"Letting Voters Decide": The Democrat cop-out for tax measures

Even though it does not sit in the 54th AD, I want to bring attention of my fellow Republicans within the district to yet another attempt by some tax-and-spend city council members to implement a tax increase without having to claim responsibility for it later. We saw this response by Los Angeles City Council members last December when most of them voted to put Measure B, the boondoggle solar panel measure that was placed on the March 2009 ballot by council members who stated that they were simply letting voters decide. With all of the misleading commercials by both the IBEW and Mayor Villaraigosa, it took a committed drive by the bi-partisan "No on Measure B" group to narrowly defeat it by a single percentage point!

Tomorrow night, the Hermosa Beach City Council will consider placing a tax measure on the November 2009 ballot that will raise the business license fees by as much as 800%! Their process is the same as Los Angeles, except they need 4 of 5 members to place it on the ballot. (Mayor Kit Bobko, a solid defender of his constituents' tax dollars, is already openly opposed to this measure.)

Putting ballot measures in front of voters & letting them decide is like putting food in front of a child & letting her decide whether to eat it. Who is responsible for ensuring the health of the food? Who's responsible for ensuring the food is not rancid, tainted or in another way hazardous to eat? Who would be prosecuted if the child were seriously harmed or died as a result of the food?

Democratic city council members understand the importance of appearing fiscally responsible to their constituents. While voters tend to allow their federal & state legislators be much more liberal on spending, city councils have often been targets for constituents who want their tax dollar spent right. So the latest tactic, as employed by many of the Democratic City Council members in Los Angeles, is to vote to place a measure on an upcoming ballot and claim to be "neutral" on the measure by stating that they simply want the voters to decide.

The proposed motion, forwarded by the city sub-committee specifically organized to explore the feasibility of increasing business license taxes (and "simplifying the tax structure" per the sub-committee's forwarded motion) will be discussed at the regular city council meeting tomorrow night at 7 p.m. at the Hermosa Beach City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach. Expected speakers from the South Bay Tea Party, the Beach Cities Republican Club and prospective candidates for state & federal offices plan to attend.

Hermosa Beach also has its local election this November. Any incumbent that supports putting this on the ballot can expect to face significant criticism throughout their campaign. Voting simply to put a measure on the ballot and later trying to claim an opposition to it is simply hypocrisy.

The Hermosa Beach City Council meeting scheduled for tomorrow promises to be an active one! City council members need to realize that voters are on to them! If you vote to place a measure on the ballot, you must support it!

I would never place food in front of my children that I would be unwilling to eat myself. Elected officials need to learn their roles as advocates for their constituents.

Over 70% of 54th AD voters tell Arnold (and Bonnie) NO!

By now most of you know the overwhelming results of this past Tuesday's special election. Despite the Governor and Assembly Speaker predicting either a victory or a "close loss", the voters throughout the state sent a strong, direct message that no more tax revenue will be acceptable. The bleeding heart tactics of the Democrats, who drag out young children, minority teachers, firefighters and cops to do commercials telling voters how they're all going to lose funding if they don't sacrifice more of their hard-earned salaries are no longer resonating.

Voters now know that this simply is not going to happen. If so, the follow-on question would be "why are budgets for education, police & fire so low in the list of budgetary priorities?"

I have a few highlights from Tuesday:
- For the first time in a long while, Los Angeles County actually voted more "conservative" than the statewide average. Prop 1A received 2.5% fewer votes in LA County; Prop 1B received 2.7% less; the others all finished with lower percentages than their statewide totals.
- Here in the 54th AD, Prop 1A finished over 6% below the statewide average, limping in with just barely 28%. Prop 1B also finished over 6% below the statewide average. Our new assemblymember, Bonnie Lowenthal, endorsed the statewide ballot measures, as evidenced by her staff members assigned to the neighborhood councils and HOA's handing out literature specifically showing a lack of opposition to them.
- Similar results are seen in the results of the 28th State Senate District, the race that you all know I'm running for in 2010.
- San Pedro native Carmen Trutanich rose above the slime that his opponent, Jack Weiss, was trying to drag them both through and will now show the City of Los Angeles what a "TRU" public servant can do!
- Republican Tina Park did a fantastic job with a late-season rally to unseat a Democratic imcumbent from the Los Angeles Community College Board. This is the first time in recent memory that a Republican has sat on that board, and Tina will have a lot of support, based on Tuesday's results, for criticizing how the Measure J funds are spent.

So the primary question I'll leave you with is this: Do you think our state legislators understood, or will make a sincere effort to understand, the results we gave them this past Tuesday?

Somehow, I anticipate the answer to this question will drive the 2010 elections. (Hey, a candidate can dream...!)

Republicans OPPOSE Propositions 1A-1F; Democrats stay "Neutral"

Well, finally! I am happy to announce that the California Republican Party has officially taken a NO position on all six of the toxic state ballot measures known as Propositions 1A through 1F. There was some debate by a few "intellectuals" who wanted to peel off one or two of these for consideration, but an overwhelming majority of the California Republican Party Executive Committee was ready to support a NO vote for all six of these as a package.

Because let's face it - these are all part of a bag-room deal that needs to be rejected in its entirety. Supporting ANY of these propositions gives the voter the impression that the current level of state government spending is acceptable - and it's NOT! The Republican Party stands for the principle of limited government and reducing the tax burdens on working families and businesses, and that was re-affirmed today.

Two interesting points to note:

- There was actually more debate about these propositions at the County level, where the discussion focused on whether the transfer of funds through propositions 1D & 1E may actually be acceptable. This was based on the fact that neither of these propositions actually raises taxes. However, they do not reduce taxes either. Furthermore, the next action by the special interest groups that these funds come from will have a new ballot measure labeling Republicans as the "evil party that took away funds" by supporting these measures, and it's time for the Democrats to step up if these propositions are truly viable.

- Speaking of the Democratic Party, I recently found out that even the LA County Democratic Party is not endorsing these propositions! Their LA County Executive Committee voted to take "NO POSITION" on the six propositions. Turns out that a combination of fiscally responsible Democrats were joined by a few unions that were not getting a piece of the proposition "action" (and were hence only going to see the higher taxes for their membership) opposed the special interest groups that were lobbying the Democratic Party for support.

So basically - NEITHER party is supporting these propositions. We all know why the Republicans are opposing these. (What we've been beating our heads against the wall about is why it took to darn long!). But why won't the Democrats get behind these?

Maybe they ARE watching the Tea Party footage, and are just a little bit concerned that their candidates in 2010 are going to have to explain their support for the highest sales tax, highest vehicle license tax, and highest income tax in the nation?

Personally, I don't plan on just watching these in CNN with my nose in the air, like most of our Democratic friends are doing. I will BE there with my American Flag & California flag waving proudly! It's time to take back the state for the taxpayers!

Stand by for more on how we will do just that! Until then, save these dates for the next set of Tea Parties across Southern California: May 1st & May 16th. (Locations TBA)

Why the Dems are killing California, but no one cares...

I have been asked often the past few weeks why the Republican leadership in the California State Legislature are catching more blame for the state propositions on the May ballot that threaten to take away tax credits like the dependent child credit and double your vehicle license fee, and their Democratic counterparts and their special interest pandering is going relatively unchecked. I'd like to use an example from my childhood that I think will explain the logic.

I am the oldest of three, and my younger sisters and I are the best of friends. We each have families now, and we stay in frequent contact. When we were growing up, we would do what kids did: argue, fight, do crazy things. But it always seemed like I was getting a little more blame than my sisters. The reason: "I was older and I was supposed to know better!"

When the Democrats continued to increase spending every year with reckless abandon, the citizens of California had one line of defense that was supposed to keep that at bay: The Republicans. Now the voters have to take responsibility for some of the damage that the Democratic leaders have caused. After all, they elected the Democrats to be the majority party. Democrats run on "feel good" campaigns that do not take fiscal or managerial responsibility into account. Democrats appeal to people's sensical urges that make them feel better, and hide from voters the responsibility aspects of their legislation. For years, they have been able to increase budget handouts and earmarks to their special interests without having to substantially increase taxes or fees. This year, the well is much drier, and they had to negotiate what you now see as the six state propositions, 1A through 1F, in order to salvage the financial interests of their true constituents: the special interests and unions that fed their election campaigns.

What the Republicans in both the State Senate and the Assembly were supposed to do this year is finally show the Democrats the results of what they had been preaching all these years. They are supposed to be showing voters that they will do "their job" in being the more responsible party; the "oldest child" that is supposed to know better. Because most of our Republican leaders did not perform their role and teach their Democratic counterparts the error of their ways, conservative voters throughout the state joined others throughout the country in saying "enough's enough!" If the Republican electeds are not going to do their job, then the voters will do it for them! This is why you are seeing much of the tax revolt and tea party activity directed against elected Republicans.

My personal belief is that if our electeds acted more like Congressman (former State Senator) Tom McClintock, the activity would all be directed at the state Democrats. But this is not to mean that the State Democrats are off the hook. The protests taking place throughout the state are taking place in Democratic strongholds like Santa Monica, Pasadena and Hermosa Beach. Most of the attendees are decline-to-state voters that are realizing just how bad the state spending has become. They're learning more about the contract deals strangling the state budget, including those by the teachers union (CTA) and the service employees union (SEIU). (I always like pointing out these two groups because they are the first to complain about how their performance will drop if they don't get funding. Have you seen graduation rates in the LAUSD, as well as the state? Under 50% for both! And have you experienced the "high performance" at the DMV? "Nuff said!)

So the first wave of protest and resentment is against those that Republicans and other conservatives were counting on to support them. Once this wave has had it's effect, including the defeat of the state ballot propositions, the focus will definitely shift to the tax-and-spend Democrats that are the prime movers behind everyone's increased sales tax, increased income tax, and the reduction in the child tax credit. As voters see their spending power go down, and then experience their first adjusted income tax return under the new taxes, they will know who is to blame, and will hold those who take away income from struggling families and redistribute it to their union friends.

The next wave of Republican candidates will have the wave of this momentum behind them. The Democrats will have their usual special interest groups, losing popularity every month as voters learn how these groups are stealing their money!

So stand by, my Democratic friends and electeds! Your time of political reckoning is coming!

Laura Chick: Will Vote "NO" on Measure B

I've written before about both the intelligence and the principled nature of the Honorable Laura Chick, the Los Angeles City Controller. If there is one elected official that can claim the title "honorable", it's Laura. Time and time again, our city controller has stood up for fiscal accountability from all of our city agencies and departments, even when it may not have always been politically popular to do so. I'm sure there are issues that I disagree with Laura on, given her choice to register with the left party over the right. However, I have always preached the political philosophy of knowing your values, including at which elected level each value should have heavier weights, and for city government, the values of fiscal accountability and protecting citizens come before positions on the War on Terrorism and Abortion. On the city government level, I wholeheartedly support City Controller Laura Chick and other Democrats like her who "get it".

During a press briefing yesterday on the status of the Department of Water and Power yesterday, Laura Chick announced that she would oppose Measure B, the sole-source solar energy project on the March ballot.

The consultant group that completed the city charter-required 5-year analysis, PA Consulting, was also the group that completed the initial objective analysis on Measure B, and they defended their projections that the measure would cost two to three times the current estimates being reported by the replacement consultant group, Huron Consulting. The report from Andrew Rea of PA Consulting Group estimated that Measure B would cost up to $3.6 billion, far more than the $1 billion estimate by Huron Consulting, hired by the Department of Water and Power after rejecting the PA Consulting analysis.

As reported by Rick Orlov of the L.A. Daily News:

"Rea said he made more conservative assumptions in his study, while the DWP's own report by Huron Consulting made more optimistic assumptions about the future of technology and the economy.

"We modeled the world using prices today, projects today and the technology we thought was deployable," Rea said.

"The Huron Report assumed a much more favorable economic climate and much more favorable technology. I think Huron did a report based on what the future might be and developed its figures based on that."

Measure B would require the installation of solar panels around the city with a goal of generating 400 megawatts of rooftop solar power by 2014. The Huron report estimated its cost at $1 billion, which would be about $1 a month for the average residential DWP bill. Michael Trujillo, manager of the campaign to support Measure B, stood by the accuracy of the Huron report and its assumptions. "All the recent figures show that the cost of solar is declining as the technology improves," said Trujillo.

As the PA Consulting report was officially released, Chick announced she would oppose Measure B. "I support renewable energy. I have been supporting it since I was elected controller in 2002," Chick said. "We know this will cost something, but the costs are unknown. I will be voting no on this because I think the entire process of how it ended up on the ballot stinks. I think it was not done in an open, understandable or thoughtful way."

Measure B was developed by a group known as Working Californians, which included leaders of local IBEW unions. One provision of the measure would require all the installation work to be done only by those unions.

The PA Consulting survey, conducted over six months at a cost of $800,000, made a series of broad recommendations - many similar to a survey conducted in 2002 - calling for the DWP to do better in long-term planning and upgrading its information technology systems.

One of those I talk to frequently about Measure B made this interesting observation: If the Huron Consulting report was indeed true that the average increase per electric bill was only 1%/month, the DWP would fall way too short in raising the necessary funds even for their $1B project estimate. Here's how the math works:

12 months X 1.6 million DWP ratepayers = 19.2 million rate-months

At 19.2 million rate-months per year, it would take the DWP over $52/ratepayer per month to raise the funds in one year. This assumes that every ratepayer is paying for full service and that no one is on discounted programs. The average monthly household electricity bill was $52.79 in fall 2006, according to DWP spokesman Joe Ramallo last April. By summer 2010, the various rate hikes and surcharges will bring the bill to $65.04, he said. So even with the low-ball estimates by the DWP, the mathematical analysis shows that the average energy bill for every rate-payer has to be doubled in order to fund this measure.

Factor in the more objective analysis of the PA Consulting group, and we're talking about tripling, or even quadrupling, of energy rates to pay for this boondoggle project.

This is what I believe Laura Chick gets that other Democrats do not. This is the analysis I wish my friend LAUSD Board member Richard Vladovic would have done, or asked those he knows and trusts, including Dr. Soledad Garcia, who has been very open and public about both opposing Measure B and in requesting our local elected officials to contact her regarding this measure. With Laura Chick's announced opposition to this measure, I hope both Richard Vladovic & Councilmember Janice Hahn do the right thing and request a meeting with Soledad Garcia. They know how to reach her, or they can contact me.

So the bottom line on Measure B is this - Despite the initial report by PA Consulting months prior to the submission of this ballot measure to the city council that the estimated cost would be between $2.8 and $3.6 billion, the DWP and the IBEW rammed this boondoggle project measure through the city council, and our city council did the typical pandering thing and voted to put it on the ballot. Now, many of them are saying that they did not vote to support it, just to put it on the ballot. I look at it like parents serving their children dinner.

It is my job and my wife's to ensure our children eat healthy. If we feel something will be unhealthy, or worse - will make our kids sick, we don't put it on their plate and then absolve ourselves of the responsibility by saying "they don't have to eat it". Our kids trust us, and will eat the unhealthy foods, especially given how these foods are marketed to our kids. Measure B is extremely unhealthy, and our city council members need to be protecting us from ever having to digest it. They need to protect their constituents from the marketing of this unhealthy measure, and should be held accountable for their lack of action or their endorsement of it.

Measure B is about as healthy as a deep-fried Twinkie to someone with high cholesterol!

How many bad nominees does it take to change an administration?

I'm forwarding an update from the Weekly Standard about yet ANOTHER cabinet nominee with issues to address. This one is relevant to us because it's our own Hilda Solis, union champion and Democratic Congressmember from East Los Angeles. Add Ms. Solis' name to that of the nominees that had to learn how to do their taxes, and we're starting to see what kind of "change" is truly coming to DC.

Thursday, February 05, 2009 By: Hans A. von Spakovsky

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A seemingly innocuous letter sent to the Clerk of the House of Representatives last Thursday by President Obama's Secretary of Labor nominee Hilda Solis raises serious and troubling legal questions about her nomination and apparent violation of House ethics rules. Not only was she involved with a private organization that was lobbying her fellow legislators on a bill that she has cosponsored, but she apparently kept her involvement secret and failed to reveal a clear conflict of interest.

Solis was a co-sponsor in 2007 of the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act," the card check legislation that would effectively eliminate the secret ballot and destroy the ability of employees to make an anonymous decision (without fear of retribution) on whether they want to join a union. She was also a co-sponsor of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, legislation that would force states to allow public safety officers to form unions. At the same time, however, Solis was a board member of a pro-union organization, American Rights at Work, that has been lobbying Congress on both of these bills. According to a letter filed by Solis with the House Clerk on January 29, 2009, she was not just a director of the ARW, along with fellow travelers like David Bonior, Julian Bond, and John Sweeney, she was actually the treasurer. In other words, she is the official legally charged with the fiduciary duty of approving and signing off on all spending by the organization. And to make matters worse, she did not reveal to her colleagues in the House of Representatives that membership on her financial disclosure forms, which may constitute a separate ethical violation.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics and a review of the lobbying disclosure forms filed with Congress, ARW spent $110,000 in 2007 and $120,000 in 2008 on lobbying expenses. And what were the "[s]pecific lobbying issues" listed on the forms? They included the "Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800/S. 1041)" and the "Public Safety /Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007 (H.R. 980)." As treasurer of ARW, Solis would have approved the spending by ARW on lobbying other members of Congress on both of these bills she was sponsoring for passage.

The Ethics Manual of the House of Representatives quite properly restricts the lobbying of members, stating on page 352 that they should not "take an active role in lobbying Congress on behalf of a private organization since that would conflict with a Member's general obligation to the public." That rule may be murky in some instances, but the role Solis played in ARW's lobbying efforts was not passive. In answering written follow-up questions from the Senate about ARW, Solis tries to cloud the real issue by arguing that members of Congress are allowed to serve without compensation on the boards of nonprofit organizations and that the lobbying prohibition only applies if she was "personally" supervising the lobbying.

However, the House rule turns on whether Solis was an active participant in the lobbying effort. With regard to that question, Solis admitted that she is not merely a board member of ARW. Treasurers and general counsels have special fiduciary duties that differentiate them from mere directors. The treasurer of a nonprofit organization is responsible for actively supervising and approving the financial obligations and spending of the organization. In fact, the amended by-laws of ARW filed with its 2006 form 990 tax return specify that the treasurer must "ensure that there is [a] full and accurate account of the receipts and disbursements of the corporation" and must render to the President and the Board of Directors "an accounting of all transactions." This means that Solis was specifically charged with reporting all of the funds spent by ARW to lobby Congress. That is not the passive role of other Board members.

Solis apparently did not consult the House Ethics Committee about the propriety of serving as the treasurer of ARW. Worse, she didn't list ARW on her financial disclosure forms. She belatedly sent her letter of January 29 to the Clerk of the House attempting to amend her financial statements to add her membership in ARW. She claimed that she had "incorrectly answered" the question on membership in such outside organizations. Solis told the Clerk that she should have answered "yes" and that she was both a board member and the treasurer of ARW from 2004 -2007. She is still listed as a board member at the ARW website.

Barack Obama made a big show at the White House on his first day in office when he signed an executive order supposedly restricting the ability of former lobbyists hired by his administration from working on issues that they had previously lobbied on. Of course, he almost immediately ignored those principles when he nominated William Lynn, a Raytheon lobbyist, to be deputy secretary of the Department of Defense, named William Corr, an anti-tobacco lobbyist, to be deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, and allowed newly installed Treasury Secretary (and tax defaulter) Timothy Geitner to hire a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist to be his new chief of staff.

Now he has a nominee for Labor Secretary who apparently broke House ethics rules by lobbying for legislation that she sponsored, but who did not admit that she failed to reveal that fact on her financial disclosure forms until after her nomination became an issue. Even if the House tries to paper over this ethical lapse, the blatant conflict of interest will remain. Solis has been nominated to head a cabinet department that would directly oversee the very issues that the legislation that she sponsored would affect if it passes Congress -- and the card check legislation alone is considered the number one priority of American labor organizations.

Throughout his Presidential campaign, Barack Obama claimed the moral high ground on everything from campaign finances to lobbying, and he has continued to talk that way in the first month of his presidency. But actions speak louder than words, particularly when your actions are in direct conflict with the supposedly "high ethical standards" you keep claiming you are implementing. If President Obama does not recognize the serious ethical lapses committed by his nominee for the Labor Department, then it will be proof positive that for all of his talk of bringing change to Washington, the only change will have been in the wrong direction.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a former Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and a Justice Department official.

© The Weekly Standard

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?

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."

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!

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

Why the Central Committee elections matter...

Until I moved to San Pedro and got more involved with the County Party, I had never heard of County Central Committees. When I worked campaigns for gubernatorial candidate Dan Lungren, Bush 2000, and congressional candidate Tim Escobar in 2002 and 2004, I never once heard of the central committee structure or how they were "supposed" to be working to get out the Republican vote. I have some theories why, but I think more importantly than why past committees have been pretty much irrelevant in the campaigns I have worked over the past 10 years, I want to instill in everyone that reads this why we need stronger and more effective central committees.

I was introduced to the central committee organization in 2006 working for Michael A. Jackson's campaign. My first impression was that the central committee's purpose was to give seven people plus ex-officios a status as being the "Republican authority" of their respective district. They were supposed to meet once a month and discuss opportunities to recruit more Republicans for office. What I saw throughout Los Angeles County were a few members in each district trying to do just that; but I also noticed those that ran for central committee strictly for their own agendas. They assumed that a position on the committee meant coffers of money would open up, and that they were "entitled" to support from every Republican in their district, if not through donations at least every Republican vote in the district. What they failed to do was reach out and ask voters and locally-elected leaders HOW they could earn their support.

My biggest priority for my first term was to learn HOW to earn the support of the local leaders and learn from them how to win elections in their parts of the district. The biggest lesson I have learned is that voters do NOT want activists as legislators, so much as they want leaders that have shown action in their activism. They also want intelligent legislators who work their way up through their local councils, school boards and community organizations. If you look at the Democratic leaders who have been successful, they all came from local elections; so have most of the Republican elected legislators. So it makes sense that we need to get more active in electing more Republicans to our local offices in the district.

So long as we play the Democrats game of "non-partisan" elections, they will continue to win majorities on our city councils. No where is this more evident than in our three primary parts of the 54th Assembly District. In Long Beach, the Democratic Party has engaged in a 12-year effort to maintain an ultra-high majority. They have done this through the unions & special interest organizations, and I have to commend one of my counterparts, Sergio Carrillo, for keeping the "non-partisan" message resonating well. Not only have local Democratic candidates been able to hide behind this, they've even been able to convince Republican voters that local elections are somehow non-partisan. So let me ask a few questions about "local issues" to see if we could afford a little partisanship:

1) Do you like paying MORE property taxes or LESS property taxes?
2) Do you prefer MORE social welfare programs or LESS programs?
3) Do you prefer MORE local government regulations on small businesses, or LESS?
4) Do you prefer MORE crime (through ignoring increasing crime trends), or LESS crime by getting tougher on criminals and gangs (think City of Los Angeles vs. City of Torrance)
5) Do you prefer MORE local government spending or LESS government spending?

I hope now you can see why promoting Republican principles and values in local races is essential. But who should be taking on the responsibility to promote these by finding and supporting local Republicans throughout each district? THIS is the official mission of your local Republican Central Committee, and one that I take very seriously.

So long as I am chairman of the 54th AD Republican Central Committee, local Republicans who seek to make a difference in their city, be it Long Beach, Signal Hill, Avalon, Los Angeles, Rolling Hills Estates or Rancho Palos Verdes, will have a group of Republican leaders behind them. This is why I am running for another term on the committee; because we have work to do in 2009 & 2010.

To close, I have learned of an effort by a few candidates to divide Long Beach (& Avalon) Republicans from those in Palos Verdes & San Pedro by marginalizing the importance of a cross-district level of support. These "Greater Long Beach" candidates are missing a key component in their campaign: Support from ANY Long Beach elected Republican. Meanwhile, I am pleased to state that two of our best Long Beach Republican leaders, Long Beach Councilman Gary DeLong and LBUSD Board member Jon Meyer, have endorsed me, as well as my friend Davina Keiser, for election on June 3rd. I have received numerous other endorsements from across the district, and I have posted them at the top of the left column. Many of these leaders have expressed a desire for our central committee members to work together across the district and help each other when each local race comes up. Those I have endorsed understand this purpose, and voting for these seven will increase the strength of our committee to seek out good Republican candidates and give them the necessary volunteer and operational support to win local election.

I hope you will make sure to vote on June 3rd for myself and my six friends, and spread the word to all of your Republican friends in Long Beach, Avalon, Signal Hill, San Pedro and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. We have a lot of work to do, and a divided committee will have the same problems in 2 years that past committees did. A united committee will be able to effectively take on the unions and special interests battling to take over our local governments and our local schools.

Your vote matters on June 3rd!

San Pedro H.S. Seniors get it...why don't Democrats?

I had the opportunity to join 54th Assembly Republican candidate Gabriella Holt at San Pedro High School yesterday to talk to the senior class about the 54th AD campaign and opportunities to get involved. Also attending the day-long session were the two Democratic candidates, Long Beach Vice-Mayor Bonnie Lowenthal & Long Beach City Councilmember Tonia Reyes Uranga. All three candidates, and their campaign reps, were very cordial & we enjoyed a day of listening to each other speak to six separate government classes about the 54th Assembly seat race.

What impressed me the most about the sessions were the great questions that the seniors asked the candidates. My assessment of the three candidates' performance could be summarized as this: The Democrat candidates talked to the students like they were 8th graders; Gabriella & I talked to them like they were adults. Not that we talked over their heads; I think both Democrats did that at times, especially Ms. Lowenthal. Our focus when we talked to them were on issues that they could relate to & would affect them directly. I'll give an example.

We made sure that the primary topic of discussion was the state budget. We did not shy away from talking about the education portion of the budget, and we pointed out to the students that the Democrats have had the last 12 years in charge of both houses of the Legislature to spend wisely, and have chosen not to. We used two analogies to make our point: First, we talked about their own budgets. We asked them how many would be able to go ask their parents for more money simply because they had spent all of theirs. Knowing how San Pedrans raise their children to be accountable and independent, we knew the answer would be none. Second, we asked them how much businesses like Starbucks pay in taxes. (Any fan of Tom McClintock knows this answer...NONE.) When I asked them why businesses don't pay taxes, most of them knew the answer...that businesses flow their tax increases to consumers in the price of products, like that cup of coffee. We then drew the relationship to the jobs they will be looking for in the very near future, and it made sense.

When it was Mrs. Uranga's turn to speak, she focused on Air Quality issues and the education budget as well. For the Air Quality discussion, she talked about "little particles" in the air, using her fingers like she was plucking them out of the air. She made a few good points about the need to be cleaner, but then she talked about how those "mean Republicans" wanted to take money away from schools. She talked about the Governor cutting the budget, but had no answer for fixing the budget besides raising taxes. Gabriella was able to talk about how her school district had the same problem in 2002, and found wasteful spending that resulted in saving EVERY teacher's salary. Among these was over $60,000 a year for bottled water for the administration. This is a teacher's salary saved from just this one savings action. Democrats are not willing to cut their wasteful spending in order to save teacher salaries. But they're willing to tax you more instead!

Ms. Lowenthal's discussion points kept changing during each of the six sessions. She was extremely defensive each time, and seemed to be trying to anticipate what Tonia and especially Gabriella were going to say. She would often turn around to Gabriella and state to the current group one of the points she thought Gabriella wold make, and then try to refute it pro-actively. Of course, because Democrats are used to misrepresenting Republican positions even to each other, Ms. Lowenthal often got the point wrong. This opened the opportunity for Gabriella to quickly re-introduce the topic (correctly) and then use a different example to prove the same point. Bonnie grossly underestimated the scope of the event, originally showing up with only a handful of fliers by herself. When she noticed that the other two candidates had more material and support, she made a quick phone call and got her campaign manager over there. When she talked, she listed all of her endorsements (people and groups these students never heard of) and
then tried to convince them how "greedy luxury boat owners and recreational vehicle owners needed to pay their fair share." Easy enough, but more proof that Bonnie does not know much about San Pedro. Boating and Sport Fishing are big with San Pedrans, and many of these students own their own ATV's or Sea-Doos. So when we got a chance to talk about these, it was simple. When these get taxed higher, fewer get sold, which means fewer get built. This means fewer people employed to build them.

Overall, the students who paid attention were smart and analytical. Questions like "If you don't cut the Education part of the budget, what part DO you cut?" and "How do you plan to deal with the gang violence in L.A.?" showed me that they were thinking extremely logical. Another question I liked was " What are you going to do to ensure people get off of welfare?". I watched as each Democrat candidate fumbled around in their head, probably searching for which talking point was appropriate. Meanwhile, Gabriella and I stood back and smiled as we waited so Gabriella could complement the students asking the questions and give them the intelligent answers they deserved.

In the end, we signed up a huge number of volunteers who are excited to get their volunteer hours working for Gabriella Holt. Despite the presence of two Democrat candidates (meaning there was twice as much time for the Democratic platform to be pitched), these students were able to sort out the truth from the talking points. We even received interesting comments from the Democratic candidates; both confessed that they did not expect a Republican candidate to come to the school. Both have been underestimating the Republican chances because of our past history in the district. If there's one thing Gabriella Holt did on Wednesday, it was to put a little fear in both Democrat candidates that the election for this seat will not nearly be over after June 3rd.

If you want to learn more about the Republican candidate making her two Democrat challengers squirm nervously when they're together, go to http://www.gabriellaholt.com/.