Seem a bit early for election endorsements? Maybe the Orange County Register is acting quickly while it still has some staff left. Maybe whoever vets its editorials is on furlough.
The Register is up to its old tricks again in interceding in county politics. I can only reprint their entire endorsement of Young Kim if I tear it apart paragraph by paragraph, a process known as “fisking” that takes advantage of the Fair Use exception for criticism — but, luckily, such will be my pleasure.
Editorial: Young Kim for Assembly District 65
Published: July 17, 2014 Updated: 5:14 p.m.
It was just in 2012 that Sharon Quirk-Silva won a massive upset against a redistricted Chris Norby. Now, Assembly District 65 is one to watch again as Ms. Quirk-Silva looks to hold on to the seat against a strong Republican challenger in Young Kim.
Orange Juice Blog readers know that this “massive upset” was predicted here five months ahead of time. And how can one call Young Kim a “strong” challenger when she dare not speak to other than select audiences?
In a district where Democrats have a registration advantage of only a fraction of a percent, it will likely be the area’s sizable registration of independents – spurred by issues rather than partisanship – that will decide this hotly contested election. Ms. Kim is the better choice when it comes to protecting taxpayers and restoring the beleaguered California economy.
This brilliant analysis applies to any district where the number of independents exceeds the registration difference between the two parties. (Golf clap for the Orange Lady!) As far as “protecting taxpayers” — I happen to know a bit about that here in OC, so where does Kim stand on the avaricious giveaway-munching activities of the Pringle Ring? As for “restoring the beleaguered California economy” — if those guys would read a real newspaper they’d understand what Gov. Brown has been able to accomplish over the past four years — in comparison to the disasters that state governments who follow the Register’s economic principles, such as Kansas and Wisconsin, are now facing.
As a former director of Community Relations and Asian Affairs for Rep. Ed Royce, Ms. Kim knows the district well. In her bid to serve the residents, she has focused on fixing the education system, making California more business-friendly, improving public safety and dealing with California’s crippling water and infrastructure issues.
As, in effect, Ed Royce’s Social Director, Kim knows the people who attend wealthy soirees. And, sadly, she has certainly tried to round up the Asian community to drive wedges between them and Latinos. I’m not sure one can say she has really “focused” on anything, as a focus requires more than just mouthing pap.
On education, Ms. Kim said she supports charter schools, vouchers and the conclusions made in the Vergara court decision striking down the state’s two-year tenure and seniority rules, noting that the “CTA is just flat wrong.” The state should end its court fight over the decision, she said, and work toward real reforms that will make education more competitive and efficient for the state’s children.
Honestly, I would pay money to see her go through an intensive joint interview with Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva on education issues — something that would get beyond surface level talking points. If there are questions from the audience, I’d like her to evaluate Vergara in terms of judicial activism.
Ms. Kim also prefers lowering economic barriers to businesses across the board – rather than the targeted tax breaks to big businesses that have become popular in Sacramento – to get more people into jobs.
So she opposes the economic policies of Republican legislators from OC? Do tell us more!
On the other hand, while Ms. Quirk-Silva touted her credentials as a moderate, she has simply not lived up to expectations as a politically independent trailblazer. Ms. Quirk-Silva has charted her own course on some issues, but the “moderate” Democrat has almost entirely voted with the majority on the session’s most controversial bills. Those include further prohibitions on the Second Amendment, such as a ban on lead ammunition for hunting, mandating paid sick leave, authorizing non-physician-performed abortions, granting the undocumented driver’s licenses, making the California Public Records Act optional for local governments and increasing the minimum wage to $10 an hour.
I agree with the Reg on the CPRA — but I’ll bet that Young Kim wouldn’t! As for the rest — even if elected, Kim wouldn’t affect the passage of these non-budgetary items. (I’m not sure why putting toxic lead ammunition into animals is better than giving paid sick leave to humans, but apparently the Register thinks that you do.)
“The minimum wage isn’t a government responsibility,” said Ms. Kim, adding that she prefers to let individuals, rather than government, decide what wages they would be willing to work for in the entry-level positions that are fundamental building blocks to better careers.
So, theoretically, she’s willing to see the minimum wage go all the way down to a penny per hour if that’s where the “market” takes it? Do tell us more about how this would play out, Ms. Kim!
In Ms. Kim, we found a candidate who offers sound policy prescriptions on a number of issues and who would be a welcome addition to the statehouse. We are confident she is willing to take the much-needed political risks. She has our endorsement.
“Political risks”? Did someone say “political risks”? Great, I have just the thing in mind — and she can do it next week! So, here’s the comment I left in reply to the OC Register story:
It’s funny that you should bring this up today, just as the Irvine City Council prepares to vote next Tuesday on whether to donate land for a Veterans Cemetery in the Great Park — an initiative that Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva introduced as Chair of the Assembly Veterans Affairs Committee and has managed energetically, sensitively, and brilliantly.
Opponents to the plan argue that they must to kowtow to the developer, Five Point, that will build luxury houses in the Great Park. Five Point intends to market those homes to wealthy investors seeking to move their money out of the communist People’s Republic of China to the safer haven of Orange County. Those investors (who aren’t likely to live in the homes) object to the presence of a cemetery nearby because it violates the principles of “feng shui,” which dictate that it is bad luck to live near a graveyard — EVEN, APPARENTLY, A GRAVEYARD AND MEMORIAL FOR SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AND AIRMEN WHO SAVED CHINA FROM JAPANESE DOMINATION IN WORLD WAR II AND SAVED SOUTH KOREA FROM SOVIET DOMINATION IN THE 1950S AND BEYOND.
As a Korean-American, Young Kim could show some actual leadership by coming to the Irvine City Council on Tuesday and supporting the interests of the many veterans who will attend. She could tell the Council that our responsibilities to our veterans (and their loved ones here in OC) FAR outweigh the demand to make a wealthy developer wealthier by allowing it to market its homes to foreign speculators who don’t want the honor of living next to a veterans cemetery. She could remind them that U.S. veterans from around the nation — perhaps not MUCH less of a lucrative market — might LOVE to purchase those homes.
Sadly, I’ve been unable to find evidence that Young Kim has taken ANY POSITION AT ALL on whether to build a Veterans Cemetery in the Great Park — a matter ON WHICH SHE WOULD BE VOTING IF SHE WERE IN THE ASSEMBLY — let alone that she takes the RIGHT position, the PATRIOTIC position, rather than agreeing with Mayor Steven Choi that we can’t possibly inconvenience a wealthy developer by finally putting something GREAT in the Great Park.
Now that you’ve endorsed her, perhaps you can convince Young Kim to come to the Irvine City Council meeting at 5:00 and speak on behalf of this project that is so critical to OC’s veterans. Or maybe you could convince her to even take a public position on the matter … or to make herself available to the public for questions … something, anything, any act that would show that, like Sharon Quirk-Silva, she is willing to talk to people beyond hand-picked donors and supporters. I encourage others reading this to call her campaign office at (714) 752-6747 and encourage her to speak for veterans — you had better specify “FOR” — on Tuesday.
Oh, one last thing: please cancel my subscription to the Register. I’ve had enough. I’ll follow up on that request by phone.
Go there and chime in yourself, if you’d like! (I didn’t even get to go into my “Young Kim is the Bigoted Buttkicker” riff!)
“…so where does Kim stand on the avaricious giveaway-munching activities of the Pringle Ring?”
So here does Quirk stand? Haven’t heard a peep. For that matter, where does Sanchez stand? Where does Correa stand? I’ll tell you where they stand – terrified of the Kleptocracy; or just likely hoping for their own score for whatever office they next seek.
“Honestly, I would pay money to see her go through an intensive joint interview with Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva on education issues — something that would get beyond surface level talking points”
I too would pay money to see Quirk get beyond surface level talking points. This is the candidate who dodged campaign debates with Norby.
“I’m not sure one can say she has really “focused” on anything, as a focus requires more than just mouthing pap.”
That seems to be another common trait.
The best (funniest) part of the Kim endorsement is this comment about Quirk: “she has simply not lived up to expectations as a politically independent trailblazer.”
Whose expectations were those?!! Independent trailblazer? Now that’s just comical.
Do we have to debate the Norby race AGAIN? Should I just email you my response about her not debating Norby and spare everyone else the inside baseball?
They all stand gingerly on the Pringle Ring, but I don’t think that any of them would be avid supporters of that sort of avarice on the scale of Ed Royce’s political dance partner Bob Huff.
SQS appears at plenty of public fora, David. I’ve seen her get nicely into the policy weeds. You could ask her questions at one. (More easily than I could of YK.) And as for her focus — well, the Vets Cemetery is one striking example.
As for the “independent trailblazer” thing — you really expect editorial writers to do their best work under these trying circumstances?
“SQS appears at plenty of public fora, David.”
Yeah, pancakes with the vets. Got it. We’ve been over the cemetery thing. Everyone loves a vet nowadays. It’s even better to get political cred when somebody else is doing the work. She should hook up with Spitzer.
Quirk getting into policy weeds? Heh. Right. Good thing the caucus is feeding her its crabgrass. After all, it’s an election year.
As for her duck against Norby, you can skip it. I already know the facts – from those who actually issued the invitation and who talked to her people.
Zenger, for a smart guy with many good values, you have a gigantic fatal flaw: you cannot leave well enough alone. So be it.
OK, you want to talk about her debating Norby and such? Fine. I have commitments today, but I’ll try to get to it tomorrow.
I think that it’s charming that, from only one side of the fence, you think that you know “all the facts.” Here are some facts you can help me with: on what date did Norby issue the challenge for her to debate, and on what date did he get the polling data (or whatever it was) showing him that he was, unexpectedly, losing. Then we can discuss the “challenger must debate!” principle.
A “fatal flaw”? Really? Is that what you meant? Fatal?
I know that Quirk ducked a joint appearance with Norby in the unincorporated Anaheim island in 2012 to discuss the campaign issues – and then blamed the whole mess on some incompetent campaign flunky. That information directly from the community organizer herself – who happens to be both politically unaffiliated and a highly reputable source. Quirk chickened out. And you can’t really blame her.
Just because the Republicans have coughed up somebody just as bad is hardly cause to revel in Quirk’s “brilliance.”
By the way I really want you to hold Quirk to the same standard you hold Kim: what says your heroine on the subject of the Anaheim Kleptocracy. It operates in the district she, unlike Kim, already represents. “Standing gingerly” is just another way of saying cowardly. She stood gingerly when your ass was on the line too. Nice.
But thanks for the “good values” observation, I guess.
I’ll get to the debates issue in my last three paragraphs below. First, some squabbling!
Is it your impression, David, that my using the term “fatal flaw” — commonly used in literary analysis of writings going back to the Greeks — means that I’m alluding literally to physical mortality? I’m not. (Ergo, and I’ll spell this out: “so what’s your problem?”) I mean it in the sense that your compulsions are fatal to the political ends you wish to achieve. Yes, that really is what I meant.
On to the substantive topic. First: you didn’t answer my questions. When did Norby’s campaign ask Sharon to debate? How did this timing relate to his discovery (which I think Sharon already know at that point) that he was losing the election? My understanding is: “quite late” and “shortly after.” I’ll bet that you were at whatever strategic meeting it was that decided on that gambit.
Sharon is generally a good governance sort, but (like her mentor Loretta) tends not to want to pick fights unnecessarily, because OC leaders in both parties care much more about lucrative development deals than electing their own party members. I’m not now close to her campaign, but as an outside observer I’d say that (1) like most county Democrats, she’s on good terms with Jordan Brandman, whose presence as a developers’ fifth column within the DPOC carries far more weight with innocent Dems that one would imagine possible, (2) she wants the support of the Building Trades in this election — although frankly I doubt that they’ll do much for her — and so probably won’t go out of her way to cross them, but (3) she is also not likely to jump on the Pringle bandwagon, partly because she may (rightly) suspect that before long it will all end in tears. She doesn’t have to take stands on most of the giveaway-related issues, so she won’t. But, unlike Young Kim, she is not the protege of the hand-in-glove political partner of a man, Bob Huff, who heads the equivalent of the Pringle Ring in the east San Gabriel Valley. So, at worst, Sharon is taking a “discretion is the better part of valor” stance and mostly staying out of the Anaheim craziness, whereas Young Kim, as Royce’s flunky, would likely be an active supporter of it. Call Sharon “cowardly” if you must, but people in both parties who take such a stance tend to remain in positions of influence — unlike the likes of you and me.
(And, once again: prior to the vote in April, I sent messages through various channels to Sharon and her representatives that I did not want her to cross the Building Trades and Big Development interests on my account, possibly endangering her re-election, and so an abstention or a vote against me were fine. Of course, at that time I was relying on enough promises of support that should have allowed me to survive that vote — until the Trades “got to people” and the Party prevented any reasonable debate.)
Now: here’s my (admittedly fading, because I’m not picking old scabs just to see them bleed) recollection of what happened in autumn 2012. Norby realizes “whooops, I’m losing.” Quite late in the game, he sends a high-handed delegation to dictate to Sharon that he wants two debates on two days — one in the Island, which had already endorsed him, and one I think in Buena Park. There was some sort of a failure to convey information through her office, but I don’t know that that was fatal (using the word figuratively again, David!) to the plans. As I recall, Sharon wasn’t available on those dates anyway — but I doubt that she was torn up about it. Sharon had wanted any debates to be held by neutral parties such as the League of Women’s Voters (I don’t recall if they were named, but that type) or local press, and I think that she didn’t want a live audience because of the mockery and disruption that the FFFF claque was likely to produce given the opportunity. (If you forget the political tactics favored by FFFF at the time, I have some photos of Jan Flory participating in a “effects of drinking on motor control” demonstration I can show you. And much more.) I know that the FFFF crowd was quite proud of its vicious irreverence, but I don’t think you all calculated that one effect of it was that anyone who didn’t want to deal with that bullshit had an excuse to walk away from it that few voters would begrudge.
Norby’s side was apparently happy to take a rejection of the Island offer (and, again, I think there was one other — could be wrong) and to try to ride the “she’s afraid to debate!” theme to victory — which was a pretty stupid tactic, but theirs to try. She was not “afraid to debate Norby,” least of all because of his “superior speaking skills,” but she did not like what FFFF had been trying to do to her (and was more avidly doing to Flory) and was not inclined to do so under circumstances that were likely to look like a John & Ken rally. You may blame her for that, but I don’t think that any objective observer — let alone political advisor — would disagree. (As it turned out, FFFF didn’t end up attacking Sharon much, focusing instead on Flory — perhaps because every time they mentioned Sharon I would ask Norby to release the police report that I wanted to see so that I could talk to the witnesses, which he would not do.)
Now compare this to the Young Kim situation. There’s still plenty of time before the election to put together a debate. Young Kim, unlike either Norby or Quirk-Silva, has tended to be cloistered. When she has consented to be interviewed — as with the infamous “I will kick her butt!” video — the results have been a disaster. So, despite your starry-eyed and loyal dedication to your friend Chris, I don’t think that Sharon had anywhere near as much reason to fear being videoed debating him as Young Kim has to fear debating Sharon. If you think that Sharon can’t debate — and can’t get into the weeks of a discussion on policy — you are simply, woefully, laughably uninformed, willfully so due to your own prejudices. I’d love to see a demonstration of it in a debate with Young Kim — hell, with you on the panel, for all I care — but, alas, Young Kim hopes to hide the shallowness of her understanding of political issues until after November 4.
I would just like to quietly support Sharon for now without making any excuses for her because she is better than Young Kim. But I’m going to be a lot rougher on her and have higher expectations for her after (if) she makes it to her second term – especially on police, prison, war-on-drugs issues … and she knows it.
I’ll take “some chance” over “no chance” any day. I’m just trying to imagine Young Kim debating drug policy….
“Call Sharon “cowardly” if you must, but people in both parties who take such a stance tend to remain in positions of influence”
If you take down the weathervane, does the wind not still blow?
Not if it’s Schrodinger’s weathervane.
I know how much this may gall some people, but as the first successful Democratic state legislative candidate in north Orange County since — actually, I’m not even sure when there’s been another one — I do think that Sharon warrants some slack. Even more than I’d like to give, perhaps.
Also, I could “not leave well enough alone” when you averred that it was common knowledge that Norby is a drunk, a comment you never apologized for, presumably because the thought of being seen as wrong is more troublesome for you than falsely accusing a man of a moral failing, a failing that you purposefully used to bolster the plausibility that Norby is a wife beater.
That’s really pathetic.
I’ll take this one first. I had at least three sources for the proposition that Norby had had a drinking problem. Apparently he has had a “sometimes appearing like he’s drunk” problem that I’m told is unrelated to drinking. I reported that widely believed allegation, as an aside, in good faith.
I still don’t know the truth, but here are my inclinations. I am inclined to accept the assertions of his defenders that he does not drink (at least to any appreciable degree.) I and am not inclined to hunt down the truth that might lead me to conclude that my assertion was wrong, as opposed to that I don’t know the truth and don’t need to know. I am not inclined to continue writing about Norby at all now that he is not actively involved in seeking office. I am not inclined to apologize for my reliance on sources when I don’t even actually know that those sources are wrong. Why you seemingly want me to get to the bottom of things — so long, I suppose, as I have to apologize at the end of it — is inexplicable and weird.
No, the domestic violence issue was not based on his drinking. The accusation derived from reports from at least one witness and one or more photos that were allegedly deposited with the Fullerton Police as part of a subsequently retracted police report. I tried to get that information so that I could interview the witness, but I was stymied by the City Attorney. I had decided to let the matter rest, but some idiot writing at FFFF under the name “Mr. Peabody” dug up my CPRA request and published it, accusing me of being a political hitman for Sharon, who had not even known about the request. Then I had to defend myself and resurrect the issue. And look, here we are all over again. If you didn’t like this being in the news in the run-up to the 2012 election, blame “Mr. Peabody,” who apparently thought that he was being clever by dredging up the issue.
“As a former director of Community Relations and Asian Affairs for Rep. Ed Royce, Ms. Kim knows the district well…”
Which is the Register’s way of avoiding the inconvenient fact that Young Kim is a carpetbagger into the district.
Haha, yes, she is very familiar with that area. As am I, visiting it often.
all i know for a fact is that ms.quirk-silva has never been to my neighborhood while ms. kim and congressman royce routinely stop by to sip a glass of wine and discuss issues with the neighbors. and, yes, sometimes, we compensate them for the time they have taken out of their busy schedule to visit with us
To me the retrenchment at The Register is apparent in coverage, particularly the front page on weekends. Seems that page is reverting to aw shucks human interest stories that are not brand new NEWS and in fact could be run any time but not on a front page that should be devoted to daily major news, whch was the pattern before the recent attempt to revitalize the Register. Guess that is to be expected with the cutbacks, but it is disappointing.
Front page headlines of this morning’s (Sunday) Register: “GPS monitors fail to stop crimes”, “Battling Drought”, “Mountain rescue about grace”, “Beach barriers knocked down”. Apparently nothing happened in the last 24 hours that was worthy of front page prominence, with the exception of a brief lead about an inside story about photos implicating Russia in the Ukraine airliner disaster.