Pajaritos are chirping about former State Senator Joe Dunn. Apparently he has told all the local union bigwigs that he is going to run for the O.C. Board of Supervisors against First District Supervisor Janet Nguyen…and against Santa Ana Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez.
Poor Claudia. She will have zero chance against Dunn. She allowed Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido to trick her into running for Supervisor so she wouldn’t take him on for the Mayor’s office. That was a race she could have won. Instead she will lose big to Dunn and her political career will be over.
Nguyen will have her hands full in the interim trying to do her job while also keeping herself out in the public eye. She will have a tough race on her hands against Dunn. And the female vote will be split with Alvarez in the race. If another Vietnamese candidate were to file, it would be that much tougher for Nguyen to prevail. However, if more men file for the seat, they will bite into Dunn’s share. It should be an interesting race.
Speaking of Nguyen, Total Buzz is reporting that her old nemesis, Assemblyman Van Tran, still has it in for her. Apparently Nguyen has been trying to reach out to Tran but he keeps canceling their meetings. So her chief of staff told Total Buzz reporter to call OC GOP Chairman Scott Baugh to verify the story. However Baugh threw Nguyen under the bus by telling Wisckol that Nguyen canceled the only meeting that was set up with Tran to date.
Who to believe? I don’t believe anything that comes out of Tran’s mouth – and Baugh is unable to stand up to Tran’s ally, Mike Schroeder. I’m going with Nguyen’s version of the slight until she tells me otherwise.
Beats me why Wisckol always seems to side with the Trannies.
Apparently former O.C. Democratic Party Executive Director Mike Levin left a lot of angry Democrats in his wake – and the only people who lauded his brief reign were the Reeps over at Red County/OC Blog. He won’t be missed by most O.C. Democratic activists.
Another day, another shooting. This time a 20 year old man was shot in Santa Ana, early this morning, according to the O.C. Register.
Here is a depressing fact from the San Francisco Chronicle, our state prison budget is now set to surpass our state college budget. Nice.
According to the Chronicle, “Under a new state law, California will spend $7.4 billion to build 40,000 new prison beds, and that is over and above the current annual operating budget of more than $10 billion. Interest payments alone on the billions of dollars of bonds that will be sold to finance the new construction will amount to $330 million a year by 2011 — all money that will not be available for higher education or other state priorities.”
Good job Assemblyman Jose Solorio! Not.
I received a friendly welcome email today from an organization I just joined:
Dear Art: Thank you for your decision to stand up for freedom by joining the American Civil Liberties Union. Through the years, the key to our success and our greatest source of strength has always been the support of ACLU members who understand our freedoms can never be taken for granted – they must be vigorously defended or they will surely be lost. Look for your ACLU membership card in the mail and please consider asking your friends to join with you in supporting our work. I am glad to know that you share our commitment to defending freedom. I pledge to you the best efforts of everyone at the ACLU as we work together to protect liberty. Sincerely, Anthony D. Romero Executive Director American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004-2400
Last word: A very distinguished moderate Latino Republican is thinking of moving back to the O.C. His family was involved in the civil rights movement and actually set major education precedents before the Mendez family did. He just might be interested in running for the 69th Assembly District. Looks like Solorio might have a fight on his hands after all…
Brother Art.
As part of your blog family it is refreshing to be able to disagree from time to time on policy matters. In this case let me say that your joining the ACLU is surely not an organization that I would ever join.
Later,
Larry
Larry, I agree with you. I find it ironic that their acronym is A CLU… heh, it’s not like they’ve got one.
However, Art’s deep dive into the waters of progressive liberalism is his own doing. While worrysome at times, it’s ultimately his decision… his choice.
How many shootings and how many homicides in Santa Ana this year? Is all this activity in one general location? Other than Michelle Martinez & Vince Sarmiento, what does the rest of the council have to say about this? What about Mayor Chilango and Councilmember Clownia? Are they silent to all this because violent crime is what they were use to seeing in Mexico before they came to the US?
Art,
Pulido tricked Alvarez into running for the BOS? SHE floated that balloon a few days after the election results showed that one of the Nguyen’s was going to win. No one encouraged her, no one talked her into it. She made that decision all by herself and began talking to the Unions about backing her. To this day, Pulido has not even committed to endorsing her.
Anyone who has even the slightest bit of inside information knows this. Either someone is feeding you bad information, or this is just another one of the things you make up to sound “informed” and/or try to make Pulido look bad.
Morning Coffee
Larry and Ryan,
Even if you don
Morning Coffee,
Really? My sources indicate that Pulido and Alvarez have become VERY cozy of late. They have been seen chismiando on the 8th floor quite a bit recently.
Yes, Alvarez jumped in, but believe me, Pulido is fanning the fire. This is a perfect scenario for him. He gets back at Joe Dunn for his attempt to move the courthouse out of Santa Ana, and he gets rid of Alvarez, who might have otherwise run for Mayor.
In the end, Pulido always comes out on top. However, if things stay as they are, I expect he will be in trouble next year.
The First Amendment is very important. I’m very respectful towards other’s opinions and more than encourage their God given right to free speech. I will give you that one.
However, if the ACLU could give the opportunity to a dog to sue their dog owner because the dog was against the type of dog food being fed to the dog in question, they’d be all over it. It’s just one of the few, prime examples of the nutty things the ACLU will champion to get their point across, instead of tackling more serious problems (i.e. REAL freedom of speech issues)
In fact, “Nothing But The Truth,” written by Avi (Edward Irving Wortis), deals with that similar topic — freedom of speech — not suing dogs. We read it in my high school English class. It’s a good read.
Art,
You are right about Mike Levin. Although he had won the favor of DPOC Chair Frank Barbaro, he stepped on too many toes in his short rise to power. He also worked to create division in the ranks of Democratic Activists. He fled town with h is tail between his legs because he had burned every bridge in town. He went behind the back of the party, and Congresswoman Sanchez to bring Nancy Pelosi to OC for a fundraiser with the supposed idea that she was going to come back and help raise money for the party.
In fact he botched that event, Nancy pulled the plug on the event and several donors were left holding the bag after forking over thousands of dollars for a chance to meet Pelosi.
That was the last straw and he burned every bridge in town with the activists and now he left several donors feeling ripped off.
He had no choice but to leave town and forever gave up all hopes of running for Irvine City Council.
Should he ever darken the streets of OC again, he might find himself in the Emergency Room or seeking asylum in a church.
Art. There are many issues that ACLU was engaged in that we could debate. However let me bring you to a topic close to my heart. Property Rights. Check out the following Reason interview and respond if you wish.
1994 Reason Foundation interview with ACLU president Nadine Strossen entitled Life, Liberty, and the ACLU.
Nadine Strossen, president of the American Cibil Liberties Union, on rights in the age of P.C.Cathy Young | October 1994 Print Edition
“The 1991 election of Nadine Strossen as president of the ACLU was widely interpreted as an attempt to return to the group’s traditional emphasis on civil liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press as opposed to its involvement with modish issues such as comparable worth and government aid to the homeless. Strossen is a graduate of Harvard Law School and a professor of constitutional law at New York University Law School.
Reason: Hasn’t the ACLU neglected property rights? Should there be a fundamental distinction between civil liberties, such as speech or religion, and property ownership?
Strossen: Well, there certainly isn’t any distinction in my mind. And there certainly isn’t any distinction in terms of ACLU policy. People have rights. Property doesn’t have rights. Some of the rights people have are closely associated with property. The Due Process Clause says government cannot deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. We certainly have many cases involving that privilege.
The Supreme Court really hasn’t done too much in this area, so the examples that I can think of go back a long way. They were cases in the 1960s that involved government jobs or government benefits in which the courts analyzed the benefit as property. We have never taken the position, despite repeated requests from certain elements within the organization, that you should have a fundamental right to “property,” that the government should guarantee an income or guarantee a house. However, we have always taken the position that, if the government chooses to distribute certain benefits, it may not do so in a way that violates fundamental rights, including depriving you of the property that the government has chosen to give you, without certain procedural protections.
Reason: Does the ACLU support enforcement of the Takings Clause?
Strossen: I don’t think that we would have any problem supporting a meaningful interpretation of the Takings Clause. I think it’s very dangerous to read certain language out of the Constitution. If the Court can do it from one portion of the Constitution, it can do it for other portions. Therefore, I’m very philosophically supportive of the efforts to put real meaning back into the Takings Clause and to overturn the Slaughterhouse cases which, of course, completely read the Privileges and Immunities Clause out of the Constitution. [In an 1873 decision, the Court narrowly interpreted this clause of the 14th Amendment and allowed the states broad regulatory powers.]”
“People have rights but property doesn’t?” People OWN the property that are subject to government takings. She truly didn’t addrees the question.
Art. What was she smoking???
Larry
Larry,
Beats me – but what were Ken Maddox, Curt Pringle, Cynthia Coad, Jim Silva and so many other Reeps thinking when they supported the O.C. PLA?
Property rights by the way are important, but where would we be without free speech?
The ACLU needs to stick to free speech issues in order to have the most relevance.
And we bloggers might need their help before long…
Art–here’s one Demo activist who misses Mike Levin and trust me there are others. No ding on some of the great folks who volunteered for the Party before he started but it was a mess—office was a mess, web site average at best, no consistent fundraising going on, no ground campaign strategy, no VR leading up to 06 so the Reps wiped out a hard fought voter reg advantage in the 34th SD.
Mike helped turn alot of that around..Clearly not alone but made alot happen and made a professional operation out of what haad been in essence a volunteer operation.
Poster number 8 has things so wrong they must have inhaled before posting.
Mike always told barbaro he wasn’t staying long–he was always planning on going back to law or to the business sector. I’m surprised he stayed as long as he did. It’s a thankless job.
Sorry NCS, but Art is right on this one.
If you only knew of the rumors Mr. Levin was spreading about the activists and candidates dedicated to the DPOC you would not be saying such things. Not only was he spreading rumors about me personally, but about other really wonderful Democrats that have done nothing but dedicate themselves to the party.
Whether you want to face it or not, Mr. Levin kept many local activists at bay and stopped loyal Democrats from informing Barbaro of what was going on in order to cover his tracks. He took credit for things he had nothing to do with and blamed others for projects that failed – including the Pelosi event. It speaks volumes when the two highest Democratic elected officials in OC saw through this guy and yet barbaro didn’t. More will surface about Mr. Levin as time passes. And while I appreciate your dedication to Mr. Levin, your loyalty is misplaced. This very dedicated Democat will not miss him and is VERY happy to see him leave.
To One who knows—Its hard to respond to someone who claims someone else spread rumours about them when no one knows who you are. I nwever heard Levin spread rumours about anyone and I talked to him at least twice a week while he worked at the party.
Of course, if you were one of the people who turned the flamethrower on him when he first got the job, I wouldn’t be surprised if he wasn’t putting out press releases for you. Some people can dish it out but can’t take it.
You’re kind of like Art and Pulido–blame levin for everything bad and not give him props for everything good. Sure he made some mistakes but IMHO they mistakes were far outweighed by the good moves. As for the two highest partisan Dems, Loretta and lou, their beef with the party was more about not getting the VR done(which was before Levin came in–he came in and the VR got done) and the support for Umberg in the 1st SD(not a decision Levin made–Barbaro wanted Pulido who said no and then followed OCEA and AOCDS and OCFFA lead to Umberg. The Party did not endorse Umberg in the 34th primary and levin wasn;t even working then anyway. Both were concerned about levin pushing the Party to focus on South County but when Lou was told that South County elected officials and activists were going to raise all the money for any South County and that Central lOC would remain a priority Lou had no problem with this. Barbaro and the Central Committee would dictate policy anyway, Mike was the guy who would implement it. Mikre saw an opportunity for some new Dem scratch instead of going back to the same old same old and buiklding up a small donor base. And for that he gets a rasberry. Typical eat your own Dem.
The Pelosi event was a mistake, Mike had a hand in that mistake but there was blame in other places as well and your characterization of the event was incorrect in your first post.
You may be a dedicated Democratic activist but its time you stopped obsessing about levin—he’s gone to greener pastures and I really should leave you to shadow box with yourself. Too mucgh negative stuff when Dems have so many challenges ahead of them.
No. 10 – Art, I presume that is a tongue in cheek question. You have to know that they were thinking about hordes of volunteers to assist their future campaigns, no union-backed opposition and campaign contributions too. So far at least, John Moorlach has shown that such union “clout” is more myth than reality.
Yes, NCS,
Mr. Levin has indeed left, and for that I am thankful. Hopefully now the party can move forward in a positive direction.
Northcountystorm-
You are correct in giving Mike Levin credit for cleaning up the democratic office, clearing out old papers, arranging a better phone system. he also updated the website, which was a big improvement, and also reached out to increase the “Winner’s Circle” and expanded that base as well. However, you state in your initial comments “No ding on some of the great folks who volunteered for the Party before he started but it was a mess—office was a mess, web site average at best, no consistent fundraising going on, no ground campaign strategy, no VR leading up to 06”
Levin was not a volunteer – he was paid very well for the position. It was his full-time, well paid job – he better be able to clean up the office, get improved performance out of the existing fundraising plans, improve the website. He better raise funds to cover his salary, as well as the salaries of those additinal paid positions that were created to assist him in his assigned tasks, otherwise he woudl be a net loss over the volunteer system.
I have to question your comments regarding his contributions in the areas of ground campaign strategy contributions and voter registration – I would appreciate any description of his actual contributions in this regard. I am somewhat skeptical of any real contribution he made in these areas, but would appreciate hearing what you feel he has done.
This is not a “bash Levin” post. That is why I prefaced it with some props for the man. That being said, it is a good thing he is gone, in my opinion. Mike was to a large extent somke and mirrors. He talked a good game, and could get some good cosmetics done – but he was a shameless self promoter, and his self promotion was largely imagined. He dropped names like a complete insider, but if you ever asked the people he claimed to know and be close with about him and their relationship, up and down the state you would find blank faces responding “who?” It is kind of unbelieveable the extent to which he was unaware that in politics people talk north-to-south, and to think he could drop the names he did to build his credit without being vetted is more than a bit silly.
Levin was, regrettably, caught in a lot of lies, and his approach was always gladhanding ignorance, coupled with name-dropping which would never check out, and a tendency to blame othersfor mis mistakes. He would also cover his tracks by telling one person one thing, and the other person the another, again thinking the people would never talk and figure out his Modus Operendi (“M.O.”). As a result, he created unnecessary divisions for the sole purpose of self protection and promotion, and sullied others reputations and relationships to cover up his mistakes.
I think the epitaph for Mike in regard to his OC job was that he was a guy with talents, but without sufficient experience for the position, especually in regard to his lack of local connections, and lack of knowledge regarding OC politics. His mistakes were also frequently the result of not understanding the lifebreath of successful politics. The Pelosi event was a classic example – the speaker of the house is not going to come to the district of a member of her house to do a fundraiser without the involvement and inclusion of the house member. Purposefully excluding (or simply being too hairbrained to think of coordinating the fundraiser with the housemember – Loretta Sanchez) is a recipe for failure and hard feelings. Of course Pelosi dropped out when she learned Sanchez did not know of, and was not included in, the event. This is bush league 101 – and a classic example of how Mike Levin was unqualified for the job. He did good things, but he also mafe an aboslute mess of many things, and harmed important political relationships in doing so. That is the worst possible thing an executive director can do.