OC Political

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

Posts Tagged ‘Dan Hughes’

U.S. Senate Poll: Feinstein at 42%, Emken & Hughes Lead Republicans with 4%; Taitz Tied for Sixth Among Republicans and Tenth Overall

Posted by Chris Nguyen on June 3, 2012

Dianne Feinstein

Dianne Feinstein leads all 23 of her opponents combined. Feinstein has 42%, her opponents have a combined 34%, and 24% of likely voters remain undecided.

SurveyUSA appears to be the only poll in the state that has looked at the U.S. Senate race.  The others probably thought it was a waste of time and money.

Under the headline, “Feinstein Opponent Unknowable Heading into Final Weekend Before Primary” the latest SurveyUSA poll was released on Thursday (after polling voters from Sunday through Tuesday) shows the following results for the Top 10 of the 24 candidates for U.S. Senate:

Feinstein, a Democrat, leads or ties for the lead in every subgroup.  She’s in a three-way tie with Emken and Hughes among Republicans.  Feinstein ties Hughes among very conservative voters.  She leads in every other subgroup, even TEA Party Members, conservatives, pro-life voters, and evangelical Christians.

Emken has the best shot of capturing the undecided vote to come in a distant second behind Feinstein since Emken’s endorsement by the California Republican Party is listed in voters’ sample ballots, the only thing that is mailed to every single registered voter in the state.

Whoever comes in second has a very tall order to topple California’s 20-year Senator.

Four hypothetical general election matchups were polled:

  • Feinstein Defeats Emken 50%-34% (16% Feinstein Advantage)
  • Feinstein Defeats Taitz 54%-29% (25% Feinstein Advantage)
  • Feinstein Defeats Ramirez 52%-32% (20% Feinstein Advantage)
  • Feinstein Defeats Hughes 52%-31% (21% Feinstein Advantage)

Once it’s narrowed down to two candidates, each of the four Republicans lead Feinstein in the following subgroups: Republicans, TEA Party members, very conservative voters, conservative voters, and pro-life voters.  Emken leads Feinstein in the Central Valley and splits the evangelical Christian vote evenly with Feinstein.  Ramirez leads Feinstein in the evangelical Christian vote.

The only other poll on California’s U.S. Senate race was SurveyUSA’s April 3 poll (after polling voters March 29-April 2) showed the following as the top 10 candidates:

At that time, Feinstein led every subgroup, even Republicans and very conservative voters.  Her massive lead has decreased, but it’s such a massive lead, she is one of the safer incumbents in the country.

It’s still a free-for-all to determine who will come in second to advance to November against Feinstein, but suffice it to say, on June 5, Feinstein’s team will only be watching her election results to see if she breaks 50%.

Posted in California | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Friday Fun: Dan Hughes Hilarious Video

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on May 11, 2012

I am a fan of fun political advertisements as can be seen from my post of the Ed Lee for San Francisco Mayor video that I posted here. Despite the fact that Nguyen hates the video, I do enjoy the humor.

We now have Dan Hughes a United States Senate candidate that his put together his own video of randomness. The video includes lots of things that are funny including singing eagles, Street Fighter, and Chuck Devore.

The video can be viewed by clicking here.

In all seriousness, I do not really care who the nominee is between Dan Hughes, Elizabeth Emken, and Al Ramirez as long as the nominee is not Orly Taitz. If Orly Taitz is the nominee for Republicans in November we are in serious trouble of losing every competitive seat in California.

Posted in California | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Good Friday Fraud Email Alert: “Bold Explanations” Needed from Dan Hughes

Posted by Republican Willie Brown on April 6, 2012

The email-gate saga continues with Dan Hughes for US Senate (should be mosquito abatement district).

Several weeks ago you may have been attacked in your email box like me, through a list you never signed up for, and received an email from Dan Hughes plagiarizing, verbatim, text from the United States Conference on Catholic Bishops on contraception with no attribution. 

Now this.  

I’m preparing to enjoy Good Friday with my family to commemorate the crucifixion of Jesus and his death at Calvary, when what pops up in my inbox?  

A fundraising email from Dan Hughes, the unapologetic, elusive Senate candidate from San Diego (really from New York) touting a poll in which he is at 2%, or in other words 49% behind Dianne Feinstein.  

Now, the poll conducted by SurveyUSA is certainly less than credible by any professional standards (more on that later), but nonetheless let’s assume it has some credibility.  Dan Hughes suggests he is leading the GOP field of candidates, but apparently he forgot to check the actual tally and relied on the percentage.  Whoops…..he is actually tied with Emken, 24 votes to 24 votes.

I can’t wait to hear his “bold explanation” for this error; one of many errors made by his campaign of late.

Advice to Mr. Hughes: 1) A fundraising email on Good Friday is really tacky and my devout Catholic mother-in-law was deeply offended to receive it, 2) Check and re-check your numbers before you own them, and, 3) Strategically, you should think twice before you rubber stamp a recommendation from your campaign team to promote a poll that shows you at 2%.

On that note, I bid you a good Easter weekend.

Posted in California | Tagged: | 2 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 »

Time to show Feinstein the door

Posted by Thomas Gordon on February 6, 2012

20120206-114543.jpg

Why would someone 78 years old seek re-election to an office that she would hold until she reached 84 years of age?

Good question, but it couldn’t be for the $ 174,000 annual salary she draws from the taxpayers.

Her personal wealth is reportedly between 50 and 150 million dollars all of which is held is blind trust separate from her husbands.

This year Mrs.Feinstein is drawing some challengers.

Al Ramirez, a conservative businessman from Santa Monica has jumped into the race as has Dan Hughes, a conservative businessman from Oceanside who has raised $ 100,000 in the last 30 days.

Elizabeth Emken from Danville is looking to challenge and has already lined up endorsements from OC Republican Assemblymembers Don Wagner and Jim Silva.

Why Democrats keep supporting Mrs Feinstein is a mystery. She co-sponsored PIPA and voted to support the Patriot Act. She’s been in politics since 1978, more than half her life. And with personal wealth in the 100 million range, she’s clearly one of the 1% they loathe.

So will she get rewarded with another 6 years?

Only time will tell…..

Posted in California, National, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »