Emphasis added, in yellow. (By the way, it IS theoretically possible than a Democratic candidate may run against Gail Eastman and Kris Murray.)
Sometimes, I find my political perch as a mainstream liberal Democrat in Orange County amazing and amusing. On the one hand, I get grief from the Oh-So-Leftists Duane Roberts and Gabriel San Roman and Libertarian Anti-Democrat Gustavo Arellano for trying to promote progressive interests in Anaheim through the Democratic Party. On the other hand, I get abuse from from the “Business Democrats” within the Democratic Party, who have never given up their long-term chokehold on the party, for praising wise stewardship on corporate subsidy issues. (Add Jose Solorio and Miguel Pulido to those three highlighted names in the Eastman endorsers graphic — of course meaning Daly, Correa, and Brandman, not Duane, GSR, and Gustavo — and you have the full list of Democrats who represent “the future of our party” that was repeatedly drummed into Democratic ears at Central Committee meetings in previous years.) I think that this may be because I’m one of the relatively few people who is actually in routine communication, fraught as it may be, with both groups.
Duane and Gabriel say that the Democratic Party stands for nothing — or at least for nothing good. I don’t see them as providing much of a solution — when you’re crowing because your movement elected one person nationwide to a City Council race in a left-wing city, that’s a sign that you’re not really hitting for power. I disagree with Duane and Gabriel that the Democratic Party is an inherently impossible vehicle for promoting the interests of the public — for all of its problems, it still seems to me to be the best hope — but some days it’s harder to make that argument than others.
This day, when the above pitch for Eastman came out, is one of those days.
And if you’re keeping track, at left you’ll see the flyer from Kris Murray’s re-election event from late June. The third name listed on the Host Committee: Jordan Brandman. The retiring Lion of the Building Trades, Jim Adams, is a bit further down the list.
It seems to me that there is going to be a big constituency available next year for opposing Anaheim’s gigantic tax (or tax receipt, if you want to be precise) giveaways to big corporate interests. One current question is whether any viable Democratic candidates will be in the race to take advantage of it. (Republican candidates may well be running on such a platform. In much of the country, and even in much of our own county, this would be considered ironic.) At least Sen. Correa and Asmb. Daly are apparently open to the prospect of supporting one Democrat against Murray; unless the size of the Council is expanded next June, Brandman’s dance card is full.
The other question, of course, is whom these three Democrats will support in the race for Mayor. One would think that it would be Galloway — but does it really make sense to support Eastman and Murray, on the one hand, and Galloway on the other?
And what if Galloway does end up running for Council, if the system remains at-large, rather than for Mayor? Would they support Kring over Tait? (Yeah, one would think so, wouldn’t one?)
From the perspective of Anaheim voters, my suspicion is that all of the names on Eastman’s flyer seem to come from one party. After all, they’re all supporting the same one candidate — the candidate of OC TAX PAC, which is ironically (or maybe not so ironically, given that that future General Fund revenue might go largely to funding Social Services in what is expected to become a less wealthy city) supporting a candidate from the “loot the City Treasury” faction. Surely, there is another faction — the “wise stewardship” faction — but is there a party willing to be behind it?
Part of the Republican Party — Tait and his many supporters from there — is behind it. The only City Council-level leader among Democrats that is behind it is Galloway. Failing to keep up with the Republican faction — for the sake of a bunch of campaign contributions but at the cost of muddling our fundamental message — seems like an immensely stupid move for Democrats. Are we really betting that people won’t catch on?
Perhaps we are — but if so, it’s going to be over some raucous internal dissension. That may not be much, but it’s the best that some of us in the party can do.
And do you know what some within the party call us for that dissension? “Bad Democrats.” (Oh well — at least it can give Duane and Gabriel a good laugh.)
We can all look forward to seeing Kring’s list of endorsers, when it comes out. This will be interesting.
“We can all look forward to seeing Kring’s list of endorsers…”
Yes, that will be very awkward for some of our invertebrate Republicans who have recently latched themselves to one of Pringle’s teats.
Matthew 25:32.
Izzat the teat verse?
I can’t claim it to be gospel, but at the DPOC meeting last night I was informed by a good friend and political ally of Jordan’s that he does not plan to endorse in the Mayor’s race. Interesting if true.
So it’s all good with Jordan, WHO becomes Mayor, as long as Jordan, Kris, Gail (and Lucille one way or the other) keep their majority. And Democrat Dan stays best friends with this guy … and will NEVER broach the delicate subject of why Jordan put racist Amanda Edinger on the districting commission.
And Dan trashes good Democrats like you and Ricardo for even bringing such things up.
It’s not just Dan. The fur has begun to fly in earnest, both in meatspace and in the interwebs.
(Please consider my story draft confidential for now, by the way.)
How does all this tie in with Dan C’s grand plan to build a Democratic majority in Anaheim around his BFF Brandman.
And seriously, Jesus Christ, when is he gonna unleash a fraction of his partisan fury on fuckin Jordan that he does on you?
I look forward to the perfect rational and absolute truth being concocted to explain this.
Bloviator: I’m as much a Libertarian as you are concise—but gracias for proving again that you’re a pathetic bloviator who thinks he knows anything about Anaheim politics with your slams at Gabriel and Duane!
Hey– you two. Bigger picture. Get it together for 12 months.
Between Greg and Gustavo, which do you think would be more apt to do that sort of thing?
What, an ego check?
Well, hopefully both can recognize that bickering like two honey badgers only helps the wolves we’re trying to chuck or keep out of office.
I’m sorry — I had just presumed that Gustavo already knew that he was a libertarian. Hell, calling him that is not even an insult — it’s just descriptive. Accurately descriptive.
While I appeciate the sentiment behind your comment, Ryan, it’s not as if Gustavo and me are natural allies on matters like Anaheim. I think that that’s true of me and Duane or GSR, where we have similar goals and mostly disagree on the means of achieving them: do the difficult work of participating as a faction in a major party (me) or the almost impossible work of building a movement that is both outside thr major party system and not almost certain to be coopted by it upon any substantial success.
Gustavo has a good heart when it comes to most things political — despite the bullshit posturing, I mostly find “Ask a Mexican” to be a worthy contribution to the alt media. (No, he’s no Dan Savage, but few can be THAT good.)
But Gustavo is not really interested in politics so much as in placing himself above politics — the generally unhelpful “both sides suck” approach that allows him to suck up to readers by depicting them as people who, like him, “get it” and know to treat those trying to take part earnestly within the system with disdain. It’s good brand positioning, but lousy praxis.
So if you have any good idea as to how this honey badger can cooperate usefully with that one, let me know, because I don’t see what he’s willing to do to hold the right people’s feet to the fire.
“the generally unhelpful “both sides suck” approach”
And yet it frees him from the sort of partisanship that habitually turns a blind eye to the doings of people like Carona, Pringle, Pulido, etc., etc., etc. until the indictments come down and the cockroaches scurry for the baseboards.
My only complaint about Gustavo is that Weekly does too much court reporting on the Real Creeps of OC and doesn’t do enough on the Real Political Creeps of OC.
Still, I doubt if I fit the profile of the typical Weekly reader so what do I know?
I don’t feel bound to that sort of disingenuous partisanship, do you?
Yes, journalistic independence is great — depending on what you do with it. Simply sneering and preening ain’t politics.
I disagree with you a bit — I like Moxley’s court reporting. But yes, beyond the occasionally edifying freak show, there’s no reason at all (in principle) that the Weekly could not be every bit as good at raking real muck as the Voice of OC. It’s a matter of wanting to do it and hiring the right people — and many of the people they have are competent enough, if they’re allowed to put aside the “snide hipster” house style.
Ryan, not wolves, jackals.
Gustavo tends to get too territorial about Anaheim stuff, but as an historian I appreciate his perspective as one who was around during the Great Evisceration of central Anaheim back in the 80s. That was a defining time for Anaheim and very few people making decisions remember what happened.
well, i for one, am going to take a stand for principle on this one,,,,i am giving up my annual pass to knotts berry farm
Greg, both side DO have major problems.