It’s an encouraging sign of the maturity of the 70th AD (which covers Irvine, Tustin, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach & Woods, Lake Forest, and most of Aliso Viejo) that BOTH the major candidates for the Assembly seat showed up at tonight’s rally in support of the decriminalization and taxation of marijuana. It is a relief to know that both serious candidates agree on the failure of the War on Drugs, the importance of privacy and liberty, and the need to shift funding to more serious priorities. Voters of the district are fortunate to be able to put aside all the distracting and archaic “culture war” baggage that has divided us all for so long, and can choose between these two worthy ladies based on their contrasting philosophies on the role of government.
- The writer with Democratic candidate Melissa Fox
Melissa Fox, a small-business attorney and moderate Democrat who’s not afraid to occasionally buck her Party’s orthodoxy, pledges to “work for better schools and to create new jobs and economic growth in our community.” As a progressive, she feels government has an important and constructive role in helping enable these goals, but is very sensitive to any added tax burden placed on our middle classes during these hard times.
She lists her top priorities as
- Reigniting our local economy by growing businesses and jobs.
- Fighting for our schools, colleges and universities so that they are the best in nation.
- Fighting for tax fairness and against any tax or fee that unfairly hits our overburdened small businesses and middle-class.
- Fighting for seniors, retirees and the vital home health services that allow them to live in dignity in their own homes.
- Protecting our ocean and beaches.
- Keeping our police and firefighters on the job.
- Ending the power of lobbyists and special interests to make backroom deals; restoring accountability and responsibility to Sacramento.
- The writer with Freedom Republican candidate Debbie Tharp
Debbie Tharp describes herself as a “Freedom Republican” in the mold of Ron Paul, with “compassionate libertarian” leanings. To someone like Debbie, “that government is best which governs least.” But unlike some Republicans, she takes this philosophy to most importantly include maximum individual freedom – freedom and responsibility. Some of Debbie’s positions:
- Our current economic state is a result of over-regulation. We are taxing all of the best business out of California and the poor of the state aren’t even benefiting directly from the over taxation.
- Right now, we have to STOP CUTTING JOBS. The creation and sustainment of jobs needs to come from a more responsible fiscal policy, rather than an increase in taxes. Through maintaining a reasonable, achievable, enforceable State Budget, we can create new private industry jobs, thus allowing outsourced businesses to come home to California.
- Our education system needs to be competitive with the Private system. As an example, California has some of the best universities (UCI, UCLA, USC, Stanford, Berkeley, etc) and the reason these universities are all ranked so highly is because they compete with California’s private universities for the tuition of both international and out of state students who desire the best education. On the other hand, our K-12 system doesn’t compete for the population’s education dollars as most parents can’t afford private school, thus there is no competition between schools to be the best.
- One of the reasons our California is trapped in this spiraling economic crisis is due to a large, over regulating government. With that being said, I am for less government. The only role of government should be to protect our persons and properties. All laws should pass this litmus test: does it protect people from harm from others? Does it protect a person’s property from harm from others? If not, then it has no place on the books.
- I am for anything that lowers taxes and increases prosperity and independence.
So there you have it. It must be refreshing to live in a district where there’s a choice between two serious candidates, neither of whom is throwing around cultural issues and distractions like religion, gay marriage and illegal immigration.
(I would like to take the opportunity to dispel rumors that a fringe candidate & “social conservative” named “Don Warner” is being secretly funded by the Democrats to take Republican votes away from Debbie Tharp. The DPOC and Melissa deny this and Debbie is satisfied it’s not the case. Mr. Warner has no candidate statement, has less than $500 in his treasury and does not seem to be running a serious campaign or pose a real challenge to either Melissa or Debbie.)
I think you have the name of that phantom candidate who failed to file a candidate statement wrong. It’s not Warner, although there were web ads for Don Warner for Assembly. He was a big fan of teachers being allowed to hit kids in elementary school as some form of discipline, so I remember that his name kind of rhymed with Spanker. That’s it – Don Wanker.
I got my picture in the blog! Finally…
OK – In the first sentence Ms. Fox is a moderate Dem; in the next a progressive. Lest anyone get excited there is a Republican running — Don Wagner — who as of June 30th had less than $500.00 cash on hand. Still between January and June 2010 he had raised and spent more than $200,000 — about 10 times the funds raised and spent by Ms. fox — the Moderate Progressive Democrat. Maybe it is Debbie Tharp who is being funded by the Dems… Just a thought.
15 days before the primary, roughly 43% of voters in AD 70 were Rep; 30% Dem. If ignorance is bliss, there should be a lot of happy people reading this blog….
Wagner? No, I’m pretty sure it’s Warner. I saw it on some web ad.
Hi B+
I’m a B+ student too. Would like for it to be A’s, but all this politicking gets in the way of homework sometimes. As far as being funded by the Dems… I WISH! I am broke ass at the moment. No fund raising at all. This is as grass roots as it gets. But I got to tell ya, fund raising doesn’t really matter in this day and age of the internet and free communication. Fact is, we shouldn’t be able to BUY public office, so all of these discussions about how much a candidate is spending to win an office are irrelevant. Unless of course you are using the amounts spent as circumstantial evidence for how power hungry they are (imagine Whitman’s expenditure so far. Can you imagine spending 99million to get a job that pays less than one percent of that?) Or perhaps fund raising could be used as a barometer for how many special favors and sweetheart contracts with the public funds one will owe when they get to office? Of course, Don’s lack of fund raising at the moment is a bit eerie… One can’t help but wonder..
Also, the numbers:
43% of the voters are Republicans, but anyone with their ear to the ground knows that the Republican party is deeply divided at the moment between the worn out tired old establishment that everyone is flat out pissed at and the LIBERTARIAN oriented Campaign for Liberty (I love those guys, they are fantastic. Each and every one of them. I happen to be a member of the collegiate arm of the same organization, Young Americans for Liberty, at UCI) Take a look at this article from Red County if you want to see just how divided they are: http://www.redcounty.com/content/what-didier-and-his-team-are-really#comment-53376
So if you are citing a deeply divided party majority as a reason that a candidate who is doing absolutely nothing to campaign is going to win, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. Don is going to have to start letting us know that he is still in this race. We are still waiting to find out if he will attend the debates, so that might be the indicator there.
Also, a little more math for you. Don got 33% of the Republican vote, and barely won in a squeaker by 900 votes. Compare that to Melissa’s 75% of her Demographic and I see points dropping off like crazy. Of course, I got 100% percent of the Lib vote, but considering that only 250 Libs bothered to show up to the polls, you’re right, I don’t stand a freaking chance if we don’t get off of our asses and vote!!!
Vern,
You’re a bit early for an April Fool’s post. Regardless, I’m clipping all of these hilarious posts about Ms. Fox having any chance of winning for my scrapbook that I’ll top off in November with the Wagner Wins headlines. I do like your spirit, though.
I know you are rootin’ for Warner, Newbie. We’ll see. Odds are on your side I grant, but some folks are working hard and some aint!
I disagree, odds really ain’t on his side. If a candidate does nothing to campaign, then a candidate don’t win.
Any word on the DPOC endorsement of Prop 19? Inquiring minds want to know!!!!!
This will be the first of many Yes on 19 rallies between now and election day all across Orange County. Me thinks the next one will be held on El Toro Dr. right by Lucille’s BBQ (whatever that street is). We’re looking at Labor Day weekend (possibly Saturday afternoon). Also, we have the Saturday, Sept 11th afternoon debate between Judge Jim Gray and John Redman of Californians for a Drug Free Youth at Irvine United Congregational Church. Couple of exciting updates on the debate I will reveal if anyone is interested.
Nothing that’s not boring and frustrating. Here’s the comment I left on my “Young Dems” post last night:
2010/08/23 at 8:11 pm
Live-blogging from the DPOC meeting; due to some technicality the voting is put off another month, but we heard the “stay neutral” speech and the opposition speech.
“Stay neutral” was given somewhat apologetically by someone who was evidently a Prop 19 supporter but had been drafted to summarize the “stay neutral” arguments that had been given at the state convention. He repeatedly emphasized that even THOSE “stay neutral” people personally supported the measure, but that they worried a Democratic endorsement would somehow hurt Dem candidates who wanted to oppose the measure, “especially in this year’s anti-incumbent climate.” I still don’t quite get it.
The anti-19 speaker, recruited from some anti-drug group, provided comic relief, with her Reefer Madness tales. We did learn that the first time you smoke pot, you will get raped.
I don’t know what’ll happen next month, half of these people here are mad at me for even writing about this.
“The anti-19 speaker, recruited from some anti-drug group, provided comic relief, with her Reefer Madness tales. We did learn that the first time you smoke pot, you will get raped.”
Vern,
FYI. The name of anti-19 speaker that spoke at the DPOC meeting is none other than Alexandra Datig, CEO of High Road Consulting (I am not kidding). If you want some great entertainment, this 12 step cliche spouting drug warrior has a website that will help save the nation from becoming a population of zombie stoners and drunkards. The most entertaining part of her web site warns us of the aspergillus (a.k.a. black mold) epidemic that will hit California if Prop 19 is approved by the voters. I would really like to know who in the DPOC gave this woman a platform to speak? I’d expect this sort of lunacy from the OC GOP and at their meetings, but c’mon! Any way you and your allies could knock some sense into the “leadership” of the DPOC?
Here’s her website with a really “well researched” article about the killer fungus epidemic: http://nipitinthebud2010.org/killer_fungus_investigation.html. Happy reading!
You also might want to ask Ms. Datig about her “affiliation” with Heidi Fleiss and her “business venture” (Yes, I am talking about THAT Heidi Fleiss) if you meet her.
Yeah, I’ve heard lots of other crazy stuff about Alexandra since this posting. I’m guessing that some high-up OC Dem who REALLY wants the party to remain neutral, invited her to spew her scare stories so that “neutral” would seem like a reasonable compromise. It was a lame call, no Dems I know are AGAINST Prop 19. The debate is between the Party endorsing it or staying neutral. Using an extremist like this is called “Overton’s Window.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Want me to send someone from our campaign to speak next month that is a Democrat? We’re not all anti-tax, anarchist libertarians here.
The first time I smoked pot, I ended up buying several bags of chicken wings from some street vendor known in Minneapolis as “The King of Wings.” Don’t remember his name, but I did leave a pretty nice comment about him on his memorial guestbook when he passed away a couple of years ago. Don’t know if he ever had a business license but since he was an local icon the Minneapolis cops pretty much left him alone when he went around peddling his wares to college parties and bars. Probably the best damn chicken wings I ever had. Haven’t found any wings that were like “The King’s” since then.
Wonder if that story will convince the DPOC to support Prop 19?
Vern,
You forgot to tell the good people that Prop 34 only allows a ballot statement if you agree to pre-set spending limits. It seems that Don’s an optimist like you and apparently he thinks he’ll raise more than the limit, so he doesn’t get a ballot statement. That will allow him to do all the campaigning he wants, like Ms. Tharp suggests.
PS Neither Whitman nor Brown agreed to the spending limits so apparently they’re running shadow campaigns as well.
Donnie W accepted campaign spending limits.
http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Candidates/Detail.aspx?id=1260382
So he had the option of filing of a ballot statement; he just didn’t.