.
.
.
Deciding whether to remove #5, my upper right first premolar. ALL PHOTOS BY MARSELLE SLOANE.
The biggest surprise, interviewing Attorney General candidate and famed Rancho Santa Margarita “birther queen” Orly Taitz at her dentist office Friday, was that she spoke passionately and in detail about many topics for nearly an hour and never once mentioned President Obama or his birth certificate. Was that a great effort? It doesn’t seem like she is a paragon of self-restraint, so maybe not, maybe she’s finally overcoming that obsession – that self-destructive obsession which has been costing her the support of even Tea Party and conservative groups.
Another surprise was she’s a lot taller and “bigger” than my photographer Marselle and I had expected. (See below.) I guess with those giant, false-eyelashed eyes and poodle-like demeanor, you expect her to be diminutive, but she is one healthy specimen of Moldova.
And as far as we can tell she’s a fine dentist. (No, I did NOT get around to asking for an original copy of her dental license.) My upper right first premolar had been hurting a lot, and I thought it would be cool if she could take it out, but after X-rays and a careful exam, she advised me to keep it for now and prescribed me some antibiotics. Her offices (at 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway) are huge 
and spacious, with at least half a dozen examination rooms, yet that afternoon it was deserted; her Polish-American assistant told Marselle that they’re usually off Fridays so that may explain that. There WAS one customer there, just finishing up when I got there – a wild-eyed, grizzled man who told me “This woman is amazing, she’s a legend!” So apparently she gets SOME work from those who appreciate her political activities.
I’d come to help her get her word out for the June primary, thinking that it would be funny for the Republicans and general right to be stuck with such a … polarizing figure as the standard-bearer against AG Kamala Harris. But just like when I met and listened to Tim Donnelly, I found myself agreeing with her much more than I expected, and now I’m hoping she makes it through June just because a lot of what she has to say deserves to be heard, things we’re not hearing from the other candidates including Kamala. Even though, yes, more than half of it is rightwing paranoid nuttiness.
Marijuana
I had the inside track with Orly Taitz – her cell number, trust, and so on – because of our mutual friendship with medical marijuana activist Debbie Tharp. If you remember, when Debbie knowingly got arrested two years ago for collecting signatures for medical marijuana regulation in front of Costa Mesa Mother’s (while they happily encouraged signature collectors for GMO labeling) it was Orly who represented her pro bono, while we photographed and reported on the arrest. “I love Debbie, she is so brave!” enthused the dentist-attorney. It turns out, as I suspected, her interest is not in medical marijuana per se, but in states’ rights, in defending the will of California’s voters, who overwhelmingly passed the Compassionate Use Act long ago now, against the meddling federal government. That is something she would fight for if she, by some chance, became this state’s Attorney General!
‘The Party Left Me’
I guess I hadn’t noticed the little detail in Greg’s last Orly post, but Orly is no longer a Republican. She is running as an independent (NPP) against popular Democratic incumbent Kamala Harris and five other obscure challengers – three Republicans, a libertarian, and another independent. “Why did you leave the Republican Party?” It was one of those “the Party left me” stories. She feels that NEITHER of the two major Parties are addressing the most important issues facing the nation. “Oh yeah? You’re probably right. What do you think those issues are? Name the top two.” And she did.
First she went on in great detail about the problem of millions of American jobs being outsourced to low-wage countries like China and India, and Marselle and I were surprised to find ourselves in agreement with her. This was a bipartisan-caused mess, she emphasized, because of bipartisan co-operation going back to Clinton and Gingrich both pushing for WTO/GATT and NAFTA. As this isn’t something she could do much about as Attorney General, I didn’t pursue solutions too much, but I gather she’d like to re-visit those regrettable agreements.
The second issue she mentioned as one of the nation’s biggest problems might be unsurprising – the plague of Illegal Immigration. After nodding at official figures of 11 million, she quotes sources of varying respectability until she reaches what she believes to be the accurate figure of 42 million. “Well, do you at least concede that immigration from Mexico has zeroed out, and that the President has protected the border as much as is humanly possible?” “NO! Those are government reports, and we KNOW that the government lies to us all the time!” “Oh.” And in her reckoning, this never-ending tsunami of brown is the main reason unemployment is so high among American citizens. Like her fellow immigrant-bashers, she refuses to acknowledge that American citizens are just unwilling to pick crops, mow lawns, and clean houses, at least for the chintzy wages our Mexican neighbors happily do it for. Oh well, moving on…
Why Attorney General?
Okay, these are some intractable-ass problems, but not much you could do anything about as California Attorney General. What made you decide to run for this particular office? (Last election it was Senator, election before that it was Secretary of State.) What would you do as Attorney General, differently from AG Harris?
For one thing, she is sure that voter fraud is rampant in this state and across the nation. She’s done lots of studies she’ll talk about at length, showing that in the OC and in LA especially, the city a person was born in is not taken down by the authorities, and neither is their social security number. Does this really lead to any serious voting fraud though? Anybody voting who’s not supposed to vote, or voting more than once? She seems sure of it, but I don’t think she’s proved it by a long shot, except to herself.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled in favor of the Second Amendment protecting Californians’ right to Conceal & Carry Weapons (“CCW”). Apparently our gun-control-enthusiast AG has appealed that decision. Orly strongly agrees with the 9th circuit’s decision, and would put an end to that appeal if she took Kamala’s place.
Then there’s the turning-on-the-water in the Central Valley thing, a rightwing cause celebre (really mainly of concrete interest to big agribusiness up there, despite all the handwringing over “mom and pop farmers.”) Orly says “thousands of jobs” have been lost in the Central Valley due to the drought and the refusal of authorities, encouraged by Federal environmental law, to “turn the water back on.” “And do you know why that is?” “You’re going to start making fun of the Delta Smelt now, aren’t you?” “Yes, I AM going to make fun of the Delta Smelt!” Complete with the obligatory putting-two-fingers-close-together to show how little the smelt is, she bemoans the ridiculousness of Federal environmental law placing the well-being of this runt over so much humanity – ignoring of course that a world of salmon, fishermen, and a biosphere beyond that depends on the smelt. She asks, “Do you know how many studies have been done on how many smelt have actually been killed by having the water on? NONE. ZERO studies have been done.” If someone knows this to not be true, please weigh in in comments. Anyways, that’s one thing she’d do as AG is fight the Feds to get the water turned back on for the agricultural interests up there.
The Police State
When I asked my colleagues here what questions I should ask Orly, Ryan Cantor cryptically suggested “POBR” – the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights. But, what could an Attorney General do about a law like that, a law which keeps our cops’ misdeeds hidden from us and protects them in other unnecessary and destructive ways? I mean, besides speaking out against it from her “bully pulpit?” I don’t think she could behave as though it didn’t exist.
But when I brought up police brutality and the growing American police state, she won our hearts all over again. It’s not just in this state, but across the country, she says, that our police forces are being militarized. Look at the drones they’ve been given, the armored vehicles. We are under a de facto military occupation, with boots on the ground, in direct contravention of the Posse Comitatus Act. clause of our Constitution. It sure would be nice to hear Kamala Harris, or much of any Democrats or Republicans talk like that.
There’s another place where we don’t have much useful distinction between the two major Parties, I pointed out, both of them beholden to police and prison guard unions, not to mention encouraged by a generally cowardly, fearful public. One thing she would do as AG is use some of her funding to EDUCATE THE PUBLIC on what their Constitutional rights are, regarding police and the law in general. Now THAT sounds great. Kamala should steal the idea (providing she beats Orly in November.)
Another thing she mentioned that had flown under my radar (if it’s true) – apparently judges have been routinely and unconstitutionally denying jury trials to defendants who request them. As AG she could and would put a stop to that un-American practice. Kamala?
Easy to Make Fun Of…
Our friend Matt Coker writes about an article a month poking fun at Orly’s latest misadventures – her apparent loss of Tea Party support, her birtherism getting shut down at CPAC, her apparent legal sloppiness getting repeatedly slapped down by judges. You can read all of that over here if you want to have a chuckle at her expense, it spares me from jumping on that bandwagon.
But one of those stories came up, when she described herself as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” – always a description many of us would find WINNING. Except I said, “Well, I was just reading in the Weekly how you were defending that cake maker in Colorado who didn’t want to make cakes for gay weddings…”
“Oh, that wasn’t an anti-gay thing, I support gay rights! That was ALL about this man’s religious freedom. HIS religious teaching tells him that gay marriage is an abomination, and he should be free to not only follow his religion, but refuse service to any customer he wants to.”
I try to suppress my own secret feeling that 1) some gay activists are just stirring up trouble with some doofus they should be ignoring; 2) as Bill Maher has said, who would want to even take a bite of a cake that someone baked for you under duress? and 3) it’s hard to have a serious philosophical discussion about cakes without laughing; and instead point out: There’s a Civil Rights Act that prevents this guy from refusing service to a customer because he’s black; he shouldn’t be able to refuse service because the customer’s gay either.
“And that’s exactly what the Chief Judge said to me, and I told the Chief Judge that there’s a big difference between refusing service to a PERSON because of what he is, versus refusing to make a cake for a ceremony that he finds sinful!”
“Well … well… what if this guy had a religion that taught that black and white people can’t get married?”
“I don’t know any religions that teach that.” Marselle and I look at each other, both thinking, “Didn’t the Mormons at least teach that, until recently anyway?”
But then we all came to this agreement: Better than any lawsuits would be if people just stopped going to this homophobic cakemaker. If gays AND all us straights who support them found some wedding bakers who didn’t have a hateful stick up their butts and supported them instead. THAT solution we all liked.
Here is Orly’s campaign site – I do hope November sees a good fight between her and Kamala instead of any of these five safe mediocrities. If there’s anything I didn’t ask her that you want to ask her, she’ll be at my concert April 27 – Sunday April 27, 4-6pm, Huntington Beach Central Library … see you there! And let’s give her props for not mentioning Obama’s citizenship for an entire hour!
Im giving my friends this article so they can make an informative choice this year.
I will say it again — we have an extremely diverse and interesting blog here. (Brilliant title, too!)
I’m fully for Kamala, and I’m sure that having Orly as her opponent this year would make Republicans squirm vigorously (because few will actually believe that she’s not the de facto Republican nominee) — and perhaps it will do for Kamala’s career what a challenge from loony toon Alan Keyes did for State Senator Barack Obama in 2004 — but … actually, I forgot how I planned to end that sentence.
Hey, if she really wants an example of voter fraud, maybe she can find one a stone’s throw away from her. Have you told her about her Laguna Niguel neighbor Mimi Walters? Now THAT is an issue that could distinguish her from Republicans like Bob Huff!
It is amusing how many things this article gets wrong, most notably the implication that Taitz is no longer a birther. Even the most casual inspection of her web site tells you all about the five — yes, FIVE — birther lawsuits that Taitz is *still* pursuing.
The real head scratcher is why Nelson would think that an attorney who has never won a case and is famous only for being that loon who always unsuccessfully sues President Obama would be qualified to run a garage sale, let alone the the largest law office in the state.
And if Nelson actually knew Debbie Tharp, he would Taitz abandoned Tharp after she was arrested.
It is amusing how many things this bob guy claims I get wrong without being able to come up with an example. I didn’t say Orly’s not a birther, just that she surprised me by talking for more than an hour without banging on that drum. And where did I say I think she’s qualified for the AG office? I was careful and diplomatic with my words because I like her being a candidate and having at least THAT bully pulpit, but … that’s all I said. And Debbie hadn’t mentioned to me that she was “abandoned,” I’ll ask her about that.
Try again mighty bob! What did this article actually get wrong?
The most obvious mistake was when you wrote “maybe she’s finally overcoming that [birther] obsession” when Taitz obviously has not.
I mentioned Tharp, which you did not dispute. Please ask her.
The 9th Circuit recently upheld the federal government’s study regarding the smelt. So that’s one study — and the one that matters.
There is no “Posse Comitatus clause” in the U.S. Constitution. And no indication that the Posse Comitatus law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) is being violated in California. Why let Taitz uncritically repeat that lie?
There’s no evidence that jury trials are being improperly denied in California. Why let Taitz uncritically repeat that lie?
Taitz’s web site screams homophobia. By what your fine reporting failed to mention that sexual-orientation discrimination is against the law in Colorado. You would think a candidate to be a state’s top attorney would respect laws that are on a state’s books.
Specifically regarding that Colorado baker, Taitz had NO EFFECT on that case. The judge ruled against the bakery, and it has an appeal pending.
Taitz is a joke and a disgrace. You should have plainly said so. You cheapen the ballot by pretending Taitz is even a vaguely serious candidate who has any hope of winning in June.
But I understand the reluctance to not criticize the person holding the sharp instruments in your mouth. Of course, it showed incredibly poor judgement (as well as poor journalistic ethics) to sit in Taitz’s chair in the first place.
“No evidence, no evidence…” It’s quite arguable that the militarization of this nation’s police force violates Posse Comitatus (ok Act, not in Constitution, thanks, will fix that. My mistake, not Orly’s by the way.) And I’m unconvinced by your facile assertion that there’s “no evidence” of judges denying jury trials; I’ve personally seen judges get away with much worse.
I reported skeptically on Orly’s claim that there’d been no study on Delta smelt, and invited reader response; you provided that, but not in much detail. I kind of suspected she was wrong about that. As she is about much.
Orly’s argument in Colorado, successful or not, right or not, was not that sexual-orientation discrimination should be allowed, but that the baker shouldn’t be forced to facilitate a ceremony his religion teaches against.
So, not much I got wrong when you look at it. Posse Comitatus not in Constitution, got it. And if you don’t think getting a dental exam from someone you’re interviewing is good journalism then call it something else – blogging, or something with “gonzo” in it. And if you don’t like it, go somewhere else, where the writers go to j-school and get paid. Laterz…
There’s no legal argument that the Posse Comitatus Act has been violated — just your (and Taitz’s) uninformed speculation.
As either the person suggesting that judges have unconstitutionally denied jury trials, or as the person uncritically letting Taitz make that false claim, there’s still no evidence to support such a wild allegation. (You’ve seen “much worse” but can’t be bothered with specifics.)
Any search involving “9th Circuit” and “smelt” should lead you to the court’s current ruling. Please let me know if you need your held held further.
Taitz’s argument in Colorado, which had no effect on anything, is contrary to its actual, written laws. There is no “religious exemption,” and the job of the Attorney General is to apply the law that is written, not the law that AG wishes were on the books.
And you’re welcome for highlighting where your writing, legal knowledge, and critical-thinking skills could stand some improvement.
*Come on Vern….tell Bob the whole truth: Barack was born in Liyba, transferred by the Russian KGB to Kenya and then was teleported by the Star Ship Enterprise to Honolulu……and protected by the Marine Corps Airwing in Kahenoie…….where he was spray coated in black face and prepared to be the 48th President of the United States after using a Sports Scholarship to Harvard….but instead going to Yale and being the first black (partially) person to be a member of the Skull and Bones and the Masonic Order in Baltimore.
Vern, you just can’t hold back all the facts that these folks want to hear. Orly Taitz and Bob……..Stand by your Stands…….and we will just take Kamela for another tour of duty and call it a day. It would be fun however if she and Kamela were in a run-off election.
Reading comprehension. It’s a good thing!
“. . . maybe she’s finally overcoming that obsession . . .”
Maybe means maybe. There’s no implication that Taitz is or is not anything. You incorrectly inferred, which is on you, bob.
Vern didn’t say Taitz was qualified to run a garage sale or be attorney general. If you can’t read what is written correctly, we can’t take your comment seriously.
Taitz has now linked to this article from her blog, describing it as “an endorsement article from the editor of the ‘Orange County Juice’” showing “his support of my candidacy of AG”. So are you actually advocating that Taitz should win?
I won’t answer for Chairman Vern, but I will point you to a couple of earlier stories that I did on the AG’s race — here and here — where among other things I say that Taitz has a good chance of winning — either with Vern’s support or without it. (He will surely vote for Harris in November, by the way. There’s a difference between thinking that Taitz raises some useful issues — along with many useless-to-vile ones — and thinking that she’d make a good AG.)
It’s not Vern’s fault that Republicans not only didn’t produce a single plausible candidate in this race, but produced three comparably weak ones, the better to divide the Republican vote. THAT is why Taitz has a good chance of going to November. The Republican Party had the responsibility to put someone up for state office who was plausible if they didn’t want Taitz — who goes along nicely with Tim Donnelly — as their de facto standard bearer. They fell down on the job. I have no idea how they could be so incompetent — but now they are going to pay for it.
Admittedly, given the prospect of ensuring that November’s alternative to Kamala is as weak and divisive (and likely to galvanize Democratic turnout) as possible, some Democrats (perhaps ones like Vern) may do so mischief and vote for Taitz in June to ensure that she makes the runoff. Kamala can spare their votes, after all. But while that would give a larger forum to Taitz, it would also give her a greater chance to be refuted.
The California Democratic Party, more so than that the state’s GOP — does not herd people together well to support its tactics. Democratic Party officials could put out ads everywhere saying “don’t vote for Orly in June” and it wouldn’t do any good. Republicans need to fix this if it’s going to get fixed by picking one of their lousy candidates and spending a whole lot of money to put him ahead of the other two — and of Taitz. If they don’t, then they’ll be stuck with what they earned — and good luck trying to convince people that Taitz is not a Republican.
I’m glad that we have this coverage here: voters really should know more about her — especially if she’ll be in the general election.
May I step in here, coming late to the game, but reading all the comments — and the prior article by Mr. Diamond?
First, it strikes me that Bob’s criticism is, in large part, that Vern gave Taitz’s wild comments a free ride. Not a challenge to the most inaccurate nonsense; or if there was one, Vern didn’t report on it. For that, I stand proudly with Bob. Taitz is a non-stoppable motormouth. Letting her go unchallenged is irresponsible journalism. Larry King did it all the time, but then he was an entertainer. What are you, Vern? A journalist or an entertainer?
Second, I find the idea that Taitz would come in second laughable, and am willing to put my money where my mouth is. (Well,a buck of two, anyhow.) As an old Good Government and Voters’ Rights activist who has fought long and hard and not too successfully to make slate mailers more ehtical and transparent, there isn’t a chance that Taitz will raise enough money or spend her own, to get onto any. Another factor is that the slate runners won’t want her there, even if she comes up with the money, which she won’t since he’s in this for the attention, not to win, that’s clear.
Slates are powerful, despite their disingenuous motives, and lack of principles. Whoever gets the GOP spot on most of them will come in second to Harris.
Without the R designation, she’s lost any chance of attracting the attention of the ordinary, unengaged voter. She’s toast.
Larry King did pretty well with the “let them hang themselves with their own words” approach — and he was considered a journalist. Vern actually does make his money as an entertainer, but reporting on Orly’s positions is valid journalism. He doesn’t have to invalidate all of her positions; that’s part of what commenters like you are for!
NO ONE among the three Republicans appears likely to be able to afford the slate mailers. And there are more than one of them, so they’re likely to be split anyway. In fact, if slate mailers are decisive, Orly would seem to be in as good or better a position than anyone else to find donors to cover them.
Again — having blown the chance to run at least a “Damon Dunn-level” candidate against Orly, now the GOP is going to have to pay through the nose for their negligence. My concern is what Tim Donnelly might do regarding her candidacy — because he too has a decent chance to win in June.
OD is correct: Nelson, at a minimum, gave Taitz a free pass — and for no good reason. Heck, he seems to agree with her in parts, making Nelson seem as nutty as Taitz. Comparing Nelson to King is laughable, as I don’t recall King nodding in (not-so) silent agreement with an obvious tin-foil-hat wearer.
As for Diamond’s limp reply: Taitz does not have a good chance of winning in June — she’s a nobody running without the support of a party. In 2012, for example, nearly five million people voted in the “jungle” primary for U.S. Senator, and Taitz received around 150,000 votes (as a Republican) — barely over three percent. In addition to Feinstein, Taitz was beaten by three other Republicans who collectively garnered over one million votes, and none of them had any serious name recognition. (Admittedly, California Republicans did officially endorse Emken.) But there’s simply no way all the other Attorney General candidates are going to so dilute the vote that Taitz sneaks in as the second-highest vote getter. Around thirty percent of the electorate is registered Republican — there’s just no way Taitz is going to split that in manner than let’s her win.
Also: Taitz doesn’t raise any “useful” issues. To be polite, you could say she raises issues that are devoid of any legal and factual support, but Diamond was more accurate when he succinctly described them as “vile.”
If this site was actually trying to inform the voter, it would plainly say, “Taitz is nuts.” Instead, because of the poor (excuse me, “gonzo”) writing, Taitz read what the author wrote and thinks he is endorsing her. Congratulations.
Look — if you want to make bold predictions like this under cover of anonymity, I will discount them 100%, because once you’re wrong you can simply abandon this fake persona of yours as if they never happened. In this case, your throwaway line of “(Admittedly, California Republicans did officially endorse Emken)” points to exactly why Taitz wasn’t viable. Who did they endorse this time? No one. And the critical election is in June, not November.
If you think that there’s no way that Taitz can finish second, put your reputation on the line with the prediction. If not, then I hope that you’ve enjoyed making use of this forum to make your prediction and there’s no point in allowing you to repeat it redundantly. Come back when you either have a real name or more to buttress your analysis than hot air. But I predict that “there’s just no way” that you’ll do so.
AND at least capitalize “bob,” or we’ll just continue to think of you as more flotsam and jetsam.
[bob should not have picked the day that the supreme court released the mccutcheon decision to mess with me, because i am in a foul mood. bye bye bob. — the managing editor]
Where to begin…she is absolutely NOT for gay rights, frequently implies that the President is gay (by way of a putdown, not because she things it could be a good thing) and has written posts lately about the evils of anal sex. She is the worst lawyer imaginable. She clearly hasn’t read the Constitution, she claims that people who disagree with her will one day be prosecuted for treason and face the death penalty, she makes and repeats disgusting allegations about the First Lady and her children, she has not the faintest idea about legal drafting, court procedure, the difference between evidence and proof, what an expert witness is, the meaning of nullification and her crazy belief that as AG she can choose to nullify federal laws, she routinely sends her legal garbage to international tribunals (including the ICC) to which the US is not a signatory. And she harasses public servants, old folks who she thinks must be witnesses to things that never happened, and the relatives of people who’ve been killed. Then there’s her position on immigration, which is racist to put it mildly. A couple of years ago she complained about how there were too many people in CA with Spanish names! So, not exactly up there on her history. She is a piece of human garbage and has no right to be on any ballot.
FIVE REASONS why Orly Taitz shouldn’t be the Attorney General: (1) She does not understand California state law. Most of her “platform” consists of illegal acts; (2) She advocates the splitting of California into small pieces and withdrawal from the USA; (3) She has been sanctioned by two different judges for misconduct and a complaint has been filed with the State Bar; (4) She has Dr. James David Manning on her campaign staff and has been noted already, she is completely anti-gay and since she has never rebuked Dr. Manning, that means that she agrees with his statement that homosexuals should be stoned; (5) She has made stunning remarks about race toward blacks (“black liar”), hispanics (in her world, round them all up and toss them out), and other classes. Ever wonder how she touts her family but you never see them? Hmmmmm…. and she has claimed your story as an endorsement. Nuff said. . . Kamala has my vote.
Whoa whoa whoa, only five?
I’d write her off if you had six.
Vern– great job on this. Good discussion.
You asked for it . . .
6. (And this is a big one) Orly Taitz has never given account of her much money she has and where it comes from, but she’s always claiming that it comes from her pocket and yet she acknowledges monies were given to her.
7. She has pissed off everyone she’s ever “worked with” and when she gets no media attention she wigs out (no pun intended).
Nope, seven is too much. The magic number was six.
But seriously, it’s March. How great is this going to get?!
You could write all through the night to make a list of reasons of why Orly is not qualified.
Kamala has my vote in June too — which means that neither you or I will be voting in the subordinate election (involving everyone except Kamala) for who will be Kamala’s sole opponent in June.
Now do you start to see why Orly could finish second?
Rather than add to the list of deal breakers, could I throw out a challenge to anyone who’d consider for a minute supporting or voting for Orly Taitz for Attorney General?
Here goes:
Take any “legal” pleading or brief she’s ever written (text and links are easily found at her website) and READ IT. You don’t have to read the whole thing; a few of pages should suffice.
Then tell me that it isn’t the worst “professional” writing you’ve ever seen (excluding, of course, something else she submitted to a court).
Fonts and type sizes change in the middle of sentences; misspellings abound (including, in particular, names of the parties); one non-sequitur follows another; numbered items are out of order; random punctuation is rampant; the thought train is a wreck; legal citations are few and far between (and those few are usually wrong); and, as often as not, she concludes by threatening the judge with treason if s/he doesn’t rule her way.
Try it! And if you conclude that she is a competent lawyer capable of representing the people of California then, by all means, vote for her.
All you have to do is look at what this guy has produced:
I’ve yet to see anyone in this discussion argue that Orly should be elected as California Attorney General. Kamala Harris has a lock on the position; if tragedy struck her, the population would rather elect her and see some replacement appointed rather than . settle for anyone else on the list. But someone — and only one someone — is going to run against her in November. Everyone else on the list may be more deserving than Orly — but unless Republicans coalesce around one of them and spend hard, they aren’t more likely to keep her out of second place in November.
As to why some people — including some Democrats — might consider voting for her in June, it might be because she would be a terrible embarrassment for Republican candidates to live down. Whoever finishes second is going to lose anyway, so it’s not as if people are ignoring a viable alternative. Extreme candidates like her have the benefit of raising issues that wouldn’t otherwise come up and evoking criticisms like those you see here. There are arguments that both consequences are healthy.
But let me ask you something: is there much of a difference between Orly and Tim Donnelly — who has a legitimate chance to become the sole challenger to Jerry Brown? A Taitz candidacy in November would be dangerous in some ways; in others, it might cauterize some of our current political wounds.
If you really don’t want to see her finish second in November, then you’d better come up with an alternative plan — because the California Republican Party didn’t!
Haha, Orly is spinning this article as an endorsement? (Where did she do that, now?) That’s kind of sad, if this is the closest thing she has to an endorsement.
I hate to have to explain myself any more than I did in my story, it seems like it’s written clearly enough. But there sure are a lot of poor readers commenting on this thread.
Try again?
I’m happy with Kamala having another term, as she most certainly will if she doesn’t drop dead. I’d like to see Orly make it thru June and be the challenger in the general election, because 1) that will be more colorful and interesting than any of those other five nonentities, 2) because it’ll be embarrassing to Republicans and the right in general,
And, since interviewing her, 3) because a few of the things she’s saying need to be heard. I don’t think any of those other five challengers, or even Kamala, are going to be talking about defending our state’s rights vis-a-vis medical marijuana, OR about the encroaching militarization of our police.
Maybe Kamala could even steal one or two of Orly’s ideas; i especially like the one of the Attorney General using some of her office’s resources to EDUCATE THE PUBLIC about their rights vis-a-vis police and the law. That seems like a perfect thing for an AG to do.
This smartass “bob” pisses me off, and I’m not done with him. I’m going to look into the Posse Comitatus arguments against the militarization of our nation’s police, and whether judges have been denying jury trials. You guys have been having a lot of fun here while I spent the day driving back from San Francisco unable to comment. And some of you don’t seem to understand what blogs do in contrast to TV or newspapers. Anyway … NOT over.
If you have to “explain yourself,” that means your story wasn’t clearly written. The story is so poorly (excuse me, “gonzo-ly”) written that Taitz thinks you like her. You must be proud. But, hey: Why accept responsibility when you can blame the readers who point out that you can’t write clearly?
Here’s a pro tip: When interviewing an obvious nutter (“DRONES VIOLATE POSSE COMITATUS!!!1!!”), try doing a little preliminary research *before* uncritically publishing the nutter’s comments.
Here’s a Wikipedia discussion — I know, I know, but time is limited — on the Insurrection Act, Posse Comitatus, and the Bush Administration’s attempt to amend them. I was — as usual, as a volunteer — one of the citizen-journalists who first brought these NDAA amendments to light. True — thanks to the work of Sen. Patrick Leahy and some others — the worst abuses were beaten back, but the impetus for them remains. If you think that there isn’t cause for concern, you’re either not paying attention or you’re rooting for the changes.
Oh good gravy, bob. This is a blog. No one here is getting paid and our entire reason for existing is to provide an impetus for discussion. Vern clearly got that right, as here we are chatting away.
No one here is interested in being a “pro”. While a critique as yours is certainly always welcome, lets call this what it is: Food for thought.
Actually, his views are not welcome under a difficult-to-trace pseudonym. But, it’s not fair for us to continue arguing with him when he can’t reply, so that should be the last word.
She did indeed take it as an endorsement, using the phrases I quoted, as you will be able to see on her website – I won’t post the address here, since it has lots of previous form for being malware infested. If you or anyone else is interested, it is easy to find via a search.
Perhaps her lack of reading comprehension in taking what you posted as an endorsement should give you pause for thought in considering the validity of her other claims? While you might have heard her talk about things that seem to dovetail with your own political views, it is probably wise to find out quite what see has actually been on record as saying, rather than what you gathered from a brief interview, before viewing her in any way as any kind of noble cause. Her views tend to be obnoxious across the board – for example, far from not being anti-gay, she regularly smears the president and his associates as secretly gay, even involved in the murder of ex-lovers to protect this fact, knowing this will garner her support from her dwindling bunch of followers who are rapidly homophobic. Examples abound on her website, if you are brave enough to visit.
I’m all for the mission to “EDUCATE THE PUBLIC”, let’s hope they look into her positions in a little more depth than you appear to have done here before going into the voting booth.
I think it’s fun that she’s running. Certainly will add entertainment value to anyone who knows what she has been up to. I. Would be interested to know how she would handle the lawsuit now running through the courts on our newly appointed Public Administrator after OC residents clearly voted to keep it an elected post. The DA gets a $33 grand raise but gives the duties to a deputy DA who is now called the assistant PA. Now they want to hire an Admin Mgr 2 to be the coordinating mgr for PA. It would be cheaper to bring back John Williams instead of paying 3 highly paid flunkies to do this job / none of which were elected by the people of OC. Vern, please ask Orly this during your next root canal. Orly, I love a good underdog story. You have my vote!
Hey Vern:
I love the Dentist Taitz picture!!! I think this was a great way to “break the ice” and have a conversation with Orly Taitz.
Now that you’ve had a Taste of Taitz, as a Dentist, as an Attorney, and as a “perennial candidate”…which one do you think she has a better track record of and is best suited for?
Would she agree or disagree with you?
( side note on immigration in CA with respect to the CA AG:
California says federal immigration detention requests are voluntary
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/05/us-usa-california-immigration-idUSBRE8B404J20121205
Well, Paco… she seems like an okay dentist.
With a lot of bad ideas and some interesting ones.
Perfectly said!
*The great thing about this is that Taitz is not endorsed by the Malaysian Government or any of their spokespeople.
What did Nancy say about Obama Care…….vote for it to see what is in it. That may be
the only way you will really know where Taitz stands on most things.
What is amazing to me about this article is the attempt to make a whack-job appear as a serious candidate for state-wide office when anyone can see that she is
a whack-job
a seditionist
a foreign national who has yet to prove her citizenship
a whack-job
a rich woman who likes to file lots of frivolous lawsuits
a narcissist
a bad driver
a caricature of herself
did I mention whack-job?
also she’s always harassing Moose and Squirrel.
Seriously, the broad is bent. In my humble opinion, of course…wouldn’t want TWLITHOTU to mistake any of the above as a statement of fact.
Yeah, that’s not what Vern did with this.
It’s pretty clear all he’s saying is that there are, to his own surprise, some potentially good contributions Taitz might bring to the AG race.
That’s it. Finito.
Given how pro-cop Kamala Harris and how unlikely she is to do anything about police brutality and the ever-expanding prison state, which is fast becoming one of the most important topics of concern for .. um… smart people paying attention everywhere .. and given her position on marijuana, … I am likely to hold my nose and vote for Taitz over Harris.