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.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, June 23, 2008
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?
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?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
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"?
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"?
Saturday, June 7, 2008
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!
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!
Thursday, May 22, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, May 16, 2008
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
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
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
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