Red County blogger Jeff Flint is the Prop. 8 consultant
Jeff Flint, the Prop.8 consultant, defines marriage his way
So who are the nefarious forces behind Prop. 8 - the measure to deny California’s gay community the right to marry? A blog called My DD (Direct Democracy) has put up a post by a fellow named Chino Blanco that goes to great lenghts to point the finger at the Prop. 8 culprits.
Apparently a fellow named David Benkoff, who was the proprietor of a blog called “Gays Defend Marriage,” became upset with the forces behind Prop. 8 - so he took down his website and quit the campaign. Blanco then theorized that perhaps Benkoff was disgusted at the folks running the Prop. 8 campaign.
So who are the consultants to Prop. 8? None other than Schubert Flint Public Affairs - the brainchild of Jeff Flint, who is a blogger over at Red County. Flint is also a longtime friend of Red County Editor Matt/Jubal Cunningham and a former legislative chief of staff to Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, who is also a political consultant. Flint also ran Pringle’s mayoral campaign in 2002 and his failed State Treasurer campaign in 1998.
Flint, and his partner Frank Schubert, who has admitted that McCain’s campaign is “dead” in California, hired a gal named Jennifer Kerns to be the Communications Director for Prop. 8. And what has Kerns communicated thus far about Prop. 8? Check out this unbelievable statement by Kerns, “One of our campaign cornerstones will be the fact that if the initiative [to ban gay marriage in California] doesn’t pass that public schools will be forced to teach the difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.”
Unbelievable. Perhaps the schools should teach about how so many conservative Christians are divorced, undermining marriage in the process, no?
But what about Flint himself? Blanco found that Flint is a staffer for an association of security guards! Classic! Who knew the rent a cops had their own association? Do they know that Flint is trying to stop Prop. 8? I would imagine that the security guards who are gay won’t be very happy about that.
I previously wrote about the sleaze in Anaheim, where Flint got a job pimping for Earthlink Wi-Fi and sure enough his boy Pringle had the City of Anaheim sign up with Earthlink, even though the deal sucked for the residents of Anaheim - better systems are already cropping up.
Flint was also the consultant on the Measure M renewal campaign - which extended a sales tax increase. In Santa Ana the local City Clowncil is trying to use that money to build a street car connecting their lame downtown with the one in Garden Grove.
The fact that Flint is running Prop. 8 should give us all hope. He has a long history of raising tons of money, spending it, and then losing. He lost this year in fact as the consultant to a fundraiser for Doug Ose, who lost a congressional race to Tom McClintock.
Another GOP consultant, Arnold Steinberg, pointed out Flint’s mistakes in a column published by the L.A. Times, “Putting Proposition 8 on a high-turnout November presidential election ballot is dumb. Trying to pass it once same-sex marriages have become a legal, daily occurrence throughout the state is dumber. And now, if Californians vote it down, conservatives can’t blame judicial tyranny for imposing same-sex marriage on the unhappy masses.”
And Flint did a fine job of looking stupid recently in a Red County post, where he wrote this about Barack Obama, “I’m for change….blah blah blah…I’s for bringing people together…blah blah blah…let me quote Obama some more….blah blah blah….” Wow. Flint doesn’t think he needs any votes from Obama supporters? He is writing them all off even though his own partner thinks that Obama is going to wipe out McCain in California? How completely asinine!
Be sure to read Blanco’s entire post as he went to great lengths to discover all of Flint’s assorted activities.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Putting this on a ballot where Obama is at the top of the ticket isn’t too bright either. When the Dems get it together they’re going to come out strong for him and they’re going to overwhelmingly vote no on 8.
SMS
July 27th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Sarah.
Is the glass half full or half empty?
Did you ever consider that placing Prop 8 on the Nov Ballot will get more Republicans out to vote?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Larry,
I can’t see how many Republicans will be excited about voting for McCan’t.
In their eagerness to overturn gay marriage they blew it.
And hiring Jeff Flint to run Prop. 8 does not bode well for the measure…
July 27th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
But why is that, Larry?
Why should Republicans not want gays to be able to marry? To have a law against it? What does that have to do with small government, low taxes, and strong defense?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Art:
How many factual errors can you make in one post?
Well, #1, Curt Pringle is not a political consulatnt.
#2, you misquoted Jennifer Kerns
#3, I did not run the Doug Ose campaign.
#4, I was hired to run the Prop 8 campaign after it had already qualified for the ballot, and while I dispute the notion that it was “a mistake” to put the measure on the November ballot, since I was hired after it was on the ballot, it could have hard been my “mistake.”
#5, I was not paid by Earthlink for the Anaheim deal. They hired me several months after the Anaheim deal for issues not related to Anaheim at all.
#6, the Earthlink deal has not cost Anaheim taxpayers one penny, so how could it be a bad deal for them?
#7, I represent an Association of private security firms.
#8, I am not sure where you get that my firm has a histry of “raising tons of money, spending it, and then losing” when your prior paragraph is about a campaign I won, and by the way, our firm’s record on statewide ballot measures is 28 and 4. What is yours?
Shall I go on?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Larry responds on a different thread:
Brother Vern. I support Prop 8 for a multitude of reasons as shared below. My reference to the activists Judges who overturned Prop 22 illustrates how bad our judicial system has become. Sadly, many of them were appointed by conservative Republicans.
Let’s address why I am supporting Prop 8.
Let’s begin by acknowledging that four judges in San Francisco should not be allowed to change the definition of marriage for all society. Although death and divorce may prevent it in many cases, the ideal situation is for a child to be raised by a married mother and father in the bond of marriage. I also feel strongly that same-sex marriage should not be imposed by the courts, but only through a vote of the people.
Art. I recall you commenting on the high divorce rate between men and women. That is a known fact.
We still believe that although death and divorce may prevent it in many cases, every child deserves to have a mother and a father who are married to each other. We should do more to encourage families to stay together so that more children have both a mother and a father in the home. Reaffirming marriage as between a man and a woman is a positive step in that direction.
I will accept the fact that gays have the right to their private lives, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us. My position is that what gays do in their private lives doesn’t bother me, but I do not want my children or grandkids exposed to it.
Your side needs to consider the overall impact on our children, not just our own Agenda.
So it is:
Not allowing gays to marry will help encourage straight married couples to stay together; and
It would be harmful to children (The Children) to know that gay marriage exists.
I’ve got that right?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Jeff,
“Curt Pringle & Associates is a full-service public relations, public affairs and government relations firm.” http://www.curtpringle.com. Sounds like political consulting to me.
As for your work with Ose, sorry. I got that wrong. You were not his consultant but you DID shill for him and raise money for him” http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/04/breaking-jeff-flint-is-out-of/.
RE Kerns, here is a link to her statement: http://dead-symphony.livejournal.com/142486.html
As for Earthlink, what exactly WERE you doing for them? In Anaheim?
If the Earthlink wi-fi deal didn’t cost anything, then what did Anaheim get out of it? What did Earthlink get out of it? What are you hiding?
As for your last comment, I meant both candidate’s campaigns and ballot measures. By the way, who paid for that huge Measure M party?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Hi Art,
Thanks for reading and linking to my myDD diary. I think your comments elsewhere are what brought my attention to the Earthlink fiasco, so thanks for that as well.
Just for the record, I emailed Jeff before I started posting about him, as a courtesy. Also, what got me interested in Jeff’s role in the Prop 8 campaign was not that I’m on a personal vendetta against the guy. I just happened to notice that the LDS church had instructed their inside public affairs people to direct media inquiries to Jeff and Frank. As someone who grew up Mormon and served a mission overseas for the church, it disturbed me to learn of such a close association with a partisan GOP outfit like Schubert Flint. I see such associations as risking the ability of the church to fulfill its ostensible mission because it undermines the LDS church’s professions of ‘political neutrality’.
Sorry if that was long-winded. Since I’m here, I figured I’d explain how I got interested in this.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Chino,
You’re welcome! You may not have a vendetta against Flint, but rest assured a lot of other people do. His work on Prop. 8 will only add to that long list.
I know that the LDS church played a large role in Prop. 22. It sounds like they are intending to do the same on Prop. 8. I agree that this could definitely cause problems for the church.
Thanks for linking to us and for reading our blog. Hopefully your original piece will get more hits as a result of my post. I thought it was very well-researched.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
1. Political consulting means getting paid to run political campaigns. Curt Pringle & Associates doesn’t do that.
2. Even when you are forced to admit you were wrong, you still try to spin. Nice.
3. So you quoted a blog which misquoted Jennifer. Fine.
4. I did not do work for Earthlink in Anaheim. Period. You were wrong. What else I did for them is not your concern.
5. I don’t know that exact status of of the Earthlink and Anaheim deal, but I know it did not cost the taxpayers anything. In fact, Earthlink paid Anaheim a fee to locate antennae on city poles, as far as I know.
6. My record on candidate campaigns is also just fine, thanks for asking. And since your whole thread is supposedly about how bad I am for the Prop 8 campaign, wouldn’t my record on statewide measures matter more? Hmmmm?
7. Who paid for the huge Measure M party? Huh? What huge Measure M party?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Chino:
If you emailed me, I never got it. Must have gone to the spam folder.
Jeff
July 27th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Yo Flint. I’s real excited you’re commenting on this blog.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Jeff,
According to the American Association of Political Consultants, political consulting includes: “General services include overall strategic expertise, whereas specialist services include such diverse talents as survey research, television or radio production and placement, telemarketing, direct mail, fund raising, media relations, computer use, and a host of additional forms of expertise.”
That is rather vague if you ask me. Pringle is certainly involved in much of this, and as his website states his services include: “public relations, public affairs and government relations. That he doesn’t run campaigns doesn’t mean that he is not consulting on political matters, in my opinion.
Let’s see if you are still bragging when Prop. 8 goes down in flames…
July 27th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Jeff.
Although you outspent us by what $1 million dollars vs our $999, and OC Register editorials, I will concede your victory on the Measure M extension.
Yes. Your side did celebrate that costly victory. On election night Assemblyman Todd Spitzer invited me into your Measure M celebration at the Hyatt. I turned him down.
My sense is that the party was paid for by the Indian tribe that donated $100,000 to your Measure M campaign.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
We spent $2.3 million, and “huge victory party” was, I am sure, less than $2,000. Not sure why you are fixated on the victor party. Seems kind of strange. But I do appreciate your support of Proposition 8, Larry.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Anaheim’s wi-fi was so terrible that it was shut down this month. Oh, and they also charged everyone for a full month despite that fact. My bank’s taking care of the credit card reversal for me, thank you.
As to Flint’s involvement in it. Who cares? He’s running ‘Yes on 8′ now, and that’s all I need to know in order to dislike him.
It’s people like him who perpetuate their inflated incomes by taking on the pet causes of political extremists. How much does your soul cost Jeff?
SMS
July 27th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Sarah-
“It’s people like him who perpetuate their inflated incomes by taking on the pet causes of political extremists. How much does your soul cost Jeff?”
What exactly do you mean by this? Seriously?
Do you understand how our democratic process works? Are you against the idea of the people being allowed to start an initiative and campaign for their “pet cause”, whatever that cause may be?
Your idea of a civic society must look a lot like Stalin’s Russia.
Art-
Why am I not surprised that even after you’ve been proven to be a liar, you still continue to try to assassinate Jeff’s character? It must be because anyone who knows you at all knows you’re just a pendejo mentiroso.
Jeff-
Art knows that he’s usually wrong. Art knows that he lies. He just doesn’t care. You should stop wasting your time responding to his diatribe. Good luck with your campaign.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
d’Anconia -
What do I mean? I mean that California conservatives are more liberal on social policy than the party would like, and it’s the job of guys like Jeff to bring more of them back into the extremist fold by exploiting wedge issues, thus perpetuating their own relevance, dividing and conquering.
SMS
July 27th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Jeff:
Just went back and checked my Inbox from June 30th. You replied w/ a ‘thanks’ for the FYI about my blog posts, but I see now that I forgot to sign off as Chino in the email, so there’s no way you could’ve known that the guy sending you the email (Jason) was the same guy writing the blog entries I pointed you to in the email. My bad.
July 27th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Sarah-
“…California conservatives are more liberal on social policy than the party would like…”
I don’t know why you’re claiming on having a good temperature of where the Republican party stands on social issues when you’re not even a member of the GOP. If California conservatives were, in fact, more liberal than the party would like, then at one point the party’s platform would have to be changed to fit the profile of its voters. That’s how it works in a two-party system Sarah. As of our last convention, the party has held strong to the part of its platform that is relevant to this discussion; that marriage should be defined as the union of a man and a woman.
“…and it’s the job of guys like Jeff to bring more of them back in to the extremist fold by exploiting wedge issues, thus perpetuating their own relevance, dividing and conquering.”
Wow. Lots of big words and not much substance there Sarah.
The job of a political consultant is to carry out a campaign strategy that gives the candidate/initiative the best chance of winning. Majority of the time, like in Jeff’s case, the consultant agrees (politically) with the issue he’s campaigning for.
With that said, if there were so many conservatives out there who disagreed with the language of Prop 8, as you have claimed, then it shouldn’t have been a problem for them to put a similar initiative in the ballot. Nonetheless, both “extremist folds” of our party agree that the will of four does not out-weigh the will of four million, and THAT’S the reason why EVEN the Republicans who don’t agree with the party’s platform have come out in support of this Proposition.
Your characterization of Jeff as wanting to “perpetuate his own relevance” couldn’t be further from the truth. Most consultants prefer to lay low, get paid, and win campaigns, without caring much about their “relevance”. As far as “dividing and conquering”….please….give me a break.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:08 am
d’Anconia -
I don’t have to be a member of the GOP to analyze its machinations. It’s called ‘polling.’ It’s called ‘asking around.’ It’s not called rocket science.
As far as your attitude toward consultants, you have conveniently ignored two facts about the business. First of all, consultants cannot be forced to work on particular campaigns, so he’s not exactly running ‘Yes on Prop 8′ against his will.
Secondly, most consultants like to lay low, get paid, and win campaigns? You mean: get paid, get paid, and get paid. Just because they operate ‘from the shadows’ in some ways, it doesn’t mean they don’t have an angle like everyone else, such as the aforementioned… umm, getting paid!
SMS
July 28th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Sarah-
You want to talk about “polling” and “asking around”? Why don’t you take a look for yourself then?
http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2268.pdf
Look at page 3 of the PDF where it says that strong conservatives oppose gay marriage, 85% to 11%, and that moderate conservatives oppose gay marriage, 62% to 31%. So when you’re claiming that Conservatives are more Liberal than our party wants them to be….which Conservatives are you talking about? The Liberal Conservatives? ‘Cause I don’t think they were polled *sighs*
As far as the consulting business is concerned: are you against the idea of someone getting paid? I’m still having trouble understanding what you have a problem with. Are you implying that only volunteers should be allowed to consult a campaign?
July 28th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Sarah-
“First of all, consultants cannot be forced to work on particular campaigns, so he’s not exactly running ‘Yes on Prop 8′ against his will.”
You’re starting to sound like Art; and that should be above you. Stop creating a mountain of strawmen. I never said consultants can be forced to work campaigns. I actually said the opposite:
“Majority of the time, like in Jeff’s case, the consultant agrees (politically) with the issue he’s campaigning for.”
Stay focused Sarah.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Sarah-
Do you think it sets a good precedence for the will of 4.6 million Californians to be ignored, shuned upon, and overturned by the will of four people?
Take your time with that one.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:38 am
d’Anconia -
More than 60% of conservatives are pro-choice and yet the party is pro-life. And what of conservatives that are liberal on other social issues? Did you consider the possibility that they may very well change their minds on this issue? If they’re even the slightest bit open-minded, and I think they are, it shouldn’t be hard to get them to do so.
Do you really think I have a problem with someone getting paid? Of course I don’t. My problem is with those who fatten themselves at the expense of equality.
SMS
July 28th, 2008 at 12:45 am
‘Sarah-
Do you think it sets a good precedence for the will of 4.6 million Californians to be ignored, shuned upon, and overturned by the will of four people?
Take your time with that one.‘
We have laws and procedures and a Constitution. Prop 22 was struck down on 100% solidly legal grounds. As I said before, if its proponents had attempted to amend the Constitution, as they should have back in 2000 for a lasting effect, we wouldn’t be having this conversation now. They overestimated their odds of winning the inevitable legal challenge and here we are.
‘Majority of the time, like in Jeff’s case, the consultant agrees (politically) with the issue he’s campaigning for.‘
Of course they do, especially when it polarizes people. That’s such a cop-out. He chose this issue because it was a wedge issue. If he can win it, there will surely be work for him in the future as the extremists continue to hire people to battle for influence over the middle.
It’s a lot like family court. The judge decides the case based on the ‘best interests of the child.’ However, that doesn’t preclude lawyers from making things overly adversarial and screwing it up for everyone. And of course, they profit as they do so.
SMS
July 28th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Sarah-
First of all, you’re wrong on your numbers. (http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2187.pdf)You can look for yourself and find out. Second, our party has a much bigger tent when it comes to the issue of abortion than the Democrats do. Many Republicans personally disagree with the choice to have an abortion but nonetheless believe the decision should be left to the local institutions. From the CRP’s own 2008 platform:
“We believe that the question of abortion is a matter that should be left to the people through their elected representatives.”
Look for yourself Sarah, look at how many Republican candidates are pro-choice and look at how many Democrat candidates are pro-life and you’ll see which party is more tolerant of dissenting opinions.
“Do you really think I have a problem with someone getting paid? Of course I don’t. My problem is with those who fatten themselves at the expense of equality.”
Yes I do. The sole focus of your criticism towards Jeff has been that he is getting paid for what he is doing, even though he’s just doing his job. Cooks cook. Maids clean. Builder build. Political consultants run campaigns. Capisco?
July 28th, 2008 at 12:55 am
“He chose this issue because it was a wedge issue.”
Sarah, I’m sorry but you just don’t know anything about running a campaign. Jeff didn’t “choose this issue”. It was the proponents of the Proposition who chose HIM.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:59 am
‘Look for yourself Sarah, look at how many Republican candidates are pro-choice and look at how many Democrat candidates are pro-life and you’ll see which party is more tolerant of dissenting opinions.‘
Tolerance? Democrats beat Republicans on tolerance hands-down, every time. If I didn’t honestly believe that I’d be Republican since, as you know, my policy preferences are pretty conservative other than those involving social equality.
In fact, aren’t pro-lifers now more commonly referred to as ‘anti-choice?’ I am almost never anti-choice, but the other truth is that even you admit that conservatives are pro-choice because of their states’ rights philosophy, not because they’re tolerant.
SMS
July 28th, 2008 at 1:02 am
S-
“It’s a lot like family court. The judge decides the case based on the ‘best interests of the child.’ However, that doesn’t preclude lawyers from making things overly adversarial and screwing it up for everyone. And of course, they profit as they do so.”
Sarah, the JUDGE’S job is is to decide the case based on the best interest of the child. It’s the LAWYER’s job to best represent their clients, and sometimes make things “overly adversarial” in the process if that’s what their clients want them to do. Your inability to follow this simple line of reasoning shows to me why we can’t agree on this. It’s been fun, but I’m calling it a night.
Did I mention that you’re wrong and that Art’s an idiot?
July 28th, 2008 at 1:04 am
d’Anoconia -
‘Sarah, I’m sorry but you just don’t know anything about running a campaign. Jeff didn’t “choose this issue”. It was the proponents of the Proposition who chose HIM.‘
I don’t know anything about running a campaign? I would say that my success in reinventing this website is quite the indication that you’re wrong about that.
And I’m not questioning who chose who. Your latter statement indicates at least one of two possibilities: Jeff really wanted to be on this campaign, or nobody else offered him a job. Either way, not good.
SMS
July 28th, 2008 at 1:09 am
” am almost never anti-choice, but the other truth is that even you admit that conservatives are pro-choice because of their states’ rights philosophy, not because they’re tolerant.”
No Sarah, conservatives are tolerant BECAUSE of our philosophy. I’m disappointed that the Democrats have convinced you, with their false sense of “tolerance”, of something that is clear if you care enough to look at it. I told you Sarah, do your research. Count how many Republican legislative candidates in California over the last four have been pro-choice and then count how many Democrat legislative candidates have been pro-life over the same time period. Math is not subjective.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:10 am
‘It’s the LAWYER’s job to best represent their clients, and sometimes make things “overly adversarial” in the process if that’s what their clients want them to do.‘
Oh really? You don’t think that they often convince their clients to be adversarial in the hopes of lining their pockets?
Clearly, you have a legitimate argument so we’ll have to agree to disagree, but why does everyone go after Art when they’re talking to me? It’s starting to get a little creepy actually. I’m not his Valkyrie; if you don’t like him, take it up with him!
SMS
July 28th, 2008 at 1:13 am
d’Anconia -
Are you trying to ‘turn’ me? lol
SMS
July 28th, 2008 at 1:14 am
“Jeff really wanted to be on this campaign, or nobody else offered him a job.”
Lol. Do you really think Jeff wouldn’t have work to do if he wasn’t doing Prop 8.
Oh…Sarah: I’ll be the first one to give you props for making the website look better and more organized. That says a lot for your potential as a blogger, not much for your knowledge of how to run a political campaign. Trust me, it’s juuuust a little different.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:16 am
‘Oh…Sarah: I’ll be the first one to give you props for making the website look better and more organized. That says a lot for your potential as a blogger, not much for your knowledge of how to run a political campaign. Trust me, it’s juuuust a little different.‘
May I then please refer you to my bio on my MySpace page?
SMS
July 28th, 2008 at 1:17 am
“Are you trying to ‘turn’ me? lol”
Nah, I’m just calling you out when you’re wrong. That’s all.
As far as Art. I just like taking shots at him whenever I can…just for fun. He deserves it.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Refer away, but I’m going to bed for real this time. I’ll look at it tomm.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:31 am
For what it’s worth, I’ve updated my diaries on “Googling Gay Marriage” with a fresh link to this post (even if it is already too late for any update to generate much new traffic here).
I’d like to drop a few links here to other diaries I’ve written about the Prop 8 battle (and here’s to hoping the code displays right the first time):
An invitation to show up or walk out on June 29th
Meet Rameumptom, Inc: Schubert-Flint
The Prop 8 ATM: A Christmas Carol
Feeling the spirit of political rules
Is Jesus pleased?
With that, I’ve now linked to my entire “opus” on this sordid Prop 8 business. As another sign of appreciation for linking to my myDD diary, here’s a preview of the title of my upcoming post: “An August Epitaph for Prop 8″ …
If there’s anything of interest in the above posts/diaries/letters, please feel welcome to use as you see fit.
Cheers.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Excellent work, Chino Blanco.
I’m a little bit sad that my Juice Brother Larry is backing this anti-civil-rights measure, for both the comical reasons I summarized above (comment 6), and really for this reason (as he stated to Sarah in comment 2):
Is the glass half full or half empty? Did you ever consider that placing Prop 8 on the Nov Ballot will get more Republicans out to vote?
That’s really what Republicans are thinking. Because it worked before, back in the Dark Ages. To me it’s embarrassing and I’d hope that Republicans with any decency would have second thoughts about this and turn their backs on it.
Or the California GOP can just take a few more steps into the dark night of irrelevance. There are upsides to that.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Jeff.
I only commented on Measure M after you referred to the “victory party” in your comment. I put my Measure M doc.box in the garage as old news and didn’t expect to see it again. Just as I will differ with my fellow Juice bloggers, there are times when we will support opposite positions on Policy Matters. In the case of Prop 8 we are both on the same side for all the right reasons.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Vern.
Dark Ages? Over 4 million California residents voted in favor of Prop 22 in 2000. To use exact numbers: “proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote.”
Brother Vern. Your position is that our votes were meaningless? did you vote on that Measure? Are you unhappy with the outcome and want another chance? Only your position should become the law of the land?
Ralph Branca would like to throw another pitch at Bobby Thompson in the Polo Grounds where the Brooklyn Dodgers blew a huge lead in the pennant
race when I was a bit younger. Do over’s should not be in the cards.
If not for activist judges in San Francisco our rights as voters would have been, and should have been, cast in stone. It’s your sides activism that forces us back to the ballot box this November.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:28 am
“Activist judges in San Francisco.” You mean, Republican judges who care about our state’s Constitution.
Find a worthier cause, brother Larry. Do you even know any gay people? How can you put any effort into preventing them from marrying? Let’s both push for Prop 11 instead - fair redistricting!
July 28th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Goodness, you’re up early. In my case, at least I have an excuse … I’m based in Asia (doing my small part to advance the evil American corporate agenda over here - LOL). And we had a typhoon today, so I’m kickin’ back and chillin’.
In any case, for what it’s worth, you’re not the only one who’s embarrassed. I’m a Tsongas Democrat. Meaning, at my age, I shoulda been a Republican long ago, but they’ve lost the plot, haven’t they?
Small government, low taxes, and strong defense? Good luck with that. As long as we’ve got GOP operatives feeding at the trough that the term ‘Islamofascism’ has helped create …
http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/01/roseville-rocklin-today-asks-f/
Now it’s all big government, rebate checks, and fear.
Nothing personal, Jeff, but it’s getting old.
All this late-night ranting aside, isn’t it telling that Jeff bothers to show up here, but doesn’t bother to mount a defense of Prop 8 on the merits?
If I were in his shoes, I think I would (mount such a defense). Otherwise, it might look like the game’s up and it’s already time to start with the CYA.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:01 am
“Dark Ages? Over 4 million California residents voted in favor of Prop 22 in 2000. To use exact numbers: “proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote.”
Larry-with all due respect, you could substitute slavery or interracial marriage (in fact the basis for this Supreme Court case) for same sex marriage in the prop 8 argument. Doesnt make it right even tho voted by a majority of citizens. The rule of law prevails to protect the minority. In the most unlikliest of possibilities, that Prop 8 will prevail (that would invalidate the $1mm contribution by a Mormon Gay man saturday night to defeat Prop 8), the litigation will begin the next day-and Prop 8 will be invalidated.
Believe me when I say its already in play despite the inane and already discredited arguement that supporters of Prop 8 made last week about teaching gay marriage to kindergarden students.
“Brother Vern. Your position is that our votes were meaningless? did you vote on that Measure? Are you unhappy with the outcome and want another chance? Only your position should become the law of the land?”
Larry, one can have as many chances as they want. That is what Hiram Johnson wanted and is the crux of the proposition process here in California. The check on that is the California Supreme Court.
But the bottom line is that whatever the issue, it cannot violate the precepts of the California Constitution and California jurisprudence. PERIOD.
And the seven supreme court justices said that. 3 disagreed with the remedy (overturning the proposition (the majority) vs. putting it to the voters (the minority). Prop 8, if passed, and all the indicators are there that it wont, will be litigated as was Prop 22 and it will be invalidated.
“Ralph Branca would like to throw another pitch at Bobby Thompson in the Polo Grounds where the Brooklyn Dodgers blew a huge lead in the pennant
race when I was a bit younger. Do over’s should not be in the cards.”
Yes Larry I bleed blue (saw the Dodgers when they first came to LA at the LA COLISEUM and can still name the starting lineup to this day and love the 1959 victory over the White Sox). Using your statement that “do overs should not be in the cards”, you would then disagree with the minority who said the decision on Prop 22 should be thrown back to the voters. You would then disagree with the California Supreme Court decision on interracial marriage (a “do over” of California state law at the time). I could go ad infinitem. But will not. Other “do over” issues in play here in sacramento.
“If not for activist judges in San Francisco our rights as voters would have been, and should have been, cast in stone. It’s your sides activism that forces us back to the ballot box this November.”
Larry-as a Republican ahead of the curve, let me point you in this direction. Every decision made leading up to the Supreme Court decision was made by a Republican appointed Republican Judge. When a person becomes a judge, they no longer have a political agenda. The arguements must be based on case law and judicial precedent. Politics is not an ingredient here. The comment about activist judges is below a thinking person of your stature. The California Supreme Court under Ron George is viewed as a fairly conservative court and takes a very restricted viewpoint in many of its decisions. It did the same here. Excepting the issue of invalidation of Prop 22 vs. a revote by the electorate, this was a 7-0 vote. That is what a concurring/dissenting opinion is. The minority (3 Republicans) concurred with the legal reasoning of the majority (3 Reps 1 Dem) opinion and dissented on the remedy of the majority (invalidation of the proposition vs. a revote)
The bottom line is that we live in a society governed by the rule of law. We elevate individuals to be judges so that they may make the decisions that enable us to continue to function as a society. Solomon is proud of this group.
You are to be commended for your activism–but so are your opponents. Its what we call democracy-you win some and you lose some-but you get to play.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Yes Vern. I do know gay people. Even met one or two at an Orange Juice gathering at Memphis in Santa Ana.
While I had an in-depth discussion with them I do not have to agree to their lifestyle choices.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Yes Vern. I do know gay people. Even met one or two at an Orange Juice gathering at Memphis in Santa Ana. While I had an in-depth discussion with them I do not have to agree to their lifestyle choices.
OK, maybe you are more Old-School than I had thought.
Still, I warn you away from this reef.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Below are breaking news from both the New York Times and the Washington Post. The articles exhibit the behavior that judges are expected to avoid in assumping such a position. We as a society expect such behavior from career prosecutors as well. When individuals seek to bypass those expectations, we see what happens.
WASHINGTON (AP)- A new Justice Department report concludes that politics illegally influenced the hiring of career prosecutors and immigration judges, and largely lays the blame on top aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Monday’s report singles out the department’s former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, for violating federal law and Justice Department policy by discriminating against job applicants who weren’t Republican or conservative loyalists.
The 140-page report does not indicate whether Goodling or former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson could face any charges. None of those involved in the discriminatory hiring still work at Justice, meaning they will avoid any department penalties.
However, Justice investigators said that Goodling, at least, may lose her license to practice law as a result of the findings.
Gonzales was largely unaware of the hiring decisions by two of his most trusted aides. The report said his aides’ decisions weeded out Democrats and that Goodling also rejected at least one lesbian job applicant.
The report marks the culmination of a yearlong investigation by Justice’s Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility into whether Republican politics were driving hiring polices at the nation’s premier law enforcement agency that is expected to be above partisan politics.
The investigation is one of several that examine accusations of White House political meddling within the Justice Department. Those accusations were initially driven by the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in late 2006 and culminated with Gonzales’ resignation under fire as attorney general last September.
The man who replaced Gonzales, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, said he is “of course disturbed” by the findings.
“I have said many times, both to members of the public and to department employees, it is neither permissible nor acceptable to consider political affiliations in the hiring of career department employees,” Mukasey said in a statement shortly after the report was released Monday morning. “And I have acted, and will continue to act, to ensure that my words are translated into reality so that the conduct described in this report does not occur again at the department.”
NY Times (today)-Senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales broke the law by using politics to guide their hiring decisions for a wide range of important department positions, slowing the hiring process at critical times and damaging the department’s credibility and independence, an internal report concluded Monday.
The report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general and its internal ethics office, singles out for particular criticism Monica Goodling, a young lawyer from the Republican National Committee who rose quickly through the ranks of the department to become a top aide to Mr. Gonzales.
Ms. Goodling, who testified before Congress in May 2007 at the height of the scandal over the firings of nine United States attorneys, introduced politics into the hiring process in a systematic way that constituted illegal misconduct, the report found.
Last month, the inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, released a separate report that found a similar pattern of politicized hiring at the Justice Department in reviewing applications from young lawyers for the honors and intern programs. The new report released Monday goes much further, however, in documenting pervasive evidence of political hiring for some of the department’s most senior career, apolitical positions, including immigration judges and assistant United States attorneys.
The inspector general’s investigation found that Ms. Goodling and a handful of other senior aides to Mr. Gonzales developed a system of using in-person interviews and Internet searches to screen out candidates who might be too liberal and to identify candidates seen as pro-Republican and supportive of President Bush.
When interviewed by the inspector general, Mr. Gonzales said he was not aware that Ms. Goodling and other aides were using political criteria in their decisions for career positions. Mr. Gonzales resigned last summer in the face of mounting accusations from congressional Democrats that politics had corrupted the department.
His successor, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, said in a statement Monday after the report’s release that he was disturbed by their findings that improper political considerations were used in hiring decisions relating to some career employees.
“I have said many times, both to members of the public and to Department employees, it is neither permissible nor acceptable to consider political affiliations in the hiring of career Department employees,” he said. “And I have acted, and will continue to act, to ensure that my words are translated into reality so that the conduct described in this report does not occur again at the Department.”
He said that over the course of the last year and a half, the Justice Department has made institutional changes to remedy the problems discussed in today’s report.
“It is crucial that the American people have confidence in the propriety of what we do and how we do it,” he said, “and I will continue my efforts to make certain they can have such confidence.”
An attorney for Ms. Goodling, John Dowd, did not return a phone message Monday.
In her position as White House liaison for the Justice Department, Ms. Goodling was involved in hiring lawyers for both political appointments and non-political, career positions. Regardless of the type of position, the report said, Ms. Goodling would run through the same batch of questions, asking candidates about their political philosophies, why they wanted to serve President Bush, and who, aside from Mr. Bush, they admired as public servants. Sometimes, Ms. Goodling would ask: “Why are you a Republican?”
Such questioning was allowed for candidates to political appointments, but was clearly banned under both civil service law and the Justice Department’s own internal policies, the inspector general said. Ms. Goodling’s questioning also generated complaints from one senior official who believed it was improper, long before the issue became a public controversy following the firings of nine United States attorneys. The inspector general concluded that Ms. Goodling knew that questioning applicants to career positions about their political beliefs was improper.
In one case, for instance, Ms. Goodling slowed the hiring of a prosecutor in the United States attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., for a vacancy because she said she was concerned that he was a “liberal Democrat.” After the United States attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, complained to her supervisors, he was allowed to hire the candidate anyway.
And in another case, colleagues said that Ms. Goodling refused to extend the appointment of a female prosecutor because she believed the lawyer was involved in a lesbian relationship with her supervisor, according to the report.
And in another case cited by the inspector general, Ms. Goodling blocked the hiring of an experienced prosecutor for a senior counter-terrorism position because his wife was active in Democratic politics. The candidate was regarded as “head and shoulders above the other candidates” in the view of officials in the executive office of United States attorneys, but they were forced to take a candidate with much less experience because he was deemed acceptable to Ms. Goodling.
In forwarding a résumé in 2006 from a lawyer who was working for the Federalist Society, Ms. Goodling sent an e-mail message to the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury, saying: “Am attaching a résumé for a young, conservative female lawyer.”
Ms. Goodling interviewed the woman herself for possible positions and wrote in her notes such phrases as “pro-God in public life,” and “pro-marriage, anti-civil union.” She was eventually hired as a career prosecutor.
Ms. Goodling also conducted extensive searches on the Internet to glean the political or ideological leanings of candidates for career positions, the report found. She and other Justice Department supervisors would look for key phrases like “abortion,” “homosexual,” “guns,” or “Florida re-count” to get information on a candidate’s political leanings.
This is why Judges approach their job the way they do in order to avoid the behavior that Ms. Goodling exhibited in direct violation of Federal law.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
These are all the same polling numbers the last time this was on the ballot. People say they do not care, that it does not matter if there is gay marriage but like it or not when it comes down to actually voting….they voted no on gay marriage.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Flowerszzz.
While many follow daily or weekly polls, it is very early in the campaign strategy and tactics phase to take any of those numbers to the bank.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
ANNOUNCEMENT
Pacific Gas & Electric, as the founding member of the Equality Business Advisory Council, was proud to announce its corporate contribution of $250,000 today to the No on 8 EQUALITY CALIFORNIA campaign today. PG&E’s point-They believe that Equality is Everyone’s Business.
As to the polling numbers, they havent changed. The projection is that they will not. The YES on 8 Campaign is headed for a major defeat. The Sac Bee today reported that the Yes on 8 campaign is suing the California Attorney General over the revised wording on the ballot initiative, The revised wording reflects the California Supreme Court decision. The odds of the Yes on 8 suit being successful. next to nil.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
FLowerszzz
You are referring to the Bradley effect named after the late Tom Bradley in his campaign for governor. Much has been written about the possibility of this happening again in this fall’s Presidential campaign. To wit, a lot of vocal support for Obama but when it comes time to pull the lever many votes for McCain.
The odds of this happening again are not very good. The polling numbers for Obama and McCain indicate a 20 pt spread in favor of Obama. That is a huge hole for McCain. I voted for McCain in 2000 in his campaign against W. But he is changed. Many Reps are voting for Obama. I am one. While the spread may tighten up, it will not reverse. This will have tremendous bump for the No on 8 campaign. And the Yes on 8 campaign knows it. The coming Tsunami will swamp the Yes on 8 supporters.
July 29th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
From the Sacramento Bee today
Backers of same-sex marriage ban to challenge rewording of Proposition 8
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Proponents of a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriages in California plan to appear in court today to challenge state Attorney General Jerry Brown’s rewording of the measure’s ballot summary.
On the petitions circulated last year to qualify the measure for the Nov. 4 ballot, it was described as a “Limit on Marriage.”
But Brown’s new title and summary of Proposition 8, posted on the Secretary of State’s Web site on July 22, states the proposed constitutional amendment “Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry.”
The summary still says Proposition 8 provides that “only marriage between a man a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
The titles and summaries of ballot measures are typically scrutinized by both sides in a campaign and often challenged in court if one side feels the wording could sway voters against them.
Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for the Yes on Proposition 8, confirmed that proponents “will file a ballot challenge (today in) Superior Court in Sacramento.”
In an e-mail, Kerns declined to state “what specifically we will challenge” and said the campaign would “not be releasing any additional information until (today).”
Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the attorney general, said the title was reworded because of a state Supreme Court ruling in May that overturned a ban on gay marriages in California.
“We had a very significant Supreme Court decision, and the title and summary accurately reflect the measure,” Lacy said.
He said the attorney general’s office regularly changes “title and summaries to make them as accurate as possible at the time of the election.”
Opponents said that although changes to ballot measures are subject to legal challenge, the attorney general’s rewording accurately describes what the measure would do.
Steve Smith, a strategist for the No on 8 campaign, said he is working on two other measures on the November ballot, and the title and summary for “all three were changed.”
July 30th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Schwarzenegger Centrist Republican
Changing title and summary is similar to a candidates ballot designation when running for city council. While I have no clue as to the impact it made on the election, the Title of Prop 98 was altered last spring.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Art:
How many factual errors can you make in one post?
Jeff,
I don’t think there is any upper limit to that.
July 30th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Matt/Jubal,
And yet I will never goof the way you did when you outed the names of molestation victims. When John and Ken ripped you for that it made for fantastic radio. In fact I think they still have that clip on their website…
July 30th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Matt/Jubal,
One more thing. Google “Jeff Flint.” This post comes up as the second search result. We will be haunting him forever.
In fact after Prop. 8 loses I suspect a lot of folks will NEVER hire him due to his work on Prop. 8. Talk about bad karma…
July 31st, 2008 at 10:31 am
Art:
My big, inadvertant mistake, that I rectified immediately, versus your continual mudslide of errors, lies, and half-truths - virtually all of which go uncorrected and unacknowledged.
I’ll take my track record any day.
As for your Google boast — you’re bragging that your sloppy, error-riddled post will haunt Jeff? You really don’t care a whit about being truthful, as long as you think you are wounding those you dislike.
I think Jeff will be just fine. And you will continue to be viewed as a vicious kook.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:46 am
Matt/Jubal,
You can call me names if you like, but that does not take away from the fact that mine is the #1 political blog in the OC.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:15 am
The only people who believe that are you and SMS.
Keep hallucinating, Art — and keep sitting on those Google Analytics stats that no doubt belie your claim.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:54 am
I thought #1 OC political blog was Jubal’s Red County.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Matt/Jubal,
The onus of proof is on YOU. We already make our Sitemeter data available to the public. You continue to refuse to.
Why don’t YOU prove that you are number one. Put a Sitemeter link on your blog. Otherwise you are just talking out of your a**.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
choo choo,
Not according to Alexa.com. Check it out for yourself. We have been trouncing Red County for almost two months now…
July 31st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
We already make our Sitemeter data available to the public.
You don’t have any choice in that, Art. Making it public is a condition of use for Sitemeter, as you well know.
You continue to refuse to.
I cannot refuse to do something I never promised to do in the first place.
I’ve never used Sitemeter and unlike you, I never promised to make our Google Analytics data available to readers.
Strange how Google Analytics is the only metric you keep under wraps…
July 31st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Choo choo:
Google around and you’ll quickly get an idea of Alexa.com’s reputation for reliability…or more accurately, lack thereof.
Which would explain why Art likes it.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Why don’t YOU prove that you are number one.
I don’t have to. I can compare our traffic with your Sitemeter numbers, and OJ isn’t even close. Never has been. Even before Red County came along.
We’ve traditionally utilized traffic monitoring services for our own internal use, and to share with advertisers — not as a tool to make ourselves feel important.
You’re traffic is up, Art. Even your content is better lately. Take pride in that — why exaggerate when the truth will suffice?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Matt/Jubal,
So post your readership data and prove me wrong. What do you have to lose? If you are number one your numbers should prove it.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Matt/Jubal,
Not good enough. I am going with Alexa’s data until you can prove they are wrong. We have always posted our readership data. Always. If you want any of us to believe your blog is number one you will have to give us the data - otherwise you are just blowing hot air.
BTW, your blog is a compilation of 13 blogs. If we aren’t beating the entire Red County I bet we are trouncing the Orange County part of it.
Post your data Matt or else concede that we are #1.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Not good enough.
Of course it isn’t…for you. Which is why you’ve shifted into “When did you stop beating your wife?” mode, as you are wont to do when you are cornered in an discussion.
We have always posted our readership data. Always.
You HAVE to, Art. Sitemeter requires that you do. You know that. Taking credit for that is like taking credit for breathing.
If we aren’t beating the entire Red County I bet we are trouncing the Orange County part of it.
Already backtracking, are we?
Post your data Matt or else concede that we are #1.
Nice straw man/false dichotomy maneuver. Remember who starting bragging about how big their numbers are? It wasn’t me, which is one reason I don’t have to “concede” anything — another reason being your claim ain’t true.
Just be happy with the traffic you have and let go of your Red County obsession.
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I’ve linked to this post again in the recently-published diaries listed below. I know this post has long since moved off the front page here, so this is mainly just to say ‘hello’ to any readers that might be dropping in from any of these blogs:
“Yes on 8″ RSVP? Need your advice, Daily Kos.
“Yes on 8″ RSVP? Need your advice, MyDD.
“Yes on 8″ RSVP? Need your advice, OpenLeft
“Yes on 8″ RSVP? Need your advice, Booman Tribune
“Yes on 8″ RSVP? Need your advice, Pam.
“Yes on 8″ RSVP? Need your advice, TPMCafé
Hope everyone’s having a great weekend. Cheers.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Any serious person who understands search engine optimization (SEO) knows the credibility gap left by those who use Alexa as a tool for website analysis.
Here are some excerpts from an SEO expert. Obviously, Art will need to have the last word, but rest assured, the more he talks about this topic, the less credible he becomes (if that is even possible).
EXCERPT FROM “AlexaRank, Compete, Google Toolbar PR, and other SEO quackery”
Posted by Michael Martinez on July 31, 2007 in Competitive Analysis
“I usually form an opinion of someone’s SEO capability within 30 seconds of reading the subject line of their forum posts. If their opening sentence or paragraph mentions Alexa, Google Toolbar PR, or some similar popular “ranking” value, I usually write them off as having no substantial knowledge fo search engine optimizaton.
Now, there are quite a few “A list” and “B list” SEO bloggers and forum operators out there who still bring up Alexa rankings, Google Toolbar PR, and a few other SEO buzz expressions. I give none of them any credibility for understanding what to do with numbers. I put no stock in their analyses.
High Alexa rankings have been shoved into people’s faces as some sort of vindication of competence and skill for years. Those numbers really mean nothing. Alexa’s data is a fringe snapshot of Web traffic and it will be more accurate for some sites and less accurate for others.
Unless Alexa can offer a consistency of accuracy, however, its rankings are meaningless babble with no relevance whatsoever to any useful comparison of site visits and visitors. If you consider (for the sake of discussion) that an Alexa ranking of 50,000 is at best 50% accurate and an Alexa ranking of 256,000 is at best 10% accurate, what sort conclusion can you draw about the quality of either Web site? None, really.
The problem with Alexa rankings is that we have no way of knowing how far off their estimates are from reality. Every Web site that Alexa reports on potentially receives more or less traffic than Alexa suggests it may be receiving. There no signals that tell you whether the Alexa numbers are close, too high, or too low.
Analyzing other people’s guesswork means your own analysis can never be more informed than guesswork, and it’s not fair to say that you’re making educated guesses. You’re making guesses based on guesses and ignorance, just as the guesses made by Alexa and Compete are based on ignorance.
But as far as comparing Alexa ranks and Compete traffic with other sites goes, you might as well hang a shingle on your door that says you’re a qualified dinosaur doctor. You have as much credibility that way.”
August 5th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Scott,
So post your numbers already and settle the issue.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Art -
You chose to publish your data and we did not. As private enterprises, we are each entitled to our respective choices . Matt and I have both made very clear on this thread that your claims are not supported by your numbers. We know they are not supported because we have the benefit of knowing all of the facts while you only have the benefit of knowing half the facts. Just because we have a policy of not sharing our numbers doesn’t make you any more right.
Remember, you raised the issue. You boasted based on inaccurate and incomplete information. You are the one who’s claims were factually wrong.
Moving forward, we will be happy to debate the issues and appreciate your enthusiastic (albeit somewhat irrational)editorial contributions to the political arena.
I think we can all agree that this matter is settled.
Regards,
Scott Graves
P.S. Look on the bright side… at least this thread has generated some badly needed traffic to your website
August 5th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Scott,
“We know they are not supported because we have the benefit of knowing all of the facts while you only have the benefit of knowing half the facts.”
Exactly. And until you post your numbers NO ONE will have all the facts. So post them already. What do you have to hide? Is the Emperor lacking in clothes?
As for our traffic, we are now averaging 1,000 visits M-F. That is ten times what I used to get five years ago. I’d say we’re doing just fine…and we are STILL beating Red County, according to Alexa.com.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:40 am
I was warned that you were irrational beyond words. Amazingly, you have justified those warnings on an apolitical topic that warrants no debate or disagreement.
I am sorry I even stopped in to take a look.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:12 am
FYI for anyone planning to drive out to Irvine the evening of August 14th: the parking attendants at the 2020 Main bldg. leave by 6:30 everyday, so if you plan on staying past then, your parking is FREE. Just grab a ticket on your way in, and the gates will be up when you leave.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Since I can’t be at 2020 Main in Irvine in person on August 14th, I’m thinking I’d like to pay for some yard signs. The only ones I’ve found so far are here:
signs.cafepress.com/item/no-on-prop-8-yard-sign/284449088
But maybe there are better signs already out there?
In any case, if you’ve got PayPal, I’m ready to reimburse you for the cost of purchasing and planting a “No on Prop 8″ sign at 2020 Main from 5:30 pm - 8:30 pm. You can keep the sign, I just wanna know it’s gonna be there for those 3 hours on the day. Deal?
August 14th, 2008 at 6:49 am
This Thursday, August 14th, from 5:30 p.m - 8:30 p.m. at 2020 Main Street, Irvine, California:
ACTION ALERT: Tell the Right-Wing Consultants NO to Prop 8!
http://www.theliberaloc.com/2008/08/13/action-alert-tell-the-right-wing-consultants-no-to-prop-8/
August 20th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Hi, it’s David Benkof - one f. If you could correct it I’d appreciate it, thanks.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Why Vote Yes on Prop 8
The people of the State of California have approved state licensed marriages only as between a man and a woman. We, the people, want to have state licensed marriages to demonstrate our societal approval of and support for a monogamous sexual relationship between those being married because we believe the relationship is morally acceptable and is good for our society. By voting for Prop 8, we, the people, are saying that we desire only to approve monogamous sexual relationships between men and women, and have no interest in promoting any other sexual relationships. We are NOT saying that the state should prohibit all sexual relationships which are not between monogamous heterosexuals; it’s just that we don’t want to promote them.
Whether or not a particular sexual relationship should be encouraged is not always an easy decision, and people can have differing views. For example, in most states, marriage between first cousins is not permitted, but in other states, including California, this is allowed. Where marriage of first cousins is permitted, the people of the state determined that it was morally acceptable and beneficial for our society.
The State of California does not make illegal many sexual relations. In fact, any consenting adult may lawfully have sexual relations with any other consenting adult. For example, a man can live with and have sexual relations with two women, but the State of California does not want to promote this so the state does not permit a man to marry two women because we, the people, believe polygamy is not morally right and good for our society. Likewise, an adult woman can lawfully have sexual relations with her father’s brother, but the State of California does not want to encourage this so the state does not permit a woman to marry her uncle because we, the people, believe the relationship is incestuous, and is not morally right and good for our society. Even a group of men can lawfully have sexual relations with a group of women, but the State of California does not want to encourage this so the state does not permit a group of men to marry a group of women because we, the people, believe polyamory is neither morally right nor good for our society. By voting YES on Prop 8, we the people are affirming that even though two individuals of the same gender can lawfully have sexual relations, the State of California does not want to promote homosexual relations because we, the people, believe homosexual relations are not morally right or are not beneficial for our society.
Are homosexual relationships morally right?
Whether engaging in homosexual relations is morally right is a decision for you to make, based on your sense of right and wrong and your religious beliefs. You will need to determine where you stand regarding homosexual relations. If you are not sure, you may want to talk with family, friends and your pastor, priest, rabbi or other religious leader. The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding the matter is set forth in The Family - A Proclamation to the World. If you believe that homosexual relations are morally wrong, vote YES on Prop 8 so that the State of California does not license marriages between people of the same gender.
Are homosexual relationships good for our society?
Whether homosexual relations should be approved and encouraged by the people of the State of California as good for society, is another decision you will need to make. A few of the related arguments for and against Prop 8, set forth below, may be helpful in making this decision. If you believe that promoting homosexual relations is not beneficial for our society, vote YES on Prop 8 so that the State of California does not license marriages between people of the same gender.
Arguments For Prop 8 (With Rebuttals)
In all human societies throughout history, marriage has always existed, has always only involved men and women, and has always existed to serve the family. It has never existed solely for individuals or for couples, and though marriage benefits adults, offspring are the primary reason societies favor marriage. Anthropologists tell us marriage has always been about the next generation. Marriage, as a fundamental tool of society, is used to promote the best home life for children, that being the child’s father and mother who are married to each other. Children have a fundamental right to be raised by their mother and father. Marriage between same gender persons will encourage and give approval of children being conceived by artificial means and born into a family where they will not be raised by their mother and father. Scholars agree that the best for every child is to be raised in a loving home by its own mother and father who love each other. (The rebuttal to this argument is that being raised by a mother and father is not necessary as evidenced many individuals that are healthy, stable and successful in life and who were not raised in a two parent home. One, two, or more, caregivers can raise children successfully. In addition, there is no data available yet to support the idea that just because they are raised by two homosexuals, children will not be healthy, stable and successful in life.)
Arguments Against Prop 8 (With Rebuttals)
The primary argument by opponents of Prop 8 is that “getting married” is a fundamental human right of every person in a committed loving relationship, and therefore should not be denied to homosexual couples. (The rebuttal to that argument is that marriage is not a fundamental human right available to everyone, as evidenced by the fact that incestuous, polygamous and polyamorous marriages are not permitted. Only certain relationships that society wants to encourage are afforded marriage rights.)
A secondary argument by opponents of Prop 8 is that the rights afforded to married couples are not the same as the rights given to domestic partners. (The rebuttal to that argument California law grants exactly the same legal rights to registered domestic partners as every married couple has. “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” 2003 Domestic Partner Act, California Family Code, Sections 297.) A related argument by opponents of Prop 8 is that because health care providers and other people in society do not understand the rights of registered domestic partners, homosexual couples are not treated the same as married couples. (The rebuttal to that argument is that anti-discrimination laws exist to protect the rights of individuals in domestic partnerships.)
Another argument is that discrimination in the workplace and in public accommodations will continue until homosexual relationships are respected by society, so by allowing homosexuals to marry, the State will give homosexual relationships respect and dignity so that there will be less discrimination. (The rebuttal to that argument is that laws already exist to prohibit discrimination, and the State has just as much an interest in protecting against discrimination in the workplace and in public accommodations of those engaged in multi-partner or polygamous or other lawful sexual relationships, as it does in protecting against discrimination against homosexuals, yet we do not grant them the right to marry.)
Another view is that encouraging marriage between homosexuals will encourage monogamy between homosexual individuals, which will be good for society because promiscuity, whether between same gender or different gender people, tends to spread sexually transmitted diseases and is otherwise not good for society. (The rebuttal to this view is that individuals in committed relationships do not need to be married to be committed to monogamy, and there is no data to support the view that homosexuals in committed relationships are less monogamous than married homosexuals.)
For more info, go to http://www.protectmarriage.com
October 4th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Interesting, Sam, interesting.
You wanna hear my main argument against Proposition 8?
GAY PEOPLE KICK ASS!!!
November 5th, 2008 at 12:41 am
I cant believe we live in an age where the rights of people who are supposedly “created equal” according to our United States Constitution, (you know…that document that our founding fathers created when building the country you now squaller around in, that establishes the rules we would all abide by?) could just be simply voted on and taken away. The supreme court should throw this trash to the curb and ‘out’ the ones proposing it to the ballots for all to see, as example citizens of what NOT to be.
I am ashamed of my country, my neighbors, and my state for even having a prop on the ballot that starts out with “Eliminates the right for…”
That is all I have to say.
No more faith in our country,
James W. Carriger
San Diego, CA
November 6th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Memo to Little Jimmy Carriger…
Sorry things aren’t going your way, Jimmy. Guess you’re going to take your toys and go home, huh?
Too bad about Prop 8. That “majority rules” thing really sucks, doesn’t it?