OC Political

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

Author Archive

Carpetbagger Running In AD 69?

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 22, 2012

UPDATED 1:17 PM: According to an article in the Voice of OC the OC Register article is flat-out wrong. You can read that article here.

It was reported yesterday in the Orange County Register that we might have another case of a carpetbagger running for office. Allegedly Julio Perez does not live where he claims according to a process-server. I will not post the address due to privacy issues, but it does not look good for Perez. Although, I do not believe that carpetbagging actually lands him off the ballot as judges are rarely willing to rule this way.

Where this will likely hurt him is in a mail piece that will likely go out from the Tom Daly or Michele Martinez campaign. This could end up costing him a spot in the top two for this election, which he had an outside shot at due to all kinds of union money that would have been spent on this race.

The two likely candidates to emerge from the June primary are Jose Moreno (R) and Tom Daly (D).

Moreno will advance because he is the only Republican in this race in with the Democrats splitting the vote four ways he will get into the top two, possibly in the #1 slot. Now that he is in the race I hope that he can win, as it would be nice to see a Republican win this seat, but the odds are definitely against him.

Daly will advance because of the Latino vote being split amongst the three other Democrats and also the fact that he has huge name ID from his time on the Anaheim City Council and also the many years he has been Orange County Clerk-Recorder.

I guess the good news for all of the candidates running is that none of them used Kindee Durkee as a treasurer.

Posted in 69th Assembly District | Tagged: , , , , | 11 Comments »

ATTN: Candidates Do Not Use Copy/Paste For Press Releases

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 22, 2012

I was taking a look at some of the press releases sitting in my inbox this morning and one of which was a press release from Dan Hughes a candidate for U.S. Senate. As you can probably guess since this article is not being posted under the “Newsletter Reprint” account, more to this story exists than a simple press release. Here is the exact press release issued by the Hughes for U.S. Senate Campaign this morning:

This Friday, March 23rd, marks the 130 city “Stand up for Religious Freedom” rally.  I will be attending the rally at 12:00 noon at the San Diego County Administration Building.  Please find the rally nearest to you and attend.

Thank you to all who have stood firmly in vigorous opposition to the unjust and illegal HHS mandate, including the Catholic Church, women and men of all religions (or none at all), legal scholars, and civic leaders. It is this enthusiastic unity in defense of religious freedom that has made such a dramatic and positive impact in this historic public debate. We will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one.

I would like to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the religious institution’s hand or funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about somehow “banning contraception,” when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the religious institutions wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing religious institutions—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against religious teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.

So what is it about?

An unwarranted government definition of religion. The mandate includes an extremely narrow definition of what HHS deems a “religious employer” deserving exemption—employers who, among other things, must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith. I am deeply concerned about this new definition of who we are as people of faith and what constitutes our ministry. The introduction of this unprecedented defining of faith communities and their ministries has precipitated this struggle for religious freedom. Government has no place defining religion and religious ministry. HHS thus creates and enforces a new distinction—alien both to our religious institutions and to federal law—between our houses of worship and our great ministries of service to our neighbors, namely, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the students in our schools and universities, and others in need, of any faith community or none.  All—not just some—of our religious institutions share equally in the very same God-given, legally recognized right not “to be forced to act in a manner contrary to [their] own beliefs.” Dignitatis Humanae, No. 2.

A mandate to act against religious teachings. The exemption is not merely a government foray into internal Church governance, where government has no legal competence or authority—disturbing though that may be. This error in theory has grave consequences in principle and practice. Those deemed by HHS not to be “religious employers” will be forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions. This is not only an injustice in itself, but it also undermines the effective proclamation of those teachings to the faithful and to the world.

“We the People” throughout our country must join together for the complete protection of our First Freedom—religious liberty—which is not only protected in the laws and customs of our great nation, but rooted in the teachings of our great Tradition.

 

I was tipped off that the majority of this press release was copied and pasted from the “United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” website. Take a look at the statement from their website:

March 14 Statement on Religious Freedom and HHS Mandate

 A Statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

March 14, 2012

The Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, gathered for its March 2012 meeting, is strongly unified and intensely focused in its opposition to the various threats to religious freedom in our day. In our role as Bishops, we approach this question prayerfully and as pastors—concerned not only with the protection of the Church’s own institutions, but with the care of the souls of the individual faithful, and with the common good.

To address the broader range of religious liberty issues, we look forward to the upcoming publication of “A Statement on Religious Liberty,” a document of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. This document reflects on the history of religious liberty in our great Nation; surveys the current range of threats to this foundational principle; and states clearly the resolve of the Bishops to act strongly, in concert with our fellow citizens, in its defense.

One particular religious freedom issue demands our immediate attention: the now-finalized rule of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would force virtually all private health plans nationwide to provide coverage of sterilization and contraception—including abortifacient drugs—subject to an exemption for “religious employers” that is arbitrarily narrow, and to an unspecified and dubious future “accommodation” for other religious organizations that are denied the exemption.

We begin, first, with thanks to all who have stood firmly with us in our vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate: to our brother bishops; to our clergy and religious; to our Catholic faithful; to the wonderful array of Catholic groups and institutions that enliven our civil society; to our ecumenical and interfaith allies; to women and men of all religions (or none at all); to legal scholars; and to civic leaders. It is your enthusiastic unity in defense of religious freedom that has made such a dramatic and positive impact in this historic public debate. With your continued help, we will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one.

Second, we wish to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the Church’s hand and with the Church’s funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the Bishops’ somehow “banning contraception,” when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against Church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops’ Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.

So what is it about?

An unwarranted government definition of religion. The mandate includes an extremely narrow definition of what HHS deems a “religious employer” deserving exemption—employers who, among other things, must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith. We are deeply concerned about this new definition of who we are as people of faith and what constitutes our ministry. The introduction of this unprecedented defining of faith communities and their ministries has precipitated this struggle for religious freedom. Government has no place defining religion and religious ministry. HHS thus creates and enforces a new distinction—alien both to our Catholic tradition and to federal law—between our houses of worship and our great ministries of service to our neighbors, namely, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the students in our schools and universities, and others in need, of any faith community or none. Cf. Deus Caritas Est, Nos. 20-33. We are commanded both to love and to serve the Lord; laws that protect our freedom to comply with one of these commands but not the other are nothing to celebrate. Indeed, they must be rejected, for they create a “second class” of citizenship within our religious community. And if this definition is allowed to stand, it will spread throughout federal law, weakening its healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity. All—not just some—of our religious institutions share equally in the very same God-given, legally recognized right not “to be forced to act in a manner contrary to [their] own beliefs.” Dignitatis Humanae, No. 2.

A mandate to act against our teachings. The exemption is not merely a government foray into internal Church governance, where government has no legal competence or authority—disturbing though that may be. This error in theory has grave consequences in principle and practice. Those deemed by HHS not to be “religious employers” will be forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions. This is not only an injustice in itself, but it also undermines the effective proclamation of those teachings to the faithful and to the world. For decades, the Bishops have led the fight against such government incursions on conscience, particularly in the area of health care. Far from making us waver in this longstanding commitment, the unprecedented magnitude of this latest threat has only strengthened our resolve to maintain that consistent view.

A violation of personal civil rights.The HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing “services” contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption. This, too, is unprecedented in federal law, which has long been generous in protecting the rights of individuals not to act against their religious beliefs or moral convictions. We have consistently supported these rights, particularly in the area of protecting the dignity of all human life, and we continue to do so.

Third, we want to indicate our next steps. We will continue our vigorous efforts at education and public advocacy on the principles of religious liberty and their application in this case (and others). We will continue to accept any invitation to dialogue with the Executive Branch to protect the religious freedom that is rightly ours. We will continue to pursue legislation to restore the same level of religious freedom we have enjoyed until just recently. And we will continue to explore our options for relief from the courts, under the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws that protect religious freedom. All of these efforts will proceed concurrently, and in a manner that is mutually reinforcing.

Most importantly of all, we call upon the Catholic faithful, and all people of faith, throughout our country to join us in prayer and penance for our leaders and for the complete protection of our First Freedom—religious liberty—which is not only protected in the laws and customs of our great nation, but rooted in the teachings of our great Tradition. Prayer is the ultimate source of our strength—for without God, we can do nothing; but with God, all things are possible.

This is not a smart move from the Hughes campaign and I think that one of his opponents will likely call him on it. If you are going to copy and paste your content for a press release, at least cite the source that you are taking your content from.

Posted in California | Tagged: | 3 Comments »

Saturday Silliness: Hilarious Political Ad

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 17, 2012

This political advertisement admittedly has nothing to do with Orange County or Republican politics, but I had to post it because it is hilarious. All I have to say is this political ad includes Brian Wilson (SF Giants), M.C. Hammer, will.i.am, and Willie Brown.

Ed Lee For Mayor

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Ugh OCEA Back In The Mail Again

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 15, 2012

I am getting sick of all the junk mail being sent to my mailbox this early in campaign season. OCEA has yet again put out a hit piece on Anaheim Councilmembers Harry Sidhu, Kris Murray, and Gail Eastman. Needless to say this is getting really old , really fast. Here is a copy of the mailer that arrived in my mailbox yesterday:


The strategy just simply does not make sense to me. They are obviously looking to win 2 seats in the November election with what appears to be the slate of John Leos and Jose Moreno (not the same one trying to run for Assembly.

I guarantee you that they will beat Sidhu who is not on the ballot due to term limits, but good luck beating Murray or Eastman when they won’t even be on the ballot until 2014

Posted in Anaheim, Mail | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Republicans Will Have A Candidate In AD 69. Or Will They???

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 15, 2012

Despite being sick yesterday and having to cancel most of my meetings I was stuck going to the Orange County Registrar of Voters to assist a client with filing his paperwork. As many of our readers may already know, yesterday was the close of the filing period for races that went into extension. It turns out that we had another game of “Beat The Clock” on our hands.


Republican candidate for AD 69 Jose Moreno got in the door at 4:54 PM and told the person helping him file his paperwork that he only had 20 signatures and had an associate that was bringing more signatures.

Sure enough at just a few seconds before 4:58 PM Central Committee Member Tim Whitacre ran in the door with 22 more signatures. This however left them with just 42 signatures and this is before the validation process began.

After the doors were already locked it appears that Lupe Moreno arrived and I believe she had some more signatures in her hand but I cannot be certain.

Getting 40 out of 42 signatures proven to be valid is not an easy thing to do, so it is very possible that Moreno will not actually qualify for the ballot.

With no Republican in the race it would not be a bad thing for the party as it forces a lot of Democratic Party money to be squandered in this race (Kindee Durkee would be proud). If a Republican jumps in the Democrats will not spend anything leading up to November and will focus on supporting Quirk-Silva in AD 65 and possibly even Daigle in AD 74.

We should have an answer by later today.

Posted in 69th Assembly District, 74th Assembly District | Tagged: , , | 8 Comments »

Fun Stories From OC ROV Friday: Long Pham Made It Fun

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 14, 2012

At the time it did not seem like a lot of fun but looking back on it I can honestly say that it was probably one of the wildest things that I have ever seen during a filing period. Much like Travis Allen who I blogged about yesterday Long Pham ran into the Orange County Registrar of Voters at what I believe was around 4:55 PM although it might have been a couple of minutes earlier than that.

What ensued after this could only be described as unbelievable. Other people were at the office to witness this so this story can be corroborated. Cue the Benny Hill theme music as we begin.

Long Pham walks in at approximately 4:55 in the evening and ends up pulling a number from the dispenser I think he was #99 and at that time #94 was being served.

At about 5:10 he was called up to the counter and then proceeded to finalize his paperwork for the 72nd Assembly District. This came as no surprise to anybody as it was the move that he was expected to make. It took a while for him to finish his paperwork which is customary on the last day of filing. As he finished around 5:35 PM he walked over to grab another number and then proceeded to sit down.

When he pulled the number I figured that he had decided to run for County Board of Education. However, it turns out that he was simply helping his wife with her paperwork for Republican Party of Orange County Central Committee. This took about another 30 minutes and they both finished this up around 6:10 PM. Right after he finished, he walked over, grabbed another number, and sat down.

Sure enough the third time that he went up to the counter it was to finish up his paperwork for Orange County Board of Education. I thought it was a big mistake since running for 2 offices would have hurt his chances for both. He was given the oath of office around 7:15 PM which took a while because I believe that a ruling was being waited on as to whether or not he could legally run for both offices. He no sooner took the oath of office for Assembly than he decided to go back up to the counter for another request (very few people were left which made it unnecessary to pull more numbers.

Apparently he had a very quick change of mind because at 7:20 he decided that he no longer wanted to run for Orange County Board of Education. The question then ensued as to whether or not he could withdraw from the race, but finally at 8:15 PM it was decided that he could withdraw. Once he pulled out of the race.

In all honesty though Dr. Long Pham seems like a really nice guy and his wife also seems extremely nice. This post is not intended to make him look bad in any way shape or form. As a matter of fact he gave me a great story to tell.

Posted in Orange County Board of Education | Tagged: , | 5 Comments »

OC Political March Madness Pool

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 14, 2012

Reposted From Monday: This is the last day to enter the contest, It’s free and you can win a $40 gift card.

It is not a secret that I as well as the other two bloggers who are admins here are all a part of “Custom Campaigns” a local Orange County political consulting firm. It is that time of year again with “March Madness” upon us.

Since an office pool with three people would be no fun for anybody involved, we thought that it would be interesting to put together an office pool that includes the readers as well.

Did I mention that we are offering a $40 gift card for the winner of the pool, and it costs nothing to enter (technically I guess that makes it a contest and not a pool).

In order to receive the password to enter the pool you must leave a comment here with your real first and last name. Include your e-mail address as well (this is visible only to us), so that we can send you the password to be able to enter the pool.

Good luck and we look forward to having a great turnout for this so please feel free to invite others.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Filing Closes Tonight

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 14, 2012

Tonight is when the filing period closes for races that went into the extended period. These races include:

CD 47
AD 69
AD 72
OCBE 1

Stay tuned to OC Political for an update after filing closes of who took advantage of this extension. Despite the fact that the filing period should not have been extended in AD 69 and AD 72.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Fun Stories From OC ROV Friday: Game Of Beat The Clock

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 13, 2012

Note to candidates: If you are going to run for office don’t wait until the last-minute to turn in your paperwork.

I was at the Orange County Registrar of Voters on Friday helping out Custom Campaigns clients with their filing paperwork throughout the day. I had some business to attend to with a client who arrived by 4:00 PM.

Around 4:45 PM I realized that it might be fun to take a seat and watch the candidates frantically come running down the ramp to get in before the officer in charge of managing the end of the day locked the doors at 5:00 PM.

At 4:47 PM I heard the consultant on the phone with Travis Allen who was stuck on Edinger trying to get to the office. At the time Allen had not finished his paperwork for Assembly and was thought to be off the ballot if he did not get into the office by 5:00 PM. This turned to be really interesting with this race going into extended filing by the mistaken rationale of the California Secretary State in a post written by the grumpy one this morning.

It did not matter though as Allen came running in the door at about 4:52 PM, thus winning the proverbial game of “Beat the Clock.”

Dr. Long Pham also got in the door with less than 5 minutes to spare but in his case nobody really won. More on the Long Pham story tomorrow.

Posted in 72nd Assembly District | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Norby Vs. Quirk: Most Interesting Race in Orange County

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 13, 2012

A surprise race that I did not think would happen this election is Fullerton Mayor Sharon Quirk-Silva challenging sitting Assemblyman Chris Norby.

The banner for Chris Norby:

The banner for Sharon Quirk-Silva.

What surprised me the most about this matchup is that Sharon Quirk-Silva will have to give up her council seat to run for this office. Most elected officials wait until midterm or when they are termed out to run for higher office. It wouldn’t be that important were it not for the fact that Fullerton has become a major fight between Republicans and Democrats.

Quirk-Silva was the last remaining Democrat on the City Council, although she was a bit more conservative than the trio that will likely be recalled in June. With my prediction being Greg Sebourn, Travis Kiger, and Barry Levinson winning the three council seats after the recall.

Republicans hold a 2 point registration advantage in AD 65 and Fullerton is the hub of this district. The problem for Quirk-Silva is that Norby is also from Fullerton and he is known outside of Fullerton as well. With DTS voter leaning a bit more conservative in this area I would have to say advantage Norby.

Norby has been one of the staunchest supporters of eliminating RDA’s and he was successful this year in eliminating them. He has also been a solid conservative voice in the Republican circles up in Sacramento. I figure that with AD 69 facing a Democratic Party money war this will free up more Republican money for this seat.

Norby should by no means rest on his laurels, but if I were a betting man I would bet on Norby to beat Quirk-Silva in June and that the Republicans will control all 5 council seats in Fullerton.

Posted in 65th Assembly District, 69th Assembly District, Fullerton | Tagged: , , , , | 8 Comments »