Anaheim Mayoral candidates Lorri Galloway and Tom Tait, shown in screenshots from PBS’s “Real Orange” on Nov. 7, 2013.
David Nazar of PBS had a story last night on what I call the “de facto primary” among “reform” candidates Lorri Galloway and Tom Tait in the Anaheim Mayor’s race. Here’s the video thanks to Voice of OC:
Nazar quotes Galloway as saying that Tait “has been doing a poor job, has been ineffective, and has been isolated” — and then, apparently recognizing how that summation from a reporter sounds, archly adds: “her words.” Galloway says that Tait has failed to build “consensus” on critical items, which Nazar explains meaning losing 4-1 votes on issues including the GardenWalk Giveaway, the Stadium Lot Giveaway, and district voting. She contrasts Tait’s agenda of “kindness” with her own belief that one needs hard to build “consensus.”
Their speech and appearance in the video certainly reflects what I’ve seen from them — and (this maybe drive Tait up a tree, but nevertheless) for me it recalls some of the “Iron Lady Hillary vs. No Drama Obama” debates of late 2007 and the first half of 2008. Then as now, both approaches had their merits.
Galloway apparently didn’t much like the video. She came out with this statement today, with the headline “Dear Tom”:
Dear Friends and Family:
My campaign for Anaheim Mayor 2014 has been in the news lately. After a PBS story aired last night, I am heartsick because I have allowed negativity to be the focus, which is something that I abhor, and I have often been on the receiving end of it Truthfully, I am honored to be in a country where someone like me has the opportunity and freedom to run for such an office. My faith in God tells me that the blessing will be in the journey, not in the victory or defeat. I just sent this apology to the Mayor of Anaheim, Tom Tait.
Dear Tom:
With all of my heart, I sincerely apologize. This has spiraled into something that is negative and was never my intent. What has been said by me is hurtful and not the message I wanted to get across. The worst thing about any of this is that I know I’ve lost your friendship and my heart is broken over that. The truth is that I do believe you have made courageous moves in standing up for what is right and you are a good and wonderful and kind man. I’ve said that in all my interviews but that is not the message that writers and TV people want to hear from me; they want drama and they focus on the negative. They didn’t want to hear about my wanting people to have a different choice. Regardless, my team and I will step back and get on the track that I set from the beginning which has no place in attacking you. Again, I hope you find it in your heart to forgive me for allowing this to happen. From my camp, it will not happen again. You and I have spoken many times about believing that this is much bigger than you or I. I still believe that.
Sincerely,
Lorri
Some people may be cynical about this; I resist that conclusion. I do think that, as evident from the video, they have very different styles. I do not think that she has to worry about having lost Tait’s friendship; to me he seems more bemused than angry — and at base he’s a practical guy. I also believe that she fully believes that she’d be the more effective Mayor — but clearly she should have understood that he would not fold easily, if at all. (She likely did understand that — but something in the video still apparently unnerved her.)
Here’s what I posted on Facebook in response to her open letter:
I’m glad that Lorri Galloway issued the statement that she did today, following yesterday’s broadcast of the video in the link above (which all interested in Anaheim should watch.) My position remains that these are two good people, both of whom have the interests of the people (rather than campaign contributions) in mind, both of whom I want on the Anaheim Council dais next year — joined by a third (or as many as it takes to get a majority) so that they can finally govern. What a great thing it will be for Anaheim when that day comes.
I understand that Galloway plans to stay in the race. To me, that’s neither surprising nor disturbing. At this point, we’re more or less in “primary” mode (although both sides of the Anaheim political divide cross parties, with Republican Tait and Democrat Galloway generally opposing Democrat Jordan Brandman and Republicans Gail Eastman, Lucille King, and Kris Murray), so I understand the desire to see how things shake out. What we’re going through now. in a de facto primary struggle, is to be expected. It shouldn’t and needn’t be acrimonious — but unfortunately some acrimony (especially among excitable supporters) is to be expected as well.
What I really DON’T like is seeing attacks by one candidate on the other, among the faction that I favor, which will just become grist for future attack ads supporting the faction that I don’t. Galloway says in her letter that she “gets it” — and I’m glad for that! The problem — and this has stumped me from the outset — is that I’m just not sure, when her pitch is that she would be a more effective leader than Tait, HOW she can avoid what essentially become character attacks (even though they are aimed at supposed ineffectiveness rather than, as usual, dishonesty or capture by special interests.) I still don’t see a way around it — but she pledges to find one, and there is plenty of time available for people to listen to what she comes up with.
I like them both. I’m closer to Galloway on policy issues, but I like Tait’s style and integrity — and I do understand his unwillingness to take a humiliating “demotion.” I hope that they’ll both be viable a year from now. Especially given that Tait has no higher political ambitions, I think that their joint success is good for the interests of my own Democratic Party — as well as for what should be the real interests of the Republican Party. Sometimes the interests of the parties can align — usually when opposing people who are just out to raid the public’s money and abuse the public’s trust for their own narrow self-interest. No one needs that — Anaheim sure doesn’t!
The problem for Galloway, if she wants to ratchet down tensions, is that some of her supporters (including in local blogs) are simply lummoxes. Here’s some willful ignorance clumsily expressed by one of them today.
With due respect to Galloway, that’s nothing negative about reporting Tait’s ineffectiveness on the dais. The Mayor is not overwhelmingly popular as his minions would have you believe. In many ways, Tait suffers from Jerry Amante Syndrome; someone who wants strong mayor authority within a weak mayor system.
With a pending entry into the Mayor’s race by Council member Lucille Kring, Tait will be lucky to hold on to traditional OC GOP support. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if he finishes third in a four horse race.
While a classy move by Galloway to apologize, there’s really nothing for her to apologize for. If anything, Tait should be apologizing to her for his supporters suggesting her only reason for running is to grease the skids of the Eli Home with more financial contributions. Public service to the citizens of Anaheim and work done on behalf of abused children are being politicized and that’s what’s shameful, not Tait’s “hurt” feelings.
He can always drown his sorrows with his drinking buddy from the OJ.
I think that I’ve heard of only one person even raise the “she’s just fundraising for Eli Home” idea and I don’t know that anyone believes it. (That person has no connection, so far as I know, to Tait.) I’m sure that Tait would disclaim that dubious notion immediately and without reservation. Maybe it’s time for Galloway to do the same with the Lummox quoted above — because he’s sure as hell not helping her with this sort of writing.
On to the merits: Tait is being outvoted 4-1. If one believes that Galloway would not be outvoted 4-1 on these same issues, then there’s something to her argument — but it’s simply hard to see how this group would be amenable to substantive compromise. They don’t need to, after all. They think that the money from all of the interests their supporting will elect them pretty much no matter what they do. (And they may be right!)
So while I can’t say that Galloway is wrong in this assertion, I think that it’s fair to say that she will find it tough to convince people that she’s right that she can someone bend the Pringle Ring enough to get them to abandon their master. I know from personal communications that she does have an argument to make on this point; I won’t recap it here, but it’s far from a slam dunk.
There is a divide, obviously, between those in the Democratic Party who think that Brandman, as the City Council’s only Democrat, should get to decide party policy on these issues — despite the fact that his political patron is avaricious Republican superlobbyist Curt Pringle and his three allies on the Council are all right-wing Republicans who are running for office in 2014 — and those of us who think that the tail of one elected official’s interested judgment should not be allowed to wag the dog of party policy. (I believe that you all know where I stand on that one.) But there’s another thing or two that lummoxes apparently don’t grasp.
The first, regarding the analysis of internal GOP politics, is that a lot of OC Republicans don’t like Curt Pringle, because he is primarily (and some would argue exclusively) out for himself. Among other things, he makes Republicans look bad. (This may explain his extreme interest in Brandman — as a sort of buffer to ensure that Democrats share some of the blame for what he does.) So Lummox’s analysis of Kring vs. Tait is foolish. The OCGOP does not look kindly on challenges to incumbents — and even if it did, a challenge to an incumbent over opposing funneling public money into Curt Pringle’s pockets is not likely to entice them.
But let me put on my partisan hat for a moment. As Vice-Chair of the Democratic Party of Orange County, my responsibility is not only to promote the party’s interests but to support candidates who are endorsed by the party — as Galloway would likely be — even if I personally disagree with that endorsement. (And I’m not saying that I would disagree with an endorsement of Galloway; she’s done much to deserve it. Brandman? Been there, done that.) But simply saying “Democrat good, Republican bad” is simplistic — and it’s a really poor strategy — unless you’re supporting Brandman’s supporting Pringle.
Here’s what I want: I want Galloway to be on the dais. I want Tait to be on the dais too because, like it or not, he is currently supporting traditional Democratic issues. I want them to be joined by a third like-minded person (and a fourth or fifth, if the Council expands.) So my question is: how do we accomplish that?
To analyze that, we have to consider the most important difference between Tait and Galloway. It’s not party; it’s not gender; it’s not race; it’s not height. It’s future political ambition.
Galloway is — and should be — an up-and-comer among Democratic politicians. Especially if she moves across the 55, she’s a credible candidate for Assembly when Daly moves on, for State Senate (probably depending on what happens with Solorio), Supervisor, and even for Congress, post-Loretta. (Not that there will ever be a post-Loretta, of course.) As I understand it (from those around her, not from her own mouth, and partly given previous races) she has political ambitions beyond being Mayor of Anaheim. As a Party official, my feeling is — WELL, SHE CERTAINLY SHOULD! That’s one reason we want gifted people to be elected to local office, so that they will eventually move into the county or state or federal legislature!
Galloway clearly has plenty of drive and confidence; I mean nothing negative — and indeed, nothing but positive — in describing her as politically ambitious. Unambitious people tend not to get elected.
But here’s the thing: Tait has no higher aspirations beyond being Mayor of Anaheim. He wants to be Mayor of Anaheim and nothing but Mayor of Anaheim. He likes what he can do in the position. He wants to remain in the area to run his business — which, unlike many businesses of local politicians, is an actual business. If re-elected, he’s not going anywhere. Maybe after re-election he might continue to sit on Council — but being termed-out is very different than taking a voluntary demotion, especially if one thinks that one is getting a bum rap.
So here’s my analysis at present: if Galloway were to forego the Mayor’s race, she would pretty much have to run for City Council so as not to become “old news.” She’s be answering the call of her party, and possibly literally saving the city for generations to come, among other things. Other than running for a County office, none of which besides Supervisor would clearly suit her, she doesn’t have a lot of other options. She says she wouldn’t run for Council. She may herself believe it. I don’t.
If Tait were to driven out of the Mayor’s race, I personally don’t think that he runs for Council. I know, I know — “why should I believe him?” I’ll tell you why: I go to those Council meetings. Being on the short end of a 4-1 majority is not fun — and the only thing that seems to make it tolerable for Tait is that he holds the perquisites of Mayor, including an enhanced ability to comment on things during meetings. Now, if his once and future ally Galloway is Mayor, that might not be so bad — but if not, I seriously doubt that he would want to sign up for a four-year stint of fortnightly humiliation by the likes of the current Council majority under Kring’s leadership. He doesn’t need this job — and he certainly doesn’t need that grief.
So my sense is that if Galloway shoulders aside Tait in the “reform caucus” primary, he just waves goodbye and leaves. And there goes pretty much any chance of a “reform” majority. That may put Galloway in Tait’s position, being outvoted 4-1 — and that is not good for her future ambitions.
If Tait edges away Galloway, however, she can still fight hard and tough from a minority position on Council — take principled stands and serve her ambition for higher office.
I don’t know that I’m right about all of this — and I’m sure that Galloway would eloquently and forcefully disagree — but if I’m right then Tait’s Mayoral candidacy is in the interests of the Democratic Party (which I maintain is aligned with reform, no matter what Brandman does) and in the interests of both Galloway and Tait. With a two-person coalition, maybe they successfully attract a dejected and resentful failed candidate Kring. Maybe party pressure grows on Brandman to give up his flirtation with the dark side and he joins them. (I’m not implacably opposed to Brandman; it all depends on what sort of person he turns out to be.) Maybe Eastman goes along with Galloway, especially if the temperature rises on scandal. The only Republican who seems inherently beyond inclusion in a reform majority is Murray.
Certain lummoxes have made sport of my arguing that I don’t want to see infighting between Galloway and Tait. They, as you can read above, want to see infighting. Galloway has shown that she’s smart enough to realize that it’s not good for her as well as not being good for either the Party or for reform efforts — all it does is give grist for campaign literature put out by anti-reformers. This suggests to me that certain lummoxes don’t really give much of a damn about liberal Lorri Galloway at all — but that their loyalty is truly with Brandman, which extremely unfortunately also in effect currently means with Pringle.
Galloway’s going to continue her campaign for now — and I can’t blame her. Maybe she’ll continue it forever — in which event (though he’ll never say so and might well be perturbed by my even raising the prospect) I suspect that Tait might drop out of the race if he wasn’t keeping pace, rather than split the vote and elect Kring. I just really don’t think that he’ll run for Council — though I think that he’d happily support Galloway for Mayor in 2018.
So what Galloway needs to figure out in the months to come is: are people like me, who have gamed this out and laid their cards on the table, ultimate her political enemies — or her friends? And are people who just want to use her as a means to drum Tait out of city government ultimately her political friends — or her enemies?
My opinion is probably obvious: I want her on City Council, as either regular member or Mayor. If Tait were willing to run for Council, I’d without hesitation want her as Mayor. But if he isn’t willing to lay down the gavel prematurely, then I just don’t see how pushing him aside works out well for her. I’m open to being convinced — but I don’t expect it to happen.
My fear right now is that I will end up supporting Galloway for Mayor — not only because of her party and her policies, but because next August Tait may have just decided that if people don’t appreciate what he’s done as Mayor, it’s time for him to step back from public life. I couldn’t really blame him. And as a Democrat — even one who disagrees with him on some serious issues — I think that that would be bad on the issues that currently matter most: issues of fairness, integrity, and honest service to the city.
Who’s advising her? Alex Flores????
Greg, no, it’s not a “primary,” de facto or otherwise. Whoever gets the most votes wins. Only one vote. Kring could be mayor with 34%, if Tait and Galloway each got 33%. Gaona could get 6%, Galloway and Tait 31% each, and Lucille could win with 33%. That’s what’s so horrible about this whole thing.
Am I missing your meaning? Are they changing the rules?
Are you familiar with the term “money primary” — something that occurs before a single vote is counted? That’s when people — say, John Perez and Betty Yee in the State Controller’s race — compete to see who can raise the most money, get the most endorsements, hire the best staff, and so on. It’s sort of like flexing muscles or ratting swords to try to intimidate the other person into standing down.
We’re in that sort of primary right now — not a real one.
I think the in the “primary” system it is ALL based on “before a vote is counted” that’s what’s fucked up. the whole reason a guy like Perez, completely unqualified for the controllers race can run, win and well…..exploit the fractured system.
To John’s credit, he knows how to play the game. Look at the disaster that his predecessor(s) are.
What a week for coincidence! Two back-stepping episodes, with more than timing in common. BOTH long after the original remarks, ONLY after growing public backlash was seen even in friendly media, and BOTH accompanied by more syllables than substance. I have no heavy bets that either the D.C or Anaheim ones exceed momentary damage control. Adding irony, most of the Tait criticism, beyond Galloway, over 4-1 votes is from those that favor the “4” side. Curious?
With your regard to the observation that Galloway is an “up and comer” I should point out that she’s 60 years old. Not a lot of time left to climb the ladder from the bottom.
Really? I had not taken her for that age. I had thought that she was about 50 (and she still looks younger than that.)
Do you argue the point that she has higher ambitions than Mayor?
I’m sure her ambitions are vaulting, as is usually the case.
However, I merely point out her age. I remember reading someplace that she was born in the early 50s.
So how is Galloway going to build consensus? She doesn’t have the political chops to keep the likes of Murray or Brandman in line. Galloway’s secret plan for building consensus and getting things done is coming across as the farm team version of Nixon’s secret plan to win the war in Vietnam.
If Lorri becomes mayor, I foresee one of two outcomes:
— The 4-1 votes continue, and we’re all subjected to regular whiny, petulant lectures from Mayor Galloway, delivered with her poutiest of pouty faces;
— The Kleptocratic Four find something shiny to distract Galloway (“Look, Lorri! The Angel Stadium Luxury Skybox Condo project will have a 3% affordable housing component!“). She can then convince herself that she’s finding her precious consensus and serving the common man, and the fleecing will continue via unanimous vote.
And God save us from Lorri running for any higher office outside the city. Her performance in the supervisor’s race showed her up for the lightweight she is.
Tough crowd….
Biff —
That’s essentially how Pringle ran the city for many years. He had potential adversaries feeding from his hand as it ferreted out bread crumbs so as to essentially co-opt them. That’s why when you take a time machine, you find embarrassing statements of support from Amin David and others in newspapers over those years despite the fact that, in the true balance of power, corporatism in Anaheim was advancing throughout his tenure with the clear upper hand.
I can certainly believe that Pringle did that and continues to do so. (Eastman and Kring, for example, don’t seem intrinsically set on doing the wrong thing the way that Murray is.) But it’s possible to make the best deal on something in exchange for support that doesn’t make a difference so as to better serve one’s group. It’s not inherently eveil; Gandhi, King, Mandela, etc. would sometimes take the half a loaf when it let to the best outcome. (What the best of them weren’t — critically — was self-serving.)
Anyway, statements of support in given areas don’t necessarily mean overall endorsement. Sometimes one can negotiate and compromise. Sometimes interests align.
For example: my position on the toll roads is now being advanced on the OCTA Board by people such as John Moorlach. Do I appreciate it? Sure! Will I publicly thank him for it? Sure! Does it mean that I now support his wider political agenda! No way! But it does mean that given a choice between people whom I dislike, as in a Top Two runoff between two Republicans, I very well might hold my nose and vote for him over someone I disagree with even more. (I’m saved from that because he’s not in my district.)
That’s a “statement of support” — on a given issue or even in a forced-choice race against a greater evil — but it’s not the endorsement you apparently take it to be.
Mandela? You must be talking about 1985 when he refused an offer to leave prison?
What’s the forced choice when Pringle was running unopposed at the times of these statements?
“Amin David, who heads Los Amigos of Orange County, a Latino advocacy group, said he was happy to hear Pringle would probably run unopposed.
“We certainly don’t want to lose him,” David said. “We’re very pleased with him. He listens to a lot of the ideas set forth by the progressives on council, Lorri and Richard. He cares about doing something different and decent for the working class. That’s very inclusive thinking.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/26/local/me-pringle26
No, dullard, obviously I’m not talking about that. Guess again.
As I recall, Pringle had taken some positions that much of the Latino community (not Gustavo and probably not you, I’ll guess) liked — and no one seemed to have a chance of beating him anyway. I’m told that he wasn’t as bad in office as he is now, where he can hide behind others. And so David did the politically wise thing and tried to cultivate a good relationship with him because there was no better option.
Those last six words are the ones that you seem to banish from your vocabulary — but doing so does not make you wiser.
Spoken like a true apologist goon!
And you fail to engage the substance of the comment as if you were the Great Pellejo Celofáno himself. Goon yerself.
I Remember Bella…
Yeah, that’s the one. Thanks for the link. Instant classic.
I seem to remember this was shot in her second fake new home. Just check out the thrift store furniture. Even a bad house stager would be embarrassed.
But that lummox Chmlewsky says it was a real home with family pictures ‘n everything.
Oh God,my brain exploded. I sat through the whole thing. Did anyone ever rescue Bella? Or was she rented too?
So I’m not the only one here who’s never seen this before?
As I have said, I don’t want either one of them getting roughed up because I was both of them on the dais, so — LOOK! SQUIRREL!
Again, in Galloway’s defense (kinda), has anyone seen a Christmas card from Loretta Sanchez? : x
FYI- this thread is verging on sexism (or at least providing the opportunity for the allegation). Then again, I would be the anti-Tait avenging angel if he announced with a little puffy dog on his lap. Actually, that would be hilarious.
That would be hilarious! Except a full two dozen of us would get the joke…
I love Loretta’s funny Christmas cards, ymous! (I never know whether I’ll continue to receive them, though.)
Yes, several comments by our crustier contributors on this thread could be criticized as sexist, but I don’t think that that’s their motive. What concerns me about that video, having now had some time to reflect on it, is less that she tried to demonstrate that she lived in this house at all — again, that’s a step ahead of most others who have tried to set up a secondary primary residence — or that she and her dog and her partygoers did an unconvincing job of it. It’s that either no one who saw the video had the guts to pull the emergency brake and tell her not to go forward with it or else that she didn’t listen to them.
If I had been a top adviser to her campaign and we had been reviewing the sole copy of that DVD prior to its publication, I’d have asked to hold the disk and by the time I was done with it it would have looked like sand. If it had been stored on one or more computers, things would have been even messier. Like “John Belushi taking Stephen Bishop’s guitar for a moment in Animal House” messy.
Um, yeah, right. I got her cards, too. There was one in which featured a burning cat and her wish for a hunky fireman to come down her chimney and put out her fire.
That was really funny.
I guess I missed it. Where is the sexism, or the potential allegation thereof? Please help.
Based on previous discussions, I doubt that we’re going to agree on even the potential presence of sexism, so why bother to start the argument? Maybe our Anonymous poster will come back and have a hand at it.
Ah, Bella. Let’s also not forget Lorri’s appearance on the Daily Show, where she embarrassed herself mightily by going in apparently thinking she was getting a straight interview. (Had she or her staff never watched or heard about TDS before?)
Hi ho, hi ho…It’s from the Daily Show…
Uhh, she seems to come off very well there. It’s Stephen Moore who’s the butt of the joke.
Except that Moore gets the joke and Galloway is completely clueless.
C’mon, they both look equally baffled. Rob Riggles was not well known back then, and I’m sure he presented himself as coming from some entity not called “The Daily Show.”
Sodomy is going to result? The arched eyebrows? He knew it was a gag, and maybe somebody told him.
Poor Lorri was so het up on her Joan of Arc in Pearls routine she missed out on the fun. Well, most of it.
They’re both making their usual faces. Stephen Moore likes to come off as some worldly wit. He ALWAYS arches his eyebrows like that and grins like a moron. He laughs like a hyena when there’s a joke that he knows is a joke. They were both equally clueless.
I’m sure he presented himself as coming from some entity not called “The Daily Show.”
Here’s a relevant snipped from an Onion AV Club interview about TDS:
While it’s possible that the show changed its practices between that piece and 2007, when Lorri was interviewed, it seems more likely that she just jumped at the chance for some national media without thinking too much about it — and came off as a humorless scold, as she often does.
I don’t know how The Daily Show gets so many folks who obviously don’t know they’re on the Daily Show. I remember Ali G before he got too famous, he had some entity set up, Youth Educational something something that sounded real legit.
Except that it’s not a joke. Both of them do get through parts of their points, the difference being that Galloway’s is sensible and Moore’s is stupid and repugnant.
So tell me something — if you’re ever contacted by The Daily Show for an interview about something serious and significant, do you think that the best choice is to:
(1) Refuse to be interviewed (and give up the chance for a focus on that bad activity)
(2) Do the interview, but broadly wink at the audience to show that you’re “in on the joke,” even if it ruins the interview and perhaps keeps the story from airing?
(3) Do the interview, play it straight, and maybe thus appear a little clueless about “the joke” — but succeed in getting across the point to a wider audience than you’d likely ever otherwise have?
Choice (1) is pointless. Choice (2) may sound like the right answer, but it’s egotism. Choice (3) may make you look dorky, but ultimately it should not be about you, but about the issue. If you think that the interview is for something far less admirable and humane than the Daily Show, then the correct answer probably is Choice 1.
I’m not all that happy with Galloway in some respects right now, but that interview brings her nothing but credit in my book.
Well, it’s still pretty funny.
Of course it’s funny… dude, it’s THE DAILY SHOW!
Hey, read my latest OCTA piece and comment, it’s pretty good.
Can I still say the Bella video was funny, or did I miss another slyly sensible and dignified message?
Ugh. That was funny by accident.
I’d be happy to defend the Bella video, but I’m a bit busy for the next year or so. Did I say “year”? I meant “decade.”
Sad thing is, I told her it was ridiculous, a couple weeks ago. If I were her I’d take it down, before somebody else preserves it for posterity. She was a little offended, and countered that she had gotten SO MUCH POSITIVE FEEDBACK from dog lovers.
I think that I should give you a more serious answer, though — and it’s not aimed at you personally given that I don’t know your position.
Anyone who wants to make fun of Galloway for, at worst, doing a much more credible job of doing EXACTLY WHAT MIMI WALTERS GOT AWAY WITH JUST LAST YEAR in her race for SD-37 against Steve Young — viz., setting up an apartment somewhere and making it look “lived-in” — is being hypocritical. I don’t know if what Galloway did would have violated any law; you may know that, Dave. But what Mimi did was explicitly contrary to the State Constitution — and her only real defense was “if I can get the State Senate to ignore it, then it doesn’t matter, because you can’t bring this up in court.”
One’s somewhat humorous. The other’s disgusting. I still don’t know why they didn’t throw her out — except that perhaps certain people didn’t want the same level of scrutiny into their own lives. So — prepared to make fun of Mimi, Dave?
I’m stepping back in preparation for an anti-Mimi Zenger fusillade. I don’t know him to be a kneejerk apologist for the worst of the GOP, do you?
Make fun of Mimi (R – Irvine via Laguna Hills Mansion)?
No. Faking residency is not funny. It’s serious stuff – a species of fraud perpetrated on the voters who are not expected to know the niceties of the law.
Galloway and Sidhu both did it in 2010 twice, each; Linda Ackerman did it in the fall of 2009; Umberg did it in2007; Walters’ was not even the most ridiculous given Sidhu’s alleged residence at the Calabria on Lincoln Avenue.
It’s a disease that afflicts both parties equally and shows the true character of those involved. Think about it: the candidate’s first official act is one of deception.
Galloway decided to show pictures of her fake home in Five Points and in doing so showed what a farce it was. The thrift store furniture was funny; the deception was not.
It shows the character of our entire system, in that few people get punished for it. Based on Steve Young’s investigations, I’m pretty sure that Mimi’s did not meet the state’s constitutional standards for residence; I don’t have personal knowledge of whether the others similarly transgress against applicable local standards.
And no, I’m not surprised that you take a morally consistent position on this. But consider: if Galloway had to go the extra step and make a “persuasive” video, it may be because she, unlike the others, could not have expected it to be as readily overlooked by the County’s “powers that be.”
I remember the Jon Stewart shoot, and yes they knew ahead of time that it was The Daily Show. Anyone who agrees to be interviewed and does not do their homework about the show is an idiot. Oh wait….
If the show flies you to New York to meet with Stewart, it is a real interview and while you will be treated to some humor, you are taken seriously. If they send one of the other hosts, you are done for, they are mocking you. And if Galloway was so dumb as a rock that she didn’t know any better, or failed to find out if she was unfamiliar with the show, what makes her think she is smart enough to run this City? Indeed, if she failed to get around a television host who telegraphs his moves, the Murbot and her entourage are going to walk all over her.
Reason #428 Galloway needs to get creamed next November.
“…if Galloway had to go the extra step and make a “persuasive” video, it may be because she, unlike the others, could not have expected it to be as readily overlooked by the County’s “powers that be.””
She made the “persuasive” videos because her residency had been loudly called into question – just like Sidhu, Ackerman, and Umberg before her. At least they had the sense not to advertise their fakeries. But fakeries they all were.
A perceived need to cover up based on some sort of persecution complex wouldn’t excuse the ruse.
I actually think she did pretty good on John Stuart.
If Lamb, who seems to be the avenging anti-Galloway angel, says she did good, then she did good.
SO MUCH BLOVIATING…
It’s a wonder that you subject yourself to it, over and over. And to form an opinion surely you must read every last word. Sad, really, given that you know you’re not up to it. Have a good weekend, tiger!
The apology is an insincere attempt to garner sympathy. Galloway is just discovering that it is much more difficult to run for office when she can not play the victim card. Notice the dog-whistle language: “someone like me.” Moreover, she does not take responsibility but instead blames the press… for quoting her directly.
Which brings me to my last point, comparing Galloway to Clinton is absurd. One recalls the SNL skit featuring Clinton and Palin. I wonder, will Galloway say she is qualified because she can see Anaheim from her house?
Chelsea Clinton.
“In many ways, Tait suffers from Jerry Amante Syndrome”
Indeed, that ‘s about as idiotic as it is possible to be. Tait is an almost perfect embodiment of the anti-Amante.
so, if i am reading this correctly, i should oppose both tait and galloway
If you are the willie deville you pretend you are, you’re probably already friends with Pringle, all in for Mayor Kring, and heavily invested in certain blessed parcels of Anaheim land. But if that’s true, I don’t know what makes you so comfortable on this ankle-biting blog.
its not a matter of comfort, its a matter of knowing and understanding the other side so that i can be one step ahead, my anaheim investments are secure but if i can understand, if not co opt the other side, i can double my profits
Excuse my asking, but how do you double down on 4-1 votes? London odds-makers? I’d like to have an answer for folks who ask”If you’re so smart, why not rich?”
Double? If you’re only doubling your money with connections, you’re really doing a piss poor job.
Look at what everyone else is getting!
Double. How sad.
Just got tipped off that those paragraphs from the “lummox” Greg quotes above are from Dan C. Did not know, because I so rarely go to that stupid blog any more. I assumed it was some anonymous asshat in a comments thread somewhere.
So Dan C finds some inexplicable similarity between Tom Tait and Jerry Amante, and Dan C threw in the gratuitous insult at the end. And Dan C thinks Galloway should be MORE aggressive against Tait, not LESS aggressive.
Dan C sez: Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!
BARLOW!