Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido rules supreme on 4th of July
Happy 4th of July – but for those of you in Santa Ana, the celebration is somewhat muted. Last night, as reported in the OC Register, the Santa Ana City Council stood against Mayoral term limits, despite the efforts of Mike Garcia, Lisa Bist and Claudia Alvarez. Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido got his way again. The man has been in office for the equivalent of three presidential terms, but apparently that is not enough for him to realize his “agenda,” which appears to be constructed of backroom deals with developers.
Jubal, over at OC Blog, posted the Declaration of Independence, and I copied a portion of it below. Take a look and you will see that the stirring words of Thomas Jefferson are applicable even today to our situation in Santa Ana:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Term limits are unamerican. King Miguel. Ha ha, just kidding.
there should not be term limits, period.
Sac,
Thomas Jefferson and George Washington established our first term limits – establishing two four year terms for the U.S. president. Were they wrong to do this?
Washington remains our greatest president because, in part, he walked away from power. Had Pulido been the president, does anyone think he would have relinquished power. King Miguelito indeed…
Art:
Jefferson and Washington didn’t establish the two four-year terms. That came into effect in 1951 with the 22nd Amendment.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment22/
missy is right, art.
washington was elected president twice and left the office aftrewards.
it was the occasional norm until FDR wanted four terms of his own.
Missy,
While Washington and Jefferson did not establish two terms as law, they did so as precedent. That is what I was referring to. Granted, there is some debate as to whether or not Washington stepped down due to his age, but the fact is, he stepped down.
3:12,
Your argument holds no weight. If you believe that the voters should decide, then why should we not let them vote on the issue of term limits? What are you and Pulido afraid of? What is undemocratic about letting the voters settle the matter?
What do the changes in Sec 401 mean?
Sec 401 changes:
What is the difference between a
Well I must have missed something here because I spoke last night, and I really did not see anyone but from either side speak. I am a Democrat, I am a Law Enforcement Officers wife, and I also spoke up!!!
How about you!
A few but that is it!!
Last night reminded me of voting day, everyone has a say in it, but sorry as far as I am concerned you do not speak up in front of the issue then you should have no say so on it at all!!!
If anyone thinks there should be no term limits then move to another country please. I live in America last time i checked and i live in a democratic world here!
Interesting Art!…. How splendid!…. and what do you gone do about the “despot” Pulido?
Out of about 300,000 Santa Ana Citizens it is I who challenged him in 2004 and got 20% of vote.
I believe that if it would not be for the “Walking Talking Nothings” like you, I would be the Santa Ana Mayor today.
I am gone be on the ballot in the November 2006 so try to vote where your mouth is.
-Stanley Fiala
The problem is finding candidates who can actually beat Pulido. Most good candidates are either in the Mayor’s back pockets and the others simply do not have what it takes to run for office.
Unfortunately we have very few choices in deciding an alternative.
Luis, In generic situations like this case you present, term limits is irrelevant- no better choice. In the case where there is an electable opposing candidate ,then the term limit issue is also irrelevant- you have a viable replacement. I believe the term limit question is really a decision as to where the citizen believes political power is to be concentrated . Term limits on City Council concentrates power to the City Manger’s Office and staff , Making City Council member elections largely inconsequential relative to the long term vision of the City. The question should be where do you whant the political power to be ? – whith the City Managers Office and Staff or with the City Council. Term limits or no term limits decide this . Whaterver decision is made then , clearly points out where citizen action and criticizism should be concentrated. Art Lomeli
Dr. Lomeli,
Not necessarily. I belive it to be a cause and effect situation. The mayor has very deep pockets and most saavy candidates know that. Therefore, we do not see good candidates run for this position because ultimately money is an open door to that seat.
I believe with term limits, and the vacancy of an incumbment, one would see a larger pool of viable candidates.
We have candidates who run for Mayor without a clue of what they are going up against, they tend to be stange or simply not in tune with what reality in Santa Ana really looks like. Term Limits become very relevant when it comes to finding better candidates
Better candidates can win without term limits _Luis_
I live in America last time i checked and i live in a democratic world here! _Karen_
I think USA is a Republic, Karen
IS that right Stanley? USA still a republic?
I think term limits have turned the Golden State into the bankrupt state run by part-time amateurs who have no-clue as to their job requirements.
“I think term limits have turned the Golden State into the bankrupt state run by part-time amateurs who have no-clue as to their job requirements.”
I would agree.
Professional politicians such as Phil Angelides who have lived on the taxpayer dime since 1972 should be shown the door.
Lifelong mooch Cruz Bustamante has fooled taxpayer since 1993, first as assemblymember,then speaker,then lt Gov and now he wants to play Insurance Commissioner.
Jackie Goldberg has been hanging around since 1983, first as a LAUSD board member from 83 to 91, then she worked for LA County Supervisor Gloria Molina from 91 to 93, then she loafed around as an LA city councilmember from 93 to 2000, and ever since she has been an assemblymamber up in Sacramento.
Worst yet is Jerry moonbeam Brown.
In 1969 he was elected to the board of trustees on LA community college, in 1970 he became sec of State,from 74 to 82 he was Gov Moonbeam,in 98 he was Mayor of oakland and now he want to be Attorney General.
Your right.
The above listed part time amateurs have no clue as to the job requirement.
They will just take any job they can fool the voters into giving them.
It
In Santa Ana politics, better candidates can not win the Mayoral seat.
Thomas- There is an equal amount of politicians on both sides of the political parties whom are life lonf politicians earning money through the system.
Tom:
It is obvious you can make better voting decisions than most other voters. I voted for Angelides, Bustamante and Brown. Apparently, you don’t approve.
Since I live in a democracy, I think I can and should be able to vote for whom I like. My choices should not artifically be blunted by term limits.
Luis, you are no expert on Santa Ana politics. A better candidate can win. The problem is that that many talented people won’t run because they have more important committments like work, children, family and friends.
Anon,
You are as I am, entitled to our opiniions, and as such, you believe a candidate can win the mayoral seat, I disagree. The only way to get rid of a entrenched incumbent is for either their own removal or term limits.
Money should not be the ultimate factor, unfortunately it is. If we had term limits, ward elections, and campaign finance reform, you would see a lot more candidates run for office and do more good to their communities than the politicians we have now.
Luis:
You should read the First Amendment. Campaign reform cannot prevent an individual from using his or her own personal wealth to buy an election. Also, campaign “reform” often runs afoul of First Amendment protections and is therefore nullified.
I’d support public funding of campaigns, but that still does not deal with the issue of having individuals use their personal wealth in campaigns.
Anon:
I am not referring to a candidates own wealth, I am referring to the money Pulido, for example, he has stored, from campaign contributions. Elected officials tend to have more money than the candidate seeking that office for the first time.
KAREN writes:
“If anyone thinks there should be no term limits then move to another country please. I live in America last time i checked and i live in a democratic world here!”
What kind of (non) logic is this being spewed forth? What kind of asinine fool thinks that if someone doesn’t agree with their opinion they should leave the USA? Do you understand what you are saying, or are you just brain dead?
Explain how living in America (a democracy, not a “democratic world”) has anything to do with accepting term limits? or having to blidly accept someone else’s opinion without the right to debate or dissent from that opinion? It sounds like you would be more comfortable in Nazi Germany that the USA.
If you cherish being an American, maybe you should cherish the first amendment – people can have their own opinions on issues, and do not have to have them “handed to them” as in a dictatorship. Yet you think if someone is opposed to term limits they should be forced out of the country?
To the substantive issue: Term limits are a joke – it is a statement that the democratic system does not work because the voters are too stupid to vote out a bad elected official. Or that they prefer a bad elected official. So laws have to be established to “protect the voters from themselves” and to “limit the damage teh voters can do to our city/county/state/country.”
Voters certainly can pass initiatives to establish term limits, and then they are democratically established term limits, however misguided. (I will not get into how those initiatives are funded, or by whom) However, they can democratically revoked or revised as well. The debate of whether they serve their purpose or are an evisceration of the democratically elected legislative body resulting in limiting the ability of statesmen to serve in place for the next “trainee” is an important debate. The problem is that someone has sold the voters a bill of goods that term limits are somehow necessary in a democracy where the electorate is happy with the person they are electing, but those who cannot get the duly elected official out of office by a vote instead wants to get them out by limiting the elected official ability to serve in the office, thus depriving the electorate of their chosen representative.
Is that really “democracy”?
Finally, those afraid of debate are typically those who are given their ideas by someone else, or those who are threatened because they do not understand and/or cannot defend or explain their own “deeply held” ideas.
Show us you have the ability to think and defend your ideas, “Karen.” In the USA you have the freedom to say stupid things without any semblance of rational thought or intellectual reflection. But I have the right to call you out for what you say.
Candidates for political office aside from grassroots efforts and some very rare exceptions are a product of a well oiled estabblished political machine . This machine then is the power that places cadidates supportive of the machines agenda in office .The money comes from interest groups seeking stability . If you can form a stable political group with voter power then you will attract the funding. Term limits produce the machine mentioned , replacement of the candidate will not change the agenda .The above is why it is so difficult to replace some incumbents . In my view term limits nurture those things that those that oppose term limits wish to eliminate . Maybe the energy is better placed in orginizing . Hate and anger in many cases unfocuses the big picture . Art Lomeli
In my previous post I meant to say . In my view term limits nurture those things that those that support term limits wish to eliminate . Art Lomeli
Mr. Gordon, can’t manage to type the names Mclintock, Mcpherson, Strickland, et al when blasting Democrats who have been in office for some time. Myopia strikes again.
As for term limits, we have them now. They’re called elections. Stop making excuses about Pulido’s deep pockets. The community has preferred him over his opponents, that’s all you can say. The rest is speculation. If you don’t like him, run someone better.
Hey Anonymous, I live in California, a Democratic State where do you live?
I can say what I want, when I want, and where I want. Now when you can come out of hiding and come to a meeting and face me. Then talk your bull at me anonymous said… .
You mean nothing to me when you hide! It is like you are not even voting!
Karen–
Your comment that “if anyone thinks there should be no term limits then move to another country please,” is over the top. You can dismiss someone who disagrees with your statement as being anonymous and therefore apparently unworthy of a substantive reply by you. But the site invites anonymous input and exchange. Frankly, the person who called you on this was rude and doesn’t deserve a response. But do you often suggest people who don’t agree with you leave the country or is the bon voyage only for a select few issues?
The concept of the American democracy is paradoxical.
The Americans are programed to win.
In the American mind there is no second place.
If you finish second you are a looser.
In American mind there is no silver or borons metal.
The Americans are narcissists and it is this narcissistic concept which is destroying the American democracy.
That is why we have only two parties, the winners and losers.
The coalition in America is virtually impossible.
So the paradox of American democracy is that there is no democracy but voluntary dictatorship shared periodically by Democrats and Republicans
Only in America voters believe that voting for an underdog is throwing your vote away.
It is this stupid believe and voters desire to be winers themselves over electing a winning leader which creates this 98% incumbent reelection.
This cannot be fixed by any means because it is American national mental defect.
-Stan
“Mr. Gordon, can’t manage to type the names Mclintock, Mcpherson, Strickland, et al when blasting Democrats who have been in office for some time. Myopia strikes again.”
McClintock-
Assembly from 1982 to 1992 and again from 1996 to 2000.
2000 to now-California State Senate.
Candidate for Lt Gov
Bruce McPherson-
Assembly 1993 to 1996
State Senator 1996 to 2004
Sec State-Appointed March 2005
Candidate for Sec State
Tony Strickland-
Assembly 1998-2004
Candidate for Controller
Feel better?
Bladerunner . . .
I suppose rude is a matter of context. I would prefer to think of it as a response that was of like tone to “Karen”‘s post. I do not support rudeness, or aspire to it. However, this is a political blog to discuss issues. The parallel I would make is trying to have a discussion on right to choose with a fundamentalist pro-lifer, or a discussion regarding gay marriage with a homophobic fundamentalist. There is no reasoning with those unwilling to listen to discourse or debate.
By the way, she hasn’t responded to you, and you were not “rude”. All of the posts I have read by “Karen” have the same tone, and no substantive thought. Do not be surprised if she never responds to your request for a rational discussion, either.
And OK, my language may have been over the top (” spew forth”), but are you going to tell me (really), it was wholly inappropriate (not unnecessary – there is a distinction) given the posts i was directed to?
Eagerly awaiting your response –
Anon. 8:12am
I didn’t see much logic in her posts and as you know her love term limits or leave threw me for a loop as well, but it was unecessary and wholly inappropriate to call her an “asinine fool.” A closer call but still unecessary and inappropriate if not wholly so to ask her “do you understand what you are saying or are you just brain dead?”
I got your point, but you lose me and I suspect others when you go off that way. Try the Luis approach, he’s disagrees with ALOT of people and virtually always in a very civil way.
by the way, I’m not holding my breath for a response but she may be busy doing other things and may get around to a reply.
anon 8:12am–One more note—you said there is no reasoning with someone who is unwilling to listen to discourse or debate. Perhaps, but you might also want to turn your examples around. Trying to have a discussion on ANY restrictions on abortion with a ardent pro-choicer is as frstrating as trying to discuss allowing any choice with ardent pro-lifers. I’ve found gay rights advocates generally more open minded about tactical discussions of supporting civil unions versus running your head into the wall in New York, California and elsewhere advocating gay marriages, but even there, some gay rights advocates are pretty close minded about anyone not in front of the parade. Still, nothing with the venom of those who would restrict not only marriage but civil unions.
Bladerunner:
OK. I’ll bite. However, I believe the exampleas I gave (Pro-life fundamentalist and Homophobic fundamentalist) more accurately reflect what I see in Karen’s comments.
To wit: Neither of these groups are capable or willing to listen to debate, and not because of rational thought. Certainly, there are Gay Rights activists who are strident in their beliefs that Gay Marriage should not compromised. Although straight, I concur – it is a fundamental injustice and inconsistency with core values of love and dedication to allow non-committed straights to enjoy the benefits and social rights, based upon a social bias. Miscgenation was the law on the books until a mere SIX years ago in Alabama. Go back 40-50 years, it was a lynching offense in the southern states. Gay marriage is the next logical step in acknowledging the universal right to mate with the one you love.
But I digress, as is my wont.
My point is simple – some groups contain individuals who are not desirous to compromise philosophical beliefs for political purposes. Example: Gay Rights activist. Pro-Choice activists. However, the radicals (of the ilk you to which you refer) are generally far fewer than the general group (i.e the exception to the rule) and their views tend to be based upon a coherent philosophical logic and value. I have yet to heard a consistent logical argument in support of a 100% Pro-life (ie no restrictions at all) or Anti-gay advocate. Have you?
In other words – “Karen”‘s comments are based upon self-imposed and selfish values, and are logically inconsistent. She hates Pulido (no comment pro or con from this peanut gallery), so she advocates term limits. Point is, she does so with false statements of fact (i.e. Democrats are the party of term limits)and intolerance (i.e. Love term limits or leave the country!)
Please.
And please defend this comment of hers:
“If anyone thinks there should be no term limits then move to another country please. I live in America last time i checked and i live in a democratic world here!”
Go ahead – have a party. All I see is ignorance, intolerance and illogical thought.
Bladerunner:
I dont disagree with a lot of people, just usually the conservative type. I think I have only found one thing I disagree with you about.
ooops, I just disagreed with you on this one, darn it!
(lol)
Hopem you are doing well.
Bladerunner?
I really like to now where I said if ANYONE DISAGRES WITH ME AND ONLY ME THAT THEY SHOULD MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY LOL!
I think the word and topic was term limits. Anyone can speak their mind as they choose to. I will also choose to call them weak and child like chickens to if they cannot tell me who they are. Even a Blogger name. You are Ok. But you really need to read my Blogs slowly to..
Yep Anony man or woman or child does not deserve a anwser bk to the off the wall remarks on the issues that are coming up now in his remarks! From term limits to gay marriage. ROFLOL
Now i know he or she has to be a Republican, or shall I say right, right way out there. They are the only ones that love to change the topic to other things than what the real subject line is.
“I think the word and topic was term limits. Anyone can speak their mind as they choose to. I will also choose to call them weak and child like chickens to if they cannot tell me who they are.”
1. “term limits” is two words, not a word. (ergo, “the words WERE”)
2. “child like” is a single word (e.g. “childlike, like Karen’s grammar and reasoning”
Anon. 10:41pm— You must not talk to many pro-life people. I talk to quite a few who are capable and willing to listen. They also can argue logically and there are various shades of pro-life opinions, just as there are a variety of pro-life positions. My experience is that the leadership and staff of the organizations on both dies are usually the ones who don’t listen and will fight and effort to find some common ground or solutions beyond slogans. Plenty of exceptions I know, but the not listening part is a bi-partisan problem. Your failure to see that is an example of the problem.
And as for karen, I am not going to defend her, she can do that. I just reiterate your calling ehr asinine shows no class.
Karen, its true you did not say if you dont agree with me, leave the country. You did post that you favor term limits and if people didn’t support term limits they should leave the country. I just put the two together and perhaps I should not have done that. But your statement is somewhat strident and unreasonable, at least in my opinion.
Its late and I didnt proof the last post. ubstitute pro-choice for one of the pro-lifes and the statement makes sense(at least to some).
“It
Does anybody know what Lisa Bist meant by saying term limit abuse and was that directed to the Mayor ? Art Lomeli
How can term limits be abused when they do not exist for the office? Just another “Bistism” . . . The abuse is term limits – they limit the electorate’s choices, and force a revolving door which cycles out electeds at about the time they are getting efficient and compentant in their job. Term limits actually increase the political power of corporations, PACS and lobbyists, as they are more capable of controlling and selecting the field of candidates.
It is no secret that Lisa Bist and Claudia Alvarez began to attack Mayor Pulido in an effort to wrest the Mayor’s office from Pulido and place Bist in the office. The idea was that Alvarez’s “rising star” would create the popularity within the Santa Ana electorate, and Bist would ride Alvarez’s coattails with endorsement by Alvarez – and money from Alvarez’s out of town contributor base. Political pressure would come from Alvarez’s pro-business and pro-development policies, which would then link with Bist’s republican support and business support, securing businesss and chamber support. With Alvarez in state office, she could pressure the same sources of cash donations and business community political support from otherwise Pro-Pulido support.
The hole in the plan was that both Alvarez and Bist are shrikes with personality disorders that are exposed when they are placed under any pressure. Can you imagine Bist as Mayor? Earplugs would be required for all city employees – Prozac as well, most likely.
I would guess that Bist’s comments about abuse have to do with the fact that the council has term limits but the mayor does not. That creates an inequity where staff responds only to a mayoral request and blows off the council, basically ‘waiting them out’.
Either both spots should have term limits or abolish them for all!
Creating term limits for the mayor wouldn’t effect Pulido as I understand it since they would not be retroactive. Pulido could be mayor for ten more years even if they took effect.
Lastly, I don’t think Bist has ever had any interest in staying on the council longer than two terms anyway. She’s smart enough to know she can’t beat Pulido even if she were backed by the Chamber and business. A new mayor will have to come from someone like Rob Richardson or more likely, an even younger candidate.
This alledged strategy you present is the the only way change can happen in a term limits government . Placing term limits on the Mayor would only further weaken the power of the City Council and further enpower the power base the current term limits has created.I understad term limits for City Council were placed sometime around 1994 . Does anybody recall the arguments for the change , real and perceived Art lomeli
Karen –
Why do you care about the mayoral term limit in Santa Ana when you are a resident of Orange?
Just curious.