.
.
.
Vern here. So, it wasn’t quite as infuriating as Nancy Pelosi coming down from on high to choose Lou over Bao, but I agree with Loretta that it was unnecessary and unfair for the President to come to California to endorse Kamala Harris over her Democratic opponent for Senator – when there’s two Democrats against each other, leave it to the PEOPLE to decide, like Loretta herself is doing in not endorsing Lou or Bao.
And so, Loretta fired back at the charismatic duo in a fine angry statement I’ll reprint below, which reminds me of a LOT of the reasons I’m supporting her over (Greg’s candidate) Kamala, who’s certainly the favorite to win.
I wonder how much this has to do with Loretta’s populist opposition to Barack’s horrific Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Kamala has safely not uttered a word about (that *I* can find.) This statement shows that Lo is, on most things, firmly to Kamala’s LEFT, despite all the common wisdumb of her tacking right to get Repug votes, and shows why I continue to back my Homegirl over the Gorgeous Cipher who refused to help us with Rackauckas. Here’s Lo:
“I am disappointed that President Obama chose to endorse in an historic Senate race between two Democrats. I would think the Leader of the Democratic Party would be focused on defeating Donald Trump and supporting Democratic Senate candidates against Republicans.
“I believe that California voters are deeply concerned about the entrenched political establishment which has failed to work for them. Yet, it has been clear for some time that the same political establishment would rather have a coronation instead of an election for California’s next U.S. Senator.
“California’s Senate seat does not belong to the political establishment — it belongs to the People of California, and I believe California voters will make their own independent choice for U.S. Senate in November.
“I am running for the U.S. Senate on my qualifications and life experience. I grew up in Southern California the daughter of hard working immigrant parents. That’s why I have fought hard for jobs, the minimum wage, immigration reform, better schools, expanded health care, and protecting our natural resources.
“I am the only candidate for Senate with 20 years of national security and counter-terrorism experience, gained through hard work as a senior member of both the Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.
“It is clear that we will need a Senator that has been working on these issues and is ready to work for California on Day-one in the Senate. I will continue to work across partisan lines to get things done in the Senate.
“My opponent’s record is troubling. The State Auditor issued two highly critical reports on the Attorney General’s failure to maintain the database for background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them, including felons and people with mental illness ‘resulting in continued risk to public safety.’
“Her record on helping victims of the mortgage crises showed few results for victims. She entered a settlement with the big banks that she said would help keep hundreds of thousands of Californians to stay in their homes. In fact, just a small fraction of people got any meaningful relief, and tens of thousands of California families lost their homes. Her empty promises far exceeded actual help for our homeowners.
“Her lack of experience on national security and federal issues may explain her notorious inability to take a timely stand on important federal issues, but that does not explain her failure to lead on a whole array of issues including a state investigation of officer-involved shootings. Troubling increases in crime rates during her tenure, including a 10 percent increase in violent crimes including rape, reveal an Attorney General who says little and does even less.
“My record shows my consistent willingness to take on the establishment to protect the People of California. I stood up to the leaders of my own Party and voted against the Iraq War; I voted against the so-called Patriot Act to protect our civil liberties; and I voted against the Wall Street bailout despite establishment pressure to vote ‘yes.’
“This is the independent judgment and commitment to results that I will bring to the US Senate.”
Woo, woo, woo!
Whatever. All the good positions she brags of taking are true, and all her criticisms of Kamala are true. (I THINK – waiting for a response from Greg.)
She can brag all she likes. I wouldn’t let walk my dog.
The first thing I have to ask you is: having heard Loretta talk for most of a couple decades, how much of that even remotely sounds like Loretta as opposed to the wordsmithery of advisors? I’ll grant you the third-to-last paragraph, which I’ve heard come out of her mouth in vaguely similar form before. The rest sounds like some consultant trying to figure out how to sell a product. “…. May explain her notorious inability to take a timely stand …” — I’d love to see Loretta even TRY to read that off of a teleprompter sounding like herself.
I don’t think that Kamala has taken a position on TPP, despite what I’m sure have been strenuous efforts from the Administration and Pacific Coast trading interests to get her to do so.
I could go into trying to integrate Loretta’s good leftie votes and her statist votes into a coherent (or at least non-erratic) worldview, but I’m not going to bother. I don’t dislike her and I don’t want to tear her down. I don’t think that Obama is out to get her so much as just recognizing that Kamala has the potential to be a significant progressive national leader and that Loretta just lacks the same grace, grit, and gravitas.
I challenge you to find a democratic adviser that would write a scolding chastisment for the POTUS and presumptive Senate member for an apparently losing democratic Candidate.
added to the fact that many of us, including me, write a lot better – with the ability to think and edit – than speak extemporaneously. Still, no idea. Most politicians have underlings write their shit.
Do I have your three sentences straight?
You think that she could have written it. You have no idea whether she wrote it. If she didn’t write it, that not unusual.
Did you ever take a look at Kamala Harris’s speech to the CDP convention? That’s a disciplined, eloquent, fine mind. And having watched her give a similar speech, though different enough so that she could paraphrase it, you can tell that the thoughts came from her, not from some consultant.
THAT’S why people in the national party are so eager to have Harris as a national spokeswoman. I will avoid speaking ill of Loretta — but she’s just nowhere near being a Kamala Harris.
Plus, woo, woo, woo!
My favorite Lo moment was when she tried to dodge a reporter after the Woo Woo Woo incident by making up an invisible friend she was trying to catch up to at 01:10. “Hey, hey hey!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sljoqCG6iqA
I can’t parse your sentence, Paul.
…..” I voted against the so-called Patriot Act to protect our civil liberties;”…
And then turned around and voted for the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), which TOOK THEM ALL AWAY by giving Carte Blanche to the NSA for DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE ! (But most of all for her, because it continued shoveling wads of dough to clients of HER HUSBAND, A DEFENSE INDUSTRY LOBBYIST ! )
As usual, no truth except HALF truth. THANK YOU, “Top-Two” primaries, for making elections irrelevant.
Oh, here’s MORE “protecting our civil liberties” – anyone seen a robo press release from our Senior Homeland Security Committee Member with a reaction to this ?-
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/21/media/wall-street-journal-reporter-phone-feds/
“I believe that California voters are deeply concerned about the entrenched political establishment which has failed to work for them. Yet, it has been clear for some time that the same political establishment would rather have a coronation instead of an election for California’s next U.S. Senator.”
Says the 20 year US congresswoman. How can you deride the “political establishment” when you’ve been a part of it for the better part of a generation? All the experience she’s touting is experience she’s gained from being a member of the House.
Being a non-Democrat in this state, I really wish we had better options to represent ALL of California, not just the blue parts. Alas, I’m living in a fantasy.
Worry not, the blue parts of the state will also be very poorly represented.
Perhaps a foretaste of the results of “All that experience” ? But hey, our forces now have PC-compliant gender-identified opportunities, and the Military-Industrial-Security complex does not burn the furniture to keep warm ! Take THAT, Russkies ! Oh, and thanks, Loretta!
https://youtu.be/mjiqTzug8zM
Anyone Obama endorses I skip.I vote for Loretta.
Loretta is unstable. In the public eye, that is her salient feature. I hope enough people let her know she should not waste money on her “run.” She stands absolutely no chance of winning and the exposure will only give her more chances to come up with eternally damning and idiotic misstatements.
Loretta likely would not have run if she did not have an assurance of a “soft landing.” And besides, this will give Loretta statewide exposure in the event that DiFi doesn’t run in 2018.
Her “soft landing” has a decent chance of not being in a position to appoint her to Her Cabinet.
Huh?
It means: Stick a fork in her. She’s done.
Oh … “Her” ~ HRC. Such pessimism is music to my ears Diamond.
But Loretta’s “soft landing” was to be onto her lap, no?
I’ll spell it out. If Hillary wins, Loretta probably has a Cabinet position. If Hillary loses, Loretta probably becomes a wealthy lobbyist in the national security sector. So it’s hard to feel TOO sorry for her.
Hillary’s still favored over Trump. but it’s a roll of the dice rather than a walk in the park.
I really can’t see anybody giving Lo a high-visibility job in an administration. First she’s loose canon with an amazingly irresponsible mouth that may be quasi-acceptable in a congressperson – not in a cabinet. Second, she has zero experience actually running anything.
I can’t see Hillary doing anything less than making her an Ambassador — maybe to Italy, since they’re used to those sorts of politicians She and the Clintons are tight. If you’ve ever seen them appear together, she’s like part of the family. That’s part of what makes her clumsy attempt to aid Hillary by charging that Obama’s endorsement was based on friendship so funny. (It being based on race — less funny.)
Ambassador! Yes! I know just where she can go.
http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2011/apologies-to-dick-jones-welcome-to-kharakhastan/
Probably a better fit for Wasserman Schultz.
*Loretta is not unstable. Loretta is just having fun…..as usual. We are still waiting for her next Bucket Drop, by a swimming pool with a white shirt on.
Most importantly, what’s Harris’s stance on Christmas cards???!? Does she have the experience, the courage, the tacky bad judgement and low impulse control necessary to step up and give the people of California the “Pet the Cat” Christmas card they deserve? Loretta does!
Lo is still waiting for a hunky fireman to come down the chimney and put out the fire on her pussycat.
Low impulse control! The understatement of the year.
That’s going to blow the franking privilege right out of the water….
Can we all agree that our choices for senator are pretty much garbage? It’s deeply depressing that one of these two will likely be in office for the next 20-30 years.
And Lou Correa probably that long in Congress.
No, Sean, we cannot.
Now, Pete Wilson and Sam Hayakawa — THAT was garbage.
*Dr. D., OK…now…we have been supporting your positions on almost everything for quite some time…but do not pick on our main man S.I. Hayakawa. Senator Hayakawa supported the Initiative of English Only…..after he left the Senate. It won, but was never funded. We had a great conversation with the Great Sleeping Giant of the Senate and he told us this:
“Senators rarely want to say anything important or even necessary!” In the words of Mel Brooks in “History of the World Part II”…..”Let’s talk like Senator’s….bullshit, bullshit….bullshit!” We asked Senator Hayakawa why he voted for the Panama Canal Treaty. He responded by saying the leader of the Senate came to him and said….”we are going to win this vote…with or without you…….we will give you five things you want for your vote!” Senator Hayakawa…..said: “NO!”. The Senate leader can back a week latter and said: “We will give you 10 things!”…..Senator Hayakawa said: “NO!”. Finally the Leader of Senate came to him and offered him 13 things….and Senator Hayakawa…finally said: “Yes!” S.I. Hayakawa and Senator George Murphy……those were the days!
Not a big fan of English Only. We like to style our country on Rome, right? Well, Rome wasn’t “Latin Only.”
For most purposes, for example, my wife’s English is fine — but she doesn’t have the technical vocabulary that she sometimes needs to understand intricate documents that she would readily grasp if they were in Tagalog. It’s a lot cheaper for the government to translate those documents than to lead million of Filipinos, Latin Americans, Chinese, etc. to have to find people to translate them individually (and possibly unreliably.)
What I remember most vividly of Hayakawa was his being collapsed in a seat at some point when he was supposed to be interviewed online and the local news reporter (a blonde on NBC, I believe it was) was frantically trying to cover for him — including blocking the camera so that they would not show him. I learned a lot about “the journalistic instinct” from that.
I voted for Loretta – first time in my life voting for a Democrat – other than for non-partisan local offices. Republicans For Loretta!! RFL – I am the chair of that organization.
Please, please, please let that be so!
But can you make it something like “Republican Optimists For Loretta”? Not asking for any particular reason.
ROFL – is that the short form for ROFLMAO ?
The chair for “Republicans for Steve Rocco” was already occupied when the music stopped ?
Presumably non partisan academics at the University of Virginia have developed a “Legislative Effectiveness Score (and a book explaining it) at
http://www.thelawmakers.org/#/find data from which site shows-
Sanchez, Loretta (D) CA-46 L.E.S. Benchmark Party Rank
113 Cong. (2013-14) 0.110 0.606 177/210
112 Cong. (2011-12) 0.094 0.527 179/204
111 Cong. (2009-10) 0.602 1.345 162/269
110 Cong. (2007-08) 0.405 1.376 186/242
109 Cong. (2005-06) 0.143 0.357 141/203
108 Cong. (2003-04) 0.591 0.311 45/209
107 Cong. (2001-02) 0.240 0.223 117/214
106 Cong. (1999-00) 0.086 0.268 176/212
105 Cong. (1997-98) 0.043 0.043 162/213
Not especially remarkable, and also interesting to see who (on EITHER side of the aisle) was rated better or worse.
You can investigate the details of sponsored, co-sponsored and passed legislation at-
https://www.congress.gov/member/loretta-sanchez/S000030?pageSize=250&page=1
If weekend time permits, and the A/C still works, I will filter out and tabulate all the “Naming a Post Office”, “Expressing support/ condemnation” and other fluff items and see what of significance remains. ( Or beat me to it if TV sucks .! )
“Sanchez was asked why the president had endorsed Harris in the unusual race between two Democrats this year. Speaking in Spanish, she noted that Obama and Harris are longtime friends, then added: “She is African American. He is, too.”
OC Register –
Oh God. I hope before she brought up that dumb observation, she mentioned her opposition to the President’s pet trade deal?
Junior finds an acorn!
A dead rodent more like.
He’ll still eat it.
Scott Lay, who apparently killed one of Shiv’s dogs years ago or something else to earn his permanent wrath, wrote this today:
She’s got Shivas’s vote more firmly than ever with this! But I suspect that Lay is correct about their connections. Loretta is very chummy with the Clintons.
What I said before. Democrats need to organize, maybe picket her office? No race baiters in our party, that’s fer Trump.
I support Loretta over Kamala because Loretta promised to bring a US Senate Office to the OC. I see them both as equal in my purity index.
Why is that important to the state?
From Tax Foundation figures 1981-2005, after 1985, California has INCREASINGLY become a tax $ DONOR state, so “What’s good for the State” has evidently almost NOTHING to do with attaining OR retaining Federal Legislative office. Another vote for pandering, agendas and (broken) promises !
http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005
(Have to scroll down to the CA Table, unless someone knows better than I how to cut and paste it- image file ??)
And in case you’re wondering, no change with more recent (2013-14) data-
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
Of course we’re a donor state. We’re comparatively wealthy and someone has to take up the slack for Republican-led basket cases like Kansas and Mississippi.
Actually, except for the lower 20% “Poster Children of Partisan Ridicule” states,a comparison of the wallet hub table above, with
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Incomes-by-State
(scroll down to “Median Household Incomes, Top to Bottom”)
shows little correlation between median income and donor states across the rest of the scale. I Wonder how “Legislative Effectiveness”, above would correlate ?
Why would you expect median income to be the best indicator? It’s not a great way to identify how the skewed the income distribution is. (One can also assess the positive or negative skew of a distribution, which would be interesting to see.)
Skew you Diamond.
In your dreams, Shivvers.
Since this piece…
1. Loretta blames Obama’s endorsement of Kamala on them both being black http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-senate-loretta-sanchez-kamala-harris-president-obama-endorsement-20160722-snap-story.html
2. Loretta endorses DINO Lou Correa over progressive Bao Nguyen http://www.theliberaloc.com/2016/08/05/loretta-backs-lou-for-congress-in-cd-46/
3. Loretta endorses walking nightmare Jordan Brandman over community hero Jose Moreno http://www.theliberaloc.com/2016/08/12/brandman-endorsed-by-loretta-sanchez-and-tom-daly-for-re-election-to-anaheim-city-council/
Loretta is dead to me. I can’t cover for her anymore.
I’m with the Cipher.
WOOWOOWOO!
What do Brandman and Correa have in common?
Pringle Bucks.
Step into the light.
Is this true? She’s courting and getting Pringle bucks? That would make sense of things.
Seen this way, this tragic last chapter of Sanchez’ political life would be similar to the tragic last (but POST-political) public chapter of Lorri Galloway’s.
After her massive 2014 defeat by Tait (and nearly by Kring) and her realization that the voices in her head telling her to run for Mayor were NOT actually from God, Galloway desperately concluded that the only way to save her floundering Eli Home was Pringle bucks. The price Curt exacted, beyond no more political troublemaking (she had opposed him for good reason on many things in previous years) was the head of her fiery and tireless doppelganger Joanne Sosa.
It’s easy to see how the Obama-Kamala endorsement may have had a similar effect of desperation on Sanchez, where Pringle bucks seemed the last resort, and the uber-lobbyist’s harsh demand was that she bury her last vestiges of progressivism, betray the honest progressive heroes Nguyen and Moreno, and embrace the two slimiest and most ambitious Pringle-Dems.
That would be tragic, gross, and make sense. Now we have to look at Loretta’s contributions from the past month and coming months.
No, I don’t think that this is just a baroque example of retirement planning, at least regarding Pringle. Loretta has always had a great fallback position if she loses this race: she is close to the Clintons and will likely have a great job in an increasingly likely Hillary administration.
So ask yourself: who would Hillary and Bill support in these races? Who do the major Democratic donors in OC endorse? The safe — and safely corrupt — choices. She’s just already playing the fight song from her next team.
Many things trace back to Pringle. But not everything.
I made it clear I thought – with Lorri it was post-political planning. With Loretta it’s a desperate attempt to get more support for her Senate race. (Of course this is contingent on us finding out that she got Pringle bucks the last four months of the election. I don’t know if Zenger has any info on that.)
I’m betting on Loretta ending up a military-industrial lobbyist.
Oh, I don’t think that Loretta has many illusions remaining about the Senate race.
I think that she’ll be inside rather than outside the government — and that that distinction will make little difference.