Artist's rendition.
Because I’ve been waiting to see whether Fullerton Mayor Sharon Quirk-Silva really would jump into the race against Chris Norby, I haven’t written yet about who would be running in the “replacement” portion of the Fullerton Recall election. (Per the City’s Recall FAQ: first, the ballots will ask separately whether each incumbents should be recalled; after the question for each incumbent, the ballot will ask who, if they are recalled, should replace them. In the latter contest, whoever has the plurality wins.) As the guessing game ends tonight, I’d better get on the stick.
The usual disclaimers, such as that I’m a member of (but do not speak for) the county Democratic Party E-Board, apply. Here’s a new one for the occasion: I recruited Paula Williams to run in AD-65 and was one of many encouraging her, when Quick-Silva started thinking about making the switch, to turn to the recall election if need be.
The main thing to know, the day before the election, is this: while at least a dozen names have been seriously discussed as candidates in the recall, only five have filed as of the day before the deadline. The reason that matters so much is that this isn’t a race where there is a mad all-against-all dash to the finish line. Instead, one has to pick out which incumbent one wants to replace. That means that one incumbent could have more or stronger potential replacements; another could have fewer or weaker. This in turn may play a role in whether someone is recalled. (Exactly what that role would be, as noted below, is not quite clear.)
At one point, it made sense to think about the Fullerton recall in terms of four or five “slates” of candidates — though the fiercely independent candidates I’ve spoken to reject that kind of talk. Now — well, it’s not clear what to think, with so many playing their cards so close to the vest.
First, of course, there are the incumbents — who will campaign, but who can’t “replace themselves” if voted out, even if they get more votes than their top challenger.
Second, there could be the establishment Republicans — the Ackermanites, if you will. One strategy might be to keep out of the race altogether, so as to push voters to keep the incumbents in place. But if the recall is successful for any candidate (or for all of them), do the Ackermanites really want to hand the seat over to another party or faction? Couple that with establishment Republicans who may think that it’s high time for a changing of the guard, and it would be sort of surprising if establishment Republicans didn’t run.
Third, we have the insurgent Republicans — call them the libertarian Bushalans. This group, coalesced around the Friends for Fullerton’s Future website, has been loudest about the recall from the outset. The mystery of where one of them would land has now been solved; now the question is in what races others land (and perhaps whether some of them land at all.)
Fourth, we have the Democrats. At first, there was just Glenn Georgieff, and whispers about a possible return of Doug Chaffee, who lost the election for the third seat to Pat McKinley by one vote. But Chaffee wouldn’t announce, and when Quirk-Silva shifted to AD-65, Paula Williams, who had planned to run against Norby, switched to City Council. This created a little bit of a problem when Chaffee finally decided to get it: four progressives for three seats.
And that brings us to the fifth group: Others. The most prominent of these is Jane Rands, a Green Party candidate for state Assembly in the past and a well-known figure in the Kelly Thomas protests. She has some support from Democrats, but also support from the Bushalans, who appreciate her anti-establishment stance. In fact, I would have said that she was a de facto Bushala candidate except for Thursday’s big surprise.
Rands and Bushalan-slate candidate Greg Sebourn had both taken out papers for all three races. The expectation of everyone I spoke to was that, as comrades-in-arms during the Kelly Thomas protests — they would not run against each other. Rands filed for Bankhead’s seat on Wednesday, which would have seemed to direct Sebourn to Pat McKinley’s seat, to run against Chaffee. And yesterday Sebourn filed against … Bankhead! And, therefore, Rands.
Sebourn may have been trying to avoid Chaffee (who hasn’t yet filed.) Or, he may have intended to run against Rands all along and didn’t tell her. But it’s possible that the entrance of Williams and Chaffee into the race influenced his choice: with Chaffee set up against McKinley, that moved Williams to run against Rands for the Bankhead seat. Rands and Williams are the two most progressive candidates in the race; Sebourn may have figured that this seat was easier pickings.
Here’s the problem, though. Democrats and establishment Republicans may well vote for their candidates in the second question for the Bankhead seat, but if Sebourn looks likely to win via a split ballot then Democrats may well join establishment Republicans in voting no on the recall itself, saving Bankhead’s seat. Sebourn could end up with a strong plurality as the progressives split the vote — but no open seat to occupy.
So far, only Rands, Sebourn, and Georgieff of the above have turned in their papers to run. The two other candidates who have field are Roberta Reid, for Jones’s seat, and Matthew Rowe, the sole challenger on the ballot as of dawn today for McKinley’s seat. A very respectable piece in GOP blog organ OC Political says that both are No Party Preference” (or “NPP”); Reid is a student and from his ballot statement Rowe is probably an engineer. Both seem to belong in the “other” category. I elaborate on their findings with other information I’ve been given.
As of yesterday morning, the rest of the names in each of the four non-incumbent “slates” seemed to look like this (candidates in bold have filed for a seat; candidates in italics have announced a seat; candidates in plainface, neither):
Presumed Ackermanites: Rick Alvarez (?, GOP), David DeLeon (?, GOP)
Bushalans: Sebourn (Bankhead); Travis Kiger (announced for Jones); Barry Levinson (presumably McKinley, if he runs)
Democrats: Williams (Bankhead); Georgieff (Jones); Chaffee (McKinley); [Matthew Hakim (Jones)]
Others: Rands (Bankhead); Reid (Jones); Rowe (McKinley); Richard Albarran (?, NPP);
The six names we haven’t discussed above are:
Planning Commissioner Kiger and Parks & Rec Commissioner Levinson, both of the Bushalan persuasion; Transportation Commissioner Alvarez; former candidate DeLeon; Democrat Hakim; and NPP Albarran.
So plotting things out, the races seem to be shaping up this way:
Bankhead seat: Sebourn (Bushalan), Williams (Democrat), Rands (Green)
Jones seat: Kiger (Bushalan), Georgieff (Democrat), Reid (NPP)
McKinley seat: Levinson (Bushalan), Chaffee (Democrat), Rowe (NPP)
I’m going to step out on a limb and guess that Albarran and Hakim aren’t going to matter much, if they file at all. So the real question is: where do Alvarez (whom people seem to think has a lot of pull) and DeLeon (less so) go?
Let’s say that they go nowhere, they don’t even file. What happens in their absence? Here, lets assume that there will be three voting blocs in Fullerton: Ackermanite, Bushalan, and progressive (Dem/Green). I’m going to guess that, once you break up the Republican Party, in a primary with only a Republican Presidential contest, they’re all fairly even.
Establishment Republicans vote “no” on recalling Bankhead; insurgents vote “yes.” My prediction is that Democrats, sensing a Sebourn win, also vote “no” on recalling Bankhead. Sebourn wins the plurality, but Bankhead is retained.
Establishment Republicans vote “no” on recalling Jones; insurgents vote “yes.” My prediction is that many Democrats are still not convinced enough that Georgieff beats Kiger to vote yes. But maybe some are — Kiger gets the plurality (given GOP Presidential turnout) and maybe the seat. More likely, Jones is retained.
Establishment Republicans vote “no” on recalling McKinley; insurgents vote “yes.” Democrats, correctly thinking that Chaffee has an advantage over Levinson, also vote “yes.” Chaffee replaces McKinley; the recount of 2010 is overturned.
Now let’s put aside DeLeon and the others except for Alvarez. What happens when you add Alvarez to each of these races?
For Bankhead’s seat, I don’t think it makes a difference. Alvarez splits the Republican vote with Sebourn, maybe beats him, with Rands maybe taking some of his libertarian vote. Are Dems convinced enough that Williams is able to squeak through in between probably the two strongest Republicans in the race, when she’s splitting the progressive vote with Rands? Probably not, though Williams establishes herself for November. Bankhead still gets retained.
If Alvarez runs for Jones’s seat, I think that it does knock off Jones. Again, establishment Republicans vote no and Insurgent Republicans vote yes, but here I think that Dems decide that Georgieff can squeak through between Kiger and Alvarez as they split the GOP vote, so they recall Jones as well. Who wins the plurality? That will be the race to watch. I won’t even guess.
What if Alvarez runs for McKinley’s seat? Here, Dems might be tempted to vote no, but unless Levinson is looking good I think they vote yes. Democrats have little reason to prefer McKinley to Alvarez, so they take a chance on Chaffee winning — and his odds go up here — and if Alvarez wins, not much is lost.
The recall strategy seems to be predicated on the idea that Democrats (and independents, of course) will vote to get rid of the incumbents, but outside of activist circles I think that there’s more fear of Bushalan candidates than desire to see a Democrat (maybe other than Chaffee) win. Ironically, had Sebourn chosen a race where he had stronger competition, enough to lure Democrats into supporting recall of the incumbent, he might have made it more likely that the winner of that race would actually replace the incumbent.
Then again, campaign money is going to matter — and maybe enough so to overwhelm any such analysis as I offer above. But what’s the fun in that simple a basis for predicting the outcome of the recall?
Now I have a headache.
Anyhoo, I’ve been told Alvarez named Ackerman as a reference on his application to a city commission. Looks like Tricky Dick may be trying to hedge his bet?
He’d be crazy not to. The only reason not to hedge the bet in his situation is if he thinks that having a decent (from his perspective) alternative makes his voters more likely to support the recall, but in this case the prospect of Kiger or Georgieff winning instead of Alvarez would make that absurd.
My guess is that we’re seeing him set down his marker as first in line when the Old Guys retire. In Jones’s cases, that might be this November, assuming that Ackerman thinks that Alvarez is a better bet.
As for your headache: you know, in other circumstances, people PAY me to analyze things like this! It’s just usually not just an hour of intensive typing at around midnight.
The notion that Democrats have to buy into the recall and won’t do so unless they think that the Dem (or at least a candidate you don’t favor, i.e. “the Devil known”) has a decent shot of winning is counter-intuitive. It didn’t fully strike me myself until I looked at the Bankhead seat and realized that “given this line-up for his replacement, Dems simply won’t vote to recall him.” Now maybe you have ways of making that happen; I suppose will see. But for now, I stand by this prediction. Sebourn wins! — second prize in the beauty contest.
I think you’re over-estimating the amount of analytical thought most voters are gonna put into this.
Talked to Seaborn for a while (who just ran into Jane at the registrar and had a friendly conversation about local sports as they tend to.) He’s pretty sure Alvarez is going to enter the Bankhead race as an Ackerman mole. Ackerman’s had it in for Seaborn for a long time. So … for the Bankhead seat, Seaborn, Alvarez, Rands, Williams … who knows?
Doug Chafee looks like a good bet (and good choice) for McKinley’s seat. Seaborn says he’s a good “upstanding” guy, but they disagree on some issues, particularly low-income housing.
Whoever manages to replace Jones is gonna have to file THE VERY NEXT DAY to run to keep that seat in November.
I’m not a Fullertonian, but I want for that town what I want for every town – a well-balanced council of honest, accountable people. Would Fullerton, with a Whitaker-Seaborn-Kiger majority, try to follow in the footsteps of Costa Mesa and get rid of or otherwise persecute their city workers, who are mostly hardworking and not overpaid? Talking to Bruce and Greg, I think not. But it would be good to see some new “progressives” in there, like Jane and Doug.
I’m putting the emotional thought into analytic terms. Most of what you see above actually appears in people’s thoughts as something like “nah, too risky.”
If Alvarez does file for Bankhead’s seat, Rands should switch (if she still can) to McKinley. As a Democrat, Williams can’t run against Chaffee (and didn’t even take out papers for McKinley’s seat), but as a Green Rands can. She won’t beat Chaffee, but she’ll have a better forum to air her views — and if Levinson doesn’t run, she’ll have the Bushala vote to herself.
I can testify that Democrats are really worried about the possibility of a Costa Mesa-style transformation in Fullerton — enough so to oppose a recall that they might otherwise support. What needs to happen is that the three of them (and maybe Tony the B as well) need to say exactly what they’re going to try to do — and what they will rule out doing. Then they need to stick to it.
A diffuse Fear of a Bushala Fullerton is enough to mess up the recall campaign. If it’s just a matter of different platforms, with the effect of a Bruce/Greg/Travis/Levinson(?) bloc committing to the sort of measured and limited path that Righeimer rejected in Costa Mesa in his drive to become the next Chuck DeVore, then they probably could win Democratic votes on the question of recalling the incumbents.
I’ll be writing about that, as dispassionately and non-partisanly as I can manage, before long once the dust from today settles.
(And yes, folks, this does make OJB “must read” material! Not so much because of what I write, but because of the responses and interaction it may prompt.)
Jane can’t change races. Sebourn checked to see if HE could – he was that unsure of which seat to go for – and the clerk said once she takes their check, it’s no turning back.
This election is about leadership, plain and simple. I’d like to think that you’re typical Fullerton voter will consider if the recalled candidates are good leaders when casting their vote and not what their party affiliation is. But, maybe I’m wrong and the voters are more concerned with what color the quarterback’s jersey is and not if he/she can win the game.
This is one of those cases where the uniform isn’t just cloth. Party affiliation (and factional affiliation within the GOP) really means something here. The differences between the Ackerman and Bushala Republicans are real and significant, as are the differences between both of those and the Democrats. This is not a case of lazy voters using party/faction as a shortcut, but one of informed voters using it as a signal.
What? No it doesn’t. It’s not like there’s an admissions exam to register with a party. I could walk down to city hall and file today as a Republican . . . doesn’t mean that I am or that I should.
It’s local politics! There are no party meetings, no coordinated party voting blocks, and certainly no party hierarchy.
If you’re looking for an informed voter, look for the one that registers leadership first when picking a candidate to vote for. The one looking for donkey and elephant stamps is misinformed about what’s important.
We’re talking about three Democrats who will have the support of their party, up to three (or maybe four if you count Rands) people who will have the active support of the Bushala faction, and one or two or more plus the incumbents who will have the support of the Ackerman bloc.
Those affiliations mean something. It’s not you walking down the street and calling yourself a Republican. Matthew Hakim is a Democrat that (unless I’m forgetting him) I don’t know, and I don’t analyze him the way I analyze Dems in the party that people in the party do know, like Chaffee, Georgieff, and Williams. Sometimes party (or faction) affiliation is insignificant in local elections — but sometimes it isn’t. (Of course, people like Chaffee have shown appeal across party lines, so it’s less of an issue with him.)
“Is a leader” and “is not a leader” doesn’t come stamped on candidate’s foreheads. It’s the sort of thing that can be faked — and often is.
Absolutely correct. This recall and election is about leadership. That why I am voting for Matt Rowe to replace McKinley.
OK — what can you tell us about Matt Rowe? How has he shown “leadership”? Is he one of Ackerman’s flock? Why is he NPP?
WEST Point Grad/ Platoon Leader in Iraq/In charge of millions of $ of government property and personal, Staff Officer in Korea . Achieved rank of Captain / On review was suggested to be “Promoted Below The Zone” meaning early to rank of Major. Bronze Star recipient/ Combat badge recipient/ Project manager for a huge aerospace co/ not affiliated with any particular political party but is honest and has integrity. Got into this with the injustice of the handling of the Kelly Thomas death and realized city council and PD need a revamp. Need I say more?
He sounds like a great choice if Fullerton is planning to invade Anaheim and take back the territory north of the 91, which we all know rightfully belongs to Fullerton! Beyond that, I think that there’s a difference between military and political leadership. But from your description he seems like a good guy.
Are you kidding Greg. Look how many Presidents our country has had that have come from West Point as well as national leaders. You asked what experience he has as a leader and I gave you an honest answer. You give me a flip comment about invading Anaheim. Is anyone else running that has true leadership experience that even comes close to the experience Matt Rowe has? What gives? Looks like you need to do homework on the U.S. military academies.
This recall and election is not a Republican thing or a Democrat thing. It is all about city government and leadership and which candidate will do the best for the city of Fullerton and it’s residents. It is about integrity and honesty and confidence in our elected official. Anyone that tries to make it a “Political Party” issue of one side or the other has another agenda. It is not about personal gain for any individual or group and is only about the quality of life for the residents of Fullerton and the restoration of the Fullerton PD to a premier law enforcement agency that all can trust. If this is what you want vote for Matt Rowe.
Is it your contention, pops, that military leadership experience — or graduation from a military academy — automatically qualifies one to be a civilian leader, especially at the local level? People make that claim for business experience, for law enforcement experience, for political staff experience, for spouse-of-elected experience — I’d say that teaching and social work experience would also count about as well in many situations — but most of it seems like mere assertion.
This is a political leadership position, not merely a generic “leadership” position; I’m not questioning his military leadership abilities (though I’m just taking his word as to their extent), but what sort of political leader he’d be. (Hopefully he’d be more like a Dwight Eisenhower than a MacArthur, a Joe McCarthy, a Nixon, or a Rep. Allen West.)
I was impressed with a comment that Rowe just made on FFFF, and said so, but that’s a long way from demonstrating political leadership experience.
Yes, my comment was “flip” — or, more precisely, a gently comic way of making the same point that I do above. No insult intended; I hope that Mr. Rowe’s reaction is more nuanced.
You’re right — I do have another agenda. My agenda is not to offer campaign ads that end with “If this {list of good things} is what you want, vote for _______.” My agenda is to offer honest analysis as to how I think that things will play out.
Neither you nor I know what role party may play in a recall election where the dominant Republican party is split somewhere down the middle. I think it will and you think it won’t; I’m not advancing dubious aspiration statements of “what this election is about,” but just giving my analysis of a very interesting political situation.
Unless you’ve been involved here before, by the way, welcome to the blog and thanks for your well-constructed thoughts.
Has anyone thought the timing of Sharon Quirk-Silva’s run against Norby is rather odd?
Why in the world would someone who might be a part of the majority on the City Council jump ship in the middle of a three person Recall effort? Ridiculous comes to mind….but then could there be another reason?
Norby is secure and no matter what SQS might do, the cash is going to follow Norby unless of course he gets married for a 5th or 6th time between now and election day.
He does get the best tacos in town for all of his events…ya know?
Someone might say….that SQS is just testing the waters to see what other elected post she might be valued for in the future. We still like Debra Pauly for just about anything…but they won’t let her, Debby Cook or Lucille Kring run because they all have too much charisma!
It’s a whole new district, Winnies, with a lot more Democrats AND Latinos. Sharon’s going for it because she thinks she has a chance and a lot of other folks do too, and we need that 2/3 majority in the assembly.
And whenever you mention the insane and hateful Deborah Pauly, people stop listening to you. So stop.
Here’s my read on it: Sharon is talented and able to move on to higher office. People in the party know it and see it; she’s been the first name on people’s wish list from the moment this district’s boundaries were published. She had been very interested in staying in Fullerton, but eventually, when a district is winnable and you’re the one who can win it, people may convince you to take a risk. She’s leaving Council because Dems really need this seat in the Assembly — and she’s the one who can win it.
If you think that Norby is “secure” you’ll be willing to give me good odds on Sharon, then, so please do. Norby could, I presume, beat Sharon in a 1-to-1 match within Fullerton’s borders. However, this district goes way beyond Fullerton, into areas where the smart, attractive, political pragmatic Latina Sharon is going to be a lot easier sell than unrelenting libertarian Norby.
Not only does Sharon match up well against Norby, but I think she’ll be favored. The largely Latino electorate south of I-5 can eat Norby’s “best tacos in town” and still vote for the Latino who gets where they’re coming from.
One more thought on this: Who works for Chris Norby? Yep, Bruce Whitaker! Now the Sharon Quirk-Silva run for Assembly is even more confusing.
The people you mention are all friends, but have political disagreements.
Not like the Ackerpuppets.
Dr. Vern,
Money is the mother’s milk…..as we know. SQS will not be able to get or outspend
Norby. The power of incumbency …..we might remind you.
The bottom line in politics is: It doesn’t matter whether the person is Republican or
Democrat. Are they nice people and unless the incumbent is caught in a public rest room with a young boy……that person will be re-elected.
Dr Drs, you think the Dem party doesn’t have deep pockets when it sees the possibility of flipping a seat?
i am so happy i live in south county,,,,this is all too confusing for a simpleton like myself
There are much better candidates that the Dems could go after – other than Norby. They could support our bud Bob Rush……going against Mansoor and Daigle….Carchio just dropped out and Vann is a marginal candidate. How much is your bucks up Dems giving Bob?
First of all, Ronananna, it’s not an “either-or” thing. Dems up in Fullerton can go after Norby without having much effect on Dems in Costa Mesa going after Mansoor and Daigle.
Second, Carchio never actually started running, so his “dropping out” is like saying “I’ve decided not to become a ballerina.
Third, while I wish new Democrat Bob Rush well, the uphill slope he faces against Mansoor and Daigle is much steeper than what Quirk-Silva faces against Norby. Rush may well make the runoff because he’ll get a lot of Dem votes, but it’s hard to see how he wins against either of them in the general.
I’ve been in plenty of Democratic meetings, and the idea of deploying our resources based on the “friendship with the Winships” factor has never been suggested.
Norby’s a great candidate to go after — especially if you want to reach 2/3 in the Assembly.
*Dr. Diamond,
There is a wonderful tune….it is called: “Smoke gets in your eyes”. The biggest
problem Democrats have is understanding their own limitations. Unless, you are
in a completely Latino, Asian District…..you are going to lose….unless you are a
wonderful candidate that has done your homework, represented well, won a Supervisor spot and is name Lou Correa……..you are not going to beat any Republicans likely! Loretta Sanchez won because they fooled with the votes….and
because she was running against our good pal Bob Dornan. You are quite correct when you say….having a friendly relationship with the Winships….can get you into trouble with the local gentry. They only need us when it is absolute panic time at the forum. But that aside……Norby wins going away…..and SQS still doesn’t get it…..you
cannot support a recall of three of the people you sit on a dias with and then pull a Sarah Palin….and say…..”NO, I’d rather be an Assemblywoman…” That makes zero sense to us and to the voters who will be making that choice. Try to sell it…..we will
definitely be watching. That cash bandwagon will be rolling in for SQS just like it was for Ron Paul………short wheels on this wagon we predict.
Let me just address the last bit.
(1) I don’t think that Sharon has taken a public stance on the recall.
(2) “Pulling a Sarah Palin” means resigning mid-term. So far as I know, she will serve out her term.
(3) I look forward to hearing your comments on Los Alamitos Mayor Troy Edgar, who is … wait for it … running for office from the Mayor’s chair. Los Al is a lot closer to Newport Beach than Fullerton is; surely you must have a harsh opinion of Mayor Edgar to share with us, right?
As for Democrats always lose — that may have been true in the recent past, but it won’t be true in the future. What we’re fighting about here is how quickly the past turns into the future. I say it happens this year in AD-65 — but since you’re so very confident I still want you to be sporting and give me really good odds.
*Obama….there can only be ONE! Los Al is on the other side of the moon when looking at it from Newport Beach…believe me. We did buy an absolutely awesome
original ’58 Impala, 348 CU. which we restored perfectly and loved very much back
in the ’80’s. Painted it Anniversary Gold, with Gold interior….turned 84.6 MPH at the yesteryear drags. 4 Barrell, Powerglide Trannie.
OK, Ron graduated from Fullerton Union High School, went to Wilshire School and
spent an inordinate amount of time going to the movies there. Never felt part of the town, but did get help for a school project at the Fullerton Tribune. Bill Dannemeyer
was our City Attorney at the time. Let’s just say….we love Bruce and Linda Whitaker and sadly….they are Libertarian Republicans. SQS…might very well be a lovely, kind and deserving person….but we doubt seriously she will prevail under the Dem’s logo.
I don’t get it. The reason for this recall is Fullerton PD The Bushalites and the outsiders and I would hope the Democrats are all in agreement about a major overhaul of the police. Everybody but the Acker-hacks. Given that, why would for example Democratic voters prefer the status quo to the Bushala Libertarians? Answer – they won’t. If you live in Fullerton you know the police and those that support them are WAY scarier than ANYBODY running for any of these seats.
First — great username you have there.
There is more than one “reason for this recall.” The Kelly Thomas killing was the instigation, but clearly the funder(s) of the recall (hi Tony!) have more than simply a cleaning-out of the police force in mind.
That’s not necessarily bad; its value can be argued on its merits. But to say that Democrats should just go along with the recall even if it might carry with it Costa Mesa-style baggage of “reforms” is absurd — and I can’t believe that the quite intelligent proponents of the recall ever thought that it was likely. Happily, if they want to assuage fears about their possible agenda, they have a microphone to convey that message.
As I’ve written above and in the new piece last night, the most likely effect of this recall is that Chaffee — whom most people seem to consider at least acceptable — replaces McKinley. There goes the “three traditional Republicans” (aka Ackermanites) majority right there. Assuming that Chaffee and Sharon are OK with police reforms, though they may be less radical than Whitaker may prefer (and I honestly have no idea), there will be a council majority for reform no matter what happens to Jones and Bankhead’s seats.
As I’ve said as well: I think that with Rands and Williams splitting the progressive vote and Rands failing to get the insurgent Republican (aka libertarian aka Bushalan) vote, it seems likely that Sebourn will win the race to replace Bankhead. How will people who are concerned about Sebourn’s agenda (and the prospect of leaving a Sebourn+Whitaker coalition one slim seat away from a possible Costa Mesa-style majority, unless they disavow any such plans)? Simple: they leave Bankhead on the Council to fester as a minority of either two or one.
I’m not pushing this result; it’s just a prediction. Sebourn was a little too clever in his selection of a race.
The third race, where Georgieff and Kiger both have the possibility of winning, is the hardest to call. One possibility is that Jones agrees not to seek re-election in November in exchange for not being recalled. (With whom he would make such a deal is unclear, of course.) The Ackermanites would probably be happy, at this point, to see some new traditional Republican blood on the council; a lot of people have probably been waiting in the wings.
So if that happened, Jones would then sit in the minority with Bankhead for five more months and then there’s a scramble for three seats — including Whitaker’s and the departing in the fall. You’d see two Bushalans (Kiger and Sebourn), three Ackermanites (probably Alvarez and a pair to be named later), and three relative progressives (Georgieff, Williams, and Rands), as well as God knows who else, racing for a council that had one traditional Republican (Bankhead) and one relative progressive (Chaffee) on it.
That means that Tony’s recall would have (1) reversed the result of the 2010 runoff and eliminated the Ackermanite majority, (2) gotten Jones to retire, and (3) opened up two possibilities to give Whitaker colleagues in a libertarian council majority in November — which of course comes with no guarantee. Some people have said that the recall was pointless, but even without Kiger and Sebourn on the Council, it would still have accomplished most of Tony’s aims. Not such a bad deal overall, even without “success.”
Ackerman has a couple of puppets in two of the races and he’s willing to support (or at least not attack – gasp) Chaffee over Barry Levinson or Matt Rowe. Okay by me: any of themm would be better vastly than the weird sociopath McKinley.
One thing we are pushing, and pushing hard to explain is that the murder of Thomas was just the culmination of a deep seated Culture of Corruption in the FPD. As Sipowicz has said in his own special way: the murder and cover up was the flowering of the noxious weed.
On the FDP’s “Culture of Corruption”: I think that you’re making the case about as well as it can be made. I’m far more convinced that what happened there (and afterwards) was horribly wrong than that Dan Hughes is not in a position to deal with it reasonably well; I’ve had good interactions with him regarding Occupy, but that’s not inconsistent with your critique. I’m also not sure of what alternative is in mind. I look forward to seeing the debate play out. I do think that Whitaker not having been able to view the tape sounds ridiculous, but to be fair I have not heard much argument from the other side.
If the recall were solely about that, without any baggage, then I think that it would be relatively straightforward. But it’s not. It shouldn’t be, I’d think, from your perspective, because you have some strong political views (in line with Whitaker’s) about how the City should change generally. That’s fine — but it complicates the recall question. I think, for example, that it saves Bankhead. But one Ackermanite on council isn’t much of an obstacle for you.
I know that I can’t claim to be impartial on these races (though I can at least try to be fair about them), but from what I hear from Democrats the fear of the “devil unknown” — a Council that would follow Whitaker’s views (and yours) — seems greater than the fear of the “devil known.” I’m saying to you publicly exactly what I’d say privately — and to any audience: laying out the honest, firm, and reasonable limits to how far Whitaker and others would be willing to go is the only way I see someone like Sebourn (and maybe Kiger) having a chance. That doesn’t mean that you (and they) should do it on my say-so; that’s up to you. But it is honestly what I am hearing.
When you speak of Fullerton Democrats you betray your lack of understanding of Fullerton. There is a new left that is horrified by an out of control PD and a sclerotic regime of elderly and incompetent repuglicans. However this situation appears to give comfort to the dwindling old guard lefties like Jan Flory, Molly McClanahan and their ilk. These people are constitutionally incapable of a courageous act. The repugs have been herding them around for decades.
I don’t have any idea why you think Bankhead survives a recall. He can’t even stay awake at meetings.
Tony, I admit that I’m using “Democrats” (and “Republicans”) a little loosely, so as to include independents who lean one way or the other. What I don’t have in mind is simply the party establishment. The people with whom you (or I — admittedly mostly different groups) hang around enough to know by name are not likely to be a large enough proportion of the electorate to swing it. I’m interested: how many votes do you expect there to be in the recall overall?
The election will be between your ability to marshal disgust at council actions (largely re Thomas) and the Ackerman types arguing that your alternative is worse. I’m sure that you already know this, but yoi’re probably going to get a similar treatment from Ackermanites as Gingrich sponsor Sheldon Adelson is getting right now. Meanwhile, Dems will be sympathetic to your criticisms re Thomas but offering an alternative to what will be taken (absent a disavowal) of your “risky agenda.” And if people aren’t convinced of your agenda, but think that your candidates will replace the incumbents, they can endure an incumbent or two — just not all three.
I’m certainly not defending, let alone endirsing, Bankhead; he just got luckiest in the draw here. If you’ve been thinking only about offense and not about defense, I’m surprised. But I doubt that that’s what’s true.
Here’s another counterintuitive scenario I’d put some money on, by the way, given decent odds: Kiger wins in June and loses in November.
You’re over analyzing this. Almost all recall yes voters will vote yes across the board.
There are good, non-Ackerman candiates to choose from, including a new guy, Matt Rowe who has real leadership/accountability experience – not the tin-plated sort offered up by the Three Hollow Logs.
Despite what many people think I am not big on political philosophy. I really want our council to start taking responsibility for their behavior (or lack of it) as they hide behind a bogus lawyer, Chamber mixers, and ribbon cutting ceremonies.
My concentration the next 10 weeks is getting the Recall to succeed. In this effort we’ve got some innovative campaign stuff in the works.
Tony — yes, if their campaign management staff is completely incompetent, they will fail to prod voters to consider the alternatives, which may lead to different conclusions in different races. How incompetent are you relying on their being?
My rooting interest in the recall is that I do absolutely want at least one of them gone, because your criticism has been at minimum enough on point that a Whitaker/Sharon QS alliance should be put in charge for at least the rest of the year. Beyond that, I think that one has to look at the alternatives. Maybe you’re right that Fullerton voters won’t, but that would be unusual.
It’s not your “political philosophy” at issue, it’s your programmatic agenda. You’re going to have to knock down the “Costa Mesa” argument — which from my perspective it will be delicious to see Ackerman make. (It will be sort of like watching Gingrich go against Romney for his Bain Capital history — comedy gold.) If you don’t take it seriously, that’s up to you, but I’m being honest in my political advice (or rather my kibitzing.)
I look forward to seeing your innovative campaign stuff. I’m sure that that will be fun. (Were you the guy behind “Bad Chi”? I felt sorry for the guy, and more so when I learned the details, but that was hilarious and effective — and innovative.)
Third paragraph. You are seeing delicious irony in the possibility that Ackerman would warn Fullertonites of a Costa Mesa-style jihad on workers, if his guys got replaced? Not so much. One of the legitimate complaints against the Three Bald Tires is their giving unions – particularly police and fire – everything they want. The public safety unions will be firmly on the side of the incumbents, and it makes perfect sense for both the incumbents and the Democrats to scare folks away from Bushala candidates with a Costa Mesa bogeyman … unless the Bushalans pre-empt that somehow.
True, it’s not ironic that Ackerman would use that Costa Mesa bogeyman to go after the Bushalans regarding public safety unions. However, the Costa Mesa junta’s anti-labor ambitions goes well beyond public safety unions, which is part of the critique of it. (The Vietnamese man who jumped to his death a year ago wasn’t a public safety worker.) That’s the part of a potential Ackerman attack that I will find ironic, if it happens.
Yes. Bad Chi was one of ours.
Have you guys ever, um, talked since then?
(I’m also interested in how you got them posted something like 30′ up on some lampposts, but that’s a different discussion.)
Had to get ’em up high. Chi’s dad kept stealing all the low ones.
Bad, Chi’s Dad!
*There is little doubt that Ivan the Terrible could run and get elected in the three spots that will be vacated by the recall of Fullerton Trey Nots. We were talking about the lap over effect of Sharon Quirt-Silva….and her viability as a replacement for a sitting incumbent…no matter what change in District lines. SQS needs “to finish” her work on the Fullerton City Council. This is not time to act like an opportunistic status seeker, when Fullerton needs to have leadership along with Bruce Whitaker to help bring the new folks along and still keep some sort viability of City Government. Face it, the Three Caballeros have been running roughshod over Fullerton City Government for too many years. SQS…acts like: “Who care? – Fullerton can go to hell and I will run for the Assembly!”
Your opposition, as non-Democrats, to a Democrat running against your friend for State Assembly is duly noted. By the way, when Norby bailed on his Supervisor’s position to run for Assembly after the Mike Duvall implosion, was he being an “opportunistic status seeker”? Assuuuuuuming you say “no,” you might want to stop trying to hang that phrase around Sharon’s neck. As Bill Clinton would say, if he were 23 rather than 66 or whatever, “that meme won’t hunt.”
Kelly didn’t die on his watch! Get real…please!
You mean on McKinley’s watch? McKinley is at a minimum seen as having built that police force in its present form, though, right? Bushala will probably be willing to explain it to you.
All three need to go!
Okaaaaay … but now you’re campaigning, not analyzing.
*We don’t know anyone that needs the President’s Analyst to figure out that rat’s nest.
Just, move forward with the Recall…..and see what happens!