“We Must Stop Dr. Moreno!” Brandman’s Defense of his Disenfranchisement of Anaheim Latinos.


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

.

.

.

Note: My Photoshop program may be fixed soon.  I think that we all look forward to that day.

Note: My Photoshop program may be fixed soon. I think that we should all look forward to the day I can stop using Paint.

Anaheim Councilman Jordan Brandman — leader of the Brandman Party, which loosely affiliates with both major parties — was last seen being unseen at both the Democratic Party’s annual Truman Dinner (where he had been scheduled to give the opening remarks) and that same party’s monthly meeting on Monday night, where his vote to hobble Latino representation in Anaheim for an extra two years met with literally universal condemnation by the central committee’s members.

Brandman did issue a screed Tuesday that seems only to have been covered by the two OC blogs most devoted to the Brandman Party (a wholly owned joint partnership of Disney Corporation and Pringle & Associates): Matt Cunningham’s mysteriously funded Anaheim Blog and Chumley’s slavering flackapalooza The Liberal OC.

Brandman’s speechwriter’s petulant bleating clearly deserves a wider audience (and some surgery.)  So here we go.  I will interrupt it occasionally to point out where the mind-controlling Ceti eel larva is headed for your ear canal.

The central committee’s action emanates from a personal political vendetta against me by Dr. Jose Moreno —

STOP!  No, it wasn’t.  True, it was mentioned on Jose Moreno’s Facebook page, but not initially by him.  I mentioned a “10/75” resolution condemnation the vote and hailed the man who would become author, Jeff LeTourneau, to make it happen.  And it wasn’t a vendetta against Brandman, it was an attempt to get him to change his craven, repulsive, and (as the unanimous vote shows) anti-Democratic-values vote.

an individual with whom I have had a long standing dispute.

STOP!  This “dispute” stems from Brandman’s jettisoning a “non-aggression pact” between the two and actively endorsing against Moreno on grounds to flimsy to recall.

Dr. Moreno believes he should be granted a seat on the Anaheim City Council without having to earn community support and work for it.  He is wrong.

STOP!  This is what psychologists call “projection.”  Moreno doesn’t believe that he should be “granted a seat” on the Council, nor would it be possible for him to do so without “earning community support” — as he has already done so within most of the very Latino community whom Brandman just helped to disenfranchise.  It is Brandman, by contrast, who for years has been carried on a litter by Business Democratic officials with the only work assigned to him personally being flattering and lying to people and memorizing a few details of speeches.

At no time during the selection process regarding which districts would be on the ballot this election cycle did I receive any personal communication from him, the author of the resolution Mr. (Jeff) LeTourneau, or Chair (Henry) Vandermeir. They never directly spoke to me, emailed me, wrote me, or called me.

STOP!  We know from his statement that Brandman was motivated to defer self-determination by voters in Anaheim’s only majority-Latino District by his animosity for Dr. Moreno.  (Resolution author Jeff LeTourneau put it best in Chumleyville: “To reduce the fact that you and your two Republican cohorts have disenfranchised the sole Latino majority district residents, to a personal grudge match between Dr. Moreno and yourself, speaks volumes as to why you were unanimously condemned by your own Party governing body.”)

He states here that this presumably could have been overcome by highly placed Democrats directly lobbying him. He wasn’t lobbied on which districts to choose — except by me (at two Council meetings) and ten or so others mostly from OCCORD, OCCCO, and Democratic-leaning unions during Public Comments (shortly before the vote) — because lobbying him on this should not have been necessary.  This was an OBVIOUS VOTE for any Democrat with a functioning brain.  I know of no one within the county party — not even poor, poor cynical me — who thought that Brandman would be THIS petty and go THIS far to oppose a central Democratic Party value.  And he’s complaining that people didn’t kiss his ring?

I have been one of the strongest supporters of single-member district elections to guarantee full representational equity in Anaheim. I endorsed the ballot initiative to create districts, signed the ballot argument in support with Mayor Tait, and actively campaigned for its passage. I have always fought hard for an Anaheim City Council that justly reflects the diverse makeup of our community and will continue to do so.

I don’t even have to address this one, because Chairman Vern’s comment on Fiberal OC hits all the points.

“It is not true that Jordan has been “one of the strongest supporters of single-member district elections.” At the huge August 2012 meeting at Cook Auditorium, when Tom Tait and Lorri Galloway were trying to get districting onto the 2012 ballot (because justice delayed is justice denied, and if it’d passed we would have had district elections by 2014 AND saved $2 million of Anaheim taxpayer money) Jordan read somebody’s prepared statement that was near-identical to the Disney letter that came out that morning, talking about how wonderful districting would be SOME DAY, but first it needed to be discussed, studied and debated at length for a few years. Which is what ended up happening, as Jordan, Lucille, and Kris got to easily continue the Klepto Majority running at large – four more years of looting the treasury!  http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/08/anaheim-council-majority-shoots-down-everything-that-is-good-except-puppies/ 

“Then his Loretta-chaperoned visit to Los Amigos a few months later, where he eventually agreed to agendize settling the districting lawsuit, was like pulling teeth. (See http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/10/the-contortions-of-jordan-brandman/ for video of that meeting.)

“Then after being elected, he did vote in favor of districting and settling the suit whenever it came up – although he was always safely in a 2-3 minority with Tom. BUT there was a very revealing moment in summet 2013 where Tom wanted a vote to settle the suit, and for a little bit it looked like Lucille might be starting to be swayed by the very persuasive pro-districting arguments, and Jordan got a panicked look on his face and shouted “I call the question!” Can anyone find that moment on video? It would have been the June 11, 2013 meeting (http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/06/sirloin-or-dog-food-council-prepares-to-foist-santa-ana-style-faux-districting-on-anaheim-tonight/) If Lucille had done the right thing like she accidentally nearly did, we coulda had district elections last year.

“At best, Jordan has been a foot-dragging semi-supporter of districting. And now he’s told the city’s majority-Latino district they’ll have to wait another 2 years. Weak…”  [I added the links here that Chumley won’t let me – V]

Back to Melahat’s … JORDAN’S, I mean! — screed:

I have, in accordance with the map recommended by the districting committee, worked tirelessly to accomplish those goals. The current proposed ordinance includes putting two overwhelmingly Latino resident majority council districts on the ballot for November 2016 – District 4 which has a 68% Latino population & District 5 which as a 62% Latino population. The political action last night was more about choosing something specific that benefits one individual – Dr. Moreno, not the community.

And this, readers, is where Jordan (and whoever wrote this) went straight round the bend into “we think most people that will read this are stupid” territory.

For purposes of districting, you do want to have a roughly equal number of residents per district, but you don’t judge political power by residents.  You judge it by “voting pools” — a term called “CVAP,” or “Citizens of Voting Age Percentage.”  Both Jordan and his presumable speechwriter would know this.  Latino CVAP will generally be lower than Non-Latino White CVAP for two reasons: (1) fewer Latinos are citizens (which doesn’t mean that they are here illegally, but mostly that they are permanent residents) and (2) fewer Latino citizens are of voting age.  (That is, they have comparatively more children under 18.)  That’s the legal standard you use in voting rights cases — and in districting or redistricting.

Well: the Latino CVAPs for Districts 3, 4, and 5 are respectively 51%, 47%, and 44%.  (The “over 50%” figure in District 3 is important because that is a criterion used by the Voting Rights Act.)  It is true that Districts 4 and 5 have 68% and 62% raw population — including non-citizens and children — but by that standard District 3 has a 72% Latino general population.  (It’s probably higher now, more like 75%.)  Denying representation to this large of a Latino population out of a petty personal grudge is why people are incensed.  THEY, and not Dr. Moreno personally, are the ones who benefit most from self-determination — AHORA!

THIS SHOULD NOT EVEN HAVE TO BE EXPLAINED TO A DEMOCRATIC OFFICEHOLDER!

I will continue to support efforts to increase minority and community participation in the political process, but I will not give in to political deals that pretend to benefit the whole community when, in reality, they only benefit one individual.

This raises the question of whether Brandman would vote to put District 3 on the ballot in 2018 if Dr. Moreno agreed not to run for it.  It sure sounds like he would, doesn’t it?  Of course, that would benefit another Disney-rented Republican bosom buddy of Brandman’s, former (and, she hopes, future) Councilmember Gail Eastman, a lesser-favored member of the Brandman Party who mysteriously got 1000 fewer votes than her loyal friend Kris Murray a year ago, thus losing her Council seat to James Vanderbilt.  (Thanks, Kris!)

His concluding sentence gives you a stark insight into the twisted mind of Jordan Brandman.  To him, none of this was ever about the people in the community yearning for better access to government — the Latinos who (yes, led partly by Dr. Moreno) had to go to court to get a district system imposed.  No — to him it’s all about selfishness in what in his mind seems to be a “battle of titans.”  It’s likely that Brandman honestly cannot perceive a situation like this for what it is — a matter of social justice rather than of raw power.

“Justice?”, one can almost hear this Democratic analogue of George W. Bush saying.  “That’s just another word that someone wrote down for me on a piece of paper.  It’s not like it means anything!”

I heard lots of people expressing on Tuesday night what I was feeling myself: pride in my party.

Epilogue

This story wouldn’t be complete, though, without reference to Chumley’s own commentary on Brandman’s vote:

I did speak with Dr. Moreno Monday night and he confirmed he resides in District 3 and, should that District be opened for direct elections in 2016, he, and others, would be a candidate for a council run.

GUILTY!  SELFISH!  COMMONPLACE!  (Has he asked whether Brandman would, as rumored, move to Districts 1 or 2 — or even 4 or 5 — to get a better shot at Council once he drops out of the Congressional race and endorses actually mostly self-interested Latino Lou Correa?  No, and I’m betting he won’t criticize Brandman if he does so.)  I don’t think that he will run for Council, though; I suspect that he has a different path in mind, involving Tom “What do you MEAN I’m not getting a pension in the State Assembly?” Daly.

Brandman’s congressional opponent, former State Senator Joe Dunn, spoke at the meeting after it was formally adjourned to say he believed there were grounds for a lawsuit if the earlier council decision wasn’t overturned.

ALSO GUILTY!  UNSURE AS TO WHY!  DETAILS TO FOLLOW WHEN PROVIDED!

This is the second recent incident in OC where a major political party has dictated an elected official carry out the wishes of the party on a vote.  Irvine Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Lalloway, a Republican, was replaced on the Air Quality Management Board by Republican Mayor Steve Choi with council member Christina Shea who carried out the wishes of the Mayor at the direction of OC GOP chair Fred Whitaker.

It’s a rare thing, in nature, to see a walrus jump a shark — but I think that that’s what Chumley just did.  He’s actually equating the DPOC’s demand that Brandman vote in the interests of its main potential voting bloc in Orange County — mostly a theoretical one due to party neglect — because that’s a major initiative of Democrats statewide as well as being the freaking right thing to do … with a nasty appointment battle on the Irvine City Council.  What the Upstate New York heck was his point — and where was his sense of perspective?

In some situations like this, one asks of a person: “Have you no shame?”  Other times, it’s just unnecessary. Chumley has no shame.  No reason to ask.


About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-retired due to disability, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally runs for office against bad people who would otherwise go unopposed. Got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012; Josh Newman then won the seat in 2016. In 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002; Todd Spitzer then won that seat in 2018. Every time he's run against some rotten incumbent, the *next* person to challenge them wins! He's OK with that. Deposed as Northern Vice Chair of DPOC in April 2014 (in violation of Roberts Rules) when his anti-corruption and pro-consumer work in Anaheim infuriated the Building Trades and Teamsters in spring 2014, who then worked with the lawless and power-mad DPOC Chair to eliminate his internal oversight. Expelled from DPOC in October 2018 (in violation of Roberts Rules) for having endorsed Spitzer over Rackauckas -- which needed to be done. None of his pre-putsch writings ever spoke for the Democratic Party at the local, county, state, national, or galactic level, nor do they now. One of his daughters co-owns a business offering campaign treasurer services to Democratic candidates and the odd independent. He is very proud of her. He doesn't directly profit from her work and it doesn't affect his coverage. (He does not always favor her clients, though she might hesitate to take one that he truly hated.) He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)