.
.
.
This is the first installment of this year’s “A Day at the Races” feature on who is running for what in OC elections, based on the nightly reports from the excellent people at the OC Registrar of Voters. (Seriously — it’s the only part of our county government that outsiders envy.) Presidential year primary elections feature federal Executive and Legislative races, primaries for County Supervisor races, judicial races, and party races. To the Votemobile!
[A] Los Federales
[1] Por Presidente
This post’s title says “from Atkinson-Bukewihge to Zelnic”: that’s literally true, but it’s not based on alphabetical order. The very last name on the Registrar of Voters’ list of candidates right now is Abner Zelnic, candidate for the 4th District representative of the Peace and Freedom Party. First on the list is OC’s sole (for now) candidate for the exalted office of President of the United States of America: Edie Atkinson-Bukewihge. As befits her (aspired) high office, the graphic for this piece is from the home page of her website.
One of Edie’s (as we’ll call her) promises is that, if invited, she will come to your house with coffee and cake to discuss her candidacy. This will be a hard task for her to fulfill even in Orange County, let alone in the entire state of California if her candidacy picks up steam — and God help her if her campaign really does go national. OJB would be satisfied with her Grandma’s Chili Recipe, which is linked “4 U” on her site. Because we don’t want to see Edie having to cart coffee and cake up to Yreka — let alone to Ypsilanti, Michigan — for her own good we’re limiting our coverage of her candidacy to this first installment, unless and until she rises in the polls. (But we’ll always be the first to have covered her campaign!)
[2] U.S. Senator
Candidates for office only have to file in their home county, so don’t get all excited that you don’t see the only party-endorsed (with 78.12% of the vote) Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris, on the ballot. She is not supposed to file here. But OC does have one candidate who is favored to be her party’s front-runner, as she has been in the past: Gail Lightfoot of the Libertarian Party. So at least we have something going for us in this race!
Hang on — we’ve been handed a special bulletin! It turns out that six candidates from OC have taken out papers so far: Republican Karen Roseberry, NPPs Paul Merritt and Gar Myers, the mysteriously unaffiliated Steve Stokes, and another Democrat, Loretta Sanchez.
(This would be a good time for me to offer two full disclosures for the record. First, I am the Kamala Harris for Senate Campaign’s Orange County Coordinator. Second, I do not hate Loretta Sanchez. I like her; I just don’t consider her to be in Harris’s league as a candidate and I don’t like her plan to win the seat with Republican votes in the runoff because she’s more conservative and less adept than Harris. Much, much, more on this to come!)
There is actual news to break here: with five working days left to go before the deadline for her to file, Loretta has not yet turned in her papers. This means that at this moment she could still drop out of the race and file for re-election to Congress. Everyone seems to consider this unlikely; more likely is that she would end up as a surrogate for Hillary, in expectation of a Cabinet appointment of some kind in a Clinton Administration. (Note that because Loretta is still eligible to run for re-election, the deadline for everyone but her to enter the race will be extended to Wednesday, April 16.)
[3] U.S. House of Representatives
Finally, we get to some (relatively) local races!
CA-38: We don’t know if anyone is running against Linda Sanchez. Didn’t look it up.
CA-39: Incumbent Ed Royce and his presumptive challenger, moderate (yet somehow reformist!) Democrat Brett Murdock, have both taken out papers. Neither is as yet on the ballot.
CA-45: Four candidates have taken out papers: Democrats Max Gouron and Ron Varasteh, and Republicans Mimi Walters and Greg Raths. Two years ago, Raths narrowly lost to Drew Levens for the final spot in a runoff against Walters, where he’d be expected to do well. The race is presumably between Varasteh (who has run against Dana Rohrabacher, among others races) and Raths for the second slot against Walters in the general election. Whether Gouron — an anesthesiologist! — files his papers and takes away enough votes from Varasteh may determine whether Raths is kept out of the general election, as happened in 2014. If Raths does make the runoff, he’d be a serious threat to edge out Walters with independent and Democratic votes. (He’s at least as conservative as her, but a lot more honest.) (Disclaimer: Varasteh is a former client of mine.)
CA-46: As noted above, filing for Loretta’s seat (so long as she doesn’t re-enter the race) will continue until April 16. Three Democrats — Joe Dunn, Lou Correa, and Bao Nguyen — are contesting the district. [Disclaimer: my daughter is Bao’s campaign treasurer, a compliance rather than a policy job.] My sense is that Dunn and Correa are generally believed to be the front-runners. (Bao, who takes more votes from Dunn, would not concede that.) The major threat to two Democrats making the runoff is Republican Lynn Schott, from Irvine — an ally of Jeffrey Lalloway. However, new Republican Rudy Gaona from Anaheim, who had run and lost several nonpartisan races as a Democrat, can probably take away enough votes from Schott to keep her out of the runoff. Republican Louie Contreras and NPP Nancy Trinidad Marin have also taken out papers. So far, only Gaona has filed.
CA-47: Incumbent Democrat Alan Lowenthal will have filed in Long Beach rather than in OC. Three OC candidates have taken out papers: his 2014 opponent Andy Whallon (generally understood to be a libertarian, if not a Libertarian), Republican Sanford Kahn, and NPP Rob Rappaport are among the potential losers of this race in November.
CA-48: Incumbent Republican Dana Rohrabacher faces a challenge from party-mate Colin Mellott and from two Democrats who ran for the seat in 2014: Suzanne Savary and Robert Banuelos. Mellott is essentially playing the role that Wendy Leece played in 2014, when she narrowly lost to Savary, who then lost in the runoff. Leece, like Raths in CA-45, was probably the stronger general election competitor, but institutional forces make it hard for Democrats to take a dive even when it’s in their best interest.
CA-49: Incumbent Republican Darrell Issa has a potential opponent in Democrat Douglas Applegate. OJB is not going to look up the San Diego files right now to see if any Democrats there want to take him on. (Yes, three of OC’s seven members of Congress are from outside of Orange County. It’s a gift, I tell ya!)
State Legislature
State Senate
SD-29: Incumbent Bob Huff’s protege Ling-Ling Chang has been ordered to move up from her AD-55 seat as counter-programming against new arrival in Fullerton Sukhee Kang, a Democratic former Mayor if Irvine. This convulsion is a real compliment for Kang; unfortunately, it’s also a very smart move that is devastating to his chances. Democrat Josh Newman, who has been treated pretty harshly by his party, would be excellent counter-programming against Chang, but the Democratic hierarchy apparently thinks that the lesson of 2014 is that only Asians can win in North County, so it will be up to the voters to see which of them goes on to November.
SD-37: As it stands, only incumbent Republican John Moorlach is on the ballot. His opponent in the 2015 special election, termed-out Assemblyman Don Wagner, has also taken out papers, but let’s delicately say that he “lacks institutional support” this time around. Democrat Ari Grayson (a nice guy!) has also taken out papers. This raises the eternal question: why would Democrats want to see Moorlach and Wagner suck up money in a district guaranteed to cough up a Republican victor when that money could otherwise go to defeat Democrats elsewhere? It wouldn’t be sporting!
State Assembly
AD-55: Most of the action in my home district is taking place in Los Angeles County (and maybe San Bernardino too; another one I ain’t checking), home of both incumbent Ling-Ling Chang and her 2014 challenger Democrat Gregg Fritchle. Two Republicans have taken out papers in OC: James Gerbus and Steve Tye (who is not even from OC, last I heard.) The leader of the field appears to be Diamond Bar’s Philip Chen, whom Fritchle edged out for the second position in November last time around. A bunch of other non-OC-lings are also supposedly running.
AD-65: The cleanest, clearest simplest race on the ballot. Just two candidates: Republican Assemblywoman Young Kim and Democratic former Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva will face off again to see whether the difference between 2012 and 2014 was the last of a Presidential election turnout or the lack of Chris Norby.
AD-68: Seven (!) contenders so far have taken out papers to take over Don Wagner’s seat. Two of them are Democrats: Sean Jay Panati and … wait, the other one withdrew her candidacy. (Let’s start over. Six (!) contenders so far, etc.) Five of them are Republican. Three of those might be described as “heavy hitters”: Deborah Pauly, Harry Sidhu, and Steven Choi. Two, not so much: Alexia Deligianni-Brydges and Konstantinos Roditis. Because Wagner is termed out, the filing deadline is firm: it ends Friday when the Registrar’s doors close (but you’ll still get to finish registering if you’re in line.)
AD-69: Nobody’s running against incumbent Business Democrat Tom Daly. Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom Parties, this may be your second-best chance to be on November’s ballot!
AD-72: Incumbent Travis Allen is the prohibitive favorite to retain his seat — raising the interesting question of whether he’ll run for State Senate District 34 if Janet Nguyen takes on Alan Lowenthal or whoever wins in CA-46 this year for Congress. His challengers are Vietnamese Democratic Party Central Committee Member Nam Pham and embattled (more about that later) attorney Lenore Albert-Sheridan. (Writing my story about her will take some time, but Vern has already provided and introduction.)
AD-73: Nobody (so far) is running against Incumbent Republican Bill (“Bro”) Brough. Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom Parties, this may be your absolute-best chance to be on November’s ballot!
AD:74: Improbable Incumbent Matthew Harper will be running against the Democrat who made his incumbency possible, Karina Onofre. (Her last-minute bid against DPOC insider favorite Anila Ali is the only reason that Harper made the runoff at all.) He’s also being challenged by two Republicans: Brandon Salisbury and Irvine’s Katherine Daigle.
County Judicial
Some very good OC Superior Court Judges are up for re-election this year, but I won’t name them for fear of drawing challengers to them. (Any judge who isn’t challenged by Friday is reelected without being on the ballot, saving voters lots of time.) So I’ll just address the contested races.
Three will almost certainly be settled by June.
In Office #23, Judge Derek Hunt is being challenged by Emily Wehbe-Sturgeon. Neither is as yet on the ballot. I’ve had business before Judge Hunt and so will not be commenting on this race. (Don’t read anything good or bad into that; I just don’t like commenting here on judges before whom I’ve had cases, so absent truly extraordinary circumstances I grant them limited immunity.)
Office #48 is the one with the greatest potential for lurid attacks. The incumbent is Judge Scott Steiner, who has been accused of involvement in a sex scandal with others in his office. He’s being opposed by Karen Lee Schatzle, who seems to be the Rackauckus Party candidate. So, pick your poison. I’ve never met Judge Steiner, but I should not comment on this race for other reasons (none of which involve a tie to anyone personally involved.) Neither are as yet on the ballot.
In Office #49, an open seat made possible by the departure of Judge Elaine Streger, the contestants are Mike Murray and Thomas Martin. Martin’s already on the ballot.
Two others are open seats, made possible respectively by the departures of Judges Gail Andler and Steven Perk.
In Office #3, aspiring judges include Frederick Fascenelli, Megan Wagner, Andrew Stein, Wayne Phillips, and Jennifer McGrath. (McGrath is the former City Attorney for Huntington Beach, so we know who Vern’s supporting!) None of them have as yet made it onto the ballot. One other person took out papers but has withdrawn.
In Office #40, Larry Yellin, Shawn Nelson, and Thuy Dinh Pham will face off. (Fascenelli was originally to be in this race, but the loud thump of Supervisor Nelson’s arrival may have chased him off.) None of them are as yet on the ballot.
County Offices
Board of Education
The OCBOE Districts are, if I recall correctly, close to but not identical to the boundaries of the Supervisorial Districts. Each of the three races up this year has three contestants for now, but none of the nine are currently on the ballot.
Area 1: Incumbent Robert Hammond faces challenges from Vong Xavier Nguyen and Beckie Gomez. Hammond, despite being from the most liberal district, is part of the highly conservative and pro-charter Board majority.
Area 2: Incumbent Ken Williams faces challenges from Michael Parham and Mike Dalati. Williams, who won when his opponent died and could not be replaced under “top two” rules, is part of the highly conservative and pro-charter Board majority.
Area 4: Incumbent Jack Bedell faces challenges from Zonya Marcenero- Townsend and Chris Norby. Bedell is a Republican and an educator, but with David Boyd is in the current Board majority. Marcenera-Townsend is a traditional conservative; former Assemblyman/Supervisor Norby is a libertarian conservative.
County Supervisor
1st District: This race has gotten weird. The only person currently on the ballot is Mother of All Perennial Candidates Steve Rocco. Incumbent Andrew Do has taken out papers. But so have two other Vietnamese-surnamed candidates: Garden Grove Councilmember Phat Bui and Robert Bao Nguyen, who is not Garden Grove Mayor Bao Nguyen but will probably benefit from various voters thinking otherwise. (Welcome to Dr. Jose Moreno’s world, Bao!) Finally — and looking pretty good as a standout both on gender and ethnicity — is Santa Ana Councilmember Michelle Martinez. Take out Martinez and Lou Correa really could win this race. (Hint, hint!)
3rd District: No one is currently running against incumbent Todd Spitzer. As I’ve said, I like Spitzer better than your average OC Republican politician –as well as better than your average OC Republican politician probably does — but if both parties let the Mercurial One stroll into office without even a challenge, then yer all a buncha marshmallows! I would think that the Rackauckas Gang would want him to have a challenge just to deplete his campaign funds — but apparently not so. (Maybe no one wants to piss him off because they ARE convinced that he’ll be the next DA!)
County Party Central Committees
This, I think that it’s fair to say, is probably the weirdest thing on the ballot. The former two-year terms for members of the Democratic and Republican and … Peace and Freedom? (yes it is!) Central Committees are elected in June of Presidential years, and if you haven’t applied by Friday at 5 p.m. then you’re out of luck until Ted Cruz runs for re-election (if we’re still having elections at that point.) Both major parties are electing 42 members — six in each of the County’s seven full or partial Assembly Districts — and Peace and Freedom elects six for at least Districts 3 and 4, where one person apiece has applied for six open seats. (Seriously, folks — this is embarrassing. Have you considered selling the franchise to the Working Families Party?)
DEMOCRATIC PARTY [6 open seats per district]
Maybe people are just signing up late this year, but so far there is not a bumper crop.
55th AD — Two people are running: Incumbents Molly Muro and La Habra School District member Cynthia Aguirre.
65th AD — Five people are running: Incumbents Marti Schrank, Monika Broome, Jesus Silva, John Vassiliades, and DPOC Secretary Arnel Dino.
68th AD — Seven people and one large aquatic mammal running: Incumbents Mani Kang, David Sonneborn, Melissa Fox, Ted Perle, and challengers Florice Hoffman, Paul Lucas, Ken Wyant, and Dan Chmielewski. (Hmmmm. We may have to endorse in this one.)
69th AD — Has Labor given up on the Democratic Party of Orange County? We’ll know soon. The incumbents for this seat were all either part of or closely allied to the Labor movement. None of them are currently running. Instead, there are Ken and Lindy Burke, Sharon Toranto, and Art Hoffmann.
72nd AD — Only four people have taken out papers in this district as well — but they are all incumbents: Jim Moreno, Sutida Bergquist, Shelly Haggerty, and Nam Pham.
73rd AD — Five people have taken out papers so far: Incumbents Bill Honigman, Fran Sdao, Anita Narayana, Denise Penn, and activist Deborah Cunningham-Skurnik.
74th AD — Nine people are running here. Four are on the ballot: Incumbents Janice Burstin and Marleen Gillespie and challengers Andrew Gallagher and Farrah Khan. Incumbents Dean Inada and Jonathan Adler have taken out papers, as have longtime Committee member Craig Jago Beauchamp and relative newcomers (I think) to the scene Jill Cseresznyak and Leah Esoylu.
REPUBLICAN PARTY [6 open seats per district]
The harvest of potential Republican Committee members is rather more bountiful. I’ll just mark the incumbents with an asterisk.
55th AD — Thirteen people running; three already on the ballot.
On the ballot: Craig Young, Gene Hernandez*, Tim Shaw*
Not yet: Peggy Huang*, Brett Barbre*, James Gerbus, Tara Campbell, Rick Rios, Desare Ferraro, Karla Downing*, Ed Gunderson, Irene Yezbak, and Michael Patrick Withrow
65th AD — Seventeen people are running; four have already qualified.
On the ballot: David John Shawver*, Steve Sarkis, Sou Moua, Chris Gaarder
Not yet: Charles Kim, Zonya Marcenaro Townsend, Baron Night*, Alexandria Coronado*, Jerry Jackson*, Chris Norby, Peter Kim, Sean Paden, Beverly Gunter, Shawn Nelson*, Jack Bedell, Tim Milosch, Leroy Mills
68th AD — Nineteen people are running; four have already qualified.
On the ballot: Deborah Pauly*, Ray Grangoff, Todd Spitzer*, David Sarega
Not yet: Denis Bilodeau, Nick Wilson, Karen Lee Schatzle, Scott Voigts*, Patricia Welch, Ken L Williams, Trevor O’Neil, Michael Parham, Steven Choi, Zach Collins, Mark Bucher*, Fred Whitaker*, Dominica Kristedja, Jeffrey Lalloway*, Jon Fleischman
69th AD — A mere nine people are running. Two are on the ballot.
On the ballot: Robert Hammond*, Alberta Christy
Not yet: Steven Nguyen, Thomas Anthony Gordon*, Maribel Marroquin*, Brett Frankin*, Cecilia Iglesias, Tim Whitacre*, Angie Cano
72nd AD — A mere nine people are running. Two are on the ballot.
On the ballot: John W. Briscoe, Michael Gates*
Not yet: Andrew Do*, Kermit Marsh*, Tyler Diep, Dean Grose, Charlotte Christiana*, John Briscoe, Phat Bui
73rd AD — Thirteen people are running. Two are on the ballot.
On the ballot: Mary Young*, Mike Munzing*
Not yet: Greg Raths, Lisa Bartlett, Eric Stolaski, Taylor Spring, James Lacy, Ed Sachs, Laurie Davies, Roberta Turbow, Jennifer Beall*, Tony Beall*, Greg Woodard*
74th AD — Eighteen people are running. One is on the ballot.
On the ballot: Rhonda Rohrabacher*
Not yet: Katherine Daigle, Peter Van Voorhis, Tom Pollitt, T. J. Fuentes*, David Boyd, Scott Peotter, Michael McClellan, Erik Weigand, Carol Woodworth, Cari Swan, Anthony Kuo, John Warner*, Elizabeth Parker, Jeff Mathews*, Jon Aiken, David Whitley, Scott Baugh*
Peace and Freedom Party Central Committee
Adan Plascencia (3rd Superv. District); Abner Zelnic (4th Superv. District)
In Conclusion:
This is going to be the “base page” for our coverage. We’ll TRY to update this page nightly, adding new candidates in a color-coded fashion to show what day they show up. (We’re thinking of March 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and, if needed, 14, 15, 16. Color is cheery!)
But before we go, here’s one observation to take home. Look at the names of the people running for the Republican Central Committee. Then look at the names of the people running for the Democratic Central Committee. Notice any difference?
That’s right: the Republican Central Committee has names that I know about from reading the newspapers and political blogs, writing stories on who’s running for office, and keeping track of who does what in office. The Democratic Central Committee has names that I know from being on the Democratic Central Committee.
That may be a cause, or a symptom, or both. But I’ll suggest that until the DPOC has the quality of names of real decision makers wanting to be a part of its Central Committee, the sort of names that you see scrambling to be on the OCGOP Central Committee, then the Democratic Party in Orange County is going to be little more than a facade. There are Democratic power brokers in the county, but they assemble elsewhere, in arenas where membership is not subject to a vote of the public.
That’s something to think about for this next four years. Or, depending on who you are, something to hope that other people don’t think about at all.
What’s wrong with large aquatic mammals? I’d vote for them instead of Dan C.
What are the requirements to vote in the election for County Party Central Committees other than being registered in one of the parties?
Good luck to my pal Rudy running as Rep.
You just have to be an otherwise qualified voter who is registered in one of the parties.
See Nipsey about a crown.
When nipsey does anything of value in the political blogosphere other than a “Statler & Waldorf in the Balcony” impression, I might. I’ll have to pressure wash it before putting it on, though.
Man, you’re going to HATE the pre-election columns. Avert your eyes!
Did anybody read that the Mexican legislators passed a proposal to ban Trump from entering their country? 🙂
Somebody ought to send them copies of that childhood story book called “Big dog – Little dog”.
If this keeps up and Trump moves into the White House he’s likely to cut off all foreign aid to Mexico and put severe restrictions on their southbound wire transfers.
That wouldn’t be helpful for the peso.
Donald Dumpf’s oh, so smart strategy of insulting our southern neighbor is just brilliant.
Wouldn’t it be great if China or Russia had much more influence there? Wouldn’t it be great if the 12 million Mexicans living in the US went on strike or actively started working against us? Wouldn’t it be great if Mexico told us to shove our generous $3 we send them per person and we never ate a fruit or vegetable again? Wouldn’t it be great to share an enormous border with an enemy?
Yes, I look forward to this kind of greatness. Greatness that only an ignorant, swaggering, blowhard and his equally ignorant, swaggering, blowhard followers can deliver.
He and his supporters provide a picture perfect example of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
So, do you think they’re nihilists or is it more “they know not what they do” (I guess it could be both)?
I hope (really) they’re just that short sighted.
Otherwise, the implications of our own stupidity are severe.
So Mexico sends us their poor forcing us to spend our tax dollars to give them the services they need and you think that’s a good deal?
How would Mexico like it if we sent our poor in their country and told them to give them the services they need? How do you think Mexico would react? Would the Mexican government give indigent Americans Mexican drivers licenses, free medical, free education, Spanish second language classes and allow them to work in Mexico without enforcing their labor laws?
If Mexico acted responsibly and took care of their own underclass the wall wouldn’t even be on the table for discussion.
Importing poverty never created prosperity. That’s the reason no other nation does it.
Common sense.
Gosh, you seem to have forgotten one small detail; we employ them.
Many US farms, industries and small businesses rely on their labor (and let’s not forget nanny’s, housecleaners and gardeners).
That finger your pointing at Mexico, turn it around.
“Gosh, you seem to have forgotten one small detail; we employ them.”
And you seem to have forgotten a larger point…..they are employed in violation of our criminal labor laws.
Do you support criminality?
We have immigration programs that allow foreigners to take farm jobs when needed.
We don’t have immigration programs for foreign housecleaners, gardeners, housecleaners, construction workers, manufacturing workers, etc…
All those jobs are taken in violation of US labor laws.
If you support criminality – just admit it.
Oh, here we go again. The “hate” word appears. 🙂 That’s when I know the facts are causing some pain. That’s when I know I’m winning.
Thanks for your feedback, Toro.
I’ve probably hired illegals (I don’t quiz my gardeners) and I know they’ve been hired on my behalf and yours (ever eat out or munch a strawberry?). I’m just not a hypocrite.
If it’s illegal to hire them doesn’t that mean that US citizens are guilty of hiring them and shouldn’t we go after the source of the problem, the employers?
Who’s more at fault, the rich employer who has other options or the desperate immigrant?
So you go from Trump’s a bad guy for insulting our southern neighbor even though our southern neighbor insults us by encouraging their poor to illegally emigrate to America and become our problem….to
We employ them so that justifies it even though it’s in violation of our US and State labor laws that our government is paid to enforce but fail to carry out their sworn duty….to
It’s not our fault, it the employer’s fault even though by hiring them you are the employer….to
It’s the rich guys fault.
You failed to directly answer any of my questions. Typical. This is a very slippery board. It’s practically impossible to get a direct answer here.
In my experience when people refuse to answer questions directly it’s generally a sign that they’ve lost the debate.
Zieg, you’re sounding like the former VOC commenter Beelzebub, using a quasi hateful speech. Unauthorized immigration has a long deep historical roots, and a reform is undoubtedly needed.
Your civilized demeanor is decreasing as Trump is finally being confronted about his demagoguery.
Toro, my 8:56 AM response to you appears above ^^^^^^. Sorry about the misplacement.
Z, I get your points about the negative impact of unauthorized immigration. I am appealing to your sense of keeping the discussion on a civilized manner.
Over-emphasizing as criminal a complex and charged issue leads to a slippery road. This is the road that Trump has taken since he began his anti-immigrant campaign. As the “agitator” Mitt Romney said: “This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.”
I’m being very civilized. I’m explaining illegal immigration from the point of view of someone who believes in national sovereignty and equality under the enforcement of our criminal laws. How much more civilized could a person be? I haven’t accused anyone of supporting Hitler.
Violations of our labor laws are crimes.
Can I get anyone else on this board to support the equal enforcement of our criminal laws?
Or am I asking too much?
I think I understand your point of view, and you have valid points to consider. On the other hand, it is obvious that you refuse to consider the negative impact of disregarding the historical causes of immigration.
A significant section of my community is a product of that immigration, and your not subtle calls for enforcement would mean a tremendous disruption in some many aspects. We will continue to disagree on what a civilized solution could be.
We wouldn’t have an illegal immigration problem if we weren’t hiring, they come because we provide them with jobs.
Why ignore our complicity in the situation?
Where is Donald Dumpf’s call for erecting a prison to house those who hire illegal immigrants and also to be paid for by those same employers?
Continue on … whaaah, Mexico is being mean to us, they’re forcing us to depend on and make money on their poor people, whaaah!
So do you support criminality?.
That’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.
Do you? Where is your call for accountability and prosecution of those who hire illegals?
Would it not be easier to police and punish US citizens illegal activity?
Why do you insist on pursuing only the immigrant?
Hmmm, could your position have a racial component, I wonder?
I would have no problem prosecuting those who hire illegal foreigners. Fines and, if necessary, jail time. But in this case 2 parties are culpable. The employer and the one who breaks into the country illegal and violates our labor laws. I would be a hypocrite if I only supported prosecuting the employer.
It’s got nothing to do with race. I position would be just as vigorous if we were being saturated with pastey white swedes, particularly when we have over 90 million Americans in the working age category who do not have jobs.
I noticed that you failed to answer my previous “yes” or “no” question. Typical.
“when we have over 90 million Americans in the working age category who do not have jobs.”
You sure you want to stick by that whopper?
Think about it. Real. Real. Hard.
Rethink what?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-94610000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-38
or do you believe the ‘comedian’ who said that “those who say we are not in a recovery, are peddling fiction” ???
Hey guys – Ziegfried, anonster, anon, Ricardo, BigBox …. all this immigration talk is hijacking Greg’s election post. Can you move the conversation over to the last Open Thread?
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2016/03/weekend-open-thread-in-which-a-pre-existing-condition-is-cured/
Thanks
OK, Vern, and send us a bill for the broken furniture. lol.
Thanks for trying, Vern. Should I just put “ignore the comments section on this one” at the bottom of the post, or should we change the color of them to a light pastel yellow?
Btw, the reason Merkel and some of the European nations are mad at Trump is because they’ve been stealing from us for years and we finally have a candidate who is calling them out.
We spend about $100 billion a year on defense to protect Europe. That’s $100 billion that they don’t have to spend to protect themselves.
We spend about $800 billion a year to subsidize Europe for their pharmaceuticals and medical care. If any of you have ever purchased American made pharmaceuticals in Europe from their pharmacies – you’d know what I’m talking about. They pay at least 50% less for branded pharmaceuticals at point of purchase than we do.
If Europe paid their fair share our medical costs would fall sharply.
Trump is pointing at the 800 pound gorilla in the middle of the living room and asking “What’s he doing here?”. Something no other Democrat or Republican elected has had to courage to ask to date. .
That’s why they hate him in Europe. 🙂
Jean-Marie Le Penn loves him.
In the words of Mr. Cantor…
Skadoosh!
I happened to notice a news clip about new, revised SAT exams coming out, and it got me thinking (especially perusing some names above) – without ANY inferences about this or that aspect of perceived “discrimination”, WHY CAN’T there be a SKILLS TEST for candidates, covering such areas as the mechanics of DOING the job they aspire to (government organization and responsibilities of their position and those they interact with, Robert’s rules and procedure of how their meetings are run, FINANCIAL LITERACY and how to analyze CAFRs and Budgets, financing and (consequences of) taxation, etc. ?
Haven’t we (at ALL levels) had ENOUGH of “on the job training”, ESPECIALLY when it DOESN’T SUCCEED ?? There are certainly enough of those capable of GETTING INTO office, delivering speeches, financing (!), navigating poll results to target strategy on a field where “truth in advertising” is IRRELEVANT. Requiring assessment of (any) skill in other LIFE CRITICAL occupations (doctor, pilot, child care, bridge design, etc.) HOW did “officeholder” get LEFT OFF the list, when WE GRANT (or stand by as it is taken) those in office SO MUCH POWER over an INCREASING NUMBER of areas of OUR LIVES? Especially in light of what seems to be the DECLINING sense of fiduciary responsibility in EXERCISING that power, shouldn’t WE the EMPLOYER, at least confidently expect COMPETENCY ?
For those who see it as an impediment rather than a mechanism of enforcing STANDARDS, (and probably equate the offices of US President and Class President in significance!) make it voluntary, (and that may itself be a useful indicator !), but AM I the only one who sees it as ABSURD that a manager of, say, those who deliver fast food burgers down the street, has MORE proven credentials for their job, than those who can deliver (or avoid) economic DISASTER, or perhaps nuclear weapons? Private sector employers maintain and enforce the dividing line between “those that want to” and “those who are able to”, if WE, the public sector “employers” don’t, or won’t, aren’t we just ASKING for the FAILURES we get??
New SAT tests = in furtherance of the dumbing down of America.
If they kept the same SAT system it would provide direct evidence that the nation is becoming dumber as the test scores continue to fall.
By changing the SAT tests and format they can cover it up.
(See Common Core).
Don’t worry, we’ve got plenty of evidence right here at the Juice.
I think you’re wrong about Bao drawing on Joe Dunn’s base. I think Bao takes more votes away from Lou Correa by far.
You’re the first person I’ve heard say that. What’s your basis for it?
“Incumbent Ken Williams faces challenges from Michael Parham and Mike Dalati. Williams, who won when his opponent died and could not be replaced under “top two” rules, is part of the highly conservative and pro-charter Board majority.”
Greg, may I inquire as to who supposedly died? I don’t recall Ken Williams ever having an opponent who died during an election.
Also, “top two” doesn’t apply here because there is no run-off. It’s winner-take-all in June.
I don’t recall her name, and I have had a long night of watching my candidate triumph in Michigan, but I’ll try to find out tomorrow.
Thanks for the correction on the vote totals. Do you know Michael Parham’s party affiliation, if any?
Parham is a Republican.