Why L.A. Conservatives should LOVE Laura Chick...

[I've attached a column from Rick Orlov that should really open the eyes of L.A. City residents and show them that not all Democrats are fiscally irresponsible. L.A. Controller Laura Chick is an admirable defender of the citizens of Los Angeles, and the Democratic elitists know it!]

Open debate sought on privatization

By Rick Orlov, Columnist

Updated: 12/28/2008 09:40:47 PM PST

City Controller Laura Chick has six months left in office. And, as she
made clear this past week, she will not go quietly.

Chick remains uncertain whether she will try for a return to the City
Council, take a job at a university or go into private enterprise. One
thing you can probably bet on is that she won't become a lobbyist seeking
favors from city officials.

In the past few months, she has taken on, again, her main nemesis, City
Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, the City Council and most recently, Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa. Her latest action is blowing the lid off what she said was a
confidential effort - Chick called it Chicago-style politics - to study privatizing
city services. "What is needed", Chick said, "is an open debate in which the public can hear all the arguments and decide how it wants the city to go."

Villaraigosa was quick to acknowledge the study being done by Mike Keeley,
one-time budget director to former Mayor Richard Riordan - who was the first
to propose privatizing city services, including the sale of Los Angeles
International Airport and naming rights to city buildings. The latter deal
fell apart when it was proposed to sell the name of the Central Library to
cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris. Ironically, the Central Library
building was named after Riordan when he left office.

Villaraigosa spokesman Matt Szabo said Keeley is providing "strategic
counsel on budget issues and to spearhead public-private partnership
efforts." City unions are prepared to fight off the latest proposal - much as they
did 15 years ago.

For the moment, Szabo said the mayor is looking at privatizing the
management of city parking lots and parking meters. A recommendation is
expected in January or February.

But it also has others on alert.

Golfers, in particular, are concerned about what will happen to the city
courses - where fees already have gone up dramatically for residents and
nonresidents, who are now on a two-tiered system of payments.

The desire for secrecy is also costing the mayor and City Council as they
prepare to ask voter support for Proposition B, the solar initiative on the
March 3 ballot. The City Council put the measure through on a fast track, without disclosing to the public and some council members a critical report on the measure
- which warns that the costly program, now estimated at $3 billion, might not
be practical given the limited number of solar panel manufacturers in the country.

City Council President Eric Garcetti downplayed the significance of the
report as he insisted he used its concerns to question officials on how it
could be improved and to address the concerns raised. And he was forced to later release the review to the public and his fellow council members.

Of course, it happened on a week when the City Council was in recess, with
many members out of town. So there was no major political penalty paid by
Villaraigosa or Garcetti. The biggest question that has been unanswered is why the measure is even on the ballot, since the basic job could be adopted by the DWP and its board.

Villaraigosa and Garcetti will be seeing a lot of each other over the next several weeks. The two, who served as California co-chairmen of the campaign of
President-elect Barack Obama, are both heading back to Washington, D.C., to
attend the inauguration. Garcetti supported Obama from the start, while
Villaraigosa came on after Sen. Hillary Clinton lost the nomination.

Other local officials who are planning to attend the event include new
county Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, California co-chairman for Obama;
Supervisors Zev Yaroslavsky and Gloria Molina, and Councilwoman Janice Hahn.
A number of state legislators also are said to want to go - but no one knows
if they will have a state budget fix adopted by then.

Rick Orlov's column appears Mondays. For a daily political fix, check
out the Daily News' Sausage Factory blog at insidesocal.com/politics.

rick.orlov@dailynews.com
213-978-0390

City Hall Political Machine Tries to Intimidate Activist Community

[Ron Kaye is the former Editor of the Los Angeles Daily News, and one of those standing up to the latest ploy within the City of Los Angeles. Plan to hear A LOT more about Proposition B and my efforts to defeat it in March]


Lawsuit Seeks to Squelch Public Debate on Solar Energy Fraud

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his team of lobbyists, strategists and pay-to-play cronies have sued the eight people who signed the No. on Prop. B ballot argument -- an attempt at intimidation under the guise of law.

This measure isn't about solar energy and has nothing to do with the largest solar energy initiative ever undertaken. The City Council and mayor could initiate that by their own actions. This is solely about paying blackmail to the DWP and its IBEW union which have blocked solar projects for a decade and would have exclusivity on large-scale projects under this measure.

The Solar Eight -- Jack Humphreville, Soledad Garcia, Humberto Camacho, Kristine Lee, Nick Patsaouras, Joe Pulido, James O'Sullivan and me -- will not be silenced by this tactic.

But our lives have made difficult as we need to respond in court on Tuesday to the allegations that are ballot argument is false and misleading. We were unable to find a lawyer knowledgeable in city election law because this was dropped on us during Christmas week but Noel Weiss, candidate for City Attorney, has now volunteered to provide us help in putting together our pleading. The next hearing in court is Jan. 8.

Stephen Kaufman's law firm, which represents the mayor, eight City Council members and a host of other political figures, is handling the case for the City Hall political machine for the named plaintiff, Mitchell Schwartz, a high-powered environmental lobbyist.

This isn't just an attempt to squelch the Solar Eight or the debate over this phony ballot measure but a direct assault on everyone's right to freedom of speech and to participate in the political and electoral process.

We need support from Neighborhood Councils, homeowner and resident groups, service clubs, churches and every individual who cares about L.A. This is a defining moment. We need to come together and stop the political machine that is destroying the city. If we won't fight as one against these tactics and this dirty deal, I don't know that we ever will.

The March 3 primary gives us the chance to change L.A., to elect candidates to the City Controller's and City Attorney's offices who can stand for the community. Villaraigosa, Wendy Greuel and Jack Weiss along with the 15 obedient council members will have nothing in their way if they prevail in this election.

I have written about it today and over several days recently. Here are the links to copy and paste:

http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/prop-b-is-for-bribery-and-blac.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/sunshine-on-solar-fraud-the-ci.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/laura-chick-chicagostyle-polit.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/scenario-for-dictatorship-los.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/las-solar-energy-fraud-is-this.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/las-solar-energy-fraud-is-this.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/the-secret-solar-plan-document.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/the-city-hall-political-machin.html

Support the Solar Eight. Support the efforts to make this a great city and get rid of Chicago-style corruption.

ronkayela.com


cell 818-621-8349
office 818-704-8418

Jerry Brown: California's Panderer General

The “shift” of Attorney General Jerry Brown to oppose the decision of California voters, mostly Black & Hispanic majorities who voted for Proposition 8, is pandering to the far-left at its best.

Minority voters, who represent a large portion of both the religious faithful and patriotic segments of California’s citizenry, stood up for their beliefs just as they voted for “change”. What they did not count on was the lack of “change” in the rhetoric and special-interest pandering by Democratic officials, of which AG Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown is one of the best. Brown actually tried to change the wording of this proposition to increase its chances of not passing; even then, it passed with strong support from minority voters. It would likely have passed by a stronger majority had Brown left the wording alone.

This “shift” by AG Brown is nothing more than failing to carry out his duties to support the will of the citizens of California even if that will does not agree with the principles of Brown’s far-left agenda. Jerry Brown is choosing far-left partisan loyalties over his responsibilities as Attorney General. Brown’s secular principles, brought forward from his hippie days, are not in touch with today’s values of California’s voters, especially those of our strong minority families.

Meanwhile, my experience with the protesters of Proposition 8 (and of the Iraq War) has been almost totally absent of any minority representation on the protester side. This is an issue Democrats will face in future state elections, including their gubernatorial primary in June 2010. Can religiously faithful and patriotic minority voters support a gubernatorial nominee who rendered their vote for traditional marriage irrelevant because he “now” discovered that the proposition was unconstitutional to begin with? Does Jerry Brown believe California voters are that dumb? Are we?

RPLAC: "Change" for the sake of "change"

To begin, I want to be on record that I warned the former Executive Board that moving the Republican Party of Los Angeles County (RPLAC) Organizational Meeting to the same day as the USC-UCLA game, the SEC Championship game and, most importantly, the Army-Navy game would be bad luck! Up until the night before, I was still undecided on whether I was going to attend. I know for sure of at least three newly-elected members who chose the Rose Bowl over the Reagan Building, where the meeting was held. I personally took a lot of flack from fellow Navy alumni, even though we trounced Army 34-0, for choosing politics over tradition.

But what happened on December 6th at this normally routine meeting was anything but routine!

The purpose of the Organizational Meeting is to set up the county committees, the district-level officers, and the county executive board officers for the next term, 2008-2010. For the previous six years, Chairwoman Linda Boyd & her husband, California Republican Party Vice-Chair for L.A., Doug Boyd, had been well-prepared to get the full body of central committee members quickly through an agenda of setting up the necessary committees, running the members through each of three sets of district elections (assembly, state senate, and congressional district committees), and then introducing their slate of "endorsed" board officer candidates to be approved by the body. Each of the past three meetings, (2002, 2004 & 2006), there were a small group of disgruntled members, primarily unelected state office nominees, that tried to organize enough to challenge the Boyds for one or more of the board positions. Each time, the Boyds have been far more organized & ensured a strong majority of attendees to the meeting were supportive of their agenda. I have been very impressed with both Linda & Doug, and have been blessed to have learned much about both Republican politics & Los Angeles County from them. They are extremely smart and tuned in to some of the key political issues. Unfortunately, their intelligence was equally matched by their egos, and they far underestimated the amount of change and dissatisfaction those of us on the local levels were seeing within the Republican Party. By choosing to ignore the opportunities to bring in some of these new & younger faces to our team, the Boyds unwittingly gave that opportunity to one of their long-time rivals, Carl Davis, himself a former RPLAC chairmam. Carl Davis and I have talked about key issues, and I also consider him a smart & valuable resource. But his unilateral mission to get back at the Boyds for removing him from power has been a prime mover for him in all he does.

This year, Carl Davis organized some key groups under a common motive to remove Linda and her supporters.

To start, the alliance of opposers included not only more state-level nominees (who are often called "sacrificial lambs" in L.A. County for obvious reasons), but an increased number of new Republicans, including Log Cabin Republicans & supporters from the Ron Paul presidential campaign. Our own local committee has a few new members from this group, and I made it a point to both welcome these new, enthusiastic members and to try and mentor them in the basics of the party structure. All of these groups bring new perspectives, lessons learned from their struggles, as well as some concerns they want to see addressed. Only through open dialogue will we be able to find the common ground opportunities for all of us; the lack of this open dialogue between the June primary electing these new members & the December organizational meeting is what led to what I like to call the "restructuring".

The first thing this group did was ask for help from former RPLAC Second Vice-Chair Al Han to run for the temporary chairman role at the meeting. This is the person who basically runs the restructuring until a new county chairman is officially elected. I have often talked about the reputation of Al Han as being extremely supportive and fair of the democratic process, whatever those results yield. Al does not come to meetings with an agenda, so much as a desire to bring out topics of discussion and see what the democratic process yields. Because the Boyd loyalists had a predetermined agenda that had no room for variety, Al Han's election to the temporary chair role was a serious blow, as well as a warning for the rest of the meeting.

I won't go into every detail of the meeting, but the truly shocking moment came when the Boyd loyalists staged an attempt to have the meeting quorum removed, thereby making the meeting results null and void. Out of the established attendance of 119 members, the Boyds attempted to have 50 members walk out in order to get below the by-laws required quorum of 70 members. Unfortunately for them, only about 35 or so took the hint/bait when they first removed themselves from the board nominations and then walked out. So a new board, led by new chairman Glen Forsch, has taken over the county party and will soon release their agenda for the next term. One of our own members from the 54th AD, Lydia Gutierrez, was elected First Vice Chair. I will post an assessment in January of the new board, after a planned January meeting between them with all of us new AD chairs.

I will also post an update very soon of your new 54th Assembly District members, including your new executive board and some key areas we hope you'll be interested in getting involved in.

I want to finish this posting by stating that fellow committee member Al Han performed his role at the organizational meeting as the temporary chairman the way that most Republican voters would have wanted him to perform. Republicans in both Los Angeles and throughout California are tired of the same agendas and strategies that have made us a permanent minority party. We are not entirely impatient, but we need to see some progress and activism to show us that our elected leaders and representatives have not settled for the status quo. Whether this is what Linda and Doug actually did in Los Angeles County is not relevant; this was, and still is, the perception of the majority of Republicans in Los Angeles, and they need to see a renewed effort to challenge the liberal, union elitists who only represent their special interests while waging dishonest marketing campaigns to dumb down the voting population.

Al Han has been a fighter for re-educating these voters and ensuring they turn out for key elections. If the new county executive board takes on these noble objectives and creates a positive change in Los Angeles County, they can expect a long tenure of both respect and influence within the party. If any of the new board members instead tries to bring in their own personal agendas to "change" the platform of the party, provide support solely for their own chosen candidates, and otherwise engage in physical or verbal conduct that would bring disrepute to the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, they will very soon find themselves in the same or worse position than the Boyds were.

Republicans want positive change, but this time, we're not willing to wait six more years to see it.

What went right, wrong & what's next?

OK, I know! Where the heck have I been?

When I started this blog in January, I was committed to doing an update at least weekly, and was doing a pretty decent job of meeting that recurrence up until about mid-September. Then...life got a bit hectic. Now, I'm not going to blame any particular change, whether it was the birth of my 2nd child, Violet, some urgent matters at work that took me away from California, or just a simple burn-out of issues. Now that the results are in, we should be able to look back at some things that went right, things that went wrong, and what we should be looking at now.

Despite the defeat of our presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, we had may efforts succeed that we can take pride in. To start, we defeated an attempt by the Democrats to remove one of our stalwart warriors, Congressmember Dana Rohrabacher. Many of you contributed many hours to making phone calls, walking your neighborhood, and getting the word out about Dana, and you should feel proud of your success. This was achieved despite a 2% decrease in Republican voter registration in the L.A. portion of the 46th CD. Your efforts ensured that the registration decrease was countered by a higher voter turnout. This turnout was also a key factor in the passage of Propositions 8 and 11.

As many of you know, the opponents of Proposition 8 have been less than accepting of their defeat, despite the wide spectrum of support it had. They are trying to label it a "racist" measure, but how do you do this with a 70% support among African-American voters & over 55% support from Hispanic voters. I have my own theories regarding why these two groups supported Proposition 8, but the focus here is on the efforts many of you made to ensure it's passage.

Proposition 11 should be seen as a covert victory for the California Republican Party. We will know for sure after the 2010 census when the districts are re-established under the requirements of this measure. But with the districts gerry-mandered as they are now, I think it's safe to say that we in Los Angeles County have no where to go but up. My only caution for those ecstatic about Proposition 11 passing and "can't wait for the new districts" should step aside while the rest of us try to work on improving the party in this environment. The earliest we'll see improvements is 2012, and even then, the Democrats will already be working to mitigate those effects. We need to work now to ensure that the effects of Proposition 11 are both improvements and are long-lasting.

These are not all of the things that were successes, but I want to make an observation about what I believe is a fundamental operational problem with the Republican Party. I state this as a holder of a Certification in Marketing Communications, among other degrees, when I say that the Democrats are far better at marketing their messages to voters than Republicans. This is true not just locally or in California, but across the nation. The Democratic message that resonated among voters this year was actually begun in 2005, and Republicans not only did not counter it quickly and strongly, but did not even see what destruction it was doing to our party. We saw a glimpse of it in 2006 when we lost both Houses of Congress, but by then the slide was in full force. I also have a more detailed theory about this, but I'll focus on the point - Republicans need to get better at delivering a message that the average voter can quickly absorb. We teach Dale Carnegie students that the initial message has to be a complete, powerful statement that takes seven (7) seconds or less; otherwise the audience will likely tune out for the rest of the discussion. Democratic campaign managers know this well, as well as another important fact - the brain takes much more convincing than the heart. (Ever hear of "Knowledge at First Sight"? Me neither!)

Take an example - Proposition 2 passing. The Democratic message behind Proposition 2 was simple - Fight Animal Cruelty! If you vote against Prop 2, you hate animals! What was the "logical, conservative" response? Draw a 30-second connection between the financial effects of the measure with the eventual increase in meat & poultry products from Mexico, and hence an increase in salmonella. The problem with this tactic - most viewers of the ads had already tuned out. The initial message needed to be quick, sustaining - how about a "Kentucky Fried Tofu" billboard, just to lure the audience in, and then quickly state that this is the agenda of the Prop 2 supporters? Voters like animals, but they also like their KFC, McDonald's, and Taco Bell.

So what's next? How do we take what we learned this year and in 2006 and start the road to improvement? The primary thing we do is we keep the momentum, the passion, and the desire to see tings through. How do we do that? We get involved. This past week, I was extremely impressed with the enthusiasm and interest at two key meetings. The first was the local Central Committee meeting in San Pedro, in which the newest members of your local Republican Party got together to talk about many of the things I mentioned above, as well as strategies to start building back our foundation. The second, even more inspiring, was the tremendous turnout at the Beach Cities Republican Club event in Torrance on Thursday. I've never seen the level of turnout, over 120 people, who all wanted to learn more about what they can do. Club President, Pete Kesterson, and Southern California Republican Coalition Chairman, James Crean, both laid out opportunities for these motivated individuals to get more involved in taking action. My recommendation to all of you, if you were not at the Thursday meeting and did not sign up, is to join one of these great Republican Clubs. We will all be working together to rebuild, strengthen, and take back both what was lost and what should rightfully be done.

Please take a look at the list of clubs and their associated links in the left column. Please send me an email at stammiam@yahoo.com if you need some recommendations on which club(s) you should check out. Regardless of which you get involved with, you'll learn more about what you can do to be a part of the Republican revival! I hope to see you at these meetings soon!

State Propositions - Part 2

I apologize for the delay in completing my run-through of the propositions. However, I was extremely fortunate to attend the South Bay Lincoln Club luncheon today and listen to my good friend, Stephen Frank, run through them for us. As most of you know, Stephen Frank is a political genius and watchdog who may very well be the best we have at critiquing and analyzing ballot measures like these, as well as executive and legislative action from our legislators. (It's no coincidence I have subscribed to his RSS feed in the left column of this blog from Day 1.)

After talking with Stephen today and listening to his review, I am now prepared to run down the remainder of the propositions for you. I'm going to start where I left off with Proposition 4, as my analysis of the first three was accurate, and run through the next three.

Prop. 4
Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Don't let any side spin about this proposition fool you. This is a modified version of the original Parental Notification measure, relaxed in some ways in order to obtain what is hoped to be the necesary majority vote. These are the relevant changes:
- Consent is not required; only notification. The form of notification is either personal written or via mail;
- Medical emergencies;
- another adult family member can be notified if the minor submits a written statement that she fears physical, sexual or emotional abuse from a parent;
- a waiver could be granted by a juvenile court.

Some have asked me if I'm comfortable with all of these exceptions. What I'm less comfortable with is the current state, where no exception is needed because the procedure can be done without ANY notification.

The simple fact that Planned Parenthood, which I believe is simply an organization dedicated to performing as many abortions (especially minority abortions) as possible, is working hard to oppose this proposition tells me that it's better than what exists now and I urge a YES vote on Proposition 4.

Prop. 5
Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute.

Expands drug treatment programs to allow those committing major drug offenses, including meth dealers and other drug felons, to opt out of most of their jail time in exchange for a "commitment" to attend drug treatment programs. Here's the problem - those that attend these programs instead of jail time have a higher rate of committing more drug offenses. (How many celebrities can you think of that have gone through these programs?)

Guess who's supporting this proposition? Owners of treatment centers that will be funded through this proposition. Big surprise!

Know who opposes it? Among others, L.A. County District Attorney, the Honorable Steve Cooley, and State Senator Jeff Denham, the target of the "Don Perata" recall against Republican senators who opposed higher taxes. These two outstanding Republicans have the credibility to convince me - NO on Proposition 5.

Prop. 6
Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative Statute.

This measure is a comprehensive anti-gang and crime reduction measure that specifically targets the gangs that prey on our children and on the immigrant communities. Specifically, provisions include:
- prohibiting bail to illegal immigrants that commit violent or gang crimes;
- imposes an additional 10-year penalty on gang offenders that commit violent crimes;
- requires convicted gang members to register with local law enforcement every year for five years following conviction or release from custody;
- increases penalties for manufacture or sale of meth, to match that of cocaine;
- additional 10-year penalty for felons that carry loaded or concealed firearms in public; and
- increased penalties for multiple acts of grafitti.

This measure was written by State Senator George Runner, after consultation with Jamiel Shaw, Sr. (father of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., the outstanding football player that was brutally gunned down by Pedro Espinoza, illegal Mexican gang member, simply for being black), and is endorsed by our own L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca.

This is a close state version of the "Jamiel's Law" we're trying to pass in the City of Los Angeles, and will go a long way toward reducing the ability of gangs to "import" members through illigal immigration.

Vote YES on Proposition 6.

More to follow soon...

FLASH, FLASH, FLASH: Republican lawmakers unveil a no-tax budget at Sacramento press conference - CA

Forwarding from Red County &, of all places, the Los Angeles Times.

Source: www.redcounty.com

"During a 1:30 PM Sacramento press conference, Republican lawmakers led by Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill and Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines unveiled a no-tax budget that funds education at the same level that Democrats proposed while trimming spending in other areas."

Republicans unveil no-tax budget in Sacramento press conference.

By Evan Halper and Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
August 31, 2008
SACRAMENTO -- Republican lawmakers, who are blocking plans by the governor and Democrats to raise taxes, proposed Saturday to balance the state budget instead with borrowing and deeper spending cuts.

Their plan, released 61 days into the new fiscal year, is the first complete budget offered by the Republicans. A vote on the proposal is not expected for days.

The legislative session ends at midnight tonight, and lawmakers are on the verge of breaking the record for the latest budget in at least 60 years, a mark set Aug. 31, 2002.

The failure of lawmakers to reach a budget agreement means the session will have to be extended, but no business other than the budget is likely to be discussed.

"Raising taxes at this point will definitely damage and hinder the economy and make it even more difficult to rebound form this downturn," said Dave Cogdill of Modesto, GOP leader in the state Senate.

Republicans are proposing instead to speed up borrowing against the lottery -- something the governor and Democrats had been proposing for next year -- to generate nearly $2 billion in cash in the current fiscal year. They would also take $349 million from a fund that cities and counties tap for redevelopment projects, including affordable housing.

The plan also would close the state's $15.2-billion gap with the help of $1.4 billion in service cuts beyond those already proposed by the governor and Democrats. The additional cuts would affect dozens of programs. Cash grants intended for the children of needy families, in-home care for the elderly and disabled, and financial aid for college students would all be reduced.

Programs to protect the environment, provide treatment to AIDS patients and offer new immigrants access to healthcare would also be scaled back. A labor studies center at the University of California would be eliminated.

Together, the measures would replace more than $4 billion in new sales taxes proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democrats.

Schwarzenegger dismissed the proposal as one that would merely push more of the deficit into next year.

"We were sent to Sacramento to solve problems once and for all -- not kick the can down the alley for others to deal with in the future," he said in a statement Saturday.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) called the GOP proposal a "blueprint for economic disaster."

California State Propositions 2008 - Part 1

As promised, I am planning to go through each of the California State propositions and my personal voting recommendation for each. I may skip a few in order to do a full posting dedicated to those; currently, I plan to skip Proposition 4 (Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Constitutional Amendment), Proposition 8 (Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment) and Proposition 11 (Redistricting. Constitutional Amendment and Statute) because there are strong cases for each side that should be addressed.

I should be able to go through the rest in order, so here is Proposition 1:


Proposition 1: SB 1856 (Chapter 697, 2002). Costa.
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.

This is the result of the famous trip that Speaker Nunez made to France, in which his traveling expenses later came into question. Not wanting to have that lavish trip bear no fruit, we now get the chance to vote on a European-style train system from Northern Ca to Southern. One of our Republican heroes in the Legislature, Assembly member Bob Huff, was one of the token Republicans on the trip, and spoke to us at the Peninsula Harbor Republican Club meeting in June about the differences between the questions by Democrats and those by Republicans throughout the trip. From Huff's presentation, I have two questions for those supporting this bill:

1) If we're going to implement a European train system, don't we need a European power source to ensure it doesn't cause rolling black-outs throughout the state? (Or are the Democrats So used to causing these black-outs that they simply want us to get used to them as a condition for living in California?)
- By the way, when our Republican assembly members asked the Europeans this question, they stated that they were able to implement this transit system primarily because they had a robust NUCLEAR power system in place. But I guess we'll just generate the extra electricity needed for this system through wind...maybe we can just rig sails on the trains!

2) If we're in a budget crunch already and need to find $15B+ in spending reductions, is this really the right time to be spending on luxury infrastructure like this?
- This will be a question for all of the bond measures, for which the answer, if the need for the measure is not "this is an emergent need", will always be "NO".

I am urging a "NO" vote on this proposition.


Proposition 2 : 1274. Treatment of Farm Animals. Statute.

"Requires that an enclosure or tether confining specified farm animals allow the animals for the majority of every day to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around. Specified animals include calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs. Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue. (Initiative 07-0041.)"

After doing research on the websites of both the supporters and the opposition of this proposition, the issue boils down to the issue of "increased humanity for farm animals" beyond the strict laws already in the California statutes, versus the establishment of "optimal breeding and egg-laying conditions for farm animals", even if they are conditions one would not necessarily endure themselves. When both labor unions like the General Teamsters Local Union 386 & the United Food & Commercial Workers Western States Council join with the California Small Business Association and a bi-partisan list of state legislators in opposing this, there must be a significant impact to one or more essential industries in the California economy. IN this case, my research found that the egg-laying industry in California, one of the last truly robust ones that the liberals haven't yet driven out. Proposition 2 is a risky, dangerous and costly measure banning almost all modern egg production in California, through enforcement of its overly-strict requirements. It was written by animal activists who are part of the "animals are people too" theology, which is probably all I really needed to say to over half of you reading this.

But now you have more objective facts, which is a better basis for me urging a "NO" vote on this initiative.


Proposition 3 : 1271. Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Statute.

"Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals. Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Requires that qualifying children’s hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements. Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State costs of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($1 billion) costs of the bond. Payments of about $67 million per year. (Initiative 07-0034.)"

I have heard much less about this proposition, and there is little on the web on it, except that the California Children's Hospital Association Initiative Fund paid consultants over $1 million to gather the signatures to place it on the ballot. With $980 million in principal and over $1B anticipated in interest to pay this off, this is a perfect example of a measure that should "earn your vote" before you support it. Research in Cal-Access shows that almost ALL of the over $5 million raised for this initiative comes directly from the very same hospitals claiming to have the urgent need for this bond money.

Hey, here's a thought...spend the lobbying money on your own improvements. What this "fund committee" has basically done is a shake-down of the children's hospitals throughout California to place an initiative on the ballot to add another $1.98B to our ballooning $15B+ deficit.

I am urging a "NO" vote to this blatant attempt to pull on the heartstrings of Californians and add almost $2B more to our state deficit.

NEWS FLASH - Local Assemblywoman says "Drill now"...sort of

As many of you know, I'm a proponent of the "Drill Now" coalition that believes that the laws of supply and demand still govern modern day economics, and that increasing domestic supplies of oil will not only reduce the price of oil and reduce our dependency on foreign oil, it will increase revenues for the state & local jurisdictions without raising taxes on hard-working families.

Today, this was in the Long Beach Press Telegram & the Daily Breeze:

"By John Canalis, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 08/27/2008 11:31:22 PM PDT

LONG BEACH - A bill by Assemblywoman Betty Karnette, D-Long Beach, could lead to the discovery and extraction of additional oil from the Wilmington Oil Field beneath the harbor and pour hundreds of millions of dollars into city, port and state coffers, officials said Wednesday.

Assembly Bill 2165 would allow the State Lands Commission to negotiate a contract with the city and Occidental Petroleum Corp. to search for reserves and open new wells in the western end of the nation's third-largest oil field.

The agreement could mean an estimated $130 million to the city, $150 million to the port and $200 million to the state over 10 years, according to a bill summary.

'As we face difficult budget times at both state and local levels of government, this bill has the potential to help protect us from cuts to important city services, such as public safety,' Karnette said in a prepared statement.

'And as a Long Beach resident, I'm all for that.'"

Has the issue of higher gas prices reached a boiling point for voters, including Democratic voters throughout Long Beach? As many of you have correctly advised me as early as June, the answer appears to be "YES". With Senator McCain edging past Senator Obama in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll within days AFTER both the Democratic VP selection and the start of their convention, Democratic pollsters appear worried. Both of these events usually trigger a measurable increase in polling for the party candidate, and the state Democrats need voters to be excited about their presidential candidate in order to hide all of their failings here in California. Because this is not the case, and with 20%-30% of former Hillary voters stating their support for McCain (plus another roughly 20%+ of former Hillary voters still undecided), State Democrats are going to start feeling the pinch.

Assembly member Karnette's legacy will mean little if she cannot successfully hand off her termed-out seat to her mirror-image candidate, Bonnie Lowenthal. With California, and especially Long Beach, being a big source of Hillary supporters, the Democrats need to try to win those voters back. Because Senator Obama's campaign has not yet been successful in securing much more than 50% of them, this leaves open opportunities not only for Senator McCain to compete in California, but for Republican Assembly nominee Gabriella Holt to entertain Democrats & Independents that formerly supported Karnette, and are now taking serious looks at Senator McCain.

I believe this is an attempt by Assembly member Karnette and fellow Democrats to try and take the oil issue off of the table, and I hope our Republican nominees and leadership call them out for what this is...blatant pandering. I understand that Democrats will like this bill because it will provide more funds for them to waste; do you really think that public safety has such a low priority in the state budget that their services would be the first to go? And if so, why aren't Republicans calling for an open, public look at how all state services are funded, and where they are on the Democrat's list of priorities? If Public Safety and Education are so high on their lists, why are they the two subjects always threatened to be cut if another bond isn't passed?

We'll have to see how serious Assembly member Karnette is in ensuring this bill actually gets passed, or if this is merely a political stunt to say "See, Democrats want to solve the oil crisis! We introduced a bill!". I suspect that the worst thing that the Legislature could do, as far as Karnette and the Democrats are concerned, is actually pass this bill. I hope the Republicans call her bluff and pass it!

Then Bonnie can go back to the PV Land Conservancy & the Sierra Club and explain whether she supports Karnette's bill to drill in the district. I think you all know my position...

California Proposition Strategy - "Earn Your Vote or Else"

Many of you are rightfully questioning the number of propositions on ballots each election day, and have figured out the Democratic strategy for getting important propositions crowded in with nanny legislation and expensive bond measures. Where some of you have taken the "when all else fails, vote no" in order to ensure our legislators can't "do more damage", it's critical to get the word out about those propositions we DO need passed in order to hold legislators more accountable to you the voters.

While I am currently working on a quick black-and-white slate form for assembly district precinct chairs to customize for their specific areas, I will ensure the recommended voting for the 12 propositions is included to distribute. But I will need the help of all of you to spread the word. Even better is to help spread the strategy I hope all of us will adopt: Propositions should "earn your vote" in order to be considered. So far, only three propositions have earned my support. I will break these out in separate posts to hopefully make the case and earn your support as well.

Over the next few weeks, unless other local news rises to a level of immediate need in reporting, I plan to dedicate my next few posts to specifically discuss each proposition. You're both welcome and encouraged to forward these comments throughout your statewide friends and family, and to post comments about whether you feel I'm on the right track or should consider a different position. While the overwhelming majority of this blog's readers are Republican, I know I have some Independent and Democratic readers, including RPV City Council member Tom Long (I didn't say they were all "fans"! LOL!). I welcome comments from all sources, and so long as there is no profanity or personal attacks, I allow the comments to be posted without edit. I feel it's important for all of us to see and participate in the comment dialogue.

If you'd like to prepare a position on a particular proposition, send me a word document at stammiam@yahoo.com, and if I agree with the position, I'll gladly post it with your name as a "special guest blogger".

Let's get these propositions vetted on behalf of our fellow Californians!

Calm before the Storm

I hope I haven't woken up any one's e-mail as I've sent this out. No doubt most of us have been either on vacation or otherwise pre-occupied the past two months since the June primary to think about the political scene, whether it's Senator McCain's consecutive weeks closing the opinion poll gap or Gabriella Holt's repeated appearances at local Long Beach events to raise key issues within the "safe" Democratic forums. Today's posting is both a status check and an announcement of events in each of the three main 54th AD cities to get all of us excited and optimistic about the fall campaign season.

First, if you haven't heard about Senator McCain's stomping of Senator Obama at last Saturday's Saddleback Forum, then I definitely want to welcome you back from your overseas vacation. I have co-workers from Boston to Long Beach, including a lot of non-Republicans, who were talking about how poorly Obama did and how well McCain answered each question. The media has "acknowledged" McCain's victory through their non-existent coverage of the forum. Did anyone else notice the TINY article in the Daily Breeze about the forum? Our central committee got more coverage about our local TALB resolution last May than the nationwide Saddleback Forum received! The network news sources and CNN have all foregone doing ANY analysis of the forum, except to state that it happened and that Pastor Peter Warren should be commended for holding it. Pastor Warren should moderate ALL of the upcoming forums! He asked each candidate the same hard questions we would have asked each candidate, and the results were apparent. But, if you haven't seen the forum, the best site for viewing the forum is http://trevinwax.com/2008/08/17/obama-mccain-with-rick-warren-at-saddleback-forum-video/. This site breaks out every 10-15 minutes, and also has the complete transcript.

(As a side note, if you haven't read Pastor Warren's book, The Purpose-Driven Life, it is phenomenal!)

Locally, fellow activists like you have been asking me how our Republican Assembly Nominee, Gabriella Holt, is doing. I have not been as plugged in as I was prior to the June primary due to both county political activities and personal events. (In addition to my responsibilities to GOTV for Republicans across the county, I'm actually on a "Ready 5" status to welcome my 2nd daughter, Violet, to the world! So if I cut this posting short....). Gabriella has been running across the district, especially throughout Long Beach, in order to shore up local support and give Bonnie a challenge in her own backyard. And Gabriella's support has not been limited to "McCain-supporting" Republicans. Gabriella has met with voters across the spectrum, from dis-enfranchised Democrats who want change in Sacramento, Independent voters who want a representative that is not beholden to their party's agenda without exception, to other Republicans who are demanding more accountability from their current leaders. We have a candidate who appeals to them all, and her volunteer list has been growing recently with members from all of these groups.

A special recognition has to go out to her newest campaign manager, JoAnn Funch, who has temporarily relocated from the Northern Mid-West for the fall campaign to dedicate 100% of her time to getting Gabriella elected! JoAnn is working hard to coordinate Gabriella's appearances, including tomorrow evening's Long Beach Meet & Greet at 6132 Corsica Circle from 6pm-8pm. If you have some time tomorrow evening, please come out and let Gabriella know you're back from vacation and are ready to join the fall campaign!

Another surge of Republican Activism in Long Beach is the set of Long Beach Townhalls hosted by LBARP both this week and next. If you were not able to get to any of them this week, they are holding them at the same locations next week, Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday. (Please visit the LBARP website at http://www.longbeachrepublicans.org/ for the three locations). The LBARP team, led by Long Beach City Prosecutor Tom Reeves, has been working hard to set up these opportunities for the conservative voice on the proposed tax increases and lack of civic accountability by many of the Democratic City Council members to be voiced, and for Republicans to learn how they can get plugged into Getting Out The Vote for their neighborhoods. Thanks in part to both the influence from our hard-fighting LB Chamber of Commerce and local conservative activists, Long Beach has been a much more business-friendly environment than it's sister-city across the bridges, San Pedro. It's no wonder all of the newer restaurants and retail predominantly open in Long Beach. (Meanwhile, San Pedro JUST got their first downtown Starbucks! Amazing!)

In San Pedro, however, all is not lost. We recently held our San Pedro GOTV event in conjunction with the McCain Nation event, and now have a great venue available for another event this fall to energize Republicans from San Pedro and East RPV. Thanks goes out to Golden State Campaigns and central committee member-elect John Cozza for helping me set up this event. Though the attendance did not match the 50+ RSVP response, it was a good event to have as a predecessor to others once our fellow Republicans return from summer vacations.

And on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, the persistence and hard work of central committee members Nancy Comaford and James Crean have borne fruit in the securing of the former Marie Callendar's at the Promenade as our Republican campaign headquarters for the 2008 fall campaign season! We are making arrangements to get the furniture into it, and I will post operating hours as soon as I learn them. This will serve as an energizing venue for all of our fall Republican campaigns, including McCain, Holt, Gutierrez & Rohrabacher. So stand by for upcoming news about when to visit and get involved!

So from Long Beach, with the Holt Campaign & LBARP stirring up activism, to the Palos Verdes Peninsula setting up a new temporary campaign headquarters, I hope all of those reading this will set aside any large non-political projects to help us this season as we battle for both the future of our nation and the future of our state. All of our candidates will need your help!

GOTV Night - Michelle & Shawn Steel join Host Committee; Republican Nominees Holt & Gutierrez confirmed to speak

Fellow Republican Activists & Friends,

I first want to send out a personal thank-you to both the Honorable Michelle Steel, our hard-fighting Board of Equalization Member, and our National Committeeman-Elect Shawn Steel for joining our host committee and lending their valuable support for this important event.

I am also extremely pleased to confirm both of your Republican Nominees, 54th State Assembly Nominee Gabriella Holt & 25th State Senate Nominee Lydia Gutierrez, to our fantastic agenda for Thursday Night's McCain Nation / GOP GOTV Event in San Pedro.

Both Gabriella & Lydia are important additions to our agenda, and these fantastic Republican women will have a dedicated portion of the agenda to present their campaigns, as well as the opportunity through an open forum with you to answer questions about how they will fight for you in Sacramento. This is your opportunity to have your voice heard and to learn how to get these great nominees elected by turning out the vote in your neighborhood!

The agenda includes:
- Two-way audience discussion about the 2008 national election;
- Brief video about Senator McCain;
- Joint conference call with a national Republican VIP;
- Brief overview on how you can Get-Out-The Vote in your local neighborhood;
- Discussion period about our state & local issues, followed by our state candidates (or representatives) telling you how they are going to address these issues when we get them elected.

I expect the California Republican Party to send the media to our event due to the relative size and planned agenda. This will be a good rally for all of us to kick-off our fall campaigns!

If you haven't done so already, please RSVP on our event site at: http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainnation/Default.aspx. (The zip code for our event is 90731.)

The site includes a feature to do driving directions for you. Though it's not required to attend, the RSVP help ensure we plan for seating, refreshments, and campaign literature for the nominees. Please bring as many friends, neighbors, disenfranchised Democrats & Independents, and others as you can!

See you Thursday for this important event in our local efforts to turn out the Republican vote!

John S. Stammreich
Chairman - 54th AD Republican Central Committee

South Bay / San Pedro Republican Get-Out-the-Vote 2008

Fellow 54th AD Republicans,

It's time to kick off the fall campaign season with a motivating rally for the Republican ticket! August 14th is McCain Nation Night, so let's get together for John McCain's first national event day and get organized for the election. All of our local GOP candidates need our support!

South Bay / San Pedro Republican Get-Out-the-Vote 2008

August 14th, 2008 7:00pm

1891 N. Gaffey St. San Pedro, CA

Please come to my event to talk about John McCain's agenda for America and to discuss what we can do to help him win. Then listen to other local candidates or their representatives to learn how you can help them get elected. As the election is only a few months away, this event will focus on making sure every supporter is empowered to get out the vote in their neighborhood.

John McCain consistently puts his country before his political interests and is committed to addressing the tough issues America cares about most. Our Republican candidates are also taking on the special insterests killing California, and they need our help! Please join us for this important and fun event!

Invited speakers include (partial list):
Lydia Gutierrez – Republican Nominee, 25th Senate District
Brian Gibson – Republican Nominee, 36th Congressional District
Gabriella Holt – Republican Nominee, 54th Assembly District

I hope you can join us for this important event!

Very Best Regards,
John S. Stammreich
Chairman - 54th AD Republican Central Committee

Called your councilmember "fat" today?

For those of us not blessed with an aggressive metabolism (which is probably 95% of us), we have to have some discipline in maintaining an active lifestyle & healthy habits, including our nutritional intake. This means making the proper choices and reaching personal decisions about one's physical appearance. While we all can't "decide" to be as physically fit as Governor Schwarzenegger, we must have some personal accountability about where we choose to eat. More importantly, we must preserve the right of all to choose when to eat well, and when to indulge. As Republicans, we believe in personal responsibility and the natural drive of people to want to be better.

The Democrats in the Los Angeles City Council have shown once again that they do not trust their citizens to do the right thing, and feel that it is their job to "guide" their residents to the right decision as they interpret it to be. The latest example of this elitist mentality is their decision on Tuesday to approve a measure banning new, stand-alone fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles, including Council District 15 in the 54th Assembly District. Ironically, our own councilmember Janice Hahn was not among the 12 councilmembers unanimously voting for this insane measure. The roll call was both a surprise and a disappointment, because among the YEA votes were both Republican councilmembers Dennis Zine & Greig Smith, as well as City Attorney candidate Jack Weiss. I can understand Jack Weiss' lack of faith in trusting the citizens of Los Angeles to do the right thing, but our two Republican councilmembers will have some explaining to do to their party supporters.

The measure was led by Councilmember Jan Perry, whose comments lead us to the true motivation behind this personal vendetta of hers against the evil fast-food chains that force citizens to eat at their establishments. Perry commented about her district, "This is an area with a high level of childhood obesity and diabetes", and went on to state "This is NOT just about banning fast food; it is about offering choices to people - choices of healthy food from restaurants & markets". Once again, a Democratic elected official shows just how little they understand simple economics. Assuming that most of her constituents have some mode of transportation, does Perry believe they are going to stay within her district and wait for a Soup Plantation to open in their neighborhood? Or are they going to make a short trip over to neighboring Compton, Lynwood, Inglewood and other cities that will see an increase in sales tax revenue collected from their fast food franchises?

Republicans know the answer because we continue to see that situation manifest itself.

But Councilmember Perry made another comment that may have revealed her true motivation. The Daily Breeze article quoted her as saying "It's across the country where I have heard the most negative comments...I've been called a Nazi, a fascist, a Stalinist, and fat. The only one that hurt was the fat one." So because Councilmember Perry allowed a few hecklers find the soft portion of her think political skin, the southern districts of Los Angeles have to all go on a "forced diet".

(What "hurts" for most of us is that Perry was not bothered by the other three comments. One would think that negative socialist labels like the three she cites would be far more hurtful. I suspect the difference in the four comments is that most of our socialist city councilmembers cannot quickly determine whether the first three comments are complements until they figure out the source.)

As someone who is currently struggling with his weight as well, the last thing I plan to do is blame the restaurants that I CHOOSE to eat at for my former weight gains. When I made the personal decision about 4 weeks ago to start eating better, lowering my carbs and to increase my physical activity, I have dropped over 10 pounds and continue to get into better shape. I was recently able to "shop in my closet" and start wearing clothes I had earlier outgrown. As Republicans, we understand the power of positive motivation and encouragements through incentives. If Councilmember Perry has acted like a Republican, how would she have reacted?

First, she would have shown more positive self-esteem and not let political hecklers get to her. Next, she would have made her own personal changes to improve where she could, and accepted whatever improvements came. Finally, if she truly felt that it was her constituents (and not herself) that needed the "rescuing" from the evil fast-food chains, she would have proposed incentives for restaurants (including fast-food chains) that offer enough smart meal choices in their menu for constituents to choose from.

Of course, that would go against the Victo-Crat mentality of blaming everyone else for their own personal problems. Businesses should have to pay for making people fat, just like property owners should have to pay more in parcel taxes because the city-funded gang programs haven't been effective enough. But that's for another posting soon...

(From the CRP) New York Times: REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war-only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.' [Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.] A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.'



Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.



'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'



Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'



Developing...







The DRUDGE REPORT presented the McCain editorial in its submitted form:



In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.



Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."



Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.



Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress that's not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City-actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.



The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.



To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.



Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.



No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.



But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.



Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."



The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we've had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.



I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war-only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Interim Posting: Why I (now) support the Ponte Vista project

As many of you know, I have not been aligned with the supporters of the Ponte Vista development project nor the opposition group "R Neighborhoods Are 1" created specifically to thwart the project. I wanted to remain an open objectice critic of both sides, consistently holding both accountable for answering specific questions and concerns I had or were brought to my attention by stakeholders in San Pedro. I have met many intelligent people on both sides, as well as others who shared my skepticism of the selective information disseminated by both sides. When there have been forums, rather than pick a side and join the "rally", I have often spoke about my concerns with both sides, often meaning that neither side of supporters gave very much applause.

At the latest forum held last Thursday at the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium, I honestly believe I was the only objective speaker out of the hundreds that pulled a speaker card. I say so based on a simple observation: I was the only person I saw in the room with a "Neutral" speaker card, which was white. Those speaking For or Against were given Blue & Pink colored cards, respectively. When I spoke, I gave each side something to address that would show me that they were truly considering the interests of the community, and not their own self-serving ones.

For the Ponte Vista developers, I have been impressed with their willingness to redesign the complex to reduce the number of occupants and address the traffic issues. I have always been a proponent of public transit as the biggest opportunity to take cars off the road. My challenge for the development was to ensure the design of the complex allowed for the pick-up and unloading of passengers for the Dash system, as well as the Max Transit, the route that goes from Western Avenue up through Torrance to all of the major aerospace companies.

For the R-1 opposition group, I have two issues that have yet to be addressed: 1) The R-1 group has been unable to produce a counter-design for councilmembers and neighborhood council members to consider that meets the R-1 zoning and would still be a viable project. One-way studies have been paid for to basically support pre-answered hypotheses, but no one has shown that the R-1 zoning supports viable development of the site. Therefore, my conclusion is that no such design can be produced; and 2) With the current real estate market already being flooded with devalued homes, causing many of us to lose a significant amount of equity in the past year, why would it be economically feasible to support a development project that adds another 500+ single-family residences to the San Pedro / East RPV market? Many of the R-1 activists bought into their homes many years ago, or inherited their San Pedro homes from family. Equity drops are a small concern for them. For those of us who bought homes in the last 10 years, we stand to lose a significant amount of equity from an additional flood of homes on the market driving prices down further. Again, the R-1 group has no answers for this concern.

So after having my concerns addressed, if not resolved, by the Ponte Vista development staff and supporters, and having the R-1 activist group members basically downgrade my concerns about their position. I have decided to go on the record (via this blog post and future letters to come) and announce my support for the Ponte Vista project.

I have always been supportive of the project's primary benefits, including senior housing units & services, mid-range housing for working families, and the development of the property overall as an asthetic improvement to what is currently there. I am pleased that the developer renewed their previous commitment to the Eastview Little League to provide fields for use; I still believe that the original recision by the developer to produce the fields was the root cause for the whole fiasco last year that resulted in the dog park being taken away. I look forward to my friends of Eastview having a more permament location, and hopefully having time in the future to attend more than one game a year.

I still have concerns with traffic and environmental impact of a development on the property, but believe, based on my experience living in both condo complexes and SFR neighborhoods, that an R-1 development will also have the same impact issues. I suspect that the R-1 group does not want R-1 development on the site any more than the proposed project itself. My belief is that they are are hoping to stall development efforts indefinitely, and hope that the developer will eventually sell the property to the city for some community project, like a park or homeless facility. (In many parts of San Pedro and the City of Los Angeles, parks become homeless camps fairly quickly anyway.) I have always stated that the "no development" solution is the worst one; the property needs to be developed, and if the R-1 group is unable to generate a viable R-1 design for the site, then the City Council should realize that one does not exist.

So, in summary, I have spent over two years weighing the arguments of both sides, and have decided that the Ponte Vista project should go forward as it has now been designed. The project will generate jobs, mid-range housing for younger couples, and a senior living community that will make all of us want to become "55 and up" much faster. You are welcome to either post your public comments or e-mail me your private comments.

Term Extensions: Which is worse – "Bush" or Karnette? (Part I)

The Wall Street Journal ran a very interesting op-ed on Tuesday titled “Bush’s Third Term”. Most of us have heard that slogan used by the Democratic spin doctors to describe Senator McCain’s campaign, but the Journal was talking about the other candidate: Senator Obama. The op-ed points out Senator Obama’s quick re-direction away from the far left agenda to the center by suddenly adopting many of President Bush’s policies & positions. Examples include NAFTA, Nuclear Power, faith-based programs and even support for General Petreaus.

This is proof of acknowledgement by even the Democrat’s top of the ticket that in order to win on issues, candidates need to be centered, and maybe even close to the moderate right. After all, even Democratic voters tend to seek honesty, integrity, family values & fiscal responsibility in their elected representatives. The issue of which candidate’s platform more closely resembles President Bush’s gave me two thoughts: 1) Even Senator Obama has had to acknowledge that not all of President Bush’s policies are bad for the country; and 2) more locally, are we content with extensions of our state and local representation by electing those that would carry on the same policies and voting records as those they are replacing?

In our own district, the two termed-out incumbents are 25th District State Senator Ed Vincent and the 54th District State Assemblymember Betty Karnette. Because most of those in the overlap between the 25th Senate District and the 54th Assembly District are from the Palos Verdes Peninsula and have not been strong areas for Senator Vincent anyway, I will instead focus on the Assembly race that involved all of us here in the 54th AD. Long Beach Vice Mayor Bonnie Lowenthal is running to (literally) replace Assemblymember Karnette, and we need to decide if we as voters are content with 6 more years of the same representation. To do so, we need to see how Karnette has voted on important legislation and decide how they align with the goals of Long Beach, San Pedro, Avalon and the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

To start, voters throughout the 54th AD had a chance to extend the assembly terms of Karnette through last February’s Proposition 93, the deceptively-named “Term Limit Reduction” measure that would have allowed Karnette another 6 years in the Assembly. The measure tried to assert that it was reducing the terms of the current legislative membership, but most voters knew that voting for the measure would extend the number of terms of their respective legislator. The measure was expected to pass because it was assumed that on both Democratic and Republican districts, voters liked their representative and would vote to extend each of their careers. What Speaker Nunez and his political advisers failed to realize is that most voters do not have a favorable opinion of the state (or federal) legislative branch, and are willing to remove their own representative if it means removing all of the other do-nothing legislators faster as well. Combine that with most of our Republican leadership standing behind the Republican platform of term limits, the measure failed across the state. What is interesting to note is that the measure also failed in key regions where it should have passed, according to the Democratic strategy, including within Los Angeles County, and most importantly, within our own 54th Assembly District.

It seems district voters in February decided that Karnette was not worth saving and that new leadership was desired.

So the next logical question is: If voters did not choose to extend Karnette’s representation in the Assembly, do they want a “new” assembly member who will most likely continue to vote & perform the same way that Karnette did?

This is the question I will dive into in Part II of this series by comparing both Bonnie Lowenthal’s platform and Republican Assembly nominee Gabriella Holt’s platform to that of Betty Karnette’s to see whether either candidate can be given the label “Karnette’s Third Term”.

In Part III, I will tie in the Journal’s or-ed about Senator Obama by discuss whether his run to the center, and specifically his embracing of key Republican positions, will help or hinder legislative candidates at the federal, state and local levels, and how the Democratic Party will need to reconcile its messages to have both credibility to the centrists & moderates, as well as maintaining the interest if it’s far-left base to turn out in November.

Drill now...or $8 per gallon gas? What is your choice?

Like many of you, I've been listening to the daily talk shows on both the radio and on cable discuss the oil crisis. I believe that unless the Democratic Congress figures out how to get gasoline back down under $4 per gallon, the energy crisis will be a much bigger factor on the November election than the Iraq War or anything else Democrats can stir up. Let's face it: the Iraq War has not been the primary factor in the November elections since 2002 (yes, BEFORE we went in!) when Republicans (and Democrats) campaigned on a strong forceful approach to Iraq. In 2004, Senator Kerry had plenty of skeletons in his closet that our Swift Boat friends were happy to enlighten us about. In 2006, the Republican Party had both entangled itself with various scandals and Democrats did a good job of exposing the wasteful government spending of Republicans. In 2008, I believe the issue that will eclipse the Iraq War will be the cost of gasoline and what each candidate (at all levels) proposed to do about it.

This is where we have a HUGE advantage! Regardless of your income level, political affiliation, or other concern, everyone is affected by the price of gasoline. Even my mass transit friends who still ride the MAX bus from San Pedro to El Segundo (and hence do not commute in a car) have to purchase groceries and other things that are becoming more expensive due to the cost of transportation. Lower income families are affected the most, as they are seeing a higher percentage of their disposable income having to go to the rising cost of gasoline and related expenses. So...our new leaders HAVE to have viable solutions to this growing problem.

The ideas coming from the Democrats center around this basic premise: We have to find someone to BLAME! It's either the speculators, or the naughty SUV drivers (like me) or maybe even the greedy oil companies that want to (heaven forbid) actually make a profit doing business. The latter two "causes" have recently become less promoted by Democrats, likely because most of their fellow voters are also driving SUV's, and voters are starting to see that adding taxes to businesses like oil companies will simply raise the prices at the pump. (Remember - businesses don't pay ANY taxes! Consumers do when the increase costs are flowed into the prices of goods and services.) I particularly like the recent emphasis on blaming the speculators, particularly because Democrats won't admit that the solutions proposed by Republicans would actually address the issue of speculation.

Republicans have been leading the fight to declare now as the time to consider drilling oil domestically. Presidential candidate John McCain has recently acknowledged that high prices combined with our dependency on foreign oil have re-prioritized our need to explore and utilize our natural resources while our technological advances are busy working to strengthen viable energy alternatives. While I hope that all states with oil resources will choose to tap into them, I think McCain has the proper position that gives states the right to decide whether they will drill. (This is one of the basic tenets of the Republican Party - states' rights over federal rights as much as possible). All three states with the most oil reserves, Alaska, California and Florida, are experiencing recent increases in their unemployment rates. Opening the opportunities for oil companies to invest in drilling operations in each of those states will almost assuredly increase employment. What else will it do? Increase supply, of course!

But Democrats claim that we would not see any significant amounts of oil from these operations for 10+ yuears. Thought more credible engineers state that we wold see significant amounts within 3 years, wouldn't forecasts of higher oil amounts (even later than sooner) have a significant impact on the speculation of oil volume? So wouldn't increasing the oil supply take away the alleged "power" of the speculators?

This is more of the Democrats' need to have issues with parties to blame, rather than viable solutions that could dry up an issue. Such is the case with the homeless, the state education system and affirmative action. If any of these issues were to suddenly be declared resolved, activists of these issues would be without purpose. Unfortunately for them, they underestimated the will of their allies, the far-left environmentalists, to drive the price of gasoline so high.

Even Senator Obama has been quotes as saying that he thinks prices should be this high, but that he wishes it hadn't risen so fast. I guess he was hoping that we'd all have to wait for him to be elected before paying so much for gas.

Don't worry Senator! With your party in control of Congress, we're on a pace to see $8 a gallon gasoline by October. What will Americans do then?

Much Ado about Laura Richardson

If you're even half as interested in the political scene as I am, you've no doubt read about the financial problems of Democratic Congresswoman Laura Richardson. Being a homeowner and one who had enough "fun" as it was securing one home loan, I was bewildered that Richardson somehow managed to get financed for multiple home loans with a salary that, while not a small one, was far too small to justify the amounts extended to her. Of course, now we're hearing about the sweetheart deal extended to Senator Dodd, but I want to keep the focus locally. Because the issue isn't about having loans extended; what we're starting to learn now is that 1) Richardson may not have been forthright when applying for all of these loans; and 2) she had multiple debts across Long Beach and commitments left unattended to for extended periods of time.

Here's the latest from the Long Beach Press Telegram:
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_9624807

But the issue I want to focus on is the "$64 question" everyone is asking: Why didn't the Republican Party run someone against her, and even now, why isn't the GOP engaged in a more active campaign to have her recalled? In answering this question, I often think back to last year around the same time, when we nominated Army Colonel and Iraqi War Hero John Kanaley to take on the upset victor on the Democrat side, Assemblymember Laura Richardson. (Remember she beat a well-funded Jenny Oropeza, rising up the Black Caucus to "defend" the former Miller-MacDonald seat from the Hispanic Caucus). I watched some of my close friends work extremely hard on the Kanaley campaign, and despite having this role model candidate, they watched the 37th Congressional District elect an inexperienced "professional politician" based primarily on her party membership. Based on observing this last year, my assessment of the politics of the 37th district is simple. If you win the Democratic nomination, you've won the seat.

Many have called me or e-mailed me lately to rally supporters to a recall cause. While I would love to see the recall of a fiscally-irresponsible Democratic politician succeed, I am cautious about allocating resources and time in a heavy election year already filled with great candidates I've talked about in earlier posts this year. We need to be careful in spreading our efforts too thin, and in doing so not placing enough effort into winning identified opportunities. Those that have asked me what they should do this year have been directed to one of the local campaigns in our district, which will also help our presidential nominee Senator John McCain.

Another reason why I'm not jumping feet first into the "Recall Laura" endeavors is that I honestly feel that objective investigative forces, including the Long Beach Press Telegram, have done a great job of digging into Richardson's financial history. The last thing we need is for Richardson to be able to use the excuse that all of the reporting of her financial ignorance is simply a "right-wing conspiracy" out to get her. I recommend that we continue to stay objective in our personal analysis of her situation, let the media continue digging, and remind voters that we are not really THAT surprised that a Democratic politician is having trouble balancing her accrued expenses with her income.

After all, doesn't the word "Democrat" automatically imply "fiscally irresponsible"?

June 3rd: Thank you so much...

Now that the dust has settled on the June 3rd Primary Election, it's time for the dust to settle and for us to get to the real tasks at hand: Winning back the 54th AD & securing the White house for another 4 years. But first, I have to thank you all for your phenomenal support and turnout.

Many of you not only voted for me and my slate of "Can-do" candidates, you spread the word extremely well. And the results show it. The "Can-do" slate of seven candidates finished in the top seven, sweeping the central committee election and ensuring a solid team of operationally-minded members for the 2008-2010 term. This new group takes over in November, and I am extremely excited for our local campaign strategy for 2009 and 2010. It takes more than just a few members to make a difference, and the next committee will be committed toward helping local Republicans running for city councils, school boards and other local seats get the support they need to start making gains in the 54th Assembly District.

The list at the top of the left column will be your new central committee. First and foremost are the two legislative nominees, Gabriella Holt & Lydia Gutierrez, that we must now dedicate our local resources and efforts to get elected. They are both phenomenal candidates that bring us a new opportunity to take key seats that previous nominees did not, and not just because they represent the significant trend of Republican women taking control. Each has unique traits and skills that they bring to our Party that will enable us to openly discuss the most important issues with Democrats, Independents and fellow Republicans alike.

Lydia Gutierrez will compete well against Democratic nominee Rod Wright for the 25th Senate District seat. Her upbringing and experience as a LBUSD school teacher, plus her activism for children and stronger family values will make many Democrats and Independents consider whether their current parties have represented their values and concerns like Lydia will if given the opportunity to be their state senator.

Gabriella Holt, our Republican nominee for the 54th Assembly District, brings a solid background of experience in the fields of health care, business and education, the three big issues Democrats are hoping to use against our party. Unlike the campaign events prior to the Democratic Primary, the Democratic nominee, Bonnie Lowenthal, will not be able to simply give short, pithy answers and watch her opponent talk herself into a liberal frenzy, like former Democratic candidate Tonia Reyes Uranga did. Gabriella will force Bonnie to either campaign on the issues, or watch as Long Beach figures out what most of us in San Pedro know: It takes more than podium speeches to win the public. This committee will be dedicated foremost to its pledged mission to win elections in the 54th AD, and its primary one has always been and will continue to be this one.

For information on their campaigns, please see my website list in the left column or e-mail me at stammiam@yahoo.com. Your continued support and involvement will be essential in helping our two 2008 nominees win their campaigns.

Thank you again, for your wonderful support. I pledge to continue representing you in the Republican Party and listening to your concerns, locally, in the state and nationally. We have a lot of work to do after a horrible 2006 performance. But this is when we see who has the strength and persistence to rise again and fight for our principles and values.

I look forward to working with all of you this summer and fall to elect our great candidates: Holt, Gutierrez, and McCain!

California now a "Battleground State", thanks to the CA Supreme Court

No doubt many of your have already heard about the California Supreme Court decision last week to overturn the will of the voters in declaring marriage as being between a man and a woman to be "unconstitutional". This is despite the fact that California voters have been very open to the opportunities of domestic partnerships, including child adoption, partner benefits and other laws protecting members of the homosexual community. Rather than accept California as the role model state for others looking for the middle ground to satisfy large majorities on this issue, activist groups like Freedom to Marry and others are challenging California with an "All or Nothing" attitude.

Because of this irrational persistence, there is an increasing tide of conservatives and moderates who just may ensure that the latter is the case.

I have been in Washington, DC this past week, and I read this editorial in USA Today this morning that makes this same assertion. (You know there's problems on the far left when conservatives like me start agreeing with media outlets like USA Today.) Here are the opening paragraphs from the editorial:

"Our view on same-sex marriage: California ruling invites backlash against gay rights
Civil unions, the best solution, are jeopardized by court decision.
Last week, when California became the second state after Massachusetts to allow gay marriage, same-sex couples celebrated and began planning June weddings. Good for them. But the unfortunate and unnecessary impact of the California Supreme Court ruling might well have been to set back the cause of gay rights more broadly.

"The judges ruled 4-3 that gays' inability to get married amounts to discrimination under California's constitution, even though the state's domestic partnership laws give them the benefits and responsibilities of marriage.

"In other words, pragmatic political compromise on the intensely controversial issue is not allowed in California. It's all or nothing, and recent political history leaves little doubt about what will follow.

"In the three years after Massachusetts' top court legalized gay marriage in 2004, 23 states rushed to adopt constitutional bans on gay marriage. This presidential election year is likely to bring more of the same.

"In effect, California's high court fixed something that wasn't broken. The state's domestic partnership laws have been a model for other states searching for the needed middle ground that addresses the deep-felt national division over gay marriage."


The full editorial, plus opposing views from both sides of the issue, are located here: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/05/our-view-on-sam.html#more

My take on the ramifications of this ruling is this: the California Republican Party now has a November issue to motivate ultra-conservatives to turn out (and vote for the full Republican ticket), and for moderates (who accepted the domestic partnership middle-ground) to hold Democratic politicians responsible for risking California's status as the original middle-ground state. In my opinion, the persistence of the ultra-left wing activists in the gay-rights community has made California a potential battleground state for McCain.

Why do I believe this?

First, did you notice how quickly Senator McCain scheduled a trip to Stockton after the ruling? Second, have you heard a press release from either Democratic Presidential campaign since the ruling? Senator McCain has already gone on the record as being a defender of the sanctity of marriage between a man & woman, which is still supported by 56% of voters nationwide, according to the Gallup Poll cited in the USA Today editorial. Finally, the right-wing groups that had been pushing for a constitutional amendment about marriage have been given new life, and are now collecting more signatures at a feverish pace.

In our own assembly district, the issue of homosexual marriage will be a volatile one. With Long Beach being a stand-out city on gay-rights issues and activism, no doubt the ruling has been the topic of many local conversations and speeches. But with the heavy concentration of Catholic/Christian Democrats in both East Long Beach and San Pedro who will not be comfortable sacrificing their religious tenants in favor of a secular movement, the 54th Assembly District is going to have plenty of debates and discussions on this topic. Especially after the constitutional amendment measure is confirmed for the November ballot.

If Republicans claim the established middle-ground on this issue by accepting the premise of domestic partnerships while holding the line and protecting the sanctity of "marriage" as being between a man and a woman, I believe we will see moderate districts, including our own 54th AD, lean heavily toward McCain and our other great Republican candidates.

Let's hope the far-left Democrat candidates running this fall feel the pressure from the gay-rights special interest groups to keep leaning even more left. The irrational insistence to claim the "M" word (marriage) for themselves has re-opened a Pandora's Box that conservatives and moderates can work together to close in the best interests of all voters.

Special Guest Poster: RPV Council Member Tom Long

While I was beginning to gather information to address the horrific ruling by our CA Supreme Court and our need to rally behind the November ballot measure to make same-sex marriages unconstitutional, I received a very welcome surprise posting from none other than RPV City Council Member and former Mayor Tom Long, the primary Democratic troublemaker on the Peninsula.

Those that volunteered at our PV Farmer's Market table last year remember Tom Long always trying to set up his little table right next to ours, always borrowing pens and voter registration forms, and most importantly...trying to make the feeble argument that we should not be there because we were making the RPV City Council race partisan.

I've brought forward both his posting and my reply and would love to get more postings regarding your thoughts about Mr. Long's assertions.

Enjoy!

Tom Long said...

Turning disputes on local issues into a partisan debate is really unfortunate and does nothing to help address the issues. Those who know my history know that I have endorsed a number of Republicans for local office and that I have not acted in a partisan way on the RPV council. The votes on the issues are rarely divided by party registration.

Sadly the Republican Party 54th District Organization and some of the candidates it has supported have made a mockery of the California Constitution's requirement that local elections be non-partisan.
As for the rest of the blogger's comments, people should not judge issues such as these on party affiliation. I encourage you to get the facts. Most of the facts are available (from different perspectives) on my webpage www.palosverdes.com/tomlong and on www.pvpwatch.com

Tom Long
Councilmember, Rancho Palos Verdes
tomlong@palosverdes.com

John S said...

Dear RPV Councilmember Tom Long,

Thank you for finding my blog and reading it!

I'd like to address your two main assertions from your posting, which I published without edits for the mutual benefit of ourselves and my readers.

To start, we know that both you and Doug Stern endorsed Steve Wolowicz last fall in your re-election campaigns because you both knew that:
a) Steve has a very high base of supporters that would not have voted for either you nor Doug if you hadn't endorsed him. You chose a wise tactic of giving voters a complete slate to vote for, and making sure that the strongest candidate on the ballot was a part of it.

b) You and Doug needed a 3rd person to complete your slate or else risk Paul Wright getting more votes than one of you two. If Steve Wolowicz had NOT been on your slate card, Paul Wright would have easily closed the 80-vote gap and beat Doug Stern.

So your strategy worked and I would have done the same; but your claim of endorsing Republicans is purely for survival, and not proof of any claim of being bi-partisan. When you're willing to look at Republicans over Democrats for key non-partisan races, like say judicial races, then you'll get some credibility. As for me, ask judicial candidate Kathleen Blanchard, a Democrat running against two Republicans, if I'm willing to look objectively and endorse the best candidate regardless of party.

Next, you continue to cite a CA constitutional requirement that local elections MUST be non-partisan and alluding to our November 2007 involvement in the RPV elections as somehow being unconstitutional. This is both sad and mistaken, and your constant harassment of our volunteers at the PV Farmer's Market about this will continue to be challenged by both me and the Republican leadership at the county and state level. For over 30 years, your own Democratic party has been significantly MORE active in local elections throughout the state and throughout Los Angeles County than Republicans until just recently. When you're willing to call out your own party for making elections throughout the state partisan, maybe then I'll give you some credibility. Until then, you're simply another Democratic hypocrite that only complains about something when it doesn't serve your own purpose.

I published both your comments and these because I want my readers to get a chance to respond with comments of their own.

Thank you for affirming what I've been telling my supporters throughout Long Beach, San Pedro, Avalon, Signal Hill & the Palos Verdes Peninsula! We are having an effect, and the tide is shifting!

We know it, and we now know that YOU know it!

John S. Stammreich
Chairman - 54th AD Republican Central Committee

SWEET! I live for this stuff! I hope Mr. Long is ready. Just so he is, I will promise to him that we will be again involved in the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council race in November 2009. And for the other cities in the 54th AD, I promise you we will be there as well when Republican candidates call on us.

It'll all start in Signal Hill in February 2009...

John