.
.
.
I’ll be honest. I have not been looking forward to writing this piece. It’s not an easy subject. After all, the Josh Newman Recall isn’t even about Josh Newman. It’s about Democrats and what they’re doing with their Super-Majority in Sacramento.
Do they deserve to be punished or don’t they? <– That’s the real question on the table and most voters will be voting on impressions, not facts. Senator Newman is just the goat de jour for his party. That sucks for Josh, but that’s the position his party put him in.
Here’s my impression: The Josh Newman Recall is stew made up of bad things. It’s not easy to talk about, gets lots of people upset, and probably won’t end well.
Democrats stealing? Bad. Gas tax doesn’t do what it says it does, costs families hundreds of dollars.
Democrats cheating? Bad. Illegally changed laws to subvert your rights to protect their majority.
Democrats lying? Bad. Claimed thousands of people who signed the recall petition didn’t mean to.
Most significant? There are lots of semi-rabid people in SD-29 who refuse to concede that Democrats stole, cheated, and lied over the last year. What the MAGA throng are to Donald Trump, these people are to the Democrat Super-majority. Short of murder on the Capitol lawn in Sacramento, this group will not admit to any wrong doing from their side of the aisle. The attitude that your party and your cause are righteous irrespective of actual evidence on the table is an epidemic throughout this country, and California is not an exception. If the recall fails, these are the people who get empowered. That can’t happen. Before you ask, yes, I believe that’s the case on both sides of the fence.
Of course, Democrats aren’t the only chefs in this particular kitchen. Republicans have added plenty to the stew of suck.
Yes, it’s true. Republicans are trying to undo the results of a free and fair election in November of 2016. But they have a Constitutionally protected right to do so.
Yes, it’s true. Republicans are conflating the repeal of a gax-tax with the recall of one legislator that voted for it. But this particular legislator DID vote for it. Without his vote, it doesn’t pass.
Yes, it’s true. Republicans used resources from all over the state to organize and fund the recall. But Democrats literally changed campaign finance law to do the exact same thing for their benefit.
In the end, what I’m left with is a political party with a super-majority in Sacramento caught red handed stealing from its constituents, cheating the law to protect itself, and lying to the public about demons and hobgoblins fooling the public. Democrats are getting called out for bad behavior and like any spoiled child that gets in trouble, they’re whining about it.
So, like any spoiled child that’s whining about getting in trouble, Democrats need a correction. A redirection towards acceptable behavior. What they absolutely don’t need is a reward for their bad behavior. As every parent knows, rewarding bad behavior simply encourages more bad behavior in the future. If we fail to vote “YES” on the recall, expect more stealing, more cheating, and more lying. That isn’t an impression. That’s a fact.
If only it were that simple. It’s not. Like I said at the start of this post, the recall isn’t even about Josh Newman. It’s about something else.
Enter Ling Ling. I’m not going to rehash this. Short version: She’s not fit for office and certainly not fit for a second shot at the one she just fumbled. Irrespective of how you choose to vote for the recall, you should not vote to send Ling Ling Chang to Sacramento. If the recall fails, she’s the main reason why.
You also shouldn’t vote for anyone who will let Democrats off the hook. For all the ceremony and celebrations of unity in the last several weeks about “Having Josh’s Back” (see the paid ad in the corner), power-brokers in San Francisco and Sacramento do not — AT ALL — care about Newman or who represents Democrats in SD-29. They’ll take any Democrat that votes how they tell him to vote. If Newman goes, it’s because those same power-brokers, the ones who stole, cheated, and lied, failed to protect him when it mattered. Don’t send another goat to get slaughtered when they screw up again.
Joshua Ferguson (D)– The opposite of Gavin Newsom. What the state and Democrats need to evolve.
Bruce Whitaker (R)– Experienced, very strong connections to the district, strongly recommended by this author and others at OJ.
George Shen (R)– Great resume, no experience. Hope he sticks around.
Kevin Carr (D)– Anti-Tax, but unenthusiastic campaign. If you want a Dem, vote yes and vote for Josh.
— THIS IS THE MINIMUM LINE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE —
Joseph Cho (D), might be a nice guy, but his entire campaign reeks of insincere opportunism. Ick.
Ling Ling Chang (R), don’t get me started.
Vern’s note: Whether you vote for or against the recall, make sure to ALSO vote for Whitaker or Ferguson, or we could end up with Ling Ling till the end of 2020. Me, I’m doing NO on recall, and yes on the other Josh.
Whether you vote for or against the recall, everyone should make sure to ALSO vote for Whitaker or Ferguson, to prevent a Senator Ling Ling for the next 2 1/2 years.
Personally I’m voting no on the recall, because I LIKE HAVING JOSH NEWMAN AS MY SENATOR. (I don’t care that much about having a Dem super-majority, and they keep screwing it up anyway with forced resignations and such.)
And then I’m voting yes on the other Josh, Josh Ferguson. Not so much cuz he’s great, although I kinda like him, but to make one more vote against Ling Ling.
First, I am glad you’ve posted, and raised your side of the story. I respect diversity of opinions: that is healthy, and necessary. Now…as to your facts…
“There are lots of semi-rabid people in SD-29 who refuse to concede that Democrats stole, cheated, and lied over the last year. What the MAGA throng are to Donald Trump, these people are to the Democrat Super-majority.”
Three Assembly seats opened up when specific allegations of sexual wrongdoing occurred. Certainly, a group of Dems will address serious, credible allegations “short of murder on the Capitol lawn.”
As for “cheating the law to protect itself,” my memory of the Gray Davis recall clouds this: family members ‘signed’ the petition circulated by their employers, without knowing they’d done so, without opportunity to comment, at risk of punishment if they complained. In this case, the folks who came to my door in the OC were circulating a petition to reverse the gas tax: Newman’s name wasn’t even mentioned. That’s a significant deception – since the petition in no way reverses the gas tax.
Wait — since when is Josh Ferguson a Democrat? This is not a rhetorical question. Since what month of what year — and I may even want to know what day?
I saw a sign driving home today: “YES on RECALL; YES on JOSH” (or some such. I have the first clause and the last word correct.) This seems a seriously underhanded attempt to confuse the voters. Addition of one word — “FERGUSON” — could have cured it, but it pretty clearly is omitted intentionally.
And you accuse CHO of “insincere opportunism”?
Ryan, Vern, tell me something — does Josh Ferguson intend to caucus with the Democrats? Does he intend support the Democratic caucus on items other than tax legislation? If not, then I’m going to … well, you’ll see.
Hey look.
A Democrat complaining about “the rules”.
This election was supposed to be last October, Greg. This is exactly the kind of duplicity that I outline above.
The election was supposed to be held whenever the law dictated, Ryan, and anyone should have known that such a law could be changed. In this case, there were two good reasons: (1) IT IS BETTER to have a wider electorate for office, and (2) IT IS WORSE when people are tricked — and I CAN’T BELIEVE that you’re arguing that people were being tricked, because I saw it with my own eyes and wrote about it here ON THAT DAY if I recall correctly — into signing the petition on false pretenses. It was as nasty a trick as claiming that recalling Newman would lead to the criminalization of abortion, because weakening Democrats in the California legislature could have led a butterfly to flap its wingling in a way that contributed to toppling a bunch of dominos heading in that direction. It was a lie — and you’re defending it, and calling others liars. You’re above that.
Blah blah blah.
To borrow a phrase from your camp, this is sour grapes.
At least those grapes, unlike Ferguson, won’t have been reduces to pulp in three weeks.
I understand how precious the plan to have a new election with a smaller electorate, may have been to you. But selling a non-Democrat as a Democrat is something that is ACTUALLY DISCOURAGED in election law.
I am not, nor have I ever been, part of the recall effort.
You know that. I know that. Let’s not lend the reader to think anything else is the case.
I am not fighting anyone’s battle here.
Hey, um, anyone know what current election law has to say about being dishonest with one’s domicile?
Anyone?
Buehler?
Like I said. Sour freaking grapes.
I’ll take your word for it.
Yet here you are endorsing it — in the vain belief that it somehow won’t elect Ling-Ling, rather that your friend whose signs read “YES RECALL…”
If it didn’t mean deposing our BEST State Senator, I’d leave it alone — but it does. “It’s not about Josh….” Jesus, how disingenuous can you get?
I think that I can tell you what the law says about residency (not, unless I’m mistaken, domicile): that you have to live in your district on the day that you file. Maybe through election day — not sure that that’s even true.
After that, you don’t have to live there.
And, as we all know, that law is occasionally enforced in Los Angeles — but not in Orange County. Ask Supervisor Steel.
Voter registration is domicile.
And you most certainly do have to live in the district you were elected to serve.
You move, you’re immediately disqualified from office as part of the code.
Come on Greg, give it up.
Tell me about how great Suhkee Kang supporter Joseph Cho is.
He sounds like a real stand up guy.
You might take a look at People v. Alarcon, which treated this matter in all its complexity rather recently. It’s never quite been so simple as, “You move, you’re immediately disqualified from office as part of the code.”
And a good thing too: instead of recalls, every time a legislator ‘moved’ to Sacramento or Washington and took up residency there (enrolling kids in local schools, etc.), they’d lose their domicile and thus be disqualified from office. The code, as applied now, requires a union of action AND intent to alter domicile, rather than a mechanical ‘you move it, you lose it’ rule.
You move = you move your domicile, not you “move out” or any other temporary relocation.
To be clear.
What are you going to do? Still waiting.
I’m going to drive you crazy with anticipation, that’s what.
Very few ballots will be cast between now and the weekend — so wait for that.
Ryan
After your admission of point one “Republicans are trying to undo a free and fair election” all other points that justify this obscene act, whether they are legal loopholes or other contortions if justifications for point kne, are simply irrelevant!
As for any Democrat, Real or pretend who bucked the Party political strategy to not provide a palatable Democratic option to Josh, I will personally make it my life’s mission to assure your future in the Party is non existent. That goes double for handwringer Kevin Karr whose self centered runs in the past have divided our base in Stanton.
SHAME ON YOU RYAN!!!
Obscene act? Jesus H., it’s right there in the State Constitution. Take a pill and calm down.
I don’t mind you doing your job, Jeff. That’s what any good vice chair should do.
I also don’t mind Senator Newman doing his job. That’s what good Senators do.
I’m doing my best to not make this personal. I hope it shows.
That said, I stand by this post. Democrats have abused their Supermajority, raised taxes without campaigning on it, then abused the Constitution to protect their authority from the people they serve.
They shouldn’t be rewarded for obscene behavior.
“So, like any spoiled child that’s whining about getting in trouble, Democrats need a correction.”
Intriguing logic: when a ‘group’ of spoiled children get in trouble, find the one who didn’t commit any wrong, punish that one to send a message to correct the behavior of the others.
“Like I said at the start of this post, the recall isn’t even about Josh Newman. It’s about something else.”
Whatever it’s about, the message is simple: punish the vulnerable, not the guilty. The implication? Those in strongly gerrymandered districts may rob, cheat, and steal to their heart’s content. Those in more divided districts, no matter how honest, can be thrown out of office for the work of their fellows – and thus, they should also rob, cheat, and steal to their heart’s content, knowing that whether they do so or not, their office is at risk regardless.
“Whatever it’s about, the message is simple: punish the vulnerable…”
Well, let’s not get weepy, D. That could be defined as the very essence of partisan politics.
Who was weepy? Ryan invoked the ‘chastising children’ wording – so, if he believes punishing the innocent to send a message to the ‘guilty’ is the proper way to send ‘messages’ to children – or constitutes an ‘act of justice’ in some universe…well, he’s taken a rather unusual position to say the least.
*** Author’s note– new guy, keep your opinion of what my kids think to yourself. ***
You get one free pass, Donovan.
I’m sure you didn’t mean anything by it.
A free pass? Sorry, I am missing the offense. One who punishes the innocent to send a message to the guilty should not anticipate quite the message that was intended actually being delivered.
*** Author’s note, you’re fired, Donovan. ***
One act of justice at a time. No need to solve world hunger all at once.
My first observation is: HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING FROM 2016?
Polling is imprecise. It is a flawed method of prediction in today’s world. Makes dudes rich, sure…..but the reality is Josh Newman has not even had a chance to represent. His first order of business was to be a bitch-boy to DeLeon and company. He then had to focus on his campaign finance, now less than two years in, he is spending EVERY waking moment fighting the recall.
Right or wrong, Josh is being judged on one or two votes. He has little or NO history in OC, questions abound about his employment history and a WEAK record.
Yet most of us, including conservatives in N.OC like him or find him palatable.
His supporters seem to me to be his Achilles heal. I agree with Catnor, this is less about Josh and more about
The shitty behavior of Dem’s in the district.
Oh and for a guy that NEVER voted Republican since I turned 18 in 1982, I pick Shawn Nelson for CD 39 Hands down.
Joe Kerr is a liar and a cheater for moving here, to claim otherwise is a BULLSHIT LIE. At least Shawn has my interest in his ear, not some OCEA slug.
I am out. And that felt good.
Kerr is not running in CA-39, hence Shawn is not his opponent. Glad that you enjoyed your visit here.
*We love it….Pat Bates is for repealing the gas tax….really? Well now that gas is $5 bucks a gallon, not $2.83….Meanwhile, we wonder if she favors Tariffs on Steel and Aluminun too? Wonder if every person voting to recall Josh…is willing to pay $10 bucks a gallon next year? Who will they blame then? As Hyman Roth said: “Small potatoes!”
Where did you pay $5/gallon? I think that perhaps you are not looking hard enough for bargains.