It would appear that O.C. Register Martin Wisckol knows how to beat a dead horse. His Buzz column today opens with yet another attack on O.C. Supervisor Janet Nguyen:
County Supervisor Janet Nguyen may create her share of turmoil, but last week she brought together three of the county’s prominent political blogs in an unprecedented display of unity.
As promised in this space a week ago, the Register’s Total Buzz political blog launched a daily count-up of the days Nguyen was delinquent in legally mandated disclosure of three big campaign contributors. Quickly joining in the daily count-up was the Red County and Liberal OC blogs, as well as the left-leaning Calitics statewide blog.
Mike Lawson at the Liberal OC even came up with a cool “We’ve waited (number here) days” graphic, which the four blogs agreed to make the Official Logo of the Janet Nguyen Count-up.
It was left, right and center, joined in perfect harmony. As if Janet had bought the blog world a Coke.
But the mounting attention on her delinquency probably didn’t contribute light-heartedness to the mood in her own office. After four days of the count-up, the disclosures were finally delivered
Actually Art if you read his count up stories he daily called her attorneys and Janet’s office and got no replies. He did ask the right questions – just was never provided any answers.
As for your comment that this was the biggest non story of the year. It is certainly NOT a non issue when an elected official blantantly ignores the law, tells donors there are no limits and that their $$ is not reportable. A far cry from a minor infraction of omitting occupation and employer information for a donor would’t you say?
I know there is a pending investigation at the AG’s office so we will see what happens with that. Like I said yesterday to you – if you blow it- ya blow it. quit blaming others, take responsibility and show some integrity.
Let’s hope she keeps it clean from here on out so we stand a chance to hold onto the Rep seat in about a year!
Cheap shot Art,
The fact of the matter is that we waited, for quite a while to jump on the “band wagon.”
Our move was hardly partisan, but one of integrity. I sat in disbelief that Supervisor Nguyen was aparently unwilling to disclose the names of the three donors to her campaign. And as I posted on LiberalOC, only one question really remains; WHY?
If our interest was partisan, then we would have been complaining from day one of the disclosure that her defense fund existed.
We waited, and waited, and waited for her to do the right thing. We covered the countdown for exactly three days, while you said nothing of any substance, if anything at all.
I’ve got to ask Art, was that because you have been one of her longtime supporters?
Enough of Janet. People move on. There’s nothing there.
Flowerszzz:
Give it up. Janet would have to accept a cash donation from Osama Bin Laden before Art could bring himself to criticize — and even then he’d try to find a way to blame Bin Laden or Janet’s advisors.
One day, Art might share with his readers what he really thinks of Janet Nguyen, instead of snowing them.
One day they’ll put Art Pedroza in the national Blog Museum as an example of a single-cell blogger that became extinct in the face of competition from bloggers that developed higher brain functions. Passersby will look and wonder, “Did anyone actually ever believe anything he said?”
Art, I have never heard it called a horse before.
Funny how Wisckol never stops to contemplate why Liberal OC and Calitics would jump on Wisckol’s bandwagon – oh, that’s right they are Democrats.
I wonder what your Drinking Liberally buddies think about you calling them cynical partisan hacks. No se puede!
I wonder if Nguyen finally filed the report because of the blog pressure? Or did her legal staff finally resolve the questions they had regarding said report? We may never know…
And we certainly would never know if it were up to you, Art! You’re such a whore for Janet you’ll believe any cock-and-bull excuse she gives. Janet could have said, “My dog ate the donor disclosures” and you’d attack anyone who didn’t believe such a “reasonable” explanation. Wake up! Your obvious shilling for Janet robs you of any credibility on this issue.
Wisckol didn’t ask the right questions in his report today.
And you haven’t ask ANY, Mentiroza.
And he jumped to conclusions from the start of this fiasco.
“The pot calling the kettle black” doesn’t begin to describe the hypocrisy of that statement. You are shameless.
I would expect that from a blogger, but not from a professional reporter.
The rest of us expect that from you, Art Mentiroza.
You may now return to being Janet’s shill, you nutjob.
Art!
Kansas City here! This is good sh%t!
Others are starting to smell what you shovel. Crank that spin machine up to the next level. Can’t wait to read THAT!
Wow. How many of the above comments would Jubal have allowed to stay up at his blog? He would have banned most of you for making “personal attacks.”
I actually received an email the other day from a Reep whom I will allow to remain nameless. His beef with Janet is that she is young, inexperienced and too ambitious.
Wasn’t that true for Curt Pringle and John Lewis back in the day? Pringle even cost his party six figures when he sent uniformed guards to the polls to scare Latino voters away. That is a Hell of a lot worse than filing a report late!
What about Trung Nguyen? He is not young, but he has less political experience than Janet – she worked for two Supervisors and an Assemblyman before getting elected to the Garden Grove City Council.
If anything, Janet had MORE political experience than Van Tran did when he first got elected to the GG City Council.
And does anyone think Van Tran is less ambitious than Janet? Give me a break!
Bottom line – Martin Wisckol led a blog lynch mob against Janet. Only to find out there was no story there. It fizzled and was anticlimactic. Everyone who participated in that sorry exercise ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Give her a chance and I know she will do a fine job as the Supervisor for the First District.
Jubal,
You have no leg to stand on. You ignored a major story about one of your friends facing up to six months in jail. That was without excuse.
And will you ever report anything negative about Van Tran? Not likely.
As for what I think of Janet, I think she is young but very tough. She is still developing her core beliefs, but she has a good heart and I know that given time she will do a fine job as our Supervisor in the First District.
The way she prevailed over Umberg, Bustamante and Trung was unbelievable. It was akin to trouncing them in an ultimate fighting contest. She left them bloodied and defeated. I think that scares some of you Reeps who apparently cannot handle strong women being in power.
Art:
That’s one thick coating of sugar, Art — and it’s not how you described Janet and your reasons for backing her to me.
Art,
I agree with Chris, this is a pretty cheap shot. You can’t say that my participation in the “waiting for Janet to follow the law” stuff was partisan.
In fact, I’ve been pretty supportive of Janet during the entire Trung/Janet recount, just search our archives.
I’m pretty proud to say that I’m not a party pundit, but rather a person that calls it like I see it. Janet was breaking the law and deserved to get called out.
Not cool, Art. Now I wasn’t just a part of this move because I’m a “Democrat who hates Janet”. You know as well as all the rest of us that I was 100% behind you in revealing all the wrongdoing by Trung’s campaign, and that I was getting just as frustrated as you as Trung was trying to overturn the results of the recount. However, it’s only fair that as we caled out Trung Nguyen for all of his wrongdoings, that we ALSO call out Janet Nguyen for all of hers.
OK, so her donors were no big deal. SO WHY DIDN’T SHE JUST REVEAL THE NAMES 50 DAYS BEFOREHAND? JANET was the one that prolonged this scandal by not revealing the names of the donors. And if Janet’s in a weakened political state, then that’s her own fault. She only invited our questioning by not being completely forthcoming about her illegal legal defense fund and just who donated to the fund.
And no, I’m taking NO PLEASURE WHATSOEVER in saying this. You’re one of the best bloggers out there, Art. You’ve done some great things on this site. This post is just so beneath you. I’m just sorry that all of this had to happen.
If Janet had just filed the report when she was supposed to, none of this would have had to happen. : (
Mike, Chris and Andrew,
No slight was intended. I don’t see anything wrong with partisan activists doing what they can to advance their party and their candidates.
I can also understand that all three of you became convinced that this story was worth reporting. I never did – so on that we must disagree.
Janet said from the start that there were legal questions about this filing. I chose to believe her.
I do agree that Janet could have handled this better. I for one would have handled this differently. However, we know now that there was no substance to the accusations. She filed her report and there was nothing of interest there.
If I insulted you guys, mea culpa. But I remain convinced that what happened was tantamount to a lynching of Supervisor Nguyen. I am glad this blog did not participate.
A final question for each of you – Dunn vs. Nguyen. Who do you vote for?
No slight was intended.
Classic Art Pedroza back-pedal: take a really cheap shot at someone, then go wide-eyed in pretend disbelief when they took it as an insult. Art, you’re either a liar or a blockhead. Or both.
I don’t see anything wrong with partisan activists doing what they can to advance their party and their candidates.
Except for Van Tran. Or Mike Carona. Or Carlos Bustamante. Or anyone else on Artie’s nasty little list.
Art – Janet never said S(*T. She said, Ummmm I dunno who, ummmmm I dunno when, ummmm I dunno how much and ummm I dunno when they were refunded. Then nothing but crickets.
Show some integrity Art….take her to task on it! LOL.
“However, we know now that there was no substance to the accusations.”
Waddya mean “we,” kemosabe?
Are you saying Janet DIDN’T ignore TIN CUP for 50+ days?
What “legal questions” did she have? Did Janet think it might be OK to keep the identity of her donors secret? Do you think it is OK for elected officials to hide who their donors are, Art?
There weren’t any “accusations.” Janet was blowing off campaign reporting requirements, plain and simple. That’s the substance.
Just because the 3 donations weren’t from unions or Viet commies doesn’t make what Janet did OK.
When it comes to Janet Nguyen, Art is a shameless shill, and everyone knows it.
Jubal – still waiting to hear why you aren’t going to talk about your dear friend Bilodeau?
“You have no leg to stand on. You ignored a major story about one of your friends facing up to six months in jail.”
Aha, I missed this Pedroza gem earlier!
Art thinks Cunningham has no standing to criticize Art for turning a blind eye to his favorite politician (Janet, for the moment) because Cunningham already did the same thing as Art!
Thanks for admitting once again that you are whitewashing Janet’s dirty laundry, Art!
Chris Prevatt asked:
“We covered the countdown for exactly three days, while you said nothing of any substance, if anything at all.”
“I’ve got to ask Art, was that because you have been one of her longtime supporters?”
Art, you still haven’t answered his question.
Art said this about Janet Nguyen:
“She is still developing her core beliefs..”
Let’s run that through the Pedrozaspeak-to-Plain English translator:
“I know that Janet Nguyen doesn’t believe in anything, but that’s A-OK with me because I don’t either…at least not for very long.”
Pedrozabot,
Good grief! You sure have a lot of time on your hands.
Let me be clear about this – the report Janet filed late was in regard to a committee she set up for her legal defense. There were questions as to whether or not Tin Cup applied to such a fund.
Tin Cup was supposed to be a measure to limit a politician’s ability to raise money – for campaign purposes. I can see where there was confusion as to whether or not it applied to the fund in question.
It took awhile for Janet’s legal staff to sort this all out.
How in the world can you compare this non-story to Bilodeau’s criminal case? It is comparing a mole hill to a mountain!
As for Prevatt’s question, I thought I was clear about this. I did not think the story was worth covering. Even Wisckol had to admit that it fizzled and was anticlimactic. Does that sound like a story worth covering? To me it looks like I was right.
I did cover by the way the bigger story re the furniture purchases by three of the Supes, including Janet. That story deserved to be covered. Indeed we were the only blog in town with Moorlach’s response to the whole mess and Red County/OC Blog, recognizing that, linked to our story.
Art once again you have it wrong. She did not set up a legal defense political action committee. She asked her “contributors” to send checks made payable directly to her attorney, that the checks be sent to her campaign address, that there were no limits and that the money was not reportable.
On what planet does she, you or her advisors live that you all think that is ok? TinCup or otherwise, this was illegal indeed.
As far a Bilodeau, he did not take down his opponents campaign signs….he took down one that said “Dump Bilodeau”. Is it wrong, yes. Was it stupid, yes. However you will agree with me I am sure, that this type of thing happens all the time. People take others campaign signs every election.
Does that mean it is ok, no. He will have his day in court. However, it is a FAR cry from soliciting illegal contributions, at least inmy book.
In all cases, elected officials should always err on the side of caution, honesty, and integrity.
When confronted with the issue, Janet Nguyen should have owned up and immediately disclosed what, in any interpretation, was a contribution and should have been public information.
Any time there is any question on a contribution, an elected should go to the FPPC for an impartial ruling. If it smells bad, or if the constituency might view it that way, just don’t do it.
Janet screwed up by not seeking the advice of the FPPC before accepting contributions into her “legal defense fund”, and compounded the issue by failing to properly document and report this income.
Hopefully she has learned something from this situation, and will take greater care to properly report all campaign contributions and not take bad advice from her campaign staff.