenes people that were really the ones responsible for that resolution. In your real fight, you will have women, children, crime victims and everyone who wants honest government on your side.
If the DPOC members didn’t support you, they wouldn’t have voted for you. A great many of them told me that they opposed the resolution but had no choice but to vote for it and it only appeared to pass by one vote. With all the buying of votes, they still only made it by one vote. I guess you are more popular among party members than backing Tony behind the scenes expected. Focus on the fact that when they had a choice, they overwhelmingly voted for you for district attorney.
Good luck Mr..Future Attorney General and I will do what I can to assist with your campaign for district attorney.
Like I’ve mentioned in the past, the Democratic party of Orange County CA bears no resemblance to their equivalent in New York city – my hometown. Their attitude towards Mr. Diamond is unsurprising. Creating jobs at any social cost? I call it “situational ethics”.
Coincidentally, a founding principle of Orange County, CA law enforcement. As an example, sounding the alarm on the gang member problem in OC while simultaneously using gang member types to commit crimes for them against a US born Latino American target. J. Edgar Hoover looks like Bambi at this point in comparison. And when I requested assistance from Loretta Sanchez, she took the “see no evil/hear no evil/speak no evil” cowards route out.
Anyway, carry on Mr. Diamond. You may have more support than you think.