Diablos de los Angeles? Cunningham and Chmielewski.
As one fairly new to the world of local politics and blogging in Orange County, I quickly got the taste of how rough this involvement can be. I became involved after being shocked by the riots in the city I have resided for the last 25 years. After the riot last summer I attended my first city council meeting; by then I’d read about the polarized social and political structure of the city. This first post-riot meeting [August 8, 2012] was an eye- opener for me. The testimonies of the mothers and other relatives of the murdered youngsters, and the conduct of the council majority impacted me. Their harsh, aloof reaction, ignoring the pleas for change requested by most of the people attending, was disturbing.
I went home with more questions than answers. I googled Anaheim and I came across this blog’s account of this meeting. [“Anaheim Council Majority Shoots Down Everything That is Good Except Puppies,” 8/10/12] I read the comments and related articles, and I concluded that this blog provided a good medium to discuss issues. The Weekly was another medium, but I was not ready to be called “pendejo.”
Then I attended most of the city council candidates’ forums, and I ended up voting based on the candidates’ positions on the issues. I read about the ACLU district lawsuit, which I accepted as a reasonable solution to the fundamental problems of the city. I posted essays on this blog myself, attended and followed the electoral commission and city council meetings, spoke at some of them. I walked precincts registering people to vote.
*
Other than the Chamber of Commerce, and SOAR (Disney-sponsored “Save Our Area Resorts”) representatives, and later some of the appointees to the election committee, I had not encountered the opposition to the changes I had embraced except for a few people. Then I became aware that the opposition has its own blog, Anaheimblog.net, and that I was actually a subject of one of their commentaries.
One can sometimes find interesting information about civic affairs on this “Anaheimblog,” but much more striking is the blog’s outlook on the issues. Opposing council districts, justifying all public subsidies to developers, defending the lobbyist who benefits from the subsidies, and defending the APD from all criticism, seem to be Anaheimblog’s main themes. It’s also notable for the way it treats its opponents. Most of us, including Mayor Tait, are characterized in very harsh negative terms.
Anaheimblog is where the arguments of the powers interested in maintaining the status quo, and the talking points for their operatives, are developed. It’s basically a propaganda tool for the Chamber of Commerce, Pringle and Associates, and for the majority of council members implementing policies benefiting the resort industry. It has long been an open secret that the blog is financed by the Chamber, although its operator and main author, Matt Cunningham, would not acknowledge that. Recently it was revealed that Cunningham is indeed employed by the Chamber.
*
Then I came across a discussion about voting rights and council districts in another local blog, the Liberal OC. LOC’s editor Dan Chmielewski endorsed a LA Times editorial supporting council districts and in this way challenged Cunningham’s views, who was participating in this discussion. I made the observation to Chmielewski that he did not treat Cunningham as harshly as he did Jason Young from Save Anaheim and Gustavo Arellano from the Weekly, who are district supporters and critics of Cunningham.
Our discussion had also focused on the role of Jordan Brandman, the only Democrat in the council. Some commenters characterized Jordan as paying mere lip service to the promises of change, while preventing it whenever he could. I pointed out that Brandman appointed a notorious anti-immigrant advocate to the election committee. Chmielewski defended Jordan but could not explain this appointment, and was going to ask for an explanation. Or so he promised, way back in June.
My next encounter with Chmielewski was two months later, as a result of an article written by Vern, on the role played by Cunningham assisting a business owner in the city of Orange (who also owns strip clubs.) It got my attention that Dan had come out in defense of Cunningham even before Cunningham had posted a rebuttal. Chmielewski turned the discussion into issues of morality and ethics in journalism.
I didn’t think that it was so much the substance of the article that horrified Chmielewski, but to him questioning Cunningham’s role helping a business owner was by definition a smear. Cunningham’s objecting the concerns of the Orange Police Department regarding this business, while condemning the Anaheim residents who want civilian oversight of the APD, was to me the main point of Vern’s article. Cunningham’s reputation has already been questioned for his (allegedly accidental) outing of sex-abuse victims, and for his constantly demonizing and smearing of political opponents. His negative role goes beyond simply opposing change, a position which he is entitled to. It is his role of justifying the pillage and division of my city which is unacceptable.
I thought that Chmielewski was pulling my leg when he gave excuses for Brandman’s championing of the GardenWalk Giveaway, appointing an extreme anti-immigrant in a crucial committee, reluctance to acknowledge police brutality, and basically being a puppet of the real power in the city, Curt Pringle.
In our second exchange in August, there was Chmielewski was defending Cunningham again. He took a hypothetical response regarding the morality of business owners to call me sleazy. I had called him a professional spin-master, and by now I was more convinced that he is indeed a spin-master, and for the wrong reasons.
His tantrum was futile, as days later Cunningham came back to the OJB defending his political patrons, in his role as an attack dog. This time he bullied people to come out to argue with him, and once they did, he belittled them. The issue this time was the possible violation of the Brown Act by the majority of the council members by attending a meeting regarding the future of the Enterprise Zones (EZ). At the council meeting, Brandman had vehemently argued on the Chamber’s behalf to continue to be paid in full for administering the EZ program even though the state was phasing it out.
Chmielewki’s role in defending a corporatist shill like Cunningham goes way beyond gentle advice on conducting politics. In their gentlemanly and respectable “agreements to disagree” they have a shared vision of political goals. Spinning for business-friendly politicians, mostly connected to corporations and lobbyists, are the common denominator joining these two public relations consultants.
*
I had written this essay a couple of weeks ago, but the OJB editors held off posting it as Chmielewski was on vacation. He came back worse than expected, this time defending the outrageous demands of the Angels’ owner, and the Council’s groveling acquiesence. Chmielewski had cried ethical foul defending a paid hack, but he doesn’t worry about ethics when the process of imposing the MOU favoring Arte Moreno was rushed and imposed on the city, overlooking the weakening bargaining leverage adopted by the council. He did not cry foul when the consultants hired by the city, and city staff, were blatantly arguing for Moreno’s position, with no respect for the authority of the Mayor who stood alone in representing the residents of the city.
His lectures about getting people out to vote and about effective ways to accomplish objectives, conveniently ignore the realities facing the people working for change. The reasons for a lawsuit to change the electoral system, the riots, the insensitive culture of the APD, the role of the lobbyist Curt Pringle, the shortsighted vision of Disneyland managers, are not factors in Chmielewski’s vision. He has provided free electoral consultation in Anaheim, did that include Brandman and Daly? He is a consultant for the Young Dems. I just imagine what a blue Orange County full of Brandman types would be.
It is a shame that the so-called Liberals of the LOC are practically endorsing policies that affect the lives of so many people, by being “gentlemen” or remaining silent on the positions of the “paid communicator” of the Chamber of Commerce. At the end of the day, their positions are identical on many matters, especially when it comes to business ventures being subsidized with public funds.
Dan Chmielewki and Matt Cunningham, Dios los cria y el Diablo los junta.
Well, Ricardo, it pains me to say this as an OC blogger, but perhaps you take the OC blogosphere just a LITTLE BIT too seriously? Nice points though…
At the OC Weekly I don’t think they were calling you a pendejo. What Gustavo and Gabriel were calling you, before they knew you were a real person, was a “sock puppet.” Meaning someone pretending to be someone else. Partly because Ricardo Toro sounds like a made-up name, and also because you were daring to criticize Gustavo, as gently as you were. That’s how paranoid that crowd is. Good thing I met you in person right around then!
And there IS one good liberal at the Liberal OC, named Chris Prevatt – I don’t always agree with him, but he is no Chmielewski.
Vern: You calling someone paranoid is like the Bloviator calling someone verbose.
One point: Don’t forget that Chris blindly defended corrupt interim sheriff Galisky because she was a lesbian, so he’s as bad as Dan.
Okay, ‘Tavo, you don’t remember insisting Ricardo Toro was some “sock puppet.” Fine, moving on…
When I call someone verbose it’s because that’s what they are. So: nice compliment to Vern there, pissy-guy.
When Diamond calls someone verbose – that is the penultimate example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Look up penultimate, scholar.
Of course, I don’t necessarily mean “verbose” as a criticism. I seem to do pretty well with it.
What is the ultimate example?
The ultimate example would be an actual pot suddenly becoming animated, sprouting eyes and a mouth, looking around and perceiving a nearby kettle, and then speaking the words “it is black.”
Gustavo,
I defended Gaklisky, that is true. I was wrong and have regretted it ever since I discovered I was wrong. But her being a lesbian had nothing to do with it. IF you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Otherwise keep your incorrect assumptions to yourself.
Nothing else explains such a laughable lapse in judgement. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Williams Faulkner: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
When even I get bored with the squabbling in one of our comments sections, you know that it’s gotten bad.
Bloviator: When your babbling is ANYWHERE, it’s the heights of boredom.
I suppose if one is dull enough, it might seem like that.
That reminds me: you should start a second column, “Ask a Cretin.”
I’m flattered by the attention and the mock outrage, but I’m like super busy with clients and new biz prospects to get into every detail with you (plus, my daughter started high school this morning so I was out of pocket today.
1. Yes, I was critical of Vern’s article on the grounds of journalism ethics.
2. I’m a baseball fan; I think the city council should do everything they can to help the Angels stay in Anaheim, get out of the stadium management business, and replace the 4th oldest park in the major leagues.
3. No, I’m not being paid by anyone for my political views. Nice try.
Hey! We smoked him out — that was something at least.
Point 2 is VERY weak, as any Anaheimer paying attention knows.
Oh, and Point 3. Ricardo NEVER SAID you were being paid. Greg and others have questioned whether you are, but there’s nothing in this article that suggests it. Learn to read better.
I have suggested it as a plausible possibility that he was on the payroll given that he refused to acknowledge basic facts, relied on the scribblings of a sportswriter to bleat out some nonsense called “the business of baseball” and tried to divert attention from the real issue, i.e. that nothing in the deal gave anybody any more security about keeping the Angels here than we had before; in fact the MOUs make the City’s position demonstrably worse.
I said that I hope he isn’t. He says that he isn’t. I accept that. Sadly, he doesn’t need to be paid. His positions on unnecessary and inappropriate government subsidies for dubious “pro-business” reasons are often sadly in line with Cunningham’s. To his credit, though, I don’t think that Dan’s drum-banging for such projects is as intense or as capricious (depending on who pays.)
since they banned me from the Voice of OCEA, I can no longer [deleted]. But Nelson might [deleted] tips for [deleted] sort of thing.
[Ed. Note: Chmielewski says that I’m not supposed to edit comments like this, but it just feels so RIGHT!]
That’s not the REAL fake Henry Gattis, but a FAKE fake Henry Gattis. I can tell.
I assume that you saw it before I eviscerated it. Whoever it was, they deserved it.
No I didn’t but I believe you.
Shit, now you get the imagination going…
I know I’ve got a few little anonymous haters out there, who can, by the way, suck my dick. If they’re lucky.
There you go again. The “business of baseball” nonsense. I’m glad you trotted out that meaningless phrase (below), again. It reminds me of Blackie, our “negotiator” with Moreno, was cited as former CEO of the Padres – whose Petco Park financing and operational agreements were some of the great pro sport franchise cons in recent memory.
As far as “replacing” the stadium, you conveniently omit the fact that the MOUs say NOTHING about anybody replacing the stadium. Kind of an oversight on the part of our “pro business” council, wouldn’t you say?
Hmm let’s see: Fenway Park and Wrigley Field are both 100 years old and doing fine as far as I can tell. Dodger Stadium: another icon over 50.
P.S. Supporting subsidies and kickbacks is not being “pro business,” unless of course you support the business of corporate welfare. Liberals used not to fall for that bullshit so I presume you are either very dumb, not very liberal, or are on the payroll.
Being a baseball fan doesn’t excuse stupidity or cupidity.
Ricardo: You forgot to mention that Matty and Dan identify each other as “friends”—and that Dan would even have something nice to say about someone who defended a pedophile protector shows how much he truly cares about ethics. He’s the flip side of Matty, a arrogant hack who’ll toe the line of his clients, who no one takes seriously. The only difference between the two is that Matty outed sex-abuse victims and defended pedophile protectors, while Dan never did—although he gets mad that people bring that up about Matty again and again and again.
1. Vern, anyone who follows the business of baseball would disagree with you on #2
2. I’m a consultant for the Young Dems? Really? I have no idea.
3. There’s not a thing wrong with being a pro-business Democrat
4. Gustavo defended NAMBLA and gay-porn promoting bloggers for “joking” and he appears on a radio program that regular belittles women — but that’s all OK.
5. Ricardo, since you want to use Spanish to suggest I’m evil, allow me to retort: pocałuj mnie w dupę
Dan: You can keep trotting out that tired canard about Art’s stupid move somehow promoting NAMBLA, but that pales in comparison to your friend Matty defending John Urell (a man who actively protected pedophiles from justice) and outing sex-abuse victims. Speaking of Urell, tell your pal Matty that another story on his beloved priest drops tomorrow.
removed……………………. (nasty jokes about Dan’s kids)
Oh, for God’s sake, shameless — you don’t get to say that sort of thing about someone anonymously — not even if it were about Matt.
If Dan wants a takedown, it’s down.
Takedown request received via text. And now Dan is going back to not commenting here. 🙁
Nice work shameless! You’re on double probation.
I knew Fr. Hollywood (and a few of his victims), reasonably well, I don’t think that was that far off base. But, then again. It’s only bad when it’s someone else’s kid I suppose.
That wasn’t NASTY, it was a realistic question. What if the shoe was on the other foot kind of thing.
I suspect his request had less to do with his kid and more to do with the biting reality that he is a hypocrite. But, who knows? thin skin is easily broken.
Don’t be an idiot. If you want to make that sort of supposition, do it under your own real name so that he can take what he considers to be appropriate actions against you within the bounds of the law. If you want to be accountable for saying it, then you get to stand by it
I will say this: the accusation, as I recall it, didn’t have anything to do with the character or behavior of Dan’s kids; rather it was a scurrilous accusation against Dan’s own character. You can say it — IF you want to own it.
I think his point was that Dan would feel stronger about the Catholic sex scandals – strong enough to condemn Cunningham – if it were his kids who suffered the abuse. But he illustrated his theory with off-color scenarios involving Dan’s kids, and that was over the line.
2. Yeah, wasn’t sure about that one myself.
3. I wouldn’t have said “pro-business Democrat,” it’s not a strong enough phrase to describe your corporatism. I don’t think any Democrat is anti-business. It’s just where do you strike the balance? Your latest nonsense on the Angels, and the votes of the politicians you back like Jordan Brandman, are far off in the direction of “give big businesses anything they demand, and screw the taxpayers.” I would have said corporatist, same thing I call Matt.
4. Wow. I had missed the part where Gustavo defended you for getting hundreds of people to click on the NAMBLA site: http://www.theliberaloc.com/2009/11/19/art-pedroza-promoting-pederasty-and-gay-porn/ Did you do that, Gustavo? You excused Dan for that article?
But in any case, what’s this about gay porn, Dan? Do you feel gay people don’t deserve their own porn? Does Chris know about this?
5. It’s as absurd to assume most Californians speak a little Spanish as it is to assume we speak Polish? And was Polish your first language, like Ricardo’s was Spanish (growing up in Chile?)
OK, next…
He’s a _______??
It all makes sense o a now.
So a Jew, an Irishman and a _______ walk into a bar………..(that was a joke Greg, no need to go all ARTIC on me).
[Editor’s note: Ethnic slur reminiscent of the bad old days redacted. -GD]
Besar el culo,
“To kiss the butt” — ???
Blame Google Translate, not me.
“but I’m like super busy with clients and new biz prospects to get into every detail with you (plus, my daughter started high school this morning so I was out of pocket today.”
WTF?
Sounds like a stay at home Dad trying to sound important to me!
Another funny thing … and then I’ll stop pickin on this guy for a while. That comment you quote was the second comment posted here, put up like fifteen minutes after the story went up, and yet he says his “daughter started school so he was out of pocket today…” Like he’s excusing himself for being too busy with more important things to bother with this silly post … but actually he was here in a snap of the fingers.
Dan doesn’t miss a thing said about him on the blogs, and responds lightning-quick, usually with a phone call or text or e-mail. (Whereas I sometimes will come across something from a month earlier and say “Hey, how come nobody told me Jerbal or Pedroza or Moxley wrote this horrible shit about me?”)
It’s not too hard to set up a Google Alert for “Chmielewski”….
Escucha el grito de los bebés.
Mr Chmielewski: I don’t think that you are an evil person. “Dios los cria y el diablo los Junta” is a colloquial expression meaning something like “birds of a feather flock together”. I do think that your recent positions on policy issues and actions are a disservice to the advancement of a more civil community. The corporate driven policies pursued in Anaheim has created a toxic level in our civic affairs, and you are not helping with your condescending attitude.
I strongly disapprove of whatever joke was done about your children. I don’t encourage my teenage daughter to read the local political blogs, as she is still in the process of understanding the complexities of the issues. She wouldn’t understand, and wouldn’t like, the meaning of pocałuj mnie w dupe.
I’m glad that you aren’t a consultant for the Young Democrats. Somehow I interpreted your “non-voting member of the OCYD” status as an advisory/consultant role: “Yes, this is a press release, but it’s a pretty good one and it’s all about an exceptional event the Orange County Young Democrats are hosting next week. And don’t let the word “young” hold you back. I’m a non-voting member of the OCYD.”
Mr Chmielewski: I don’t think that you are an evil person. “Dios los cria y el diablo los Junta” is a colloquial expression meaning something like “birds of a feather flock together”
Do better than that Ricardo – apologize. The meaning of that phrase is much more negative than you are portraying here.
Are you sufficiently fluent in Spanish to be familiar with its idioms, skally — especially (in this case) what may be its Chilean idioms?
No, no, don’t apologize!
Mainly because what Jose says below is also true – Dan is and has always been a BIG MEANIE.
I see you are taking the Art Pedroza position – “I am NEVER wrong.”
“It means that although everybody was created by God, bad people find each other with the help of the devil.”
“God raises them, and the devil joins them.”
Nice stuff ….
The devil in this case being players like Pringle and Brandman. And what me and Ricardo consider “bad” you’re perfectly free to consider fine.
The phrase has God & the Devil in it – Ricardo is avoiding the real meaning of the phrase.
Trying to understand your logic here: any phrase that “has God & the Devil in it” is insulting, even an idiom?
I got a Flannery O’Conner “everything that rises must converge” sense out of it.
The real meaning is simple. God creates individuals and the Devil pushes them into groups – presumably based on inclination and self-interest.
Thank you for that clarification David – I believe that an apology is warranted.
If I say “the Devil is in the details,” have I offended anyone? These are figures of speech. Nobody is being accused as Satanic. Well, not yet anyway.
Let Chmielewski face the implications that his views have on the lives of many Anaheim residents. He deflects the discussions whenever is convenient for him. Mas sabe el diablo por viejo, que por diablo…
I wonder if your discomfort with the colloquial phrase in question is sincere or you’re being the devil’s advocate. Idioms are commonly used in some communities, and it may have a different meaning for others. Before taking them literally, be open-minded about the context. Check the link below for the meaning of sayings in Spanish.
http://www.newsinslowspanish.com/catalog/spanish-expressions-proverbs/66/dios-los-cria-y-ellos-se-juntan.html
My comment above is addressed to skallywag.
“Mas sabe el diablo por viejo, que por diablo…”
But you know the old devil, that devil …
Ricardo,
Thank you for clarifying that you DID intend to be offensive and rude in the extreme.
And your explanation of what you said in your original comment – is NOT what you said in that comment.
I can only conclude that you are full of shit.
Ricardo,
Congratulations on having an apology demanded of you by skally for no good reason: NOW you are officially an OC blogger! Welcome to the club.
I believe that skally dancing a hornpipe in the middle of Sasscer Park wearing a pair of Speedos is warranted.
skallyway, I don’t appreciate your conclusion, but ni modo. My use of the idiom was to stress the point about the negative impact of these two political consultants. The meaning of words varies according to the culture, time, context. My Mexican friends told me to chill out when they called me “pendejo” or ”cabron”. I thought it was offensive, but for them, most of the time didn’t have that connotation. Some of them grew up thinking it was their nickname.
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo, que por diablo is another idiom meaning” wisdom comes with age”. So we could go on “buscando las cinco patas del gato”, but I’d better stop with diabluras, before this becomes a bigger controversy than the “Satanic Verses”.
Funny how cheminowski still plays the nambla card. What you guys forgot to mention is that he’s also a big meany.
Ricardo, hEre is a quick and easy way to understand Dan C. First his man crush on Cunningham is based on his fondness of position of power in OC politics due to his demonstrated chops in acquiring clients that pay high dollar for Matts ability to spin any issue and or story to his clients advantage. Dan’s background is in journalism so he is impressed and a fan of Matts penetration into a media market that Dan admires and that leads to him giving him ;eave and credence.
Second, Dan is nothing but a bully and a thug for his own distorted view of political discourse. In Dans view, since he has been able to brow beat so many people in OC with his bully pulpit over at the Fib OC, in his mind makes him “right” and “justified” in his brow beating and thuggery. In reality, its only resulted in his own isolation in the blogosphere limited only to a few posters who post under sock puppet (pseudonym) names in order to protect their own identity form being tied with Dan C.
If you look at the Fib OC, its only frequented by Junior, and about two or three others. In fact the “head” of Fib OC “Chris Prevatt” or Dans sock puppet, I call him a meat puppet, only posts under the pseudonym “Editorial Staff”. He never posts under his own name anymore for a few reasons; first of which is his position at OCEA of being a board member, he cannot have any ties tot he bile spewed by Dan C and himself. Second, Dan C is a pariah in OC democratic Circles. NO one wants to engage the guy because hes nothing but a fucking thug and a bully. Period.
I dare you to put yourself in his proximity a few months after you post something critical about him. As you can read abpve, he texted Vern to have a comment removed. And if you find yourself in his proximity ven a year after a critical comment he will cross a crowded room to come over and have a confrontation with you.
Why? Simple, hes thug and a bully. That’s why journos lie Gustavo, and Nich Schou hate that fucking guy. Its the reason everyone hates the guy. And that’s why he never gets criticized because he uses his bully pulpit at the Fib OC to bash people with and drag their name in the mud.
He a bully, a coward and a horrible Democrat. Plain and simple. A poor specimen of one if you ask me. Nobody likes this guy but they leave him alone so they don’t get smeared by his bile on the Fib OC.
This thug has gone after no less than three people I know of (there may be more I don’t know of) by contacting their employers at work and trying to get them fired for blogging during their work day. I mean seriously? What kind of punk does that shit? Ill tell you Dan C does.
Paul, thanks for the feedback. His uncritical support for Jordan Brandman, and now Arte Moreno, speak loudly of the true political nature of what he represents. I did not know that his background is on journalism. His blog, and his friend Cunningham’s blog have a somber format, which is deceiving as their content is far from being journalistic. Both are condescending on their lectures of what they define as the standards of civic behavior and political outcomes.
Ricardo what ever you do don’t let Dan find out where you work he will begin stalking your boss and employer trying to get you fired for comments you make on blogs about him. Hes a creepy stalker.
“And if you find yourself in his proximity ven a year after a critical comment he will cross a crowded room to come over and have a confrontation with you.”
Really? That’s not very smart.
Yeah, I remember this towering bulky unpleasant-looking fellow suddenly getting in my face at the first Occupy Irvine rally. It turned out to be Dan. At the time he was suing Art for that NAMBLA link, and he thought I was Art’s great ally and that he’d somehow get some money off of me too.
Then some Register videographer lady wanted me to perform my Occupy version of Imagine a second time so she could put it online. I said, “Can you wait till a little later? I just did it, I don’t want people to get sick of it.” And Dan broke in, “Not that I care, but as a public relations professional, Vern, I’d advise you that when a journalist asks you to do something, you do it.”
And so just to piss him off, I told the lady, “Oh, this is my publicist, Dan Chmielewski.” And it worked. “I AM NOT HIS PUBLICIST!!! AND I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OCCUPY!!!” LOL…. I’d forgotten about that.
And then his tireless Ahab-like quest to find out the true identities of obnoxious anonymous commenters like Guy Fawkes, Kenlaysnotdead, Henry Gattis, etc… drives him crazy. He would like to have confrontations with them too!
You’d think by now somebody would have politely warned him about that sort of behavior.
He probably needs a public relations professional.
I’m not sure where you get this idea. He’s quite engaged not only with the “business-friendly” claque within OC Democratic circles (which usually includes the Trades and Teamsters) as well as the Irvine progressives.
We got into a fight over Anaheim 2-3 weeks ago. He got criticized here again twice in a week, by me last Friday and by Ricardo yesterday. (Ricardo’s would have come earlier, except that it would have been bad form for this sort of criticism to appear while he was out of the country on vacation.)
The problem is that “business-friendly” (those quotes are absolutely necessary there) Democrats and “business subsidy” Republicans often have overlapping agendas — despite having serious differences on other (largely social) issues. Dan and Matt happen to be prime examples of each faction.
It’s not as if this unholy alliance — which is what I gathered was the reference of Ricardo’s Spanish saying — doesn’t exist outside of OC, by the way; we just happen to be especially good at it.
With one exception, I won’t address the personal aspects of your attack on Dan, but I’m happy that it’s limited to him rather than to his family. The exception: yes, he can be very aggressive (what you call bullying) in his personal dealings with people. That’s true of more than a few of us around here, but — again — he happens to be very adept at it.
I do think that you’re being too hard on Prevatt. He’s occasionally wrong, but he’s a good guy — and he’s his own guy.
I appreciate Greg’s comments.
I have known Dan for more than a year and he has been my friend and my champion. I am not sure about the man cave thing going on here, but Dan C., has been a positive influence during and after my campaign, even though we sit on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
He is relentless about my “Faith Hope & Charity” and my W. Bush signage on my car.
OK, Ill go back to the corner and let you proceed with the serious business of vilifying Dan and Matt in a “mature”, distinguished way.
Let me know when it’s safe to jump back in the sandbox Vern. I promise to be better, but never less honest!
Wow. My head is spinning. This is what men do with the blogasphere? Come on guys. Too much. Let the article stand on it’s own for God’s sake. Oh, and by the way, apologizing is good sometimes, thank you Chris for being an adult.
Hey – a girl! Who invited her to this sausage fest?
We’re missing you on the blogosphere, KF!
Well, now… I’d forgotten how much fun these threads can be! It’s like the good (bad?) old days at the Orange Juice Blog!
And most of these folks are using their real names, Geoff!
Sorry, Vern… at my age, sometimes I forget it. 😉