OC Political

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

Live from OC GOP: Endorsement for 1st Supervisorial District

Posted by Chris Nguyen on December 15, 2014

We’re live from a special meeting of the Republican Party of Orange County Central Committee to consider an endorsement for 1st District Supervisor.

Three new alternates are sworn in.

Chairman Scott Baugh notes Chris Phan’s Orange Juice Blog interview where Phan expressed opposition to the non-union pledge; Baugh notes that he rarely reads Orange Juice Blog but was told about that post. Baugh notes that Lou Correa coauthored the legislation that allowed 3% at 50 pension plans. Baugh warns that Correa will be a foothold for Nick Berardino and OCEA on the Board of Supervisors. Baugh notes many Vietnamese people are Buddhist and do not celebrate Christmas. Baugh recalls in 2007 that two Republican Vietnamese candidates came in the top two although Correa is stronger than Tom Umberg.

A Central Committee member asks Andrew Do about the economy and public safety.

Do says there are too many regulations and points to the examples of various permits and local ordinances. He says AB 109 and Prop 47 has a greater impact on the 1st District than other districts.


Record time: 16 minutes to adjournment

8 Responses to “Live from OC GOP: Endorsement for 1st Supervisorial District”

  1. Greg Diamond said

    If Baugh really took that pledge seriously, Kris Murray would be out job hunting these days. People can read the interview and decide what they think for themselves. (Does Baugh know that Beradino is retiring?)

    • In fairness to Baugh, he did rule Murray ineligible for the OC GOP endorsement due to her union contributions.

      • Greg Diamond said

        Yes — and then he blocked the GOP endorsement for Vanderbilt and (then pre-hatchet job) Pettibone, With the GOP endorsement, which there was no good reason for the two of them to get at that point (as the only two qualified), Pettibone probably weathers his controversy and both of them beat Murray. Without disqualifying Murray and Eastman’s opponents, who did NOT violate this supposedly so-serious pledge, Baugh left both the “violators” and the “non-violators” on an equal footing.

        After failing to get the advantage he was due as a non-cheater, which would have offset the money from the public safety unions, Pettibone lacked what he needed to withstand the spurious charges against him. So, yes, Baugh’s failure to enforce his rule SERIOUSLY — which means that Murray doesn’t end up JUST AS WELL OFF as Vanderbilt and Pettibone AND MORE (due to the union money), shows that the consequences of misbehavior were negligible. Don’t you guys believe in deterrence?

        • Matthew Cunningham said

          “Yes — and then he blocked the GOP endorsement for Vanderbilt and (then pre-hatchet job) Pettibone…”

          That is an absolutely, totally false claim. Scott Baugh didn’t block anyone. Murray, Eastman, Vanderbilt and Pettibone all withdrew their endorsement applications by mutual agreement, which Scott helped to broker. The rest of your counter-factual theoretical is fantasy.

          • Greg Diamond said

            I presume that people here generally know that Matt Cunningham works (without admitting it openly and honestly) for the rapaciously public money-sucking Curt Pringle enterprise, from which the OCGOP has had the good sense to distance itself of late; his commentary should be read in that light.

            Think about this logically, folks: Tom Tait had already been endorsed. Murray and Eastman had already been barred from seeking endorsement. Why exactly would James Vanderbilt and Doug Pettibone have agreed not to seek the OCGOP endorsement?

            Was it because they wanted to hide their GOP affiliation? No.

            Were they trying to lose? To even the playing field? To be sporting? No, no, and no.

            They gave up the advantage that they had EARNED by following Baugh’s supposedly solemn dictum because they had to, because Baugh had indeed “brokered a deal” — in which Murray and Eastman gave up nothing and Vanderbilt and Pettibone gave up their entire tactical advantage — because Baugh caved to pushback from Team Pringle.

            If he valued his supposed “manifesto” (at least more than whatever he plans for himself next), he would have not have “brokered a deal”; he would have told the Pringle candidates to get stuffed because they spit at his rule.

            He didn’t. A rule is only good as its enforcement, and he abandoned it under pressure.

            Matt gets income from believing and spouting this sort of fantasy that the Tait candidates just gave up a big advantage rather than being arm-twisted into it at the behest of the public safety union money loving Pringle forces. My sense is that most commenters here are not so gullible as to believe it.

            I don’t agree with your “rule,” although Phan is obviously correct that public safety unions tend to lean right (except when they have a willing servant like Lou Correa on the Dem side) — but I could at least respect your resolve to sacrifice for principle if you enforced it.

            You didn’t. Murray came out on an entirely equal footing to Vanderbilt.

            But I’ll play along — tell me, why do YOU all think that Vanderbilt and Pettibone would have gone along with this “deal” Baugh “brokered” — if they had had a real choice to refuse it?

            • Matthew Cunningham said

              Greg: I work for myself, not your imaginary conspiracy. I presented you with the truth, but you prefer to believe the fantasy you’ve concocted fantasy. What a surprise.

              None of the four would have secured the county GOP endorsement, so there was no sense in any of them wasting a lot of time and energy on it.

  2. OCInsider#33 said

    Although it doesn’t matter at this point, Murray was the top vote getter in Anaheim, but I thought I heard that she returned her union contributions. But we all know that the OCGOP only holds some candidates to that rule and lets others get away with it.

  3. Taking public-sector union contributions does not, ipso facto, make one a bad Republican. I can think of plenty of reasons why a candidate would recognize the necessity to do so in order to further Republican ideals. That being said, if one goes that route perhaps they should also forgo the benefits of a certified GOP endorsement. If the consultants and pols that infest OC actually appreciated the principles of limited government, the policy would not be necessary. Alas…

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: