OC Political

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

  • Custom Campaigns

    Custom Campaigns
  • DMI

  • Allen for Assembly

  • Posey for Huntington Beach

  • Lalloway for Irvine

  • Sachs for Mission Viejo

  • Huang for Yorba Linda

  • Glasky for IUSD

  • Lee for CSD

  • Contact Us to Purchase an Ad

  • Lincoln Club of Orange County

  • I Voted

    I Voted

Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait: The Conscience of Orange County Republicans

Posted by Lassie on September 18, 2012

The Honorable Tom Tait, Mayor of Anaheim

The Honorable Tom Tait, Mayor of Anaheim

Reading Chris Nguyen’s article about last night’s Central Committee (http://ocpolitical.com/2012/09/17/live-from-oc-gop-central-committee/), I was both pleased and amazed at the deference being given to the Honorable Tom Tait, Mayor of Anaheim.

The mere suggestion that Brian Chuchua might one day get endorsed by Tait was enough to get the Central Committee to vote to endorse Chuchua with an amazing 72.5% of the vote.

Reading about the discussion on the Anaheim endorsement, it was clear that Mayor Tait’s endorsement was the single most important item of discussion in Chuchua’s endorsement request.

What’s also amazing is that Tait has received little blowback from the anti-union Republican Party for endorsing the union-backed John Leos for Anaheim City Council.  This is a sign of the great esteem in which Tait is held that Republicans are largely refusing to criticize Tait for doing what many other Republicans have been hanged, drawn and quartered for.

Why is Tait held in such high regard?

It is because, more than any other person, Tom Tait is the conscience of Orange County Republicans.

When the controversial TOT scheme was proposed, Harry Sidhu, Gail Eastman, and Kris Murray fell to big business pressure and Lorri Galloway fell to union pressure.  While Galloway voted with him, Tait was the sole councilmember to truly stick to his principles.  Tait  is a true blue, limited government conservative.

Tom Tait had originally endorsed Steve Lodge, but when he saw Lodge was more of the same big business, TOT supporter type, Tait pulled his endorsement.  When Lodge got raked over the coals by the Endorsements Committee, he realized Tait’s principles are the Republican Party’s principles, so Lodge withdrew his request for an endorsement.

That is the power of Tom Tait’s quiet conservative principles.

Anaheimers chose well when they elected Tom Tait as Mayor in 2010, and they did a service for all of Orange County when they elected this noble public servant.

14 Responses to “Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait: The Conscience of Orange County Republicans”

  1. Anaheim HOME said

    Wake up! Tait has a constuction company, Tait Associates, that specializes in municipal projects. Mayor Tait abstains from voting on items at almost every council meeting. The FPPC guidelines for Conflict of Interest is to abstain if your financial interest is $20,000 or more. Having a municipal construction company president as an elected official is like having the fox taking care of the henhouse.

    At the last Anaheim Council Meeting, non-veteran Tait did not oppose removing the “Buy American” requirement from the ARTIC high speed rail station contract.

    It is apparent that the Republican Party do0es not need dirty members like Tom Tait.

  2. Cynthia Ward said

    Yes William, Tom Tait owns a company, God forbid some evil capitalist pig should create jobs rather than feed from the government teat
    (I can say teat here, right?) That he abstains from voting with even the slightest hint of conflict shows that he is NOT the dirty politician you make him out to be. Please, share even one instance in which Tait has enriched himself at the cost of taxpayers. Go ahead, I’ll wait here. Instead, Tait is being kicked in the teeth by people who were once his friends because he has REFUSED to play that game of special-interest bingo. Now, when it comes to ARTIC, do not get me started, I don’t think we should be backing that boondoggle at all, much less with an exemption of “Buy American.” Tait is a good man, possibly the best to hold Anaheim office since Charlie Pearson left, but he does have some blind spots, and not seeing the ruse of a taxpayer-funded parking lot that just happens to be connected to a station that is overbuilt (to justify the taxpayer funded parking lot) is one of his biggest.

    Anyway, I would think (dare even hope) that Tait’s efforts to clean up Anaheim’s special interest cottage industry would be supported by those at Anaheim HOME. Are you really interested in making Anaheim better or merely in having something to be perpetually angry about?

    I think the situation in Anaheim may have the result of FINALLY showing the GOP that partisan politics at all costs is the downfall of the Republican party. There are times when it is better to work with a Democrat (or even RINO) with shared values, than a Republican who has sold their soul. There, I said it.

    For too long the GOP has promoted bad Republican candidates simply because they were Republican, and it is the political equivalent of a family closing ranks around the “funny uncle” because he is family. (see Harry Sidhu for prime example of really bad leadership promoted simply because there is an R behind his name, and he knows how to pull out a checkbook during Flag Day.) Anaheim is in crisis today, and while the Pringle-inspired gossip-gallery would have us believe it is Tom Tait’s fault, the reality is that Tait has been working HARD to close the back doors left open (and being kept propped open) by those “Conservative Republicans” whose GOP endorsements helped put them into places of power where they could leave those doors open for their well-heeled (or well represented) friends in the name of “Business Development.” Monkey business is more like it.

    Those “conservative Republicans” have gone on the warpath against Tom Tait, how dare he not play the game, after all, who put him in that office? Who raised all that money for him? Who diverted endorsements away from McCracken, to back Tait against their will? Oops, did I say that out loud? Guess I did. I’m just full of surprises today.

    Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and sometimes the shared threat is so much worse than the enemy of the past that one is forced to forge alliances in order to defeat that shared threat. Watching the private-sector deals fly out the door at Anaheim City Hall is far more expensive than anything the unions could even hope to pull off. I do not blame Tait for forging an alliance with the one person with the best chance to push back against those forces. Instead I blame those “Conservative Republicans” who have been so blatantly for sale/or lease that they make the “union guy” look like an attractive choice.

    Looking at the candidates most likely to push back against Tom Tait, the Chamber formed their slate of Brandman/Lodge early, by early I mean that the decision appears to have been made immediately following the 2010 election, when I started hearing that crowd praising the name of their new flavor-of-the-month. A number of us predicted that slate 2 years ago, when the only folks in town who knew who Lodge was were the same 10 people who run everything else in town. That was a given from the get-go. However, SOAR has not endorsed the 2nd seat, and I hear rumors that they might break ranks with the Chamber (first time for everything) by promoting a bullet-vote of Brandman only, trying to separate him from Lodge and the mud-bath that might splatter on Jordan if he is linked too closely to Lodge. Excuse me-Chavez Lodge- how rude of me to disdain the heritage he so clearly values. But I digress. A slate of Lodge/Brandman hurts Brandman, if I were Jordan I would be screaming at my supporters to get me (or Lodge) the Hell off those banners and newspaper ads! How much a SOAR endorsement helps or hurts is also up for debate this year given their backing of the TOT giveaway that is still an incendiary subject despite the union scaling back the mailings. I think Anaheim Neighborhood Association may do the same bullet-vote for Brandman. Lodge’s sure thing is not so sure anymore.

    The Mayor’s endorsement for the 2nd seat is another moving target. Brian Chuchua has steadfastly supported the Mayor’s priorities, including the union-backed “Let the People Vote” initiative, which oddly enough was the conservative taxpayer-protecting answer to the public-funded giveaway backed by leaders claiming to be conservative Republicans. Yet another bizarre example in which anyone involved gets smacked by GOP faithful because it, gasp, was funded by OCEA. Again, we need to stop looking at our differences and recognize that sometimes we have enough in common to work together for the greater good. Back to Chuchua, Brian may have overstepped by appearing to be very involved in efforts to examine a recall of Murray and Eastman. While it went nowhere (due to lack of funding more than lack of desire) Brian is seen by the current majority as the enemy-in spades-and his presence on the Council is sure to pour gasoline on embers still smoldering beneath the surface waiting for the next flare up. On the other hand, they are unlikely to play nice with anyone Tait chooses so Tom may as well roll with a friend. After years of running and ending in the middle of the pack, can Chuchua win? Tait cannot afford to lose even on principle.

    Playing devil’s advocate, Lucille Kring brings the balance of the GOP early endorsement, plus the sole Lincoln Club nod for Anaheim, so nobody can question those conservative credentials. Her addition would pull Tait’s slate back to the right again to balance Leos. However…right now Lucille does not have a target on her back, and her ability to walk precincts and overcome a lack of mail money puts her in the top without Tait’s help-and without exposure to his list of enemies. Asking her to step between 2 loaded guns and stand by Tait is going to require Tait to bring something of significance to the deal, his endorsement alone is not enough, he will have to provide some money to tell voters about that endorsement via glossy mailers. And while Lucille is 100% committed to bucking the Pringle establishment, she is not a sure thing on every vote, she weighs each and every item independently and has been known to tangle with Tait in the past as well. She can win, but she can also drive the Mayor nuts on that dais.

    One way or the other Tait needs allies on that Council, and he needs them NOW, with absentee ballots 2 weeks out he can’t afford further delay. Whether he chooses Lucille or Brian (both are agreeable choices with their own benefits…and baggage..) Tait needs to get in there are fight for his candidates with a passion he has not been exhibiting up until now. Yes, he is trying to rise above the petty bickering and not lower himself to the level of those who use their positions for retaliatory back-stabbing, and we all appreciate that Tait is trying to be the statesman among back-alley bar fighters. But being the gentleman is going to do him no good at all if he is left alone in a sea of 4 to 1 give-Curt’s-clients-yet-another-deal voting blocks.

    Lassie is right, Tom Tait has become the conscience of the conservative movement, and he has become a hero to many in and around Anaheim who understand what he is trying to accomplish (although apparently not to William Fitzgerald) . It is now up to us as conservatives to back his play and put an end to the special interest industry that is stripping Anaheim project by project on a level that the unions never dreamed of. And that might mean making friends (with strict boundaries) of those who have traditionally been our enemies. God help us. For those who do not like it, blame the “conservative Republicans” in power that have left us little choice.

  3. Matthew Cunningham said

    Cynthia:

    “…including the union-backed “Let the People Vote” initiative, which oddly enough was the conservative taxpayer-protecting answer to the public-funded giveaway backed by leaders claiming to be conservative Republicans.”

    Let the People Voote is not a taxpayer-protection measure.

    Prop. 13 is a taxpayer-protection measure. It limits government’s ability to increase taxes. Let the People Vote contains no protection for taxpayers (in this case, tourists visiting Anaheim). It says nothing about the city’s ability to raise (or lower) TOT.

    It is a spending measure. It takes a single revenue source, and places a voter-approval requirement on a single possible use of it. No other use of TOT revenue is requires voter-approval.

    The backers of Let the People Vote don’t like this TOT deal, and so push a voter-approval requirement to make it more difficult to enact policies like it. That just legitimizes any interest group or faction pushing a voter-approval requirement as an obstacle to any other policy of which they disapprove. Supporting this initiative obviates the ability to object to future attempts at ballot-box governance, Cynthia. This is the second time you have supported resorting to direct democracy — which is a product of Progressivism, not conservatism — to stop something with which you disagree. When it is used to block or delay something you support, you’ll have no grounds for objecting.

    There are some conservatives who support Let the People Vote, but it is not a conservative measure. Tom Tait and I had been friends for many years. I supported Tom for Mayor, Cynthia, while you were busy attacking him as a special interest candidate who lacked a good grasp of what was happening in Anaheim. I admire and respect Tom. He is a principled conservative. But I respectully disagree with Tom on this issue. Let the People Vote is contrary to genuine conservative governance, in which we elect representatives to govern, and if we don’t like how they govern, then we replace them

  4. @ Matt C:
    You state, “I admire and respect Tom. He is a principled conservative. But I respectully disagree with Tom on this issue. Let the People Vote is contrary to genuine conservative governance, in which we elect representatives to govern, and if we don’t like how they govern, then we replace them.”

    MY RESPONSE:

    TOM TAIT.
    I am a registered democrat; although, I vote more on the issue than along partisan lines.
    I too admire and respect Mayor Tom Tait, and a few other competent, ethical and principled conservative Republicans in OC i.e. Shari Friedenrich, OC Treasurer & Tax Collector; and I know many other community leaders/Democrats that feel the same way.

    GOVERNANCE:
    In a Representative Democracy legitimacy and authority rests on the “consent of the governed”.

    A feature of great governance, and to protect the taxpayers/citizens, is that the citizens should have and are working to ensure that they obtain the power and ability to not only IMPEACH or RECALL bad representatives (AFTER the fact), but to also prevent bad decisions from taking effect (BEFORE the fact) such as through a VETO power or REFERENDUM process especially when the bad decisions by bad representatives involves the UNNECESSARY GIVE-AWAY of the taxpayers/citizens funds to “a favored or privileged few”, as we saw recently in Anaheim this year, and in Santa Ana two years ago.

    And the strengthening of these preventive measures, resting with the taxpayers/citizens, are a further strengthening of our system of “Checks and Balances” which is a key feature of our Representative Democracy!

    Paco Barragán

    • Matthew Cunningham said

      Francisco: with all due respect, the direct democracy features you describe are unconnected to the Founding Fathers and their philosophy of governance, on from which come the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
      They are the intellectual creation of the Progressives, who respected the Founders but rejected their view that our Republic is founded on trans-historical principles that are true in all times. The Progressives concocted the notion of the “living constitution,” the meaning of which changed from generation to generation. They saw government not in the mechanical way the Founders viewed it, but considered it a living organism. They recognized no inherent limitations on the power of government to control and guide social development.

      The direct democracy tools you salute do not enhance the checks and balances instituted by the Founders, which were meant to act as checks on popular passions. On the contrary, the Progressives saw them as means for bypassing the checks and balances (which they disliked) and instead giving direct expression to those passions.

      These are the intellectual fathers of the direct democracy tools you cite, and hence of the Let the People Vote initiative — which, again, is not conservative but Progressive governance.

  5. Cynthia Ward said

    Matt says: Let the People Voote is not a taxpayer-protection measure.

    Really? I have news for you Matt. Thanks to our elected leaders, we all face massive unfunded liabilities that must be paid for. If we are not growing the TOT to meet those demands, the City will either come looking to us for increased fees on services we use, or increased property tax assessments. Or they will cut back on the city services which we expect our taxes to pay for. So yes, in protecting TOT they are protecting me, the taxpayer. We made that case during the SunCal fight, when the same folks who advocate for the TOT giveaway today once said, “Every dollar paid by tourists in TOT is a dollar that does not have to be paid by residents.” They forgot their own argument that for every 2 cops on the streets of Anaheim, one is paid for by tourists. Who will pay for those cops down the road when we are paying for 2 cops on the beat and 2 cops out on a pension?

    Whether it is TOT or cigarette taxes, it matters not where the tax originated, those taxes belong to the people of that community, and diverting it is wrong. Diverting it to benefit the friends of the politicians doling it out is nothing short of evil.

    What remedy is available to the people of a community when our elected leaders really, really screw it up? Referendum. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s look at how another leader you admire has handled this same situation in the past. Here are a variety of quotes from the LA Times and OC Register, in 2007-08.

    “We’re asking Anaheim residents to do something very important and that is to overturn the City Council’s vote,” said Pringle, who was one of two members to vote against the zoning change. “I hope every Anaheim resident joins this coalition.”

    “Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, who campaigned for the initiative, said it was a necessary measure. “This resort plan was put in place over 10 years ago, and if you divert from that plan, I think it’s an important-enough decision to ask the voters.” he said. “To get this amount of signatures to put something new on the ballot shows a keen level of awareness of the voters on this issue.”

    “Victory came after the City Council agreed Tuesday night to strip itself of its power to decide what can be built in the city’s high-powered Resort District. Under the new ordinance, any future decisions — such as whether to build housing for resort workers — would have to be approved by a citywide vote, assuming the council approves such a plan in the first place.”

    “Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle said the vote essentially “ties the hands” of this and future councils from putting housing in “the economic core of the Resort District.”

    “Pringle, the Anaheim mayor, said he wasn’t bothered by the fact that the council has less authority in the city’s tourist district.”

    “It has worried me over the last couple of years to think this council or any future council would reduce the value of the Resort District by pulling out major properties for housing uses,” he said. “So I will take this level of protection from the council’s actions as a very good and important thing.”

    I will follow up with the words of a “conservative Anaheim business leader” back in the day.

    “We don’t think it’s wise to leave it in the hands of three people on council. It’s important to protect the long-term health of the resort.” Todd Ament

    Matt, you say, “Let the People Vote is contrary to genuine conservative governance, in which we elect representatives to govern, and if we don’t like how they govern, then we replace them.”

    Again, let’s look to a leader you have vocally supported;

    “To those who may try to claim that this action supposedly disrespects the democratic process they are plainly wrong. Our state has a long-standing initiative, referendum, and recall process – a system of direct democracy which became part of the California State Constitution as a result of a 1911 special election called by legendary California Governor Hiram Johnson. For nearly a century, this reform process has provided California voters at the state and local level with the constitutional right to repeal legislative action through the referendum, make their own laws through the initiative, and remove elected officials through the recall.”

    “It is significant to further note that in an online poll that the Orange County Register has been conducting regarding the City Council vote, 70% of those responding to the poll have voiced their opinion that they do not agree with the City Council’s decision on the zoning amendments. Thus, folks, ask yourselves why some do not want the people of Anaheim to vote on this important matter. As explained by Governor Hiram Johnson in his 1911 Inaugural Address: “I do not by any means believe the initiative, the referendum, and the recall are the panacea for all our political ills, yet, they do give to the electorate the power of action when desired, and they do place in the hands of the people the means by which they may protect themselves.”

    “I urge every Anaheim resident to thoughtfully consider exactly what this significant resort area zoning matter is truly about and to sign the petition which will place this important referendum on the ballot. In doing so, you will be protecting our quality of life in Anaheim and preserving future growth of the revenue generated in the resort area that so vitally funds our police, fire, parks, recreation, and other related city services. It is the right thing to do under the unfortunate circumstances that have arisen. We must not be short-sighted when it comes to making determinations that will have long-term impact on the future economic security of our city.”

    That was Harry Sidhu during the SOAR initiative. You do remember him, Matt, the guy you defended to the death in 2010?

    Matt, as you have pointed out, I did oppose Tom Tait for Mayor, in the belief that he was the “special interest candidate.” When Curt Pringle raises six figures for you in one lunch, what is one left to think? And I would challenge that it appears Tait’s supporters also made the assumption that they were buying access-hence their vindictive reaction to his refusal to give away tax money that rightfully belongs to the people of Anaheim. They do not just seem to merely disagree with him, they are emotional about it, downright ANGRY with him, as if he has betrayed them on a personal level. That is more than a political difference of opinion. How can you fault me for making the same assumption? It seems Tait was the only one who did not get that memo!

    I have also apologized, profusely, to the Mayor for that mistaken character assessment. I have said repeatedly, I have never been so glad to be so wrong about another human being in my life. I am especially grateful right now, when it seems like Tom Tait’s backbone of steel is the only thing standing between special interests and unfettered access to the City’s treasury.

    Our view of government has become so skewed that so-called conservative leadership such as OCBC and OCTax now stand in support of using public funds to benefit the private sector, while public benefit such as road repair and public safety goes begging. I thought we were supposed to be the party of smaller government, the party of get-the-Hell-out-of-the-way-and-let-the-private-sector-create-jobs. When tax money goes into the pockets of unions it is a betrayal of conservative values and costs a candidate an endorsement; when it goes into the pockets of Republican leaders it is economic development and praised. What hypocrites we have become. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats let poor people in on the highway robbery while Republicans hoard the swag for those with whom they share a tailor.

    How is preventing our leaders from diverting tax money from its intended public purpose NOT conservative governance?

    Oh and Matt, so good to hear from you, it has been a while, hasn’t it? I understand you are enjoying some new office space. It is so nice to see someone moving up despite this crummy economy. Good luck to you, my friend.

    • Matthew Cunningham said

      Cynthia, I don’t even know where to start with your comment.

      I disagreed with Curt Pringle, Todd Ament and Harry Sidhu on the SOAR initiative — just like I disagree with Tom Tait on the “Let the People Vote” initiative. I have been absolutely consistent. I opposed ballot-box zoning in 2007, and I oppose ballot-box budgeting today. Neither of those initiatives is an example of conservative governance, despite having the support of some conservatives.

      That was an awful lot of writing for you to do and still fail to make a logically coherent point.

      “Diverting it to benefit the friends of the politicians doling it out is nothing short of evil.”

      Really? You are being completely overwrought, falsely characterizing what happened – all while trivializing the concept of evil.

      ”What remedy is available to the people of a community when our elected leaders really, really screw it up?”

      Regularly scheduled elections, which take place every two years.

      ”Matt, as you have pointed out, I did oppose Tom Tait for Mayor, in the belief that he was the “special interest candidate.” When Curt Pringle raises six figures for you in one lunch, what is one left to think?”

      There’s always the obvious conclusion, Cynthia: that Curt has always been an excellent fundraiser, and that he believed his friend the best candidate to carry-on “freedom friendly” policies.

      I’ll wager if you examine the campaign finance reports of officeholders you support, you would find lots of “special interests,” though I doubt you would call any of them “special interest candidates.”

      ”And I would challenge that it appears Tait’s supporters also made the assumption that they were buying access-hence their vindictive reaction to his refusal to give away tax money that rightfully belongs to the people of Anaheim.”

      You’re not “challenging,” Cynthia. You’re jumping to a conclusion.

      ”How can you fault me for making the same assumption?”

      Precisely because, by your own admission, you are making an assumption based on appearances filtered through your own biases.

      “I have also apologized, profusely, to the Mayor for that mistaken character assessment. I have said repeatedly, I have never been so glad to be so wrong about another human being in my life.”

      That’s great, Cynthia. I never had to make such an apology because, due to my almost 20-year friendship with Tom, I knew the assumptions about him you vocalized during the 2010 campaign were completely wrong.

      ”How is preventing our leaders from diverting tax money from its intended public purpose NOT conservative governance?”

      First, taken as a general statement, that is neither a matter of liberal or conservative governance, but of good governance. Second, even taking this description of the GardenWalk vote at face value, it is not a justification for the Let the People Vote initiative, and certainly doesn’t make it conservative, for reasons I have already stated. That is what elections are for. Ballot-box zoning and budgeting make for bad governance. And when city councils vote to put measures like this on the ballot, they are essentially making a vote of no-confidence in themselves as a governing body.

      ”I understand you are enjoying some new office space. It is so nice to see someone moving up despite this crummy economy. Good luck to you, my friend.”

      That jibe is eerily reminiscent of a comment you directed at me on OC Blog in 2007, during the SunCal-Disney battle:

      “Matt, you used your home address? That was brave. Nice place. Nearly 2,000 square feet at OC prices? You must be very good at blog hosting. I’m impressed.”

      That was a weird and creepy thing to say then, and it is weird and creepy now.

  6. Cynthia Ward said

    Not stalking you in the least, just pointing out that you might not be the most unbiased voice in the crowd. Could you possibly have a motive to side with the lobbyist who made a killing on that deal, when you share office space? We side with our friends, it is what we do as humans, but don’t pretend that those connections have no impact on your reasoning.

    You advocated for the SunCal deal, oddly enough when you were paid by the team working for SunCal. Tell me how objective you were then. You supported spending First 5 dollars on private contractors, not exactly without some level of self-interest, using the same argument that if we did not pay the tax (as smokers) we have no right to determine where it is spent. So if we did not pay the bed tax as visitors it is OK to give it away? You now support pulling TOT (public funding) for the use of a 100% subsidized private project, when you have your own connections to those who benefit from the deal.

    No Matt, i do not see you as the last bastion of freedom and small government. If looking at your connections makes me creepy then fire away, I guess.

    • Matthew Cunningham said

      Cynthia, when I weighed in on this post, I did not make it about personalities. You, on the other hand, have a pattern of devolving things down to personalities, with a healthy dose of speculation, insinuation and assumption thrown in and some straw men bringing up the rear.

      Your commentary bleeds with bias, but you feel you need to point out I “might not be the most unbiased crowd in the voice” — which is curious since I have never claimed to be unbiased. Yes, we do have a tendency to side with our friends, but I do not blindly agree with them, as the instances I gave in earlier comments shows.

      “You advocated for the SunCal deal, oddly enough when you were paid by the team working for SunCal. Tell me how objective you were then.”

      Yes, and you know that because I disclosed it in every blog post. I didn’t claim to be objective, but tried to be factual. [Enough with the straw man arguments, Cynthia!].

      “You supported spending First 5 dollars on private contractors, not exactly without some level of self-interest, using the same argument that if we did not pay the tax (as smokers) we have no right to determine where it is spent.”

      Whaaa…? Not sure where to start with that stew of half-truths, spin and untruth. Why don’t you take another whack at saying what you were thinking,

      “You now support pulling TOT (public funding) for the use of a 100% subsidized private project, when you have your own connections to those who benefit from the deal.”

      Really? When did I say that?

  7. thinkoc said

    ..and Matt, what I had said about your home was correct as well, I really was impressed that you could be so successful at what you did at obviously such a young age that you could live in that beautiful home. I did not post your address for the world to see, someone sent it to me, I looked, and I was thrilled to see that someone could be financially viable in pioneering a forum where most blog hosts live in Mom’s basement. I admired you. Still do most days. Take that as you will.

    • Matthew Cunningham said

      Cynthia, I do like my home, but it is a fairly standard, 45-year old ranch-style house. And I was 43 years old when you wrote that — exactly young.

  8. [...] on Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait: The Conscience of Orange County RepublicansCynthia Ward on Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait: The Conscience of Orange County RepublicansMatthew Cunningham on Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait: The Conscience of Orange [...]

  9. Campbell Watcher said

    EDITORS NOTE: This comment has been redacted due to it containing obscene material.

  10. [...] know who it was – the most worshipful piece about Mayor Tait, referring to him as the “The Conscience of Orange County Republicans” – the sort of worshipful piece that would be really irritating if we didn’t all [...]

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 1,018 other followers