OC Political

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

  • Allen for Assembly

  • Choi for Assembly

  • Young for Yorba Linda

  • Kelley for Mission Viejo

  • Goodell for Mission Viejo

  • Shader for Placentia

  • Barajas for Lake Forest

  • Contact Us to Purchase an Ad

  • I Voted

    I Voted

Posts Tagged ‘Deborah Pauly’

CRA Endorsements for the June 7 Primary Election

Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 19, 2016

CRA_LogoI live-blogged the Orange County CRA Endorsing Convention in this prior post, but I’ve been asked to put a condensed list of the results of the Orange County CRA Endorsing Convention. So here they are:

  • U.S. Representative, 39th District: Ed Royce
  • U.S. Representative, 45th District: Greg Raths
  • U.S. Representative, 46th District: Bob Peterson
  • U.S. Representative, 47th District: Andy Whallon
  • U.S. Representative, 48th District: Dana Rohrabacher
  • U.S. Representative, 49th District: No Endorsement
  • State Senator, 29th District: No Endorsement
  • State Senator, 37th District: John M.W. Moorlach
  • Member of the State Assembly, 55th District: (Los Angeles County will host this endorsing convention)
  • Member of the State Assembly, 65th District: Young Kim
  • Member of the State Assembly, 68th District: Deborah Pauly
  • Member of the State Assembly, 69th District: Ofelia Velarde-Garcia
  • Member of the State Assembly, 72nd District: No Endorsement
  • Member of the State Assembly, 73rd District: William (Bill) Brough
  • Member of the State Assembly, 74th District: Matthew Harper
  • Orange County Supervisor, 1st District: No Endorsement
  • Orange County Supervisor, 3rd District: Todd Spitzer
  • Orange County Board of Education, Trustee Area 1: Robert M. Hammond
  • Orange County Board of Education, Trustee Area 3: Ken L. Williams, Jr.
  • Orange County Board of Education, Trustee Area 4: Zonya Marcenaro-Townsend
  • Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 3: Megan L. Wagner
  • Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 40: No Endorsement
  • Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 48: Karen Lee Schatzle
  • Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 49: No Endorsement
  • Central Committee, 65th District: Jerry Jackson, Baron Night, David John Shawver, Alexandria A. “Alex” Coronado, Sou Moua, and Zonya Marcenaro-Townsend
  • Central Committee, 73rd District: Mary Young, Jennifer Beall, Tony Beall, Ed Sachs, Laurie Davies, and Mike Munzing

The individual units in the 55th, 68th, 69th, 72nd, and 74th Districts have not yet decided if they will endorse for those Central Committee races.

Last month, the Statewide CRA endorsed Ted Cruz for President and Tom Del Beccaro for U.S. Senate.

Posted in 1st Supervisorial District, 29th Senate District, 37th Senate District, 39th Congressional District, 3rd Supervisorial District, 45th Congressional District, 46th Congressional District, 47th Congressional District, 48th Congressional District, 49th Congressional District, 65th Assembly District, 68th Assembly District, 69th Assembly District, 72nd Assembly District, 73rd Assembly District, 74th Assembly District, Orange County, Orange County Board of Education, Republican Central Committee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Live from CRA AD-68 Candidate Forum: Choi, Sidhu, Pauly, and Deligianni-Brydges

Posted by Chris Nguyen on February 2, 2016

We’re live from Orange City Hall for the 68th Assembly District Candidate Forum, sponsored by the California Republican Assembly.

The four candidates are:
*Steven Choi, Mayor of Irvine
*Harry Sidhu, former Anaheim Councilman
*Alexia Deligianni-Brydges, Orange Unified School District Trustee
*Deborah Pauly, former Villa Park Councilwoman

The emcee is Dale Tyler CRA Vice President for Orange and San Diego Counties. Orange Councilman and OC GOP Chairman Fred Whitaker delivers the invocation. Orange Mayor Pro Tem Mark Murphy leads the Pledge of Allegiance.

The forum is being recorded for Chapman University’s broadcast station.

The moderator is OC Political blogger and CRA Executive Vice President Craig Alexander, who lives in Dana Point in the 73rd Assembly District.

Alexander will take all questions from the audience but admonishes the audience that questions on areas beyond the scope of the Assembly will not be asked, giving the example of troop levels in Afghanistan.

Alexia Deligianni-Brydges gives her opening statement. She speaks of California’s former economic opportunities and how her family fled from Communist Romania to California. She blasts high taxes and excessive regulation. She states she is an independent businesswoman and educator who can fix California.

Harry Sidhu gives his opening statement. He says he believes in free enterprise, traditional marriage, and pro-life values. He speaks of immigrating to the United States and working in engineering and then business.

Deborah Pauly gives her opening statement. She notes the cyclical nature of politics. She says there needs to be a conservative course correction in light of the liberal control of Sacramento. She notes her service on Central Committee. She urges electing a conservative not a moderate.

Steven Choi gives his opening statement. He speaks of his election as Mayor delivering a conservative majority seizing control of the Irvine City Council that was held by a former liberal majority. He spoke of his record on the City Council and School Board. He speaks of his faith and his family.

Alexander asks if Prop 13 limits should be changed.

Sidhu says he will fight to protect Prop 13. He says he will fight against high taxes. He says he will fight crime. He points to SB 259 (Bates), which modifies Prop 13 with the backing of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and he argues that unions oppose SB 259.

Pauly points to her fight against an OUSD Bond, which she noted was an end run around Prop 13. She speaks in detail about SB 259 and how it is clean up legislation closes a loophole on business property tax avoidance. She points to her Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association endorsement of her second Villa Park City Council run and her Supervisor run.

Choi warns that high taxes endanger jobs and the economy. He argues in favor of Prop 13 and conservative economic policies to strengthen job creation.

Deligianni-Brydges speaks of how taxes harm the economy and how she supports Prop 13. She speaks of her record fighting bonds and other high tax issues on the OUSD Board.

Alexander asks about the Governor’s proposed gas tax increase.

Pauly states the social engineering of getting people out of cars is causing the decline in the gas tax. She calls for greater creativity and points out that the Governor is pointing to record surplusses. Pauly challenges the wisdom of the Vehicle Mileage Tax proposal.

Choi opposes the gas tax increase. He proposes lowering the gas tax to stimulate economic activity because when people buy more gas, there will be more revenue from increased gas consumption.

Deligianni-Brydges states California has the highest gas taxes and worst roads. She calls for building more refineries and drilling to create energy independence away from OPEC.

Sidhu calls for administrative fixes and closing loopholes instead of raising taxes. He blasts high speed rail. He says transportation companies deliver food to his restaurants, and his businesses will be impacted by a gas tax increase.

Alexander asks if the candidates would sign the Americans for Prosperity “No New Taxes” pledge.

Choi says he signed it several months ago. He believes in lower taxes to help the economy and job growth. He blasts high taxes for driving business out of California.

Deligianni-Brydges says she will sign any “No New Taxes” pledge. She says she made that pledge to her school district constituents.

Sidhu says he pays more taxes than the rest of the candidates combined. He says he knows how to balance a budget. He says he was the first to sign the pledge.

Pauly is sorry that taxes are so high and that Sidhu has to pay so much in taxes. Pauly says she would sign the pledge and that she has made her career on fighting taxes. She says she twice agendized abolishing the Villa Park business license fee. She attacks Choi for not doing so in Irvine.

Choi responds to Pauly. He notes Irvine has one of the lowest business license fees in Orange County. He says that taxpaying residents would have to subsidize businesses if they abolished the fee.

Alexander asks about crony capitalism.

Deligianni-Brydges says crony capitalism is terrible and is where lobbyists run the show. She has fought it on her school board.

Sidhu states his campaign contributors are citizens and blasts unnamed opponents for receiving campaign contributions from home builders.

Pauly blasts Republican crony capitalists who pick winners and losers by giving sweetheart deals to special interests. She says if a policy is good for one entity, it should be good for everyone. Pauly attacks Sidhu for giving tax breaks to specific businesses instead of tax breaks for everyone.

Choi wants to stimulate small businesses as the real job creators. He opposes giving subsidies to big corporations. He notes he has not received any union funds and notes an unnamed opponent has received significant union contributions in the past.

Sidhu argues Pauly has never run a business in her life. He says there is nothing wrong with special concessions to bring business to a city.

Alexander asks about Common Core.

Sidhu says he opposes Common Core. He states California schools are last in the nation. He says high school students are not even at the eighth grade level. He blasts federal mandates.

Pauly says she opposes Common Core. She says students and education should not be common. She blasts both political parties for selling out children for federal dollars. She blasts social engineering in education. She calls for scrapping Common Core.

Choi says he is the most experience education experience of any of the candidates. He speaks of his after school tutoring center of the last 25 years. He notes his business experience there in rebuttal to an earlier Sidhu comment. He says Common Core have frustrated parents at his tutoring centers. He says Common Core has lofty ideals but it totally ignores the basics, and he objects to Common Core for that reason.

Deligianni-Brydges points to her educational doctorate and opposes Common Core. She argues children should not be punished for getting the right answer. She wants to align standards with college and the work force.

Alexander asks a question about AB 32 and global warming.

Pauly calls global warming a bogus idea. She spoke of the global cooling theory when she was in school. She says global warming has been disproven and that is why climate change is the new term by its advocates. She blasts AB 32 and social engineering.

Choi says it is good to keep the environment clean but completely questions the idea of global warming being caused by human intervention. He opposes cap and trade and other government imposed environmental regulations, calling them an extreme effort to tax businesses and economic growth.

Deligianni-Brydges speaks of the importance of a clean environment but does not want to harm the economy or raise taxes. She points to AB 32 causing gas tax increases.

Sidhu calls global warming a hoax. He asks if there is a wall between California and Arizona or California and Nevada. He says it is a scheme to drive out business from California. He points to aerospace and manufacturing being driven out. He says global warming is a money making scheme for environmental lists.

Alexander asks about legislation to require pro-life centers to post literature in favor of abortion.

Choi says he is opposed to that legislation because he is a Christian, he is pro-life, and he wants to protect all lives, including those of the unborn.

Deligianni-Brydges says she wants to defund Planned Parenthood. She says she is a Christian and is pro-life.

Sidhu says he was horrified by videos showing Planned Parenthood selling body parts. He says he is pro-life and would oppose such legislation.

Pauly says she is a Christian and that the Bible informs her views on life. She speaks of hearing the Roe v. Wade debate as a child. She warns of the creep from the first trimester in the 1970s up to partial birth abortion in the present day.

Alexander asks about SB 277, the vaccination bill.

Deligianni-Brydges warns this could harm certain children and supports parental right to choose.

Sidhu blasts the bill, mandatory vaccination, and removing the religious exception.

Pauly speaks of researching the bill while running the precinct walking operation for John Moorlach. She argues in favor of parental choice and the right of families to determine the safety of their children. Pauly says she personally chose to immunize her children, but would not impose the decision on others.

Choi calls it an intrusion on lives and should be left to parents to decide with their physicians. He says some children have unique needs, and the Governor and Legislature should not impose one side fits all.

Alexander asks how the candidates would prevent another attack like in San Bernardino.

Sidhu blasts social welfare programs. He says it took him 4 years to legally immigrate 42 years ago. He says illegal immigrants have broken the law and should be sent back to their native countries.

Pauly notes she is a veteran of the United States Air Force. She is a cofounder of the Anti-Jihad Coalition of Southern California. She supports legislation to allow only American law in American courts in order to block Sharia law. She says she stood up against radical jihadist efforts to recruit from college Muslim Student Unions. She wants to stand up for America and its values.

Choi says national security is an important and serious issue. He defends the Second Amendment and argues an armed citizenry would discourage violent attacks. He wants to secure more funding for local governments to protect their citizens. He notes that his city of Irvine has been the safest big city in America for the past 11 years.

Deligianni-Brydges calls for a wall on the border. She says the Second Amendment is important for self-defense. She urges more thorough background checks of immigrants, including social media checks to prevent anyone with anti-American sentiment from entering the U.S.

Alexander asks about making California a shall issue state for concealed weapons permits.

Pauly says she gun control is ineffective. She supports the Second Amendment. She wants federal law to trump state law on the right to keep and bear arms. She says gun control simply protects criminals’ guns.

Choi states he believes the right to bear concealed arms is important. He says Korea bans individual gun ownership, and when he immigrated to the United States, he understood that self-defense is a critical part of American culture. He says gun ownership is important to self-defense. He argues most people would carry concealed weapons rather than brandishing them.

Deligianni-Brydges says gun control would only allow criminals to have guns. She says gun ownership is a constitutional right.

Sidhu pulls out his NRA card and says he owns several guns. He wants more support to fight gun control.

Alexander asks about the use of eminent domain for private uses.

Choi opposes it entirely. He says a fundamental tenet of capitalism is the right to private property. He attacks using eminent domain to convey private property to someone else and blasts redevelopment.

Deligianni-Brydges blasts eminent domain for private use as unconscionable.

Sidhu speaks of Anaheim’s Charter Amendment to block eminent domain for private uses in his city. He blasts Villa Park and Irvine for not doing so.

Pauly speaks of the American Dream of home ownership. She points to eminent domain for private use as the height of government abuse of power. She says they didn’t need to pass such a thing in Villa Park because no Councilmember in her city would ever consider eminent domain for private use.

Choi says Irvine actually did adopt an ordinance 5-7 years ago to prevent eminent domain for private use.

Alexander asks about union contributions.

Deligianni-Brydges says she has never and will not do so.

Sidhu says he has “no intention” of accepting any union money for the 60th Assembly District.

Pauly points out that they’re running for the 68th Assembly District. She says she has never taken union money and primarily has small individual contributors.

Choi says Sidhu is the only one on the dais who benefitted nearly $2 million in union funds in bids for various offices including for Supervisor against Shawn Nelson. Choi says he refused to take police union money when running for Mayor. He says he refused the easy union money, and he says he will not accept any union money.

Sidhu says Choi is going back to the past. He says he is looking to the future.

Alexander asks if anyone will seek the endorsement of any government employee union.

Sidhu says he will not accept their endorsements and will not interview with them.

Pauly says she will not accept their endorsements, but she will keep the door open to talking to them to hear their issues.

Choi points to the California Teachers Association endorsement being followed by contributions. He says it is best to refuse their endorsement. He says he knows where they come from, and he will refuse their endorsements.

Deligianni-Brydges says she will not accept any union endorsements.

Alexander asks about civil asset forfeiture.

Pauly says she believes assets should not be seized until someone has been convicted. She says she would seek the advice of subject matter experts like attorneys. She says she asks auditors about audits and realtors about real estate, etc.

Choi says he believes police should not be able to seize assets without due process of a court judgment proving that someone is dangerous in society. He calls it an invasion of property rights.

Deligianni-Brydges says she believes government has no right to seize property before conviction.

Sidhu supports asset forfeiture for the convicted. He wants strong laws restricting how law enforcement can seize assets.

Alexander asks about unfunded pension liabilities.

Choi calls this his favorite topic. He says in Irvine under Christina Shea and himself, had city staff develop a plan to pay down the City’s pension liability three years ago. He points to paying down the City’s entire $120 million unfunded pension liability in 7 years.

Deligianni-Brydges blasts legislators for making benefit increases, lower retirement ages, retroactive pensions, and risky investments. She says Governor Brown has made a step forward. She urges increasing employee contributions significantly to pensions.

Sidhu says Anaheim put new employees into lower pension plans. He says it is necessary to elect a lot more Republicans to the State Legislature. He warns of San Bernardino and Detroit who went bankrupt due to unfunded pension liabilities.

Pauly says Villa Park requires its employees to pay their entire employee contribution. She says Villa Park has paid off its pension liability. She says California’s pension liability will bankrupt California. She says she would work with John Moorlach to make the state solvent.

Alexander asks about tax credits for specific industries.

Deligianni-Brydges says she would not do so for any single industry, instead giving tax credits to all.

Sidhu says tax credits should be given to all, not specific industries. He says lower taxes will grow jobs.

Pauly says tax breaks should be given to everyone. She wants to focus on transparency and modernizing public records laws to reflect 21st Century technology. She wants to impose the Brown Act upon the Legislature. She says an informed electorate is the best electorate.

Choi says tax credits for certain industries is interesting, but notes all industries are special in their own way. He has a dream of convincing Democrats to form a special economic zone encompassing all of California so everyone can benefit.

Sidhu gives his closing statement. He speaks of his business experience. He rattles off his Congressional endorsements, legislative endorsements, County endorsements, and City endorsements.

Pauly says the political establishment has caused the problems California and the nation encountered. She says she previously supported Deligianni-Brydges for OUSD and wants her to stay there at OUSD. She says Choi was the wrong man for the Assembly in 2010 and now in 2016.

Choi says past service record shows which candidate would best represent conservative values in Sacramento. He points to his audits of the Great Park, his paying off pension liabilities, and adding In God We Trust to City Council chambers. He will fight for the unborn and lower taxes.

Deligianni-Brydges quotes the Bible on leadership bringing stability. She points to her research skills and backgrounds in both education and business.

Alexander tries to end the debate.

Sidhu says no one likes Pauly and attacks Pauly’s DUI. He accuses her of not filing her campaign finance reports.

Pauly says people do like her, and she has filed her reports.

Alexander is finally able to end the forum at 8:43 PM.

Posted in 68th Assembly District | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

68th Assembly District Candidate Forum This Tuesday, Feb. 2nd

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on January 31, 2016

As noted in my earlier post Mark Your Calendars! the California Republican Assembly is holding a Candidate Forum for the 68th Assembly District.

All four announced candidates have committed to participating.  They are ALEXIA DELIGIANNI-BRYDGES, Trustee with the Orange Unified School District, DEBORAH PAULY, former City Councilperson for the City of Villa Park, STEVEN S. CHOI, Mayor of the City of Irvine and HARRY SIDHU, former City Councilperson for the City of Anaheim.

The Forum will be held at the City of Orange, City Council Chambers located at 300 East Chapman Ave., Orange, CA 92866 starting at 7:00 p.m.  The Forum will be recorded and all are invited to attend.  This forum is being organized and presented as a community service by the California Republican Assembly.

The CRA will be conducting an endorsement convention that will include consideration of the 68th Assembly District in March.  The seat is currently held by Assemblyman Don Wagner who is not seeking re-election due to term limits.

For more information about this forum contact CRA Executive Vice President Craig Alexander at cpalexander@cox.net or CRA Vice President Dale Tyler at mailcoll@tylerent.com.

Posted in 68th Assembly District, Anaheim, Irvine, Lake Forest, Orange Unified School District, Tustin, Uncategorized, Villa Park | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Mark Your Calendars! Candidate Forum: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on January 9, 2016

CANDIDATE FORUM – FREE AND OPEN TO ALL!

MEET THE FOUR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES FOR ASSEMBLY RUNNING IN THE 68th ASSEMBLY DISTRICT

SPONSORED BY THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLY

68th Assembly District includes all or part of the communities of Anaheim, Orange/Villa Park, North Tustin/Tustin, Irvine, and Lake Forest, including the former Marine Corps Air Station at El Toro.  The seat is currently held by Assemblyman Don Wagner who is termed out this year.

The Candidate Forum will be held on Tuesday, February 2nd starting at 7:00 p.m. at Orange City Hall (the Council chambers) located at 300 E. Chapman Ave., Orange, CA. The event will be recorded and the media will be invited. This forum will be free and open to the public as a service to the community by the California Republican Assembly. For more information about CRA go to: http://cragop.org/

For further information, please contact CRA Executive Vice President, Craig Alexander at cpalexander@cox.net or CRA Vice President, Dale Tyler at edt@tylerent.com.

Posted in 69th Assembly District, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Could Governor Brown Veto SB 277 Due to Missing Religious Exemption?

Posted by Chris Nguyen on June 18, 2015

So my post on Tuesday about the OC GOP opposing SB 277 has already cracked the top 10 posts of all time on OC Political, and it appears to be on pace to overtake #9 sometime this morning.  (For those of you wondering, #9 is Live from OCGOP Central Committee: Efforts to Remove Deborah Pauly as 1st Vice Chair from June 18, 2012. Note to self: June Central Committee meetings equal high readership.)

In light of this readership spike, I decided to do some more reading on SB 277, the bill by Senator Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) to require vaccination of schoolchildren who do not have a medical exemption.  Existing law permits exemptions for medical reasons or personal belief.  In a nutshell, SB 277 would eliminate the personal belief exemption.

One of the most interesting items was AB 2109 of 2012 by then-Assemblyman Richard Pan (D-Sacramento).  AB 2109 required a health care practitioner to sign an attestation that they provided information regarding the benefits and risks of the immunization and the health risks of specified communicable diseases to a parent of the student in question.  AB 2109 also required a parent of the student to sign a statement that they received the information.

 

While Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2109 into law, he issued a signing message.  (Signing messages are an infrequent occurrence with just a handful of bills getting a signing message each year; the vast majority of bills are signed without such messages.)  The full text of the signing message follows:

This bill seeks to boost immunization rates for children in communities where vaccine rates are falling.

Current state law requires children to be vaccinated prior to enrollment in school or a child care facility, but allows a parent or guardian to opt out of this requirement based on a personal belief. This bill doesn’t change that.  Consistent with current law, AB 2109 allows parents with a personal belief to reject vaccination for their child.

This bill is about explaining the value of vaccinations – both the benefits and risks – for an individual child and the community. Whether these are simple “information exchanges” or more detailed discussions, they will be valuable even if a parent chooses not to vaccinate.

I am signing AB 2109 and am directing the Department of Public Health to oversee this policy so parents are not overly burdened by its implementation. Additionally, I will direct the department to allow for a separate religious exemption on the form. In this way, people whose religious beliefs preclude vaccinations will not be required to seek a health care practitioner’s signature.

In signing AB 2109, Brown spent half the second and fourth paragraphs discussing personal belief exemptions.  The fourth paragraph, the Governor, a former seminarian, issued his direction to the Department of Public Health to create a religious exemption on the form where they would not need to get a health care practitioner’s signature.  In other words, a religious exemption went around AB 2109.

This interesting post from a site called Science Blogs blasts Brown because they felt he “tried to water down the bill” and the he “blows it” for creating a religious exemption.

Putting aside the legality of the Governor’s direction to the Department of Public Health regarding AB 2109, this could be an opening for opponents of SB 277 to persuade Governor Brown to veto SB 277.

When SB 277 was introduced, Brown’s spokesman announced, “The governor believes that vaccinations are profoundly important and a major public health benefit and any bill that reaches his desk will be closely considered.”

Clearly, Brown wants to sign a bill that reduces exemptions, but it is entirely possible that he doesn’t want to eliminate the religious exemption.

According to this article and map by the National Conference of State Legislatures, 48 states allow religious exemptions (only Mississippi and West Virginia do not) but only 20 states allow philosophical exemptions (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).

It could be that Governor Brown would want to eliminate the philosophical exemption but not the religious exemption.  The lack of a religious exemption could be the Achilles’ heel for SB 277 supporters and the silver bullet for SB 277 opponents.  Only time will tell.

The bill still needs a vote on the Assembly Floor and then another vote on the Senate Floor concurring to amendments made in the Assembly, but SB 277 is expected to survive both floor votes, at which point it will arrive on the Governor’s desk.

Posted in State Assembly, State Senate | Tagged: , , , , , , | 16 Comments »

A Closer Look at SD-37: Newport-Mesa Delivered Nearly All of Moorlach’s Margin of Victory Over Wagner

Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 23, 2015

The Registrar of Voters certified the 37th Senate District Special Election on Friday night, John Moorlach took the oath of office yesterday afternoon, and he will be on the Senate Floor at his desk for the first time at 2:00 PM today while Don Wagner will be back on the Assembly Floor at 12:00 PM today.

We’ve all seen the official results districtwide, with Moorlach avoiding a runoff by 199 votes:

STATE SENATOR 37th District, Short Term
Completed Precincts: 248 of 248
Vote Count Percentage
JOHN M. W. MOORLACH (REP) 38,125 50.3%
DONALD P. WAGNER (REP) 33,411 44.0%
NAZ NAMAZI (REP) 2,621 3.5%
Louise Stewardson (W) 1,696 2.2%

 

Besides both being conservative Republican legislators from Orange County, there’s something else Moorlach and Wagner have in common: their most recent constituents like them.  In the 37th Senate District special election, Moorlach won the 2nd Supervisorial District while Wagner won the 68th Assembly District.  Turnout in the 2nd Supervisorial District was 16.8% while turnout in the 68th Assembly District was 15.0%.

Winner by City in the 37th Senate District Special Election

Winner by city or unincorporated area in the 37th Senate District Special Election.  (Note: the sizes of their heads have nothing to do with their vote margin in that community, it’s just the geographic size of the community that did it.  Laguna Woods and Laguna Beach are very oddly-shaped cities.)

The 68th, the 2nd, and Neutral Territory

In the 68th Assembly District (Anaheim Hills, Lake Forest, Orange, Tustin, Villa Park, and the northeastern 1/3 of Irvine), Wagner defeated Moorlach by almost the identical percentage (5.3%) that Moorlach beat Wagner overall in the 37th Senate District (6.3%).  (For those who care to an incredible level of detail, the charts are near the bottom of this post.)

In the 2nd Supervisorial District (Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach), Moorlach beat Wagner by a whopping 20.6%.

In the neutral territory outside the 68th and the 2nd (Laguna Beach, Laguna Woods, and the southwestern 2/3 of Irvine), Wagner defeated Moorlach by a large 18.5% margin.  (To add insult to injury for Naz Namazi, write-in candidate Louise Stewardson beat her in these areas.)  In a testament to how fed up voters were with negative campaigning, it was in these areas where Stewardson and Namazi did the best, getting a combined 8.9% here as opposed to 5.4% in the 2nd and 4.5% in the 68th since there was no “favorite son” candidate in these areas.

Moorlach’s Newport Beach-Costa Mesa Landslide

Moorlach’s margin of victory in his hometown of Costa Mesa was a whopping 25.4% (1,712 votes) and in Newport Beach, it was an even larger 27.9% (2,996 votes).

Costa Mesa and Newport Beach combined to give Moorlach 4,708 more votes than Wagner.  Districtwide, Moorlach defeated Wagner by 4,714 votes.  In other words, without Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, Moorlach would have been ahead of Wagner by just 6 votes, and obviously, there would have been a run-off.

Moorlach also held on to the other 2nd District city, Huntington Beach, by a margin of 7.3% (599 votes).

Moorlach Won Portions of the 68th While Holding All of the 2nd

There were three critical areas where Moorlach broke into Wagner’s home turf: Anaheim Hills, Villa Park, and Silverado.  Had Wagner been able to stop the Moorlach incursion into those three areas of the 68th Assembly District, there would have been a run-off.

The Anaheim Hills votes are interesting in that Moorlach beat Wagner by 76 votes in Anaheim Hills overall, but Wagner beat Moorlach by 7 votes in the 39th Congressional District.  The only portions of the 39th Congressional District that overlap with SD-37 are in Anaheim Hills.  Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait endorsed Moorlach and did a robocall for him.  Congressman Ed Royce endorsed Wagner, did a robocall for him, and was listed on Wagner’s mail as an endorser.

It appears Tait managed to push Anaheim Hills out of the 68th District’s generally pro-Wagner voting pattern, but Royce was able to push his Congressional District back into Wagner’s column.  This war of endorsements from popular elected officials and of campaign mail probably explains why Anaheim Hills was the closest city in the entire district.  (We can rule out most precinct walking operations since the “Hills” name is very, very apt compared to the rest of the relatively flat SD-37.)

Moorlach was endorsed in Villa Park by Mayor Rick Barnett, Councilman Bill Nelson, Councilman Robert Collacott, and former Councilwoman Deborah Pauly.  Wagner was endorsed in Villa Park by Councilman Greg Mills and Councilwoman Diana Fascinelli.  Pauly ran Moorlach’s ground operations, which caused Villa Park to buck the trend of the 68th District backing Wagner.

I have no explanation for Silverado.

Moorlach Won the Liberal Pockets of SD-37

In spite of all the union independent expenditures against Moorlach and/or for Wagner, Moorlach actually won the liberal City of Laguna Beach and the flag-banning precincts of UC Irvine.

Tables Galore

STATE SENATOR 37th District, Short Term
68th Assembly District Precincts
Vote Count Percentage
DONALD P. WAGNER (REP) 17,213 50.4%
JOHN M. W. MOORLACH (REP) 15,418 45.1%
NAZ NAMAZI (REP) 1,192 3.5%
Louise Stewardson (W) 360 1.0%

 

STATE SENATOR 37th District, Short Term
2nd Supervisorial District Precincts
Vote Count Percentage
JOHN M. W. MOORLACH (REP) 15,633 57.6%
DONALD P. WAGNER (REP) 10,030 37.0%
NAZ NAMAZI (REP) 815 3.0%
Louise Stewardson (W) 651 2.4%

 

STATE SENATOR 37th District, Short Term
Excluding 68th Assembly District and 2nd Supervisorial District Precincts
Vote Count Percentage
DONALD P. WAGNER (REP) 7,963 54.8%
JOHN M. W. MOORLACH (REP) 5,279 36.3%
Louise Stewardson (W) 685 4.7%
NAZ NAMAZI (REP) 614 4.2%

 

STATE SENATOR 37th District, Short Term
Costa Mesa Precincts
Vote Count Percentage
JOHN M. W. MOORLACH (REP) 3,979 59.1%
DONALD P. WAGNER (REP) 2,267 33.7%
NAZ NAMAZI (REP) 254 3.8%
Louise Stewardson (W) 234 3.5%

 

STATE SENATOR 37th District, Short Term
Newport Beach Precincts
Vote Count Percentage
JOHN M. W. MOORLACH (REP) 6,651 61.9%
DONALD P. WAGNER (REP) 3,655 34.0%
NAZ NAMAZI (REP) 263 2.4%
Louise Stewardson (W) 177 1.7%

 

STATE SENATOR 37th District, Short Term
Excluding Costa Mesa and Newport Beach Precincts
Vote Count Percentage
JOHN M. W. MOORLACH (REP) 27,495 47.1%
DONALD P. WAGNER (REP) 27,489 47.1%
NAZ NAMAZI (REP) 2,104 3.6%
Louise Stewardson (W) 1,285 2.2%

 

STATE SENATOR 37th District, Short Term
Huntington Beach Precincts
Vote Count Percentage
JOHN M. W. MOORLACH (REP) 4,188 50.6%
DONALD P. WAGNER (REP) 3,589 43.3%
NAZ NAMAZI (REP) 264 3.2%
Louise Stewardson (W) 240 2.9%

 

STATE SENATOR 37th District, Short Term
Anaheim Hills Precincts
Vote Count Percentage
JOHN M. W. MOORLACH (REP) 2,579 48.4%
DONALD P. WAGNER (REP) 2,503 46.9%
NAZ NAMAZI (REP) 205 3.8%
Louise Stewardson (W) 46 0.9%

 

STATE SENATOR 37th District, Short Term
Villa Park Precincts
Vote Count Percentage
JOHN M. W. MOORLACH (REP) 651 60.8%
DONALD P. WAGNER (REP) 396 37.0%
NAZ NAMAZI (REP) 23 2.2%
Louise Stewardson (W) 0 0.0%

 

STATE SENATOR 37th District, Short Term
Silverado Precincts
Vote Count Percentage
JOHN M. W. MOORLACH (REP) 35 58.3%
DONALD P. WAGNER (REP) 21 35.0%
NAZ NAMAZI (REP) 3 5.0%
Louise Stewardson (W) 1 1.7%

 

Random Trivia Not Worth a Separate Post

For anybody wondering, Moorlach will be seated in the front row on the Senate Floor and will be seatmates with Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton).  Moorlach will be one of only two Republicans with a Democrat as a seatmate: the other bipartisan pair of seatmates are Anthony Cannella (R-Ceres) and Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo).  Moorlach will be diagonally seated from his old colleague of eight years on the Board of Supervisors, Janet Nguyen (R-Garden Grove), whose seatmate is their eight-year colleague on the Board of Supervisors, Patricia Bates (R-Laguna Niguel).

Moorlach Seat in the Senate

Posted in 2nd Supervisorial District, 37th Senate District, 68th Assembly District | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments »

Live from OC GOP Central Committee: Endorsements Round 1

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 18, 2014

We’re live from OC GOP Central Committee for the first round of endorsements for the November General Election.

As is normal for an endorsements meeting, a slew of new alternates are being sworn in (though several represent new ex officio members as this is the first meeting since the Secretary of State certified nominees for the November election).

There are so many elected officials and candidates present that I will not even attempt to list them all.

Pete Peterson, the Republican nominee for Secretary of State, addresses the Central Committee.

Ron Nehring, the Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor, addresses the Central Committee.

The endorsements agenda consists of:
1. Jim Righeimer – Costa Mesa
2. Lee Ramos – Costa Mesa
3. Yes on Charter – Costa Mesa (Measure O)
4. Peggy Huang – Yorba Linda (November Election)
5. Mark McCurdy – Fountain Valley
6. Tyler Diep – Westminster
7. Jeff Lalloway – Irvine
8. Steven Choi – Irvine Mayor
9. Lynn Schott – Irvine
10. Tom Lindsey – Yorba Linda
11. Tom Tait – Anaheim Mayor
12. Dave Harrington – Aliso Viejo
13. Derek Reeve – San Juan Capistrano
14. Pam Patterson – San Juan Capistrano
15. Jesse Petrilla – Rancho Santa Margarita
16. Robert Ming – Orange County Supervisor, 5th District
17. Craig Alexander – Capistrano Unified School District, Trustee Area 4
18. Fred Whitaker – Orange
19. Ray Grangoff – Orange
20. Steve Sheldon – Orange County Water District, Division 5
21. Timothy Surridge – Orange Unified School District, Trustee Area 5
22. Rick Ledesma – Orange Unified School District, Trustee Area 7
23. David Yang – Tustin Unified School District
24. William Hinz – Lowell Joint School District
25. John Novak – Savanna School District
26. Phil Yarbrough – Rancho Santiago Community College District, Trustee Area 6
27. Sandra Crandall – Fountain Valley School District
28. Measure E – County Contracting with FPPC (Yes)
29. Measure G – Supervisorial Vacancy (Yes)
30. Measure H – Anaheim Union High School District Bond (No)
31. Measure I – Fullerton Joint Union High School District Bond (No)
32. Measure J – North Orange County Community College District Bond (No)
33. Measure K – Orange Unified School District Bond (No)
34. Measure AA – Santa Ana Utility Tax (No)
35. Measure JJ – Yorba Linda Pension & Healthcare Elimination (Yes)
36. Measure W – Irvine Great Park Transparency (Yes)
37. Measure V – Irvine Term Limits (Yes)
38. Measure GG – Stanton Sales Tax (No)
39. Julie Collier – Capistrano Unified School District, Trustee Area 7
40. Ellen Addonizio – Capistrano Unified School District, Trustee Area 6
41. Brett Barbre – Municipal Water District of Orange County, Division 1
42. Diane Dixon – Newport Beach
43. Yorba Linda Recall (No)
44. Measure Y – Newport Beach General Plan Update (Yes)
45. Dave Ellis – Municipal Water District of Orange County, Division 5
46. Scott Voigts – Lake Forest
47. Erik Peterson – Huntington Beach
48. Lynn Semeta – Huntington Beach
49. Mike Posey – Huntington Beach

26 of the 49 items were passed as a consent calendar, except the following 23 people/measures who were pulled for discussion or for referral to the Endorsements Committee:
2. Lee Ramos – Costa Mesa
4. Peggy Huang – Yorba Linda
10. Tom Lindsey – Yorba Linda
11. Tom Tait – Anaheim Mayor
15. Jesse Petrilla – Rancho Santa Margarita
16. Robert Ming – Orange County Supervisor, 5th District
18. Fred Whitaker – Orange
19. Ray Grangoff – Orange
21. Timothy Surridge – Orange Unified School District, Trustee Area 5
22. Rick Ledesma – Orange Unified School District, Trustee Area 7
23. David Yang – Tustin Unified School District
24. William Hinz – Lowell Joint School District
25. John Novak – Savanna School District
27. Sandra Crandall – Fountain Valley School District
30. Measure H – Anaheim Union High School District Bond (No)
31. Measure I – Fullerton Joint Union High School District Bond (No)
32. Measure J – North Orange County Community College District Bond (No)
33. Measure K – Orange Unified School District Bond (No)
38. Measure GG – Stanton Sales Tax (No)
43. Yorba Linda Recall (No)
47. Erik Peterson – Huntington Beach
48. Lyn Semeta – Huntington Beach
49. Mike Posey – Huntington Beach

8:02 PM: Chairman Scott Baugh reveals more than $10,000 in union contributions for Lucille Kring despite her signing the nonunion pledge. He makes a scathing speech blasting Kring for breaking her word. If she disagrees with the pledge, she shouldn’t have signed it, Baugh says. Kring attempts to protest, but cannot speak as a nonmember of the Central Committee. Baugh entertains a motion from Tim Whitacre to endorse Tom Tait for Mayor of Anaheim.

TJ Fuentes speaks in favor of Tait. He speaks of Tait’s servant leadership, Tait’s grassroots activism and efforts to support the Republican Party. Fuentes speaks of Tait standing by his principles of lower taxes, limited government, kindness, and transparency. Fuentes notes Tait is the OCGOP’s 2013 Local Elected Official of the Year.

Alexandria Coronado says the Tait of the past is not the Tait of today. She says he’s given money to Jordan Brandman and Jose F. Moreno. She says Tait is working with unions and was a speaker at a Democratic Party-sponsored event.

By a voice vote:

TAIT ENDORSED.

Fred Whitaker moves the endorsement of Lee Ramos for Costa Mesa City Council. He says Ramos will help unify the city. He says Ramos is the leading conservative candidate for the open seat.

Baugh asks how much Ramos has raised, how much his opponents have raised, and if he has endorsements from Righeimer, Mensinger, and Monahan.

Ramos says he’s raised about $40,000 while the nearest opponent had $9,100. Ramos does have the endorsements.

Desare Ferraro urges delaying this to allow Tony Capitelli to be considered for endorsement.

By voice vote:

RAMOS ENDORSED

One person pulled the endorsements in Huntington Beach, but there is little debate on the Huntington Beach candidates.

PETERSON ENDORSED

SEMETA ENDORSED

POSEY ENDORSED

There is no debate on Peggy Huang for Yorba Linda City Council.

HUANG ENDORSED

Desare Ferraro objects to the endorsement of Tom Lindsey for the November General Election. She says it would be divisive with the recall going on.

Brenda McCune notes she ran against Tom Lindsey in 2010, but she supports his endorsement now. She calls the recall a power grab. She calls Lindsey an independent mind and listener. She calls him a good Republican and family man.

Baron Night proposes a substitute motion to go to Endorsements Committee. He cites the recall.

Brett Barbre notes the recall is October 7 and general election is November 4. He notes the recall costs $300,000. He says Lindsey is a good Republican.

Night’s substitute motion gets 17 votes. There are far more votes against Night’s substitute motion.

A debate of parliamentary procedure ensues.

By a standing vote, there are 39 votes to endorse Lindsey. 37 were needed.

LINDSEY ENDORSED.

Brett Barbre of Yorba Linda moves to endorse against the recall. Scott Peotter of Newport Beach seconds.

Baron Night of Buena Park offers a substitute motion to send it to Endorsements Committee. Tim Whitacre of Santa Ana seconds.

Night argues the recall is a local issue.

Brenda McCune of Yorba Linda says the people of Yorba Linda want to hear from the party because these issues have gone on for quite some time in Yorba Linda.

Scott Baugh speaks of becoming an Assemblyman in the Doris Allen recall. He warns of recalls against Jeff Lalloway, Jim Righeimer, and Deborah Pauly. He warns against recalls for anything other than malfeasance or betrayal of Republican principles.

Night withdraws his substitute motion.

Peotter notes that Young and Lindsey are following the law and the will of the people. He blasts NIMBYs for launching the recall and says that removing Young and Lindsey should be in a general election, not a recall.

Whitacre of Santa Ana helped collect recall signatures in Yorba Linda. He claims that Young and Lindsey received PAC contributions. He claims Mark Schwing and Nancy Rikel are conservatives.

Barbre of Yorba Linda says it seems the longer you live in Yorba Linda the more credibility you have. He says he’s lived there for 45 years. He says the recall is the biggest waste of money he’s ever seen. He notes the recall supporters were the same people who opposed making Imperial Highway a city road. He notes there is ballot box zoning in Yorba Linda. He notes that Young and Lindsey voted for densities 35% below the cap imposed by voters.

Nancy Rikel attacks Young, Lindsey, and Hernandez. She criticizes the Central Committee for endorsing Lindsey. She blasts Young and Lindsey for supporting the Brea Police contract with Yorba Linda. Disruptive audience members who appear to have been brought by Rikel are cheering for Rikel. Rikel complains that the recall cost more because opponents tried to stand at supermarkets to oppose the recall.

Baugh asks Rikel if she’s actually arguing that the taxpayer cost of the recall went up because people opposed the recall. She admits she meant her side’s campaign contribution dollars.

Peggy Huang notes that unions spent $80,000 in the 2012 Yorba Linda election. She notes Rikel lost in 2012 and is running in the recall.

Dennis White recaps the Brea Police Department versus Orange County Sheriff’s Department contract debate in Yorba Linda. Rikel’s disruptive audience members applaud again.

By a voice vote:
ENDORSEMENT FOR “NO” ON THE YORBA LINDA RECALL

By motion of Tony Beall and seconded by Jennifer Beall, the Central Committee votes to send:
JESSE PETRILLA TO ENDORSEMENTS COMMITTEE

Bill Dunlap speaks about Robert Ming being a public servant who is a state leader.

Bill Christiansen speaks on behalf of Darrell Issa that there are two good Republicans running for Fifth District Supervisor.

Baron Night says Lisa Bartlett failed to ask for the endorsement in the general though she did ask for the endorsement in the primary. He calls Ming an active supporter of other Republicans, a conservative, and a successful Councilman.

Steve Nagel speaks on behalf of Lisa Bartlett. He has served with her on various regional committees. He says she is a hard worker and has been a strong Republican in Dana Point and statewide. He says both Ming and Bartlett are good Republicans. He says both applied for the endorsement in the primary and that should stand.

By a voice vote:
MING ENDORSED

Fred Whitaker notes his long term service to the party. He states he is willing to compare his conservative record against anyone else’s. He notes he led the successful effort to eliminate Council compensation. He notes that Orange unions are paying their employee contributions without raises, the only city in the County with this accomplishment.

Deborah Pauly points to Whitaker’s $1,000 campaign contribuition to Democrat Tita Smith for Mayor of Orange. She points to Whitaker’s front yard included a sign in support of Smith.

By a voice vote:
WHITAKER ENDORSED

With no debate:
GRANGOFF ENDORSED

A whole lot of people move to send:
SURRIDGE TO ENDORSEMENTS COMMITTEE
LEDESMA TO ENDORSEMENTS COMMITTEE

Alexandria Coronado moves to send:
YANG TO ENDORSEMENTS COMMITTEE

With little debate since he’s unopposed on the ballot:
HINZ ENDORSED

No one makes a motion on Novak.

Mark Bucher moves to oppose Measures H, I, J, and K, with a second by Deborah Pauly.

Fred Whitaker makes a substitute motion to send all of them to Endorsements Committee, with a second by Baron Night.

Whitaker says four conservative school board members voted for Measure K. He says he doesn’t know anything about the other three measures. He wants the Endorsements Committee to vet them.

Bucher says it’s a simple question of whether the Republican Party stands for or against higher taxes.

There are 24 votes to send the four measures to Endorsements Committee. There are 22 votes against sending the four measures to Endorsements Committee.

MEASURES H, I, J, AND K TO ENDORSEMENTS COMMITTEE

David Shawver speaks in favor of Measure GG. He says the City of Stanton cut $9 million, have 26 employees left, cut spending on public safety. He says the Register said that Stanton has done a good job. Shawver says only three people have opposed this and they’re not Stanton residents.

Mark Bucher says Measure GG is a sales tax for public employees. He says that there are alternatives to higher taxes. If the Republican Party does not oppose higher taxes, the party should fold its tent and go home. Bucher says that sending this to Endorsements Committee will simply result in this coming back to Central Committee.

Shawver attacks Wayne Lindholm. Shawver says the City has cut 6 out of 20 officers. He says they’ve cut everything they can. He encourages people to look at his books. He claims only outsiders oppose this tax and that Stanton voters should decide.

Jon Fleischman notes Diane Harkey opposes this tax. Fleischman agrees with Bucher that approving this tax hike in Stanton will set a precedent where other cities will turn to higher taxes rather than reducing public employee salaries.

By a voice vote:
ENDORSEMENT FOR “NO” ON MEASURE GG

Round 1 of endorsements are complete. Round 2 will be considered in September.

Mary Young thanks everyone who volunteered for the Party at the OC Fair. There’s also a presentation for the Volunteer of the Month.

Mark Bucher says the bills are all paid. Baugh jokingly disputes that.

TJ Fuentes welcomes the new ex officio members and reminds them to pay their $25 dues.

Captain Emily Sanford, USN (Ret.) thanks the Party members for donations of goods to the troops. She encourages more donations, particularly those of the dental variety.

CENTRAL COMMITTEE ADJOURNS AT 9:23 PM.

Posted in 5th Supervisorial District, Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Anaheim Union High School District, Capistrano Unified School District, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Fountain Valley School District, Fullerton Joint Union High School District, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Lake Forest, Lowell Joint School District, Municipal Water District of Orange County, Newport Beach, North Orange County Community College District, Orange, Orange County, Orange County Water District, Orange Unified School District, Rancho Santa Margarita, Rancho Santiago Community College District, Republican Central Committee, San Juan Capistrano, Tustin Unified School District, Westminster, Yorba Linda | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments »

Vote for me, because I am one of you

Posted by Brenda McCune on February 18, 2014

Last night the OCGOP Central Committee held it’s monthly meeting and on the agenda were some requests for early endorsements in upcoming partisan races.  There has been some confusion over recent changes in the bylaws and how the timing, request and filing requirements of endorsements will be affected, but that is not the topic here.  (Frankly, I’m a pretty smart person, and I am still struggling to understand the amendments and why we made them)  Here, I want to discuss the future future of the party in California in a post Prop 14 world.

The only endorsement that garnered any discussion is the one sought by Diane Harkey for the California State Board of Equalization.  There were unanimous endorsements for Shari Freidenrich and Tony Rackaukas.  I don’t believe that Shari is challenged and given the circumstances surrounding prior challenges, it’s not likely that TRack will see any challengers until he is blind and walking with a cane and willing to step down, none of which seem to be in his future.

Diane Harkey has announced her candidacy for the State Board of Equalization. In that race also, are Republicans Van Tran and Mark Wyland.  As a matter of procedure (which was not at any time clear what exactly the procedure should have been) the candidates were allowed to speak.  It was fairly impromptu, and did become something of a debate, although the Chairman continued to remind us that this was not a debate.  The end of the story is that the Committee voted by a narrow, (3 votes) to endorse Diane Harkey at this early stage, per her request.  She was immensely grateful, and indicated it was going to make it so much easier for her to raise money and obtain support.

Although I am not well acquainted with any of these candidates,  I did receive a phone call quite some time ago from Diane requesting my support.  I have also had contact from her campaign requesting the same, so kudos to her for hitting the ground running.  I have seen her at every Central Committee meeting in recent months, pressing the flesh, making her presence and ambitions known. She certainly has gotten out early and often, doing the work.  However, I am not certain that an “A” for effort necessarily entitles a candidate to essentially eviscerate opportunities for the other Republicans before the campaign has even started.

To clarify, since Prop 14 we have ‘open’ primaries in California.  Any number of candidates from any party may enter a race.  In this race, we will have at least 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat in what has been described to as a ‘safe’ Republican seat.  In the last election we saw the first glimpse of what is to come of this in the form of Republican on Republican fundraising and rhetorical violence.  How we will deal with it continues to be of concern and debate amongst our ranks.

The best idea of the evening was in the form of a motion made by Deborah Pauly to “table” this discussion until the filing had closed for this office, i.e. postpone this discussion and endorsement until after the ‘official’ filing deadline with the Registrar of Voters has passed, because in theory, someone could walk in there today and decide to be a candidate for this office.  In the morass of procedural clarifications throughout the meeting, that motion somehow got lost, which was disappointing.  The vote on the endorsement and the debate from the members proceeded nevertheless, the endorsement was granted, without any significant consideration of the implications and seriousness of the problems this new post Prop 14 lay of the land provides for the party.

The lack of strategy and agenda for addressing this problem having been noted, here is what has and is developing from this new early endorsement approach.  A veritable game of “gotcha” seems to be arising, in that if a candidate gets there early, and another worthy candidate is in the wings, unaware of the procedure for an endorsement, if and when the political insider, the one who knows the ropes, the one who has been in an office and aware of these procedures, gets there first, he or she will be the one who will get the endorsement.  Will this stop the blood bath of Republican on Republican campaigning in the early races?  That remains to be seen, but it seems it could really exacerbate it.

Now with the OC giving the nod to Harkey, it is likely that San Diego will give the nod to it’s hometown hero, Wyland.  A comment was made last night that VanTran has “no chance” and should bow out now, which of all the incredible and offensive things I heard last night, that was certainly one of them.  It was only a few years ago that Van Tran was the great party hope to unseat Loretta Sanchez. Now he is disregarded like road kill, ‘nothing to see here folks, move along’.  Wow.

The veritable stepping over Van Tran, is magnified though when viewed in light of the discussion that occurred.  Strangely, in the lengthy questioning of the candidates, not only were there no questions related to the actual duties of the position, there was no discussion of the agenda that either candidate would bring to the office.  What there was, were a number of questions that could be easily rephrased as “How Republican are you?”  We heard quite a lot from Harkey about how involved she has been in the party, how she is highly rated in her State Assembly performance by conservative groups, and all the conservative principles she has fought for in the State Assembly.  Nothing other than she really wants “this” (new) job, to explain to us what exactly she will do at the Board of Equalization.

It should be noted that Wyland, even though he was invited to engage in the discussion, did NOT seek the party endorsement.

In addition to being light on substance related to the actual office, (again, these candidates were not noticed that they would be speaking) Harkey was over all, shrill in her presentation. She was a tad histrionic, condescending and rude at times.  I did not care for the eye rolling at some of the comments from Wyland, and her body language, including but not limited to the manner in which she snatched the microphone from Mr. Wyland.

I have said before, this is a tough room.  Politicos of every ilk, well versed in the issues and public figures who in their own varied roles, must verbally address the public on a regular basis.  If you are coming here, you should be prepared to bring your A-game.  Ms. Harkey, as she pointed out, has a long career of public service and has run many a successful campaign. She as much as anyone, should not take any of this for granted.  The impression she gave last night is that she does.  She was indignant that Wyland was there, or in the race or really toward almost anything he had to say. He is also an elected official, coincidentally, higher ranking than Ms. Harkey. Regardless, her disrespect was uncalled for.  Her anticipation of the automatic nature of the endorsement of this important body, also uncalled for.  I would have been far more impressed had she been dignified, respectful and acquiescing to the right of her opponent to be heard.

I am disappointed that the Committee took this action when there were other options, to simply not endorse, or table it for a short, or even indefinite time.  I am disappointed at the narrow margin by which this important endorsement was gained.  I would have voted for the motion to table this to the next meeting or anytime AFTER the filing deadline had passed so that we could be certain exactly WHO will be in this race, but that’s not the way it went.  I fear now, that this will be a fundraising and propaganda blood bath, in what could have and should have been a quiet race for a “safe” seat.  Ms. Harkey indicated that this early endorsement will avoid exactly that which I and others fear, in that SHE will have an easier time raising money and obtaining important support.  I’m not the campaigning pro that she is, and I seriously hope she is right, it just doesn’t make any logical sense to me.

A letter I received from Mark Wyland dated February 13, 2014, stated, “My view has always been that the best role for the party is to stay out of Republican on Republican races, and to help unify everyone after the June vote.  ……With that in mind, I would ask the Orange County Republican Party not pick favorites between three Republicans.  Speaking for myself, I can’t think of anything I have done over the years to deserve having my party endorse against me.  …. I do not request my party’s endorsement and would deeply appreciate it if my party would not endorse against me.”

In this post Prop 14 world, I keep having this recurring thought, it is a good thing we Republicans are so pro-gun because we need to keep re-loading to shoot ourselves repeatedly in the foot.

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

Live from OCGOP Central Committee: Early Endorsements

Posted by Chris Nguyen on February 17, 2014

We’re here live at OCGOP Central Committee for Early Endorsements for the Primary Election.

(7:13 PM): A slew of Youth Associates have been sworn in.

(7:18 PM): Sergio Picchio, former Field Representative to Assemblyman Don Wagner, is receiving the Donald Award for Legislative Staffer of the Year on the occasion of his retirement.

(7:26 PM): Minutes are approved.

(7:27 PM): Announcement of the passing of Jack Christiana.

(7:29 PM): The candidates and elected officials present are introducing themselves: Lucille Kring, Ceci Iglesias, Michelle Steel, Diane Harkey, Baron Night, David Shawver, Robert Hammond, Scott Voigts, Tony Beall, Mike Munzing, Robert Ming, Jim Righeimer, Steven Choi, Phillip Chen, Helen Hayden, Paul Glaab, Tom Tait, Julia Ross, Michael Glen, Tim Shaw, Brett Barbre, Travis Allen, Deborah Pauly, Mark Wyland, Jeff Lalloway, Fred Whitaker, Michael Gates, Steve Nagel, Mark McCurdy, Janet Nguyen, Matt Harper, Lee Ramos, Hugh Nguyen, Dean Grose, Lynn Schott, Jeff Ferguson, Allan Mansoor, Kevin Haskin, Shari Freidenrich, Keith Curry, Ray Grangoff, Eric Woolery, Carlos Vazquez, Claude Parrish, Anna Bryson, Tony Rackauckas, Long Pham, Emanuel Patrascu, Don Wagner, and Young Kim.

(7:36 PM): OCGOP Chairman Scott Baugh speaks about the successful Republican effort in the San Diego Mayor’s race.

He also speaks about Republican efforts to replace Irvine Councilman Larry Agran with Lynn Schott.

(7:39 PM): Irvine Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Lalloway announces that Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait has been named one of the two 2013 OCGOP Local Elected Official of the Year (alongside Supervisor Janet Nguyen who was also announced as the other winner of the award previously).

Baugh gives speaks about Tait’s mayoralty.

Tait thanks the Central Committee for the award.

(7:41 PM): Chairman Scott Baugh brings up early endorsement consideration for District Attorney Tony Rackauckas.

Alexandria Coronado asks a procedural question, to which Baugh responds.

(7:42 PM): TJ Fuentes moves and Mark Bucher seconds the Rackauckas endorsement. He is endorsed unanimously.

RACKAUCKAS ENDORSED

(7:43 PM): Robert Hammond moves and Charlotte Christiana seconds the endorsement of Treasurer-Tax Collector Shari Freidenrich. She is endorsed unanimously.

FREIDENRICH ENDORSED

(7:45 PM): Michelle Steel moves and Tim Whitacre seconds the endorsement of Diane Harkey for Board of Equalization.

Deborah Pauly offers a substitute motion, and Allan Mansoor seconds, to table until the close of filing since there is no incumbent, and more Republicans might jump in.

(7:47 PM): Baugh rules both motions out of order after determining that candidates need to speak before either motion can be made.

(7:49 PM): Baugh says three BOE candidates were notified: Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, Senator Mark Wyland, and former Assemblyman Van Tran. Harkey and Wyland are here, but Tran is not.

(7:50 PM): Harkey opens by describing the BOE’s function. She speaks about her private sector career dealing with corporations and taxation. She speaks about the importance of limiting the field, so that campaign funds can be focused instead of divided. Harkey says it’s critical to get the third vote on actions on the BOE. She speaks about her successful efforts to gain Democrats’ votes to kill legislation. She speaks about how the Legislative Analyst’s Office credited Harkey with getting more oversight against cap and trade. Harkey says she could have walked into Supervisor or Senate, but BOE is the job she wants. She says both she and Wyland are also asking for San Diego GOP Central Committee’s endorsement.

(7:53 PM): Wyland thanks the Central Committee for its work. He talks about how he owned his own 100-200 employee business and how he had to deal with the BOE dozens of times as a business owner. He says he knows how to reform the BOE. He says there were three efforts to unionize his employees, but he defeated those three efforts, so he knows how to fight unions. He notes his electoral background and how he’s given over $1,000,000 to help conservative campaigns. He speaks about how he gave $100,000 to Tony Strickland’s 2008 Senate race when Strickland defeated Democrat Hannah-Beth Jackson by less than one vote per precinct. Wyland urges the Central Committee to delay an endorsement vote until after filing closes.

(7:56 PM): Pat Shuff asks the two candidates what was their CRA score. Harkey says 100%. Wyland is unsure what his CRA score was, but got 100% from both Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and California Taxpayers Association.

(7:59 PM): Mr. White asks why Wyland doesn’t want an endorsement made tonight.

Baugh notes dual endorsing is unprecedented but possible.

Wyland says he’s fine with a dual endorsement. He says he’s only requesting the San Diego GOP Central Committee endorsement purely as a defensive major since Harkey’s asked for the Central Committee endorsement. He says he wishes Central Committees would avoid pre-primary endorsements when there’s multiple Republicans.

Harkey says Central Committees should endorse and frequently do. She says Prop 14 has made this more important. She says AD-65 and SD-34 need money, so endorsements can help stop the spillage of money in intraparty primary matters.

(8:03 PM): Desare’ Ferraro asks if a Democrat has filed for BOE and if the seat is in danger.

Harkey says one Democrat has filed, but it’s a Republican seat, though she notes Democrats are gaining.

(8:04 PM): Jeff Matthews asks the two candidates if they’re Republicans in good standing.

Harkey says she’s highly rated by a slew of conservative organizations and the importance of helping candidates both with manpower and money.

Wyland says their vote records are probably quite similar. He again urges Central Committee neutrality and letting the electorate decide. He again notes he’s given financial support to candidates. He speaks of party unity.

(8:06 PM): Steve Nagel asks if either has taken union money.

Both admit taking union money for their legislative races.

(8:07 PM): Kermit Marsh asks what other counties the two have requested.

Harkey says she has requested them in every county in the BOE 4th District.

Wyland says he has not done so.

(8:08 PM): Robert Hammond asks how each voted on an Assembly bill funding Common Core.

Harkey says she didn’t vote for it.

Wyland notes he served on his school board and is proposing legislation to restrict state funding of Common Core. He says he didn’t vote for the bill that Hammond is asking about.

(8:10 PM): Mike Munzing talks about his own efforts to fight AB 32 and SB 375 at SCAG and on the City Council. He asks Wyland about his $1500 contribution to Al Gore in the 1980s.

Wyland admits he once was a Democrat but became a Republican long ago. He again notes his $1,000,000 for Republicans. He speaks about his votes against AB 32 and “all” other regulatory bills. Wyland notes Gore was more conservative in 1988 and bragging about being a tobacco farmer.

(8:13 PM): Mark Bucher asks if Diane Harkey’s exception for public safety unions on her no-union pledge (required on the Central Committee endorsement form) applies to the past or prospectively.

Harkey says she’s still taking public safety union money. She says public safety is 80% Republican. She says Republicans need to reach out to them. She says public safety is important to Republicans. She says she agrees with the no-union pledge for local office but opposes it for state office.

(8:17 PM): Tim Whitacre asks if Wyland voted to increase property taxes in 2012 and if he walked out on certain bills, like naming a ship after Harvey Milk and illegal immigration restrictions, to avoid voting for them.

Wyland notes they vote on 2,000-3,000 bills. He doesn’t remember them all, but doubts he voted for that one in 2012. Wyland says he abhors naming a ship after Harvey Milk but it’s possible he may have missed the vote. Wyland says the Assembly allows its members to add their votes after missing them, but the Senate does not allow such a thing. Wyland says he has introduced more legislation on illegal immigration than any other legislator, including requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and redirecting DREAM Act funding to veterans.

(8:21 PM): Baugh states that no further questions can be asked directly of the candidates due to the Central Committee’s time limit rules.

(8:22 PM): Tim Whitacre moves and Mary Young seconds the endorsement of Diane Harkey.

(8:23 PM): David Shawver says candidates should have formed committees months ago.

(8:24 PM): Assemblyman Allan Mansoor urges no early endorsement because a lot of questions still need to be responded to. He notes he’s worked with both Harkey and Wyland in the Legislature. He says he’s endorsed Harkey. Mansoor says there are multiple Republicans in good standing running for a Republican seat. He says endorsements should only be made if a RINO is running or if there’s risk of a Democrat winning.

(8:25 PM): Tim Whitacre says the Central Committee usually endorses when he wants neutrality. He says he is not being paid by anyone for BOE. He says Harkey is more conservative than Wyland. Whitacre says Harkey’s an OC resident, unlike Wyland. Whitacre notes Harkey is a lifelong Republican. Whitacre believes San Diego GOP Central Committee will probably endorse Wyland. Whitacre says Harkey’s the best qualified.

(8:28 PM): Mark Bucher says neither should be endorsed. He is very concerned that both have taken union money. Bucher says money is taken from members coercively and spent against their beliefs. Bucher says union money is corrupting. Bucher points to what public safety unions have tried to do to Jim Righeimer in Costa Mesa. Bucher says the OCGOP should not abandon the no-union pledge by endorsing one of them.

(8:30 PM): Tony Beall urges the Central Committee to take a leadership role to influence the electorate. Beall says he’s been Mayor of Rancho Santa Margarita, which is represented by both Harkey and Wyland. He says Harkey is regularly in his city, and he’s never met Wyland. Beall acknowledges that Wyland has assisted California campaigns but not OC campaigns. He says Harkey has helped OC campaigns.

(8:33 PM): Deborah Pauly says this is not about Harkey or Wyland: it’s about process. (She does note Wyland has spent 20 years dealing with the BOE as a businessman.) Pauly says the grassroots is sick of the party jamming decisions down the voters’ throats. Pauly points out that this is a five-county race; if different counties endorse differently, it could be used by the Democrats against whichever Republican advances to November. She says she originally supported waiting until after filing closes, but after listening to the debate, she thinks the Central Committee should wait until the voters have decided in the Primary Election.

(8:37 PM): Robert Hammond asks if the Central Committee is allowed to endorse candidates who violated the no-union pledge.

Baugh says it would violate a 2010 resolution but not the bylaws.

(8:39 PM): The voice vote is unclear. Baugh calls for a standing vote. It requires 2/3 of those present and voting to endorse (i.e. abstentions simply lower the vote threshold required to endorse).

(8:41 PM): The vote count is underway.

(8:42 PM): The vote is 35 for Harkey (32 were need to endorse).

HARKEY ENDORSED

Posted in Anaheim, Board of Equalization, Orange County District Attorney's Office, Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector, Republican Central Committee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Anaheim Council Members Make (Or attempt to) Their Case to the Central Committee

Posted by Brenda McCune on January 21, 2014

The OCGOP held it’s monthly meeting last night at the (newly renamed) Hotel Irvine (Fka the Irvine Hyatt). The speakers for the evening were Lucille Kring and Kris Murray. These council members have been under attack for their vote on permitting hotel developers to have a rebate on the Transient Occupancy Tax, (TOT) once and if the hotels are built by the developers. This issue came before the council in 2012 and the council was split 2-3. More important is the May 2013 vote, when the issue was again considered and the vote was 4-1, Mayor Tom Tait being the only vote against the rebate.

The other hot topic of discussion was the ongoing negotiations with the Angels to extend their contract with Anaheim.

We heard over and over again from Kring and Murray that these were “complicated” issues. It seemed to me they had forgotten that their audience for the evening were 1) Grown-up people whom have all presumably stayed at a Hotel at some point in their lives, 2) Live in Orange County and know a few things about the Angels and Arte Moreno and 3) Are all politicians of one ilk or another.

It’s not complicated. It is not new math. It is not brain surgery or rocket science, but here’s the message they delivered.

Kris Murray beat the drum of unity of the City Council, indicating they were all in agreement on this and that and a whole bunch of other things. It is noteworthy, that the Central Committee meeting is open to anyone who wishes to attend, and in general, whomever is speaking is also not a secret. It would seem to behoove good local Republican politicians to know what the goings on are in their county’s Central Committee, particularly when a monthly meeting might be featuring one of their cohorts on their own council. Mayor Tom Tait was a guest speaking at the meeting just a few months ago. He delivered a very different message. His message was that he stood alone fighting the battle of fiscal conservativism on the Anaheim City Council. The 4-1 vote in favor of extending tax rebates (TOT’s) to hotel developers (Tait was the only dissenter) seems to bolster this claim by Mayor Tait.

Ms. Murray went on to discuss the “complicated” issues arising in the negotiations with the Angels over extending their contract with Anaheim. She emphasized the long history of the partnership of the city and the team, (no mention of the protracted litigation over the name just a few years ago) and the huge risk to the city should the Angels decide to up and move to a nearby city that will build them a new stadium, such as happened in Atlanta. She prepared a Power Point but time constraints did not permit her to go through it. She was kind enough to email it to the Central Committee members today for our review. It was interesting in that the Power Point contained one map of the United States that showed the teams that are receiving substantial subsidies from their city. These included four teams, Seattle Mariners, Arizona Diamondbacks, Washington Nationals, and Tampa Bay Rays. Each are purported to be receiving in excess of $300 million dollars in facilities funding. She emphasized that the city “makes” money on the Angels franchise in that it brings people to the area who support local retail and hotels. There are 30 MLB teams, there was no information or statistics on the averages, or any other variations, only the four teams getting subsidy’s of $300 million or more.

Tom Tait, when he recently appeared before the Committee, had argued that the city was not making money on the current deal with the Angels, and that the Angels were in essence being provided “free rent”. The Orange County register in September reported that over the past 16years that the current agreement has been in place, the city made money in nine of those years, and lost money in the past seven, for a net loss of $52,000.00. A sports/business expert interviewed by the Register called it an “irrelevant” loss. Tom Tait’s demeanor on that evening, was emotional, self serving, and desperate to convey to us that he was fighting the good fight and holding the line as a fiscal conservative. From that initial perspective to the message of last night, it is clear to see the emotionality in this divided Council. If Council Members Kring and Murray accomplished anything last night, it was to explain the emotionality and bolster the credibility of Mayor Tom Tait.

Lucille Kring discussed the TOT. This has been widely debated and criticized as the “$158 million dollar give away”.  She went on into a lengthy discussion and explanation of the TOT, of the fact that in the ‘90’s some hotels chose to build in Garden Grove instead of Anaheim, because of such tax advantages, and that Garden Grove at that time gave away free land. She failed to note that those Garden Grove hotels have undergone several ownership changes since they were built.  No discussion of whether the lack of success of those hotels has to do with the lack of proximity to Disneyland. She also noted that travelers frequently choose to stay in “four star” hotels in beach cities.  There was no discussion of what these proposed hotels getting the TOT rebates would be, but one report was that the plan was for a three story structure.  If that is what is proposed, that’s not a luxury hotel. She was terribly condescending in her repeated statements that the “city is not writing a check”. Well, maybe not now, but if this is indeed a “rebate”, that is exactly what the city will do. Again, she seemed to forget her audience, and stayed firm on her position that it was just too much for us to understand, and that if only we understood we would see what a great idea it was. She further, had great difficulty in admitting that she campaigned on representations that she would not support such tax breaks fro developers. Only after several questions from the typically forceful Debra Pauley, and then after the same question was restated by Chairman Baugh did Ms. Kring ultimately, finally admit that she “only discussed that with a few people, yes.”. She continued to assert that it was never stated in her “campaign materials”.

As public servants, both of these women serve our community at a substantial sacrifice to themselves, and nowhere could this be more appreciated than by this audience of public servants. However, in taking up the cloak of leadership, credibility, responsibility and message are relevant. Local politics is a blood sport and it appears they have engaged in this battle essentially unarmed. Overall, both Council Members were unconvincing in their message that everything is coming up roses in Anaheim and there is peace and harmony and that campaign promises are alive and well all around the Council Chambers in Anaheim. When Ms. Kring made the statement regarding her “campaign materials”, she turned away from the audience to face Chairman Baugh and spoke very softly. Nevertheless, it garnered an audible sigh from the audience.

There are a number of business people in Anaheim who support the Hotel deal, even though the most vociferous discussion on this TOT vote has been negative. Maybe there is a really good economic policy behind this and maybe it will ultimately be a wonderful outcome and bring business and revenue to the city, but we did not hear anything that sounded like that. There was a recurring excuse from both the speakers that these actions are similar to actions that have been taken before. That “well they did it back then” attitude and theme was as unpersuasive as every other part of the presentation.

Neither one of them appeared to believe in what they were selling. They were well prepared, rehearsed, polished and articulate and said what they came to say, but it was weak and unconvincing to say the least. If they believed in what they were doing, had absolute confidence in the positions they have taken on these issues, then there should have been no reason to sidestep actions contrary to campaign promises or to deny the obvious and well documented division among the council. This is certainly the wrong room to come to and be timid, apologetic,defensive, or untruthful.

In litigation we have a saying for silly or non-meritorious arguments, “That dog don’t hunt”. In the public forum as well as the political gathering last night, not only do these positions and policies “not hunt”, these politicians now and in their re-election bids will continue to be the hunted if they persist on a platform of excuses and half truths.

Posted in Anaheim, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »