OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

  • Custom Campaigns

    Custom Campaigns
  • DMI

  • Allen for Assembly

  • Ramos for Costa Mesa

  • Bennett for Fullerton

  • Lalloway for Irvine

  • Sachs for Mission Viejo

  • Grangoff for Orange

  • Alexander for CUSD

  • Glasky for IUSD

  • Contact Us to Purchase an Ad

  • Lincoln Club of Orange County

Chutzpah at OC GOP Endorsement Committee

Posted by OC Insider on September 6, 2012

Chris Nguyen’s account of last night OC GOP Endorsement Committee meeting makes it sound like it would have been a fun one to watch, especially the chutzpah of some of those doing to talking.

Here’s an example from Chris’s blogging about the Endorsement Committee’s consideration of Anaheim council candidates Brian Chuchua and Steve Chavez Lodge:

“Tim Whitacre says, “On behalf of Mayor Tom Tait, who previously endorsed Mr. Lodge, has unendorsed Mr. Lodge.”  He asks if Lodge has sought union support in violation of the non-union pledge in the OCGOP questionnaire.”

Whitacre’s concern is ironic considering this spring and summer, he worked for a public employee union PAC. He ran the Take Back Anaheim Initiative, which, according to its campaign filing, is “sponsored by the Orange County Employees Association.”

“Take Back Anaheim” was a ballot-box budgeting initiative under which the City Council would cede to the voters its authority to make a very specific spending decision regarding hotel bed tax money. So very conservative.

It was funded by $66,000 from the OCEA, and led by left-wing Anaheim Councilwoman Lorri Galloway (who last month was trying to ban circus animals from Anaheim).

More accurately, according to left-wing blogger Vern Nelson, Take Back Anaheim was “spearheaded by progressive Democrat Galloway and Tea-Party Republican Tim Whitacre…”

Almost all of the OCEA’s $66,000 went to Whitacre, as you can see on Page 3 of Take Back Anaheim’s mid-year campaign report: note the $61,000 payment for petition circulating, which is Whitacre’s business.

Here’s Mr. Whitacre quoted in the OC Register in May as spokesman for the Galloway/OCEA initiative:

“We were under such a tight timeline that I felt I had to suspend the effort to continue collecting signatures until we could figure out whether it was worth moving forward,” Tim Whitacre, the campaign’s coordinator, said Friday. “Otherwise, it would be just throwing good money after bad.”

Nice that Whitacre’s so concerned about spending the OCEA’s money well.

So until a few weeks ago, Tim Whitacre is working for a left-wing Democratic politician’s initiative and being paid by the county’s biggest public employee union.

And he’s questioning Lodge has an inappropriate relationship with unions?

There’s More

Here’s another one from Chris’s post:

“Lucille Kring, who has already been endorsed by the Central Committee in early endorsements, speaks for Chuchua and against Steve Chavez Lodge for the latter’s contributions to Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez and the allegations that Lodge committed police brutality.”

Kring cites Lodge’s contribution to a Democrat as a reason for opposing him, but supports Brian Chuchua, who donated in 2010 to John Santoianni, a liberal Democrat running for Anaheim City Council (because he was “curious” about Santoianni). That must be an OK reason to give to a Democrat.

Speaking of Brian Chuchua, here he is claiming Lodge is tied to Jordan Brandman, a Democratic candidate for Anaheim City Council:

“Chuchua interjects that there’s pictures of Brandman and Lodge at events together.”

Here’s a recent picture of Brian Chuchua together at an event with fellow Anaheim council candidate John Leos (on the left):

Leos is the union’s anointed candidate. The OCEA spent more than $200,000 for Leos’ 2010 council run, spent almost $100,000 in 2011 on mailers promoting Leos, and will surely pull out the stops for him this year.

According to Chuchua’s reasoning, this picture ties Chuchua to Leos and his union backers, so Chuchua needs to inform OC GOP Central Committee members about his suspect ties to unions at the next meeting.

UPDATE: Here’s an image from the Secretary of State’s campaign finance disclosure website (search “Orange County Employees Association Issues Committee”), showing a direct payment from OCEA to Tim Whitacre:

It looks like OCEA directly hired Whitacre to set up the Take Back Anaheim campaign operation, and Whitacre was subsequently paid through the Take Back Anaheim committee.

37 Responses to “Chutzpah at OC GOP Endorsement Committee”

  1. In today’s (Thursday) Anaheim Bulletin, full back page, a Brandman and Lodge political advertisement.

  2. Brian Chuchua said

    John Leos is a registerd Republican an Endorsed by Mayor Tom Tait. The photo is of Brian Chuchua, John Leos, and Tom Tait cut off on right side of Photo.

  3. REALLY boys, you have the CHUTZPAH to holler CHUTZPAH after all the tall tales your boy Chavez told last night? How did Jordan Brandman come up anyway? Because your boy said “he has no ties to Brandman and has never been to any events with Brandman.”

    Looks like maybe after a career of “your word against his, his prevails,” he thinks he can still fabricate reality. As always, it really helps that we have lots of photographic evidence, with a dishonest ex-cop like this.

  4. Tim Whitacre said

    “OC Insider” (Thesaurus: Paid Establishment screed writer),

    Get your facts straight before you try to spin and deflect the argument away from the facts surrounding Steve Lodge unfitness for an OCGOP endorsement.

    …Oh that’s right you don’t have to worry about facts – Chris Nguyen and Chris Emami are giving you political cover of anonymity…

    WHAT AN OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE BLOG… ROFL!!!

    Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Emami:

    Since you obviously support and condone what has been falsely posted about me in an attempt to provide cover for Steve Lodge, I challenge the two of you to arrange for a public meeting with “OC Insider” identifying himself and questioning me about the ‘Let The People Vote’ Initiative. I too, in return, get to question the three of you about who pays you and how you allow access to your blog/determine appropriate content.

    You know how and where to reach me if you’re truly as interested in transparency and integrity as I am.

    Respectfully,

    Tim Whitacre

    (For anyone who is reading this and actually knows me personally as a friend, feel free to contact me if you have questions about the falsities posted here. I don’t engage anonymous hit men)

    • Elmer said

      Was that a different Tim Whitacre in those news articles?

    • Let me try and address some of the issues you pointed out:

      1) Ask away but the only money we receive for the blog are for the advertisements you see on the left. We do have clients running for office but always disclose that when writing about it.

      2) For the record I actually disagree with OC Insider on Steve Lodge. I don’t think he should get the party endorsement. Lucille Kring should be the lone endorsed candidate in this race.

      3) We don’t tell any of our bloggers what they can and cannot write. One of our clients Robert Hammond was attacked pretty viciously by “Lassie” in a post and we never even considered taking it down.

      4) Send me your contact info because I don’t have your e-mail address. info@custom-campaigns.com

      5) If you don’t like our blog and think it is not objective I would encourage you to start a new Republican blog and take our readership away.

      • To elaborate on Chris Emami’s points:

        We can’t arrange a public meeting with OC Insider because a number of people are OC Insider, and obviously, only one of them wrote the post (we actually don’t know which one). However, we have not found any of the various OC Insiders in the Anaheim campaign finance reports. (See my comment to Cynthia below).

        Custom Campaigns (the entity that owns this blog), Chris Emami, and I have received zero money for writing blog posts; the only money we’ve received because of the blog are the ads on the left column.

        The only money we (Custom Campaigns, Chris Emami, and I) have received for candidates for local office in Anaheim are web services for Lucille Kring and for political consulting for Orange Unified School District incumbents Alexia Deligianni and Mark Wayland. We’ve received no money from any source for or against any local ballot measure (proposed, failed, or qualified). We’ve received no money from Anaheim Chamber, SOAR, Disney, OCBC, OCTax, or OUEA.

        Ordinarily, I would not indulge a demand of our finances and go through a list of our financial interests like this, but this case is unique since OC Insider specifically spoke about Tim Whitacre’s finances, and Mr. Whitacre asked of ours. Since one of OC Political’s bloggers fired first, in this particular case, I opted to answer Mr. Whitacre’s financial question.

    • thinkoc said

      Well Tim, the anonymous pitbull was permitted to rip me apart, laughably in the name of “transparency”, so yeah, I think you nailed it. I think that OC Insider might be Dave Ellis. The same vile, hate-spewing attack campaign he is known for..and PAID for. Or is it Curt himself? He needed a blog to run to and a pen name to hide behind after he was ripped a new one over at Red County the one time he tried to post. Tell me, Chris and Chris, are you ABSOLUTELY certain that none of the bloggers here using pen names are paid? No conflict of interest? I respect you two, I know we have been over this, but you seem to have an attack dog with a private agenda and a private identity on your hands. How does that work?
      CW

      • I’m going to reveal one of the secrets of OC Political: A dozen people are OC Insider.

        Of the various OC Insiders, we have not found any of them (nor their employers) on any campaign finance reports of Anaheim City Council candidates or of the Anaheim Chamber, SOAR, or the OUEA. That would be the same check we’d run if this were a blogger using their real name.

        • thinkoc said

          I could make the same reply that OC Insider has used against me. That is not a full answer is it? Dave Ellis was hired recently enough not to show up on a campaign filing. Lodge’s attorney (or his attorney’s business partner with a history of animosity toward me) would not show up either. Do these bloggers show up on campaign filings? No. But that does not mean they do not have a conflict. I will drop it, I trust and respect the Chrises, but I cannot say I am not suspicious of Insider.

          • Barney said

            Has anyone else noticed Whitacre and Ward don’t dispute the facts of this post? And Ward hasn’t denied other parties are paying for the lawsuit she filed.

            But suddenly they’re bugged that OC Political has anonymous bloggers. News flash: it has always had anonymous bloggers, but I don’t recall either of you going on the warpath about it until now.

  5. Elmer said

    Tim:

    Is that a different Tim Whitacre listed here as being paid by the OCEA Issues Committee?

    http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1323167&view=expenditures

  6. Wally said

    I think Tim has a good point. i’m sure both chris are smart enough to not even think you can take that Marine(Did you guys even serve? Probably, not!)

    If I may also, I think the question is would we rather have someone conceivably use up union funds or someone who gets paid by some Republican lobbyist who gets paid by shifting government contracts(taxpayer money) for his clients. Can anybody say Curt Pringle! For whatever reason, OC Republicans seem to think that union money is more harmful than abuses of taxpayer money from their own funneled by some talking Reep who talks about smaller gov’t as long as it doesn’t cut in their slice of the pie. Hypocrites! We all know who are lobbyist or who works in government just padding their pockets and pensions at the same time they go on saying smaller government, smaller pensions but not for me.

    • Elmer said

      “If I may also, I think the question is would we rather have someone conceivably use up union funds…”

      Whitacre floats a trial balloon excuse: “I was really working for Galloway and OCEA as mole, so I could burn up union money that might otherwise be used against Reeps! Yeah, yeah, that’s it! That’s the ticket!”

  7. Alex Scott said

    What part of Tom Tait has endorsed Leos… the OCEA Candidate… was lost here? Didn’t notice this mentioned by anybody. So Tait endorses Leos, now kicks Lodge to the curb, and the OCGOP is blind to this?

  8. You all get me wondering…. who are the real conservatives in (and operating in ) Anaheim? Is lying a conservative value? Is abusing your authority as a cop a conservative value?

    Okay, those aren’t serious questions, but this DOES look like a defining moment when you people should be asking yourselves:

    Are the real conservatives Mayor Tom Tait, Cynthia Ward, Tim Whitacre, and Brian Chuchua, who – despite their occasional and/or partial alliances with Labor guys like John Leos and progressives like Lorri Galoway:

    – oppose corporate welfare such as this year’s TOT giveaway of $152 million, and believe that since this was a tax imposed by the people, exceptions to that tax of that size should have to be approved by a vote of the people;
    – oppose wasting good taxpayer money on law firms in a fruitless losing fight against the ACLU’s districting lawsuit;
    – constantly fight for government transparency, typified in Leos’ model ordinance; and
    fight AGAINST excessive labor giveaways like last June’s contract with Anaheim’s general employees union that promised, among other things, no layoffs, no outsourcing of city services, an end to furloughs and lump sum payouts totaling $2,200 to every employee who had previously taken furlough days.

    Or are the real conservatives the Pringle-centered group of corporatists who get defended and apologized for on the OC Political Blog – councilmembers Kris Murray, Gail Eastman and Harry Sidhu and Council hopefuls Jordan Brandman and Steve Albert “Chavez” Lodge, who:

    – believe in doling out hundreds of millions of corporate welfare to their campaign contributors with no strings attached;
    – give lip service to the beauty of district elections while voting to waste millions of Anaheim taxpayer dollars fruitlessly fighting it, just to stay in power a little longer;
    – fight tooth and nail AGAINST transparency, dubbing themselves “masters of the universe” whose secret dealings the public doesn’t need to know about; and
    APPROVE obscene, unaffordable labor contracts like last June’s contract with Anaheim’s general employees union that promised, among other things, no layoffs, no outsourcing of city services, an end to furloughs and lump sum payouts totaling $2,200 to every employee who had previously taken furlough days… all as part of secret political deals with the OCEA, with the goal of perpetuating their own power?

    see http://voiceofoc.org/oc_north/article_97724416-c453-11e1-b7ea-001a4bcf887a.html

    Now that I put it like that (knowing and accepting the risk that in some dumb minds my own dirty liberalism rubs off and soils the contingent I sympathize with) the question answers itself. (check the OJ later today)

    • Elmer said

      This is rich. Left-wing Vern giving a lecture about who and who is not a conservative!

      And this froj the guy who, on his on blog, has been calling Tom Tait a “moderate.” Maybe you should get your own thoughts straight before doing a brain dump here.

    • None of them questioned my character until now. Seems like a good time to stand up for myself, don’t you think?

      • The above comment posted in the wrong place.

        Anyway, to address Vern, dude if you ever even think iof me forging alliances with those you just listed (especially Galloway) you will come up missing a body part. That said, while Vern is admittedly as liberal as they get, he has a good heart and genuinely despises corruption and dirt tricks from either side of the aisle, and that gives us more common ground than the Republicans willing to cover over any underhanded dealings in the name of party solidarity. The Reagan rule should be amended to say, Thou shalt not speak evil of another Republican, unless they are as dirty as a 14 month old’s diaper.

        We have spent so much time fighting off the evils of public employee unions (and I have proudly been at the forefront of that fight) only to watch in horror as those in our own party swoop in as “job creators” and suck through more tax money in one unnecessary project than Nick Berardino could wallow in in his lifetime.

        insider you questioned my flip flop on politicians, I give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove unworthy, and for those I catch feeding at the trough, I not only have no trouble declaring war on someone I supported who turns out to have used me to gain a position at the buffet table, I consider it my civic duty to alert voters, out of a sense of responsibility, because once. Upon a time I was the one selling that product to the public.

        • Oh, I was afraid you’d burrow through those clauses and flip your lid over the implication that Cynthia Ward would be allied with LoGal. OK, you’re not. Although you both support letting the people vote on hotel subsidies, and you both support settling with the ACLU, and you both support Mayor Tait. But yeah, yeah, I know you can’t abide Lorri.

          Let’s not you and me bicker now, dearest…

        • Gene V. said

          EDITORS NOTE: We have redacted this comment because it is a personal attack not relevant in any way to the post.

    • W. Wilson said

      I’ll respond to you, Vern.

      – A conservative could be on either side of the TOT rebate as a business development tool. It’s not a litmus test as to whether you';re a conservative. Tait had voted for 50-50 TOT splits for years. So had Lorri Galloway (who has no problem with the city forcing developers to set-aside a certain percentage of their property as “affordable housing” but is horrified at a time-limited rebating of TOT revenue). Tait’s opposition wasn’t in principle, but he he thought the 80-20 split was too high.

      – Council district’s are a ploy by your left-wing brethen to lock in City Council seats for Democrats, since liberals have a hard time winning city-wide. It’s pure politics, not high-ideals. Guys like super-liberal Jose Moreno can’t get elected at-large, so the ACLU sues to try to win thru litigation what they can’t win at the ballot box. A majority of Anaheim voters don’t want libs on their council Vern — deal with it.

      – Fighting the ACLU’s lawsuit isn’t fruitless. Your just repeating the plaintiff’s talking points. The city can and should fight it on principle, rather tan be cowed by a bunch of lefty legal thugs. Fighting to do the right thing isn’t a waste of money. It’s Moreno, the absurd Ain David and the ACLU who are wasting the taxpayers money.

      – I agree the June agreement with the AMEA was a bad deal, and Tom Tait cast the right vote. But I saw one of your other comments in which you wrongly claim there won’t be any more labor issues coming before the council for a few years as a result. The LOU you refer to is for little more than a year — if you don’t even know the basic facts of issues you yammer on about, it’s hard to take you seriously.

      -Futhermore, requiring voter approval of any TOT deal with a hotel is NOT conservative. It is a Progressive position. Submitting what is and shoulkd be a council decision to the voters is the same as saying the issue is too important for the people’s elected representatives to decide. It creates a principle that if an issue is really important, then the people’s elected representatives can’t be trusted to decide it. That is not conservative thinking. That is capital “P” Progressive, direct-democracy thinking.

      Now go back to an area in which you actually have some competence, deciding what and what isn’t liberal.

      • I’ll let you all discuss this yourselves now. I know that Whitacre thought my big comment above was spot on. Maybe you all don’t find him conservative. Maybe you think he’s a nut. Have a nice day, all.

      • thinkoc said

        W. Wilson, I am sorry, Vern does not speak fluent Conservative, perhaps you will allow me to intrude on the conversation?

        W.W. “A conservative could be on either side of the TOT rebate as a business development tool.”

        Earlier TOT deals generated 50% of TOT back to the General Fund. Those made sense; the taxpayer saw a benefit in the partnership, and Tait was right to approve them. (Yes Vern, including the Lake Development deal, I can explain the numbers to you, it pencils.) But the GardenWalk deal is entirely different, 100% of the TOT is diverted in that agreement, 20% goes to bond repayment, the other 80% goes to the developer.

        What part of that is conservative? The job creation? Creating service sector jobs below a livable wage means we next get to build subsidized “workforce housing” for those workers. (Oh my God, Vern is right, I do agree with Galloway about something! Check my neck for the scab!) We get zero TOT, the sales tax appears (possibly?) to be already compromised in some deal with the developer, and we get 10 cents on the dollar out of property tax, but building this means we now get to house the workers, pay for their kids school lunches, and repair roads from increased traffic workers generate to and from the site, while transportation money slated for those roads is now spent on ARTIC. Sounds like LOTS more government spending above and beyond the initial give-away, and there is nothing conservative about that.

        I am tired of hearing Tait compromised his conservative principles in cahoots with Galloway and the unions. Tait was right to back Take Back Anaheim for the petition, which I also signed. He (naively) trusted Lorri to limit her activity to ONLY the TOT petition. But like a college freshman with Dad’s credit card, once Galloway had Tait’s endorsement and photo op, she just couldn’t stick to buying groceries and school books, she had to go on a binge. Without Tait’s permission or knowledge, Galloway perverted the stated purpose of Take Back Anaheim to also incite a riot by letting Joanne Sosa and Yesenia Rojas use the Take Back Anaheim name, facebook page, and email list, to protest Police violence in an extremely confrontational anti-Police manner. Trusting Galloway not to abuse his support was Tait’s sin, not backing something that every Conservative in the city should be backing.

        W.W. “Council district’s are a ploy by your left-wing brethen to lock in City Council seats for Democrats, since liberals have a hard time winning city-wide.”

        I do not think the ACLU is even that idealistic, since the voters in those “disadvantaged” neighborhoods already outnumber the voters in Anaheim Hills, and they simply fail to VOTE, or they vote for the same candidates that did win! There is no history of minority candidates (liberal or otherwise) getting votes in disenfranchised neighborhoods, only to lose to the votes of rich white people in the hills.

        It’s not “pure politics” as you put it, it is pure economics. The ACLU runs up and down California, filing lawsuits like the bully picking fights for lunch money. They began with school districts, realized they had a winning case that also gave them not only settlements, but legal fees AND EXPERT FEES, which is unheard of elsewhere. This is a money maker for them. You think the ACLU gives a rip about those voters? Where are the voter registration drives? Where are the bilingual candidate forums in locations residents can get to with limited transportation options? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

        This is the part that makes my brain explode. Go look at ALL other cases filed by the ACLU in California. They have never lost. Not once, and it has gone all the way through the appellate system to the Supremes. Districts are coming to Anaheim, whether they are done voluntarily or forced on us by the courts (after being ordered to write a healthy check to the ACLU!) If there was ANY hope of winning, I would scream FIGHT right alongside you Wilson. We cannot win, fighting only pumps up our fees, and the Mayor is right to try working this out to cost us the least for what is a foregone conclusion.

        Council Districts will do nothing to help disenfranchised neighborhoods launch their candidates, because the special interests that already control Anaheim will simply blanket those smaller Districts in mail and drown out the efforts of some poor schmuck who thought he could cover the ‘hood in photocopied handouts with volunteers. If you think the establishment crowd cannot game this, think again. They will find a local in a District they need to control, someone stepping up with leadership qualities that locals clearly respect and follow. They will groom him/her. Invite them to sit at a Chamber table for a few luncheons, The Mouse scores them seats for Candlelight (or invites them to serve on the SOAR Advisory Board) someone has last minute tickets for the City’s box at the Honda Center, etc. This little blue collar worker has never had that level of attention in their life, and with very little time and investment they have someone dazzled at being part of the “in” crowd. Been there, done that, and am sadly watching others I care about being seduced with the same exact courtship. And when those who have been so good to you explain how this project is really great for the City, well you listen, because you trust them. Districts will not change that. It will just give us more leaders to influence.

        In addition, we cannot get our leaders to quit sniping at each other as it is, may God help us when Districts give them little kingdoms to oversee.

        Tom Tait did the right thing in opposing the recent union payoff. What those so-called “conservative Republican” leaders approved was obscene, and far more brazen than a real union candidate would ever have the nerve to try! Now back to Leos, who is so publicly tied to the unions that he will HAVE to show more balance and restraint than the current Council majority, lest we all point and scream “See, we TOLD you he would sell us all to Nick Berardino!” (Apparently that job is already taken by Todd Ament.)

        W.W. Submitting what is and should be a council decision to the voters is the same as saying the issue is too important for the people’s elected representatives to decide.

        This from a SOAR/Chamber press release, dated Monday March 19, 2007;

        “Ultimately, SOAR members agree that it is the Anaheim voter who should decide the future of Anaheim Resort Area, an area so important to their future. Registered voters will be able to sign petitions at a number of locations in the next few weeks.” http://www.imakenews.com/anaheim/e_article000781148.cfm?x=0,w

        Followed by this presser about a year later,

        Anaheim’s Resort District Preserved!
        S.O.A.R. Grassroots Army Succeeds
        The Anaheim Resort District covers less than 5 percent of the city. Yet, it is an economic powerhouse that generates more than 50 percent of all Anaheim tax revenues.
        A year ago, the Resort District, which was created in 1994, was in serious danger. The “Save Our Anaheim Resort” (SOAR) committee formed and began the long fight to preserve the Resort District.
        Anaheim’s World Class Resort District is now preserved! The Anaheim City Council reversed its position and adopted the “Save Our Anaheim Resort” (SOAR) initiative on March 4, 2008.
        SOAR thanks the many people who worked so hard for this great victory! YOU fought City Hall! And YOU Won! Grassroots democracy works. The Resort District is now preserved. Police and Fire services are now protected. Resort District Preserved – Essential City Services Protected

        You say that “It creates a principle that if an issue is really important, then the people’s elected representatives can’t be trusted to decide it.”

        And yep, that is PRECISELY what SOAR/Disney/Chamber said back in 07-08.. We had three Councilmembers who voted as a majority block against the wishes of the then-Mayor with Galloway as the other dissenting vote, over the very vocal objections of residents. The deal at the time changed the development deal for a parcel of land in the Resort District, which would have diverted TOT income (instead of giving it away it would not have existed, as a residential development rather than hotel, but the net loss to the General Fund was the same) and the deal was shoved through hurriedly without discussion, in what appeared to greatly benefit the developer who had monetarily helped those who voted in favor. Now WHAT exactly is different today? Back then when Mayor Pringle led residents in a protest movement against special interests he was called a “visionary.” Mayor Tait led residents in a protest movement against special interests and those same people turned on him, accusing him of being petty for not accepting what he saw as a raw deal for Anaheim. The hypocrisy makes me sick.

        Of course back then we stood together in the name of, “Protect Vital City Services.” I guess “Subsidize private developers with taxpayer dollars desperately needed for vital city services that are instead being given away with little to no benefit to taxpayers in exchange for their investment” just doesn’t fit onto a t-shirt, or a snappy orange helium balloon.

        Your definition of Conservative leadership seems flawed in a few areas, and I hope you will please consider rethinking your views on Mayor Tait, who is a good man trying to fight back against those who would give away our financial stability as a city.

        CW

        • W. Wilson said

          That’s a long answer, Cynthia. I’ll try to be brief.

          The difference between the Gardenwalk project and other 50/50 TOT splits is one of degree, not kind. And that 20% doesn’t stay in the project. It goes to paying of resort district bonds, meaning the city can retire that debt obligation all the sooner.

          And for the record, I don’t agree with the GW project. But I think a valid conservative case can be made for it as a business development tool in an economic environment in which Anaheim has few tools to work with in order to attract higher end hotels and keep the Resort District competitive. It sure isn’t a limtus test issue that determines whether you’re a conservative or not.

          You used to argue how vital the Resort District is to Anaheim’s health, so vital in fact that you supporting restricting the rights of resort district property owners with a ballot-box zoning measure. That wasn’t conservative, and neither is the Take Back Anaheim initiative. You support both. Direct democracy is a progressive value, not a conservative one.

          “Your definition of Conservative leadership seems flawed in a few areas, and I hope you will please consider rethinking your views on Mayor Tait…”

          Quite the opposite. I think your understanding of conservatism is flawed annd inconsistent. For the record, I admire Tom Tait. I think he is a principled conservative. But I think his advocacy of the Take Back Anahem initiative is politically and philosophically unsound. Same with his support for rushing a council districts initiative onto the ballot with little input from the general public. This same coalition backing both Take Back Anaheim and council districts wll reward Mayor Tait by turning on him in 2014, when Lorri Galloway challenges him for re-election. That is their nature.

          Speaking of the council districts issue, it is both a political and economic issue for its litigious advocates. Those aren’t mutually exclusive, Cynthia. The reason it has been successfully litigated around the state is because the targets have mostly been school districts. Lacking the resources, sophistication adn will to resist, they simply cave in and settle. And if the City of Anaheim adopts your defeatist mentality, that is what will happen here as well.

  9. [...] some unutterable shill who’s allowed to write under the pseudonym “OC Insider” at the O…, supposedly locating hypocrisy in Tim Whitacre for pointing out Chavez-Lodge’s union-cash [...]

  10. [...] a fine writer and honest conservative, betrays some of the elitism native to her ideology when she attempts to flesh out her worries, her worries of how lower-class, [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,005 other followers