Can you believe it? State Senator Lou Correa, who is supposed to be a Democrat, has taken thousands of dollars from the truly freaky OC GOP money machine that is Howard Ahmanson, according to a post by Gustavo Arellano in the OC Weekly’s Navel Gazing Blog.
Arellano revealed that:
Ahmanson has so far been the top individual donor to the Protect Marriage Act, the November ballot initiative that wants to create a California constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. Through his private philanthropic enterprise, Fieldstead and Co., Ahmanson has donated an amazing $400,000 to the initiative–even more than Focus on the Family and topped only by the National Organization for Marriage, a nationwide group whose campaign headquarters to defeat those marryin’ gays is in Santa Ana.
And just look at the list of Reeps that Ahmanson has forked over chunks of his fortune to:
John Moorlach, Pat Bates, Janet Nguyen and Diane Harkey; Assemblymember Chuck Devore and Mimi Walters; Dana Point Mayor Diane Harkey, and DA Tony Rackauckas, while 2006 saw him donate to the campaigns of Irvine councilmember Christina Shea, Costa Mesa Minutemen councilmembers Allan Mansoor and Wendy Leece, South Orange County Community College District trustee (and former OC GOP chair) Tom Fuentes, and more to Walters and Devore.
Yes, Supervisor Janet Nguyen took Ahmanson’s money too. Sigh. Well, I don’t think she is an anti-gay nutcase like most of the others listed above. At least I hope not.
But Correa has NO excuse! He is a Democrat. Why hasn’t his party censured him for taking Ahmanson’s money? Once again DPOC Chairman Frank Barbaro has no huevos. No wonder the DPOC is such a joke.
Correa needs to get off his butt and denounce the anti-gay whack jobs that Ahmanson is allied with. C’mon Lou. If you aren’t going to stand up for your GLBT constituents then please just go ahead and file as a Republican already.
Editor’s Note: I forgot to mention that Santa Ana Clowncilman David Benavides also took some of Ahmanson’s money. Shame on you David! Give it back and say sorry!
What an adorable family…
Correa can give the money back or better yet, he can donate it to a gay and lesbian right organization or even a local AIDS charity.
Art:
If Lou has “no excuse” then what excuse does Janet have?
(Not that either one needs an excuse, but just trying to level the rant playing field).
Matt/Jubal,
Duh! She’s a Republican. I expect anti-gay sentiments from the red party.
Art,
Janet is jut as much anti-equal rights as any of the above listed names in the GOP you copied from the Navel gazing article by Gustavo you copied this afternoon.
And we all know she is ani-hispnic an anti-immigrant as well. Will you be running out of reasons o support Janet the way you have with Michelle Martinez?
How about the traffic fine increase she voted in favor of to pay for healthcare for illegal immigrants That must gove you a headache.
Shut up Paul. Trust me. Quit before you get further behind.
SMS
SMS are you saying youre ok with Janet being anti-gay and anti-equal rights? Kind of odd coming from you.
Considering the alternatives: Dumb Dina and Homie Hoa, I’m glad I backed a winner.
Janet is not anti-latino or anti-gay that I know of, nor would she need to be considering the office she holds is non-partisan, a point she made clear in my post-election interview with her (check our YouTube channel) in which she was VERY respectful to me knowing full well who I was.
There were at least two LGBT folks at her victory party that I know of (one is a staunch Liberal; the other is me, and you know I sit in the middle), plus many Hispanics as well. In fact the party wasn’t at a Vietnamese restaurant, was it? It was held at a Mexican restaurant.
Besides, I backed her for Supervisor, not Congress, so as I alluded earlier, if I’m wrong, no harm no foul until she runs for a partisan seat.
So. Tell me again. What do you really have against Janet that made you want to run against her in the first place? Or is this your way of leaking your own red herring to make people think that you ran for the seat to oppose Janet and not to help Van Tran or because of the rumors about you and Dina?
Like I said, I’m trying to help you, ya big lug! Now shhhh… be vewy, vewy, quiet. Elmer’s hunting and you’re the wabbit!
SMS
I’m not surprised that Republican moneybags are backing Lou; he votes just like a Republican about 80% of the time… ever since he barely squeaked out a victory over that skinny Republican lady in ’06. It seems like he’s been focusing on keeping big business interests happy, taking for granted that the unions and latinos who got him in will always be behind him. But I shouldn’t snipe either: it was my good luck parking behind him at Drinking Liberally two weeks ago that saved me a parking ticket!
Rather than focusing on an anti-gay marriage amendment, it would be nice to see people, including Lou, focus on some local problems that affect us daily such as: congested roads, poorly maintained roads, crime, high dropout rates, gang violence, lack of parks, etc.
Make your cause something that will improve the daily quality of life in our communities. Or, in the long run, maybe we just don’t matter.
Gracias for cross-posting, Art! And don’t worry about our amigo Matt: he’s the one who called Ahmanson a “stellar conservative” as recently as 2006!
Lou has always been a conservative when it comes to spending our tax monies, which would put him in conflict with the Dem majority in Sac.
Good for Lou!
Remember even with increases in funding the state is spending money we don’t have, bad cash management and even worse for our children. Lou seems to understand that. Since when is speaking the truth and doing what you think responsible bad? Oh right, only when your bucking the majority of your party in the insanity under the dome.
Duh! She’s a Republican. I expect anti-gay sentiments from the red party.
So are you saying Janet is anti-gay?
And thanks for the shout-out, “Crazy” Gustavo!
No name-calling, Matt: that’s your standard! Oh wait–it’s only when you say it is. Call me whatever you want, but at least I don’t heap praise on people who don’t have too much of a problem with the stoning of homosexuals.
i LOVE LOU
But Carl, you completely miss the point of this post. The point is Lou is not in conflict with Dems this time because of taxes, it is because he took money several times from a man who has publicly called for the extermination of gay people through stoning. You have to admit he should either give the money back or to charity. Unless you are also for the extermination by stoning of gays. You are conservative after all and we all know how NRA members think.
The votes of Lou that got my attention and provoked my previous comment were:
When I was researching Senator Harman’s environmental record and noting how diametrically worse all Sacramento Republicans were than Sac. Dems on the scorecard of the LCV (League of Conservation Voters, a moderate group that gives high marks to the governator) I noticed that Lou was actually down there with the Republicans – around 30%.
And even though he spoke a lot in his stump speeches about the plight of the uninsured, he was the only Democrat to vote against both serious healthcare reform bills last year – the single-payer bill SB840 which I supported, and also the Schwarzenegger-Nunez compromise which I thought gave too much money to private insurers. The only other legislators to vote against BOTH those bills were Republicans.
It’s rather difficult to find votes he’s cast that would have been different from Lynn Daucher if she had won. If I were one of my many progressive friends who worked and walked so hard for Lou, and stayed up night and day helping with the recount, I’d feel duped. That’s just me. Nice guy though.
HDR,
You are so far off base I will only respond this once to your pathetic innuendo, just so everyone is clear. I’m a libertarian, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=libertarian just so you don’t have to strain yourself in understanding what that is! I believe in equal Rights for everyone. Do you get that now?
And which point of the post I choose to respond to is up to me, not you.
BTW if everyone out there only took contributions from only those that were in lock step, I would guess there would be a lot less money in the mix to everyone. This might not be a bad thing.
Since they also support and fund a great many other things, than this one issue, which I don’t agree with either, it would seem you should also being going after PBS and other groups who receive those funds for the same reasons.
http://www.theahmansonfoundation.org/fund.html
BTW NRA is a single issue group. I was involved in the advocating groups like the Pink Pistols long ago. http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html
So would you like to reconsider your comments? It was Art’s last line in his post…
Art —
If you’re calling on Lou to give the money back, fairness dictates that you call on Janet to do the same. By taking the money, Janet has sided with those who would deny equal rights under to law to gays and lesbians. But again, kinda hard for you to call on Janet to do the right thing here when your lips are firmly attached to her backside.
Dan –
Maybe you missed the news: Lou is a Democrat like you, and also like you, he should be fighting for the rights of LGBT people.
I personally don’t think the money is a big deal as I don’t think a candidate should be judged by their donors, but by their actions; but also, Lou and Janet should not be judged by the same standard anyway as they hail from different parties.
Of course I’m paraphrasing what Art already said for the apparently intellectually challenged such as yourself.
SMS
I am well-aware of Lou’s party affiliation Sarah, but if you know anything about the Democratic Party, which based on your comment I’d say you really don’t, you know that Democrats do not march in lockstep like so many Republicans do.
We have some members who are very liberal on all matters and others who are downright conservative on some issues. It is typcially a reflection of the district they represent.
And why shouldn’t we hold Janet to the same standard? Would it be Art’s huge Jan-crush? But if you want to carry water for Janet to, go right ahead.
there shoudl be an extra “o” in that “too” Damn wireless keyboard
‘I am well-aware of Lou’s party affiliation Sarah, but if you know anything about the Democratic Party, which based on your comment I’d say you really don’t, you know that Democrats do not march in lockstep like so many Republicans do.‘
Wow! After what was done to me on your site for having moderate stances, I’m absolutely awestruck at your statement.
Don’t start with the ‘you deserved it’ stuff either. You turned defending myself on your blog into a crime for which the punishment was banishment until after the primary and yet the attacks against me still didn’t cease.
The timing of that primary and the lifting of your ban are more than coincidental and are evidence of your heavy handed tactics to control information. You’re in PR and so am I. We both know how the game is played, and honestly I don’t hold your motives against you as much as your technique.
To argue otherwise means instead that your actions were downright arbitrary censorship because you simply don’t like me. I wouldn’t want to be accused of that either.
And don’t even get me STARTED on the Hoa Van Tran debacle. Maybe the rank and file got into it good, but clearly the leadership wanted the party to unite behind him when, and I’ll say this again, everyone was all worked up over a NON-PARTISAN race.
SMS
Sarah —
Nice job in hijacking Art’s thread.
There was no coincidence in the timing of the primary and lifting the ban against you on the LoberalOC. You continue to portray yourself as a victim, and the while leveling personal attacks at anyone who disagrees with you while demanding apologies from anyone who defends themselves. It wasn’t your moderate stance that got you banned.
As for censorship, yes, we deleted dozens of your profanity-laced tirades against individual bloggers on our site fully justifying why your comments all go into moderation.
And you are hardly innocent; you did a pretty good job of deleting a number of comments on this blog accusing you of plagiarism for lifting content from our site without attribution so you are in no position to claim any moral high ground.
You’re in PR now? Interesting claim. Who do you work for?
But if you want the ban reinstated, just say so.
Dan –
‘Hijacking’ can only occur on a site that doesn’t allow debate. This one does. Also, I never deleted comments about plagiarism. I’ve only deleted comments directed at my private life, as you would do as well.
The rest of what you said is actually quite predictable, so I’m going to let our readers decide your level of ignorance. On a scale of 1-10, you’re easily a 9. Not to mention the fact that you bore the hell out of me.
SMS
Sarah — you are not being truthful.
You admitted to deleting comments about plagiarism in the comments section of that very post. And I see there’s no denial about your profanity laced comments to the LiberalOC and “you bore me” is code for “I don’t want to answer your question.”
And hijacking means we’re no longer discussing the original subject matter of the post.
If we call on one to give back money, we should call on all to give back the money. But to paraphrase Jesse Unruh speaking of lobbyist; “If you can’t take their money, drink their liquor, and then come here the next day and vote against them, you don’t belong here.”
While I have my MANY differences with Lou Correa, I have to admit that some of his votes have been surprisingly positive for LGBT civil rights. I think Lou follows Jesse Unruh’s rule pretty well. The unions know thai as well as th LGBT community.
Sarah, Dan is accurate regarding the matter of your posting at TheLiberalOC. There is no connection between the primary season and the reinstatement of commenting privileges. I thought that had been made clear.
Dan –
Noooo. ‘You bore me’ is code for ‘you bore me.’ We’ve been over this a million times. We’re never going to agree. It’s boring.
I know what hijacking is. We don’t use the term around here because we don’t care about it. That’s what D E B A T E is. Your site doesn’t allow that, so what’s the matter? Maybe your jealous that you don’t have the freedom to say what’s really on your mind on your own blog.
It’s either that or you are some kind of ‘super-hack,’ bringing shilling down to a whole new level.
Also: Chris, despite what you say, you at least have to admit that the two events were coincidental.
SMS
I got you back so come and get mine
Chris,
Please. That is a lame position. Lou has no business taking Ahmanson’s money and you know it. Are you and Dan C. simply incapable of telling it like it is?
I don’t think anyone should take Ahmanson’s money unless they agree with his positions. That puts almost all the Republicans I listed in Ahmanson’s camp. As for Nguyen and Correa, them keeping it says more about them than Ahmanson.
Chris: The Dems more than anyone have a fit when one of their own receive contributions from an unkosher source. Remember what happened when Clownia Alvarez received a donation from (I think it was) Ralph’s during the grocer’s strike? Everyone had a (rightful) fit. If a Latino candidate took money from ALIPAC or the Minuteman Project, they would never get elected. Yet you’ll give Correa a pass, a man who has to get dragged into voting for basic rights for LGBGT folks?!
Lou is in no position to take Ahmanson’s money, but Janet is? Kindly explain that one Art.
Dan –
Give it up. He already answered you. Now who’s ‘hijacking?’ You don’t want me to put you on moderation, do you? Typical liberal hypocrite.
SMS
Dan,
Your attempts to make Nguyen the issue are lame. As Sarah and Gustavo pointed out, I have addressed that. The fact is, a whole slew of Reeps took Ahmanson’s money. That’s what they do!
But for Correa, a Democrat, to take money from a hateful man who wants to stop gay marriage is simply without excuse.
Am I happy that Nguyen took Ahmanson’s money? No. But she too Judy Ware’s money too. I can’t control what she does. These decisions are bound to catch up with her sooner or later.
The fact of the matter is that most Republican voters are against gay marriage. So Nguyen’s decision to accept Ahmanson’s money likely will have nil repercussions on her political career. But most Democrats are NOT against gay marriage. Correa obviously doesn’t give a damn what his fellow Democrats think. He ought to pay a price for that.
To paraphrase you Art, JANET needs to get off his butt and denounce the anti-gay whack jobs that Ahmanson is allied with. C’mon JANET. If you aren’t going to stand up for your GLBT constituents then please just go ahead and file as a Republican already. Oh that’s right, she already is.
All criticism of Lou; none for Janet. You just about write her an excuse.
Call me whatever you want, but at least I don’t heap praise on people who don’t have too much of a problem with the stoning of homosexuals.
Gustavo:
Please show us where Hoard Ahmanson advocates the stoning of homosexuals.
Never mind, Gustavo.
This took me about 5 seconds to find via Google:
“Due to my association with Rushdoony, reporters have often assumed that I agree with him in all applications of the penalties of the Old Testament Law, particularly the stoning of homosexuals,” Ahmanson wrote. “My vision for homosexuals is life, not death, not death by stoning or any other form of execution, not a long, lingering, painful death from AIDS, not a violent death by assault, and not a tragic death by suicide. My understanding of Christianity is that we are all broken, in need of healing and restoration. So far as I can tell, the only hope for our healing is through faith in Jesus Christ and the power of his resurrection from the dead.”
From Salon profile of January 6, 2004
Leave it to Matt to blow the lid off the whole thing! 😛
SMS
Dan,
Are you obtuse? I already quit the GOP – now you want me to force all Republicans to stop being what they are? How ridiculous. I am not going to restate what I have already written. If you cannot understand it then perhaps you need to take remedial English. And here I thought you were a big shot PR writer…
Face it Dan – you are hacking for your party by refusing to hold Correa accountable. Put aside the Nguyen red herring for a moment and answer this question – why SHOULD Correa accept money from Ahmanson? I can’t think of one good reason for this. Correa has no problem raising money. He doesn’t need Ahmanson’s money. And he should not have accepted the money, period.
Correa cannot have it both ways. Either he IS a Democrat or he isn’t. If he wants to get in the sandbox with Ahmanson, Correa is free to. But this is going to be damaging to Correa. His only hope is to apologize, give back the money or donate it to a GLBT organization. Your hacking for Correa is not going to undo the harm that accepting Ahmanson’s money has done to Correa’s already tattered reputation in his party.
Matt/Jubal,
Who the hell cares what Ahmanson’s vision for homosexuals is? By working to stop gay marriage he is acting AGAINST the dreams of many homosexuals. There is no excuse for this.
This is the problem with the Taliban wing of the GOP – and why your party is quickly expiring in California. The CA GOP needs to focus on smaller government, less taxes and going after dirty politicians in the Democratic Party. Telling folks what to do with their private lives is NOT a good way to build your party. Couple that with the incessant Mexican-hating we saw in the recent Mimi versus Harry race and the prognosis for California is a lot fewer Red counties…
Well, several commenters are condemning Lou’s acceptance of Ahmanson’s contribution specifically claimed Ahmanson support stoning gays.
But what am I thinking by introducing a fact into this discussion? A thousand pardons.
I am not going to restate what I have already written.
Translation: “I refuse to defend my double standard”!
Who the hell cares what Ahmanson’s vision for homosexuals is?
One more point: the entire reason for this thread is the claim that Ahmanson’s views on homosexuality render acceptance of his campaign donations odious.
So to make an about face and say it doesn’t matter what his actual views are is illogical.
But at least it’s consistent.
Matt/Jubal,
No. It means that I have already explained the same sentiment to Dan several times. As has Sarah and Gustavo. And he STILL doesn’t get it.
As for the comment about stoning people, I have not referenced that at all. I could care less. Ahmanson is a whack job regardless of whether or not he believes in stoning.
You castigation of Lou Correa is based on your objections to Ahmanson’s views. Yet you say you don’t care what his views are.
You spare Janet the same invective because you say you expect Republicans to be “anti-gay,” the obvious inference being that a) Janet is “anti-gay” and b) you support an “anti-gay” politician.
Round and round and round we go. Where it stops, nobody knows.
SMS
Matt/Jubal,
Never mind Janet, Gustavo has found evidence that you most definitely are a hater. Care to elaborate Matt? Are you a typical Reep anti-gay bigot?
As for the issue of taking money from Ahmanson, let me be clear since it would appear that you and Dan are munching the same stupid pills. I am not surprised that a slew of Reeps have taken his money. Your party is basically homophobic.
Correa on the other hand is a DEMOCRAT. He shouldn’t be going anywhere NEAR Ahmanson. And never mind the stoning bit. We KNOW that Ahmanson has given $400K to the new anti-gay marriage measure. For Correa to take his money is a total slap to the face of his GLBT constituents and to his party.
If you still don’t get it maybe I need to start a color by numbers blog for you and Dan?
Art is right, but exaggerated [on the stoning point].
Matt is right, but is exploiting Art’s exaggeration.
Gustavo and I are right to tell you two so.
Monty Python was right to make ‘Holy Grail’ as Dan C. continues to attempt to cut down ‘the largest tree in the forest with a herring.’
Chris is hacking for ‘Hacky McHackhack’ (Dan C.), who is hacking for Lou Correa.
Dan and Chris don’t like it when I hack for myself.
Doesn’t that just about sum all this up? I still think you’re all blowing this way out of proportion guys.
Most politicians and donors do not make their contribution-related decisions based on individual issues.
SMS
Sarah,
Hard to say if it is being blown out of proportion or not. And BTW, I am not the one that brought up the stoning point. It is not germane to the base argument which is this – Correa should not take money from Ahmanson because this guy is funding the anti gay marriage initiative. Correa, as a Dem, should be more sensitive to the GLBT community.
What is Correa afraid of? He is in a Dem district! The Reep’s best hope to take him out, Lynn Daucher, lost. And she DOES support gay rights.
Art –
Well now you’ve gone and blown my whole vignette there! You’re right. You only shed light on this issue, which I for one think is overblown. Gustavo brought up the stoning thing. My bad. Regardless, the rest of my assessment is sound IMHO.
Oh, and I seriously doubt the anti-gay marriage amendment will pass. In a few months, when gays have been married for a while and the sky hasn’t fallen, the people will see this issue as the red herring that it is. If Ahmanson wants to waste his money… well, it is a free country.
SMS
“Never mind Janet, Gustavo has found evidence that you most definitely are a hater.”
Oh, I can hardly wait. Kind of like his evidence that Howard Ahmanson thinks we should stone gays?
I am not surprised that a slew of Reeps have taken his money. Your party is basically homophobic.
Based on that, then you must think Janet is homophobic. It’s not very difficult, Art: do you think Janet is homophobic: yes or no?