Weekend Open Thread: How Bipartisan is Tom Umberg? THIS <*gulp*> Bipartisan!

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 




In their infinite wisdom, voters chose establishment wardonkey Tom Umberg, rather than firebrand Bernie delegate Jestin Samson, as the de facto Democratic nominee against Janet Nguyen in the SD-34 race that largely overlaps both Tom Daly’s AD-69 and Travis Allen’s (soon to be Josh Lowenthal’s or Tyler Diep’s) AD-72.  This is a test of the prominent Democratic Party theory that voters want bipartisanship over any hint of radical reform — at least from the Left.

This time being as Republican as the Republicans will SURELY work!

As a Democrat, looking at that picture of a Democratic candidate posing with President Ronald and OC’s Nancy Reagan on my screen left me uneasy, even at a loss for words for a time, given that I spewed by sip of Earl Grey all over my monitor.  But hey, I thought to myself — Tom Umberg lost a campaign to Janet Nguyen ten-plus years ago in a similarly located district, and surely he knows just how to do so again!  A few decades from now, some Democratic guy (almost surely a guy) from Umberg’s wing of the party will certainly be rocking a photo of himself with Donald and Melania Trump in an effort to turn out his Democratic voters as well.

Jestin (who is nicer than I am) provided a gracious and incisive comment on Umberg’s campaign strategy — which, because it’s so well done and of greater public interest and because Jestin is a person to watch, I am swiping and publishing here:

Last Saturday, an advertisement featuring Tom Umberg, the Democratic Party nominee for California’s 34th Senate District, was brought to my attention by several of my supporters. The ad features Mr. Umberg posing next to both President Reagan and his wife Nancy. In the caption, Mr. Umberg highlights his success as a prosecutor, with a 100% conviction rate.

The 34 Senate District is comprised primarily of people of color. In terms of the emphasis on conviction rate as stated in the ad, this is concerning for several reasons. Primarily, many residents in the 34th have a tenuous relationship with law enforcement due to long-standing disparities in the criminal justice system. As the nation that incarcerates more of our people than any nation on Earth, highlighting Mr. Umberg’s ability to lock up residents rather than reform the system to provide equitable solutions is disconcerting. I hope this will spark a new conversation on real criminal justice reform, which takes a more holistic approach to public safety, focusing on the real cause of crime, primarily economic insecurity, lack of educational or employment opportunities, etc.

After the primary election, Mr. Umberg graciously issued an invitation to my supporters and myself to open a dialogue with him and his campaign over coffee. In light of this, I am disappointed with the direction Mr. Umberg is taking his campaign and, if elected, that this will be his method of governing. I understand Tom and I have very different perspectives on social positions and that Tom is not as progressive as I consider myself, but through conversations with my voters and me, I hoped he would agree that there is no need to appeal to Republicans, who more than likely will not vote for him. This same losing strategy was employed by Democrats in 2016, whereas being a bold progressive who stands up for the working class is the key to winning. Unfortunately, my guidance to Mr. Umberg during our post-primary conversations appears to have been ignored.

Another aspect of the ad that is concerning to my supporters and to me is Mr. Umberg’s attempt to appeal to Republican voters by placing him in a photo with Ronald Reagan. As a progressive, I am offended that he has chosen to associate himself with a man who escalated the failed war on drugs, exploded wealth inequality in America, was responsible for union busting efforts in the 1980s, and implemented his failed trickle-down economic policy that continues to negatively effect Americans. Even many of our Democratic Party leaders have bought into the idea. The messaging for this ad targets rich, white voters, but the policies it boasts have hurt people of color; the same people Mr. Umberg would like to serve.

Finally, the overarching theme of his ad is of bipartisanship. In general, I agree that Democrats and Republicans should work together in the best interest of Californians and the American people. Mr. Umberg has a choice of many issues that will advance our community rather than divide it. For example, an overwhelming majority of Californians and Americans believe that healthcare is a human right and in a perfect world, Democrats and Republicans would work together to develop a Medicare for All system. As well could be said that a majority of Americans believe money has poisoned our political system and in a perfect world, both parties would work together to get money out of politics.

However, we do not live in a perfect world.

For Democrats, bipartisanship is code for allowing the Republicans to get their way. In addition, this goes beyond Mr. Umberg and his campaign, but to Democrats nationwide. If Democrats want to be electorally viable again, they need to stop laying down for Republican issues and actually stand up and fight for a bold vision for Americans.

Ultimately, I hope that Mr. Umberg heeds the wishes of my supporters and voters who would like him to adopt bold progressive platform positions and a vision that will inspire and excite Democrats to not only vote in November, but come out and volunteer before then, too.

Elect this guy to something, please!

This is your Weekend (or by now, pretty much “next week’s” Open Thread.  Talk about that, or whatever else you’d like, within reasonable bounds of discretion and partisanship.

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.)