Josh Newman had the wittiest signs in the 2016 primary election: the “Hello Newman” signs that later won awards for their unexpected wit. Those signs — daring in their humorous take on introducing himself to the voters — made people grin.
If politics leaves you glum. Josh Newman has the cure.
Newman is now being supported by the best signs in the 2018 primary, although they are coming from an independent campaign sponsored by the California Nurses Association. These signs — you can see an example up top — make people smile. They’re not as easy to appreciate as the bam-in-your-face riffs on the Seinfeld phrase, because their warm humor is most apparent to people who have come to know Josh Newman and who realize that the Nurses absolutely nailed it:
I have a theory that Josh is going to lose narrowly among men and win by 10-15 points among women. These Nurses’ signs are devastating because they crystallize exactly why voters — and women especially — should not want to get rid of Josh Newman in today’s election: Because He Truly IS a Really Good Guy. And Really Good Guys are rare and precious — almost like finding a four-leaf clover in the field of politicians — and you don’t just toss them away.
These signs seem to have been ripped down wherever they were posted. As I imagine it, there was one young woman in the Republican headquarters, far in the back corner of the room, when Republican analysts pulled out one of these posters so that they could all enjoy snickering at the glurge of it together. I imagine this young woman getting more and more nervous about speaking up, the more that they laughed. Finally, in about one parallel universe out of seven, the woman did speak up:
“Guys, I hate to say this, but we’re in real trouble here.
As a woman, uhh — that sign makes me want to vote for him.”
First they laughed. Then they stopped laughing. The one slow guy who was snickering at her got stared into silence. And then our went a squad, and the signs started getting ripped down.
While there are plenty of male nurses, nursing is still seen primarily as a female profession. The CNA cleverly took advantage of that in that ad. “We women have the x-ray eyes giving us the power to look into men’s souls,” is its subtext. “We know who the jerks are and who are the princes. And Josh Newman — he IS a Really Good Guy.“
He’s the sort of person who transcends prejudice …
He’s the sort who stands with the downtrodden …
He’s the sort that represents the best of the Democratic party — but unwilling to be its captive and willing to work with Republicans who are willing to put aside ideology to solve problems.
And it’s funny — because it’s not something usually said sincerely in politics, or of many people in politics, but as soon as it’s said, most observers know that it’s true. Josh IS a really good guy, and it takes a group of women to say it out loud and value it appropriately. He’s decent, witty, warm, self-deprecating, doesn’t take himself too seriously, but is both brilliant and (as his casting this risky vote itself showed) — brave.
He knew that this vote could break him — and he also know that while fearful Democrats and heartless Republicans were willing to let their impasse go on forever while roads didn’t get repaired. Sure, the government could have adopted the minority Republican approach to politics and demand that first CalTrans fire 1300 engineers — but that was never going to happen. My guess is that many Democrats themselves were surprised that Josh — the only person in his Yale graduating class to volunteer to go off to war, recall — was willing to bite the bullet and cast a vote that would raise taxes. But he was — on one condition: he was not going to let Democrats use this money as a slush fund. It was going to be used for its intended purpose — starting with fixing the structure and the concept of the deadly 57/60 interchange. It would never happen without Josh — but it’s happening now, because of Josh. And it’s being done in such a way that it won’t necessarily lead to a bullet train or a streetcar or anything else that was hard to justify. It was being done to allow people to solve a problem collectively that they could not possibly solve individually — the quintessence of when government leadership is necessary.
Why did he do this? Why take the risk? Because he’s a … well, you know the words by now …
Let’s be clear about one thing, about which some recall proponents seem to be a mite unrealistic. If Josh is removed in today’s vote, he will be replaced by Ling-Ling Chang. Not by Bruce Whitaker, not by Fraudulent Josh Ferguson, who is pretending to be a Democrat. It will be the party’s choice, Ling-Ling — because that’s how Republican politics works. Ling-Ling — former Mayor of Diamond Bar, the city most affected by the horrors of the 57/60 — either would have betrayed her city by refusing to take the deal or betrayed her principles by accepting it….
JUST KIDDING! Ling-Ling has no principals! She was the primary mentee of corrupt Bob Huff — sorry, Tim Shaw, but it’s true that you were always #2 on that totem poll — and putting her into his spot would do nothing to clean up government or hold down wasteful spending.
If that were your real aim, you would stick with Josh Newman, who has already touched the electric fence and now has a better idea of how far he can and cannot go. The tax increase is a fait accompli — NOW the fight is over having those funds administered honestly and efficiently. Who do you want helping to make that happen — Josh Newman or Lying Ling-Ling?
It’s really not a hard choice. You want the person who is down to earth rather than bedazzled by wealth. The one who can’t be bought.
Here’s the odd thing about this sign: so far as I can tell, there have been no photos of it on the internet, anywhere, before today. (Seriously — I looked all over.) Now there will have been eight of them. I’m so happy for that, because this sign drills down to the truth of why Josh is going to win over Ling-Ling. He’s a really good guy. And we certainly need those in government.
I know that people are pissed off about the gas tax — despite that it was the only real way to solve this particular problem and that Josh’s Prop 69 will make it as good as it can be. But now we come down to this: do we want to replace the best of our party — our version of Tom Tait — with one of the worst of yours?
OF COURSE NOT! You leave us the best of our party and I’ll certainly try to leave you the best of yours. That’s how the saner and more decent parts of both major parties can work together towards a stronger, saner, and more decent government. Don’t rip it apart today.
Those off us who favor wise stewardship need each other. Don’t teat our best hopes to pieces. It won’t do you any good to see our party lose someone this smart and this decent just because you want to make a point. The point has been made — now don’t replace our best with your worst. Help the good guy win.
I think your characterization of Ferguson is not only incorrect, it’s mean spirited. I strongly doubt you’ve ever had a conversation with the man.
It’s a real shame what the Democrats did to Josh Newman. This recall should have been held last October. The Democrats lied about the recall, they cheated to avoid the recall, and now they’re whining about the recall. Newman’s recall will be a referredum on the bad behavior of his party.
Readers will note not one line about Joseph Cho in this piece. Cho has serious issues as a candidate, and the absence of critique from the author really goes a long way to confirm his bias.
Bruce Whitaker is also a good man. He deserves your vote.
Josh Ferguson is also a good man . He, too, is worthy of your vote.
I and others checked Ferguson’s 10-year registration record, which is made available under the Prop 14 law. I believe that you can do it yourself. He was not a registered Democrat until quite recently. I don’t need to talk to him to know what is in the paper record.
Cho? You think he’s going to get more votes here than Chang? No way. Especially not with Ferguson sapping off some of the Democratic vote.
It’s Josh or Ling-Ling. Everyone should vote accordingly — and wisely.
As to timing: the smaller the expected electorate, the better Republicans do. It you have no moral or legal right to a tiny electorate. Laws can change in response to abuses. Democrats did play hardball in stretching out the election, sure — but Republicans offered the basis for that when they deceived people into signing recall petitions by representing them as repealing the gas tax rather than recalling Josh. That was truly despicable and lacked respect for those voters who were scammed. Giving voters a chance to back out of a defrauded signature was fair and right — and that’s how you get a delay. You don’t seem to mind Neil Gorsuch ring on the Supreme Court after a far more heinous (and arguably unconstitutional) delay, so spare us the crocodile tears.
The notion of anyone putting up “Bruce Whitaker is a good man” signs is pretty funny. He may be “a good man” — works hard, doesn’t harm animals, etc. — but that’s different from “a good guy.” Ask some women you know — they’ll tell you that it’s not the same thing. It isn’t about respect; it’s about trust.
As for Ferguson, I don’t know what he is other than a Democrat of convenience, the equivalent of a Russian tanker flying a Liberian flag. Doesn’t matter anyway: any voter who votes Yes on the recall hoping to get Ferguson is — if the recall succeeds — going to get Chang. Chang and corruption — maybe twelve years of it.
Ling-Ling thanks you for your vote, Ryan — but with it you’re not just punishing Democrats, but everyone who cares about honest government. “Sad!”
Bitter bitter bitter!
Almost like you were sweating while writing that reply.
I’m not voting for Ling-Ling. But since it’s apparently fine with your logic to assign personal blame for other’s action though lose association, if she gets elected, it’s your fault, not mine.
You didn’t put up a viable candidate to run in the recall and your party illegally changed rules to protect itself.
We’ll find out in a few days if you’ll reep what you’ve sown.
In any case, I’m positive Josh Newman will run for Senate in 2020. Unless Joseph Cho wins.
That’ll have some sick irony to it, that many on your side of the aisle deserve. Newman doesn’t, to be clear.
Finally, your hypocrisy concerning Ferguson’s registration and Kerr’s carpetbagging is stunning.
“Sweating”? OK….
You don’t have to vote for Ling-Ling. Others who bother to vote in part 2 of the measure will do it for you. You’ve been played.
We HAVE a viable candidate in the recall: Josh Newman. (You should read up on him; he’s a really good guy.) Fielding an inferior candidate to oppose him — a candidate with supporters hungry for a shot at this seat — would just aid your side’s attempt to hamstring Newman. At least I’m being honest about the almost certain consequences Josh being recalled — why aren’t you? (No need to answer; rhetorical question.)
If the changes passed by my party were actually illegal, as opposed to fever-dream and crocodile-tears-illegal, they would probably have been struck down by the courts. Didn’t happen — because there’s no actual right to defraud voters in hopes of getting a smaller electorate.
So now Josh’s being able to run in 2020 makes it all OK? Shame on you — as you like to say: you’re better than that.
Ferguson has tried to deceive voters into thinking that he is in any meaningful way a Democrat. Kerr moved back to the 4th District to submit himself, honestly and as he is, to the judgment of voters. They certainly aren’t equal “offenses” — one trusts the voters and the other tries to swindle them. There’s no hypocrisy in distinguishing them and in rejecting only the latter.
False– it was struck down by the court. This is how I know you aren’t paying attention.
Read up.
You’re conflating the issue. This isn’t about Newman. It’s about your party behaving badly. You’re not owning that issue, which is the real topic for discussion.
Until you’re ready to conceed that point, it’s just sour grapes.
This IS ABOUT NEWMAN. (And Ling-Ling.). Your conscience wants it to be otherwise, understandably, but you’re fooling yourself to feel better about it. You’re entitled to do so, but the rest of us have no need to buy into that.
You’re right that it was struck down *after it was too late to do anything about it*. But am I correct in recalling that the courts rejected an emergency injunction — when it might have mattered?
The earlier decision was the consequential one. I don’t recall the rationale for the latter decision, but feel free to post it. The earlier decision shows that any problem was not so compelling so that it should have been clear that they were doing anything illegal, which undercuts your implication of knowing wrongdoing.
Ok, well, it’s not. I don’t think it is and most of the voters don’t either. So tough rocks.
And you are not correct about the order of the cases. Sorry.
Greg: just looking at returns on absentees, and Reps still look to be up by 10% as of last night. The good news is that it was a 12% differential as of Friday, the bad news is despite the work of hundreds of vols, we could only take a 2% bite out of that. Too little, too late to save Josh, unless there’s a big turnout surge today.
Democrats generally do better on Election Day. That’s why we start out the vote counts behind — the first report contains only early vote-by-mail ballots, which are disproportionately Republican — and then catch up and pass, or catch up and don’t.
It’s really just about how many people decide to come out and vote today. So, readers – have you voted yet? Have you got others to come out and vote? Today, it is literally “the more, the merrier!“
Greg: maybe so. KPCC saw minimal turnout in Fullerton and Garden Grove, I saw minimal turnout in Anaheim, and so far the only increase in turnout anyone has seen is in absentee ballots – which sway Republican by 10%. The contrast with 2016 is telling – this is closer to 2014, or 2012 in Pete Aguilar’s district.
If things go south today, I will look forward to fighting with you over the autopsy, you ignorant slut.
How do the early voting numbers look? There was a voting center in Fullerton when I voted yesterday evening — and I expect that it will have cut into today’s numbers.
Turnout so far is less than 1% above where it was in 2014, at least as of 3 hrs ago (the morning rush..wasn’t rushed). Spending by Dems this year is an order of magnitude higher, but turnout hasn’t budged. Among the few Latino first time voters I’ve met there was some enthusiasm for Villaraigosa, but I have no ties to his campaign so i just smiled and pointed to my sticker. They responded ‘Si, Cisneros!’ But the numbers are still low.
Tanking those numbers of voters in SoCal will keep the NorCal cluster in power – but may also keep Trump’s majority intact. But what do I know?
When you say things, you think that they therefore must be true, huh? Ah, the conservative male mindset. Broaden your horizon, sir. Listen to other — and higher — voices.
It just goes to show, and it’ll show you once again:
“GOOD GUYS FINISH LAST”
RIP Josh May God help us Senator Chang.