CD 4 : The Amazing Race

I want to apologize to TJR readers for a post a while back where I said something that turned out to be incorrect.

In analyzing the City Council race in District 4, I didn't like what I saw. A goateed, hipster doofus who liked to ride his bicycle everywhere and attend meeting after meeting to complain to those who didn't give a damn about him or his bicycle. A tree-hugging Irishman who was so far gone ideologically that he sang little love songs to Obama. And then there was me... the only Conservative in the race. I didn't think that these two were going to help me very much in forcing a runoff with Tom La Bonge. Combining these facts with my lack of campaign funds, I decided to drop out of the race and focus on a future Congressional run in 2012.

But then , something very rare and unusual happened.

The race completely changed.

Stephen Box finally got hip to some of the Mayor Sam bloggers and their criticisms of his personal fashion sense. He ditched the goatee and the hipster duds and cleaned himself up. He actually looks like a sensible politician now. And his campaign performances have been stellar. And this compliment comes from a potential opponent who wasn't too keen on Box at the start.

Box has been the most prepared and most eloquent speaker in this contest by far. His years of social activism and his many, many public speaking appearances at Neighborhood Councils have made him quite comfortable in front of crowds holding a microphone. His campaign issues have been thoroughly researched. His answers have not only made sense, they have shown a rare intelligence and insight into City dealings. Stephen Box has done his homework ...and he might get rewarded for it with a job in City Hall.

Tomas O'Grady, for his part, has also seen his stock rise considerably. Tomas got his mojo working, and has become the Rolling Stones version of a Street Fighting Man. His performance at the Los Feliz Improvement Association forum, where he openly mocked and ridiculed Tom La Bonge for being a photo-op politician, was by far the best highlight of this contest. The mocking tone sent La Bonge "on tilt" as they say in the poker world. La Bonge never recovered and has rudely skipped several forums after that night, damaging his chances at re-election. O'Grady also used his door-to-door hustling skills to get the support of large numbers of people in his Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council area. He made a campaign video that was by far the most honest and refreshing thing I've seen in City politics. And this political rookie also pulled off the coup of getting endorsed by the L.A. Times. Not bad for a first time candidate.

Tom La Bonge has been a surprising disappointment. After a 35 year career in politics, you would think he would have been better prepared than this. His forum appearances have been big on cheerleading and random City trivia, but have provided few answers as to how things would be any different with him in the City Council seat for four more years. Watching him on stage has been painful. It reminds me of the career-ending melodrama surrounding the demise of Council Member Jack Weiss in 2009. Although La Bonge isn't as desperate as Jack Weiss was, he still isn't doing very well. He is often flailing around on stage, desperately name-dropping and cheerleading to draw sympathy votes. He often completely skips answering a question to talk about city trivia. Blowing off several forums didn't help. And finally, Tom La Bonge has had to deal with the ultimate indignity of the two major newspapers in town dissing him in favor of the new guys. The Daily News endorsed Box. The L.A. Times endorsed O'Grady. Neither of them felt La Bonge was worth another four years.

In addition to the endorsements, Box and O'Grady have both qualified for matching funds, which is unheard of in City races. Usually the hand-picked and union-backed incumbents get huge donations and run against somewhat unknown and underfunded challengers. An incumbent Council Member hasn't been beat in an election in the last 24 years. But La Bonge seems to be doing his best to become the first.

I think Box and O'Grady have enough firepower to force a runoff. The question is after that... what can they do to work together?

Endorsement: Manny Aldana for L.A. Community College Board

I know that several Republican organizations are going with Lydia Gutierrez for this spot in the March 8th election, but I am going with Manny Aldana. I like Lydia and think she is a fine person....but I have more of a personal relationship with Manny Aldana.

Much like George W. Bush, loyalty and personal relationships are very important to me in politics.

It is important to know who your friends are... your enemies will always clearly identify themselves.

Manny stood by my side when I launched my Recall Effort against Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

He wasn't afraid to be on the Mayors enemies list because Manny has rare courage.

Even though the effort didn't succeed and we fell short on the signature gathering part, it was a fine attempt and sent a message to the Mayor that he was on thin ice with the voting public.

Manny is a good man and a solid Christian.

He doesn't just know the path, he walks the path.

I am happy to call him a friend and I will be helping his campaign doing phone calls in the next few days.

I give him my strongest possible endorsement and encourage others to vote for him in this election.

The Charter Amendments on March 8th

This is going to be a long post for me...

No on "G" - Pensions

Simply put, "G" is a charter amendment that shaves a little bit of pension money off of the cost of new people hired in the future. They would only get a 40% pension at age 50 with 20 years of service instead of the normal 50%. The new hires in the future would also have to pay about 2-3% more towards their health benefits.

Sounds like a good idea, right? Wrong.

It still allows people with high yearly service totals to retire with 90% pensions!!

Let me be clear about one thing... There are no - repeat "no"- city employees who deserve to earn a 90% pension at taxpayer expense. Even 75% would be generous.

The pension structure is a time bomb that will destroy this city.

"G" is a cute idea, but doesn't go nearly far enough.

And it is brought to you by Villaraigosa, Garcetti, Perry, Parks, Zine, etc....

You know, the Rocket Scientists who helped put the City $400 million in the red.

Vote No on "G" - Pensions

-------------------------------

Vote "No" on H - Fundraising Restrictions

The fact that this measure was so eagerly supported by the Green Party members was troubling to me... because they can't win an election to save their life. Of course they would want some big government program to decide who can and cannot donate money and where it goes.

Totalitarianism, wheee!

I've always felt that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional because it trampled on the rights of people to contribute politically based solely on the fact that they had more money than other people. It was a Socialist idea, and I'm glad the Supreme Court crushed major portions of it recently.

Actually, "H" is just a big pile of baloney. It's a bunch of high-minded, do-gooder liberals who always think they can "save" everyone from everything. Eric Garcetti and Jose Huizar are going to save us from corrupt campaigns and dirty money??

Shit... they don't enforce the laws they have now!!

Alarcon is under indictment, yet the cowardly other 14 Council members refuse to censure or remove him. Our City Ethics Department is about as useful as toilet paper, as Villaraigosa openly wipes his ass with their rules as he accepts hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from companies who do business with the City. But in this morally bankrupt city, he walks away without a scratch.

What makes you think another "do-gooder" rule will change anything??

It won't.

Vote "No" on H - Fundraising Restrictions

--------------------------------------

Vote "No" on I - DWP Rate Payer Advocate

Again, "I" is another "do-gooder" crusade to save the poor little citizens from the big terrible DWP!

Look, the problem is not that we don't have a Rate Payer Advocate.

The problem is that the DWP has become a lawless, rogue agency.

Quality management starts at the top, and when you have criminals like Villaraigosa, Alarcon, Huizar, and Cardenas openly looting the treasury and giving the middle finger to the voters.... it sends a signal to every other agency that this type of behavior is tolerated.

Many of you saw the undercover Channel 2 report of DWP employees drinking on the job and going to strip clubs while on City time.

Do you think if those guys worked at FedEx that they would have a job the next day?

The answer is not a Rate Payer Advocate.

It would just be some useless schmuck chosen by the Mayor anyway.

The answer is better leaders, who will terminate large numbers of DWP employees.

Vote "No" on "I" - DWP Rate Payer Advocate

_________________________

Vote "No" on "J" - DWP Budget & Transfers

I have never been in favor of "reactionary" legislation, and "J" is exactly that.

"J" is a temper tantrum by the City Council because the DWP extorted the City Council for a rate increase last year by threatening to withhold a money transfer.

What should have happened is that a powerful and courageous Mayor should have had several DWP executives arrested on charges of extortion and perp-walked into jail with TV cameras rolling.

Instead, we have boot-licker Antonio Villaraigosa in charge.

Yeah. Good luck with that.

Again, the issue is lack of leadership. Not the lack of rules.

Vote "No" on "J" - DWP Budget & Transfers

------------------------------------------------

Vote "No" on "L" - Libraries

Oh no.... How can Phil Jennerjahn hate on the poor little libraries?

The answer? I don't. I just see things for what they are.

Look at the top photo of the old, decrepit Pac Bell telephone booth.

When was the last time you used one of those?

Eventually, you are going to be saying the same thing about libraries.

The second photo is a Kindle, which allows you to carry an entire library in your backpack.

The way we acquire and use information is constantly changing ...and we have to adapt and change with it.

Most people nowadays can surf the internet on their phone. They can Google information in just seconds.

They can read books on their iPhones with a Kindle application.

They can purchase books wirelessly, download them, and start reading them immediately.

Not everyone is hip to this style of information yet, but more and more people are headed in that direction.

Instead of spending more money on libraries, the City should be spending less.

City leaders should shut all the libraries except for the Downtown Branch... transfer all the books there.

Sell off or donate duplicate books. Lease out the land from the unused libraries.

That would solve a lot of problems right there.

Because libraries aren't going to make it.

Think I'm wrong? The Post Office and the newspapers might disappear.

And they made billions in income in the past.

What chance do you give a library to survive?

Vote "No" on "L" - Libraries

----------------------------------------

Vote No on "M" - Medical Marijuana Tax

This is the City saying it gets to grab 5% of all the sales money from Medical Marijuana.

This is troubling in many ways. First off, it is a bit unconstitutional as it singles out a particular industry for unfair treatment. Regardless of how you feel about Marijuana issues, the City or State should not have the right to come storming in the front door and saying "I get to take your money!".

It is a troubling, extremely disturbing Socialist ideology that allows government leaders to believe these things.

That they can confiscate, without debate, the assets of others in a free society.

One of my strongest Libertarian beliefs is that in a free society, if you are not harming anyone, then the government has no right to take any action against you. I certainly don't like the fact that a lot of my fellow Californians like to use marijuana, but that is their business. It is not my business to be their lifestyle police.

I have always been alert to the dangers of creeping totalitarianism.

A government that has the right to declare Marijuana to be illegal has the right to declare that corn is also illegal. Or tomatoes. Eventually, you see the foolishness of this policy. It is a violation of Natural Law to declare a naturally occurring substance to be illegal.

Dropping an extra tax on something just because you don't like it is unfair and an unreasonable use of government power.

Even District Attorney Steve Cooley and Lee Baca are against it.

Vote "No" on "M" - The Medical Marijuana Tax

-------------------------------------------

Vote "No" on "N" - Campaign Finance

This is one of the few Charter amendments that might actually make sense.

The City is asking for voters to bail them out of trouble.

The City has several campaign finance laws that are unconstitutional and open the City up to liability and being sued by a candidate or other campaign.

The problem here? The City never should have had those laws in the first place.

Bailing them out only encourages them to trample on your freedom at another place and time.

I'm not inclined to save them from their own stupidity or to encourage other reckless legal behavior.

I'm voting no.

Vote "No" on "N" - Campaign Finance

------------------------------------------------------

Vote "No" on "O" - Oil Production Tax

This is just another Socialist money grab by the Socialists on the Los Angeles City Council.

In a free-market economy, companies that get burdened with extra taxes generally pass those costs on to the consumer. You would have to be an absolute idiot to vote for this Proposition O.

Of course, The Hamburglar and The Cat Whisperer support this plan.

That should tell you everything you need to know right there.

Vote "No" on "O" - Oil Production Tax

---------------------------------------------------

Vote "No" on "P" - Emergency Reserve Account

This is just more unnecessary meddling by the liberals on the City Council.

It is already their job to manage the City in such a way that there is always some money left for Emergencies. To formalize a certain percent means that they will eventually raise taxes to take that money from you if they fail or fall short. Keep them away from decisions like this.

Vote "No" on "P" - Emergency Reserve Account

--------------------------------------

Vote "No" on "Q" - Employment Provisions

It seems reasonable the the City would try to cut down on their hiring costs.

Actually , they need to cut down on their hiring.

I vote to force them to go on a diet.

Vote "No" on "Q" - Employment Provisions

--------------------------------------

In conclusion, to keep things fairly simple, just vote no on every amendment.

Remember, if a politician thought it up, it is probably not a good thing for you.

Jose Huizar: Poverty Pimp

I am receiving disturbing reports from friends who are active in the CD 14 election campaign.

The latest skinny?

Jose Huizar associates are going around in the housing projects promising that everyone getting their low rent/free ride will continue to get a good deal... if Huizar is re-elected. Huizar will "protect" their status like some type of "Barrio Godfather" if he is re-elected.

The not-so-subtle threat to these poverty-stricken people is that if Rudy Martinez is elected, he will be a tool of developers who will trash the housing projects to build something else.

Rumors, panic, fear-mongering... subtle threats and intimidation.

But intimidating people who are desperate to hold onto what little they have... wow... a new low in this campaign.

In Los Angeles politics, you always come to expect the worst in people.... and Huizar is setting a new standard.

Jose Huizar is a "Poverty Pimp", who is hoping to achieve success off the backs of those who have nothing.

I hope Rudy Martinez sends Jose Huizar into the ranks of the unemployed on March 8th.

Trouble Brewing at RPLAC & State Convention

Well, I don't like having to re-tell this story, but here it goes....

Former RPLAC Chair Linda Boyd has become a problem for the party. She doesn't know how to take an election loss with any dignity and grace, and she shouldn't be involved with the leadership of the party anymore.

Back in 2008, at the scheduled organizational meeting of RPLAC, Linda Boyd and Jane Barnett found out early that they didn't have the votes or support necessary to win the called-for election of County officers. In a huff, they stormed out of the meeting. This fact alone indicates to me that they lack the maturity necessary to be leaders. The election was held, and new officers took over the County Party.

Months later, in what has become known as "May 14th", Barnett, Boyd and others came storming back into power. They pulled off a "beer hall putsch" by charging into the meeting with supporters and angrily demanding to vote out every officer that had been elected in December. As they were the only ones who had knowledge of this maneuver beforehand, they had the numbers... violated the rules and regulations, and seized power.

The result of this was a lawsuit filed by those who had been elected to two year terms in December of 2008. The legal bill for this action is over $100,000 and counting.

Now comes word of this....

A younger crowd of Republicans has decided to move on with new leadership. At the scheduled February meeting, the Committee voted to endorse Adam Abrahms as our candidate for State Regional Vice Chair for Southern California. Unfortunately, Linda Boyd is also running for this position, and -- as witnessed in the past -- she cannot take defeat without reverting to highly unusual machinations.

Word is spreading that Linda is having Jane Barnett "pack" the committees with sudden and unusual appointments just before the trip to the State Convention later this month. The goal is to improve the numbers supporting her and to steal the election from Adam Abrahms.

I can't say for certain this is 100% accurate, but my sources swear that another dirty maneuver is underway at RPLAC.

Will Linda Boyd steal the election from Adam Abrahms? Maybe.

Jane Barnett very recently made some unusual and unneccessary appointments to fill committee vacancies at a highly questionable time. This tends to lead me to believe my sources are correct.

And from all the angry emails flying around ...others are not too happy about it, either.

Endorsement: Austin Dragon for Los Angeles City Council

This might be a bit of a tricky one for me, but I have to take a stand.

My former organization, Westside Republicans, along with The Republican Party of Los Angeles County are choosing to endorse Andrew Kim in this 10th District City Council race.

Me? I'm going with Austin Dragon.

Austin might possibly have switched his voter registration to "Decline to State" for political reasons. I don't know the facts, I just heard something like that. I'm still going with Austin.

I have seen Austin passionately speak about and defend Conservative principles at multiple political events over the last few years. That convinces me that he is a good representative for our cause.

Andrew Kim? I have never seen Andrew Kim at a single event that wasn't being held to promote his election.

No speaking at City Council. No rallying to the causes of others. Nothing.

Not to say he didn't do it, but I've been involved in politics and running for office for a few years now, and this Andrew Kim hasn't done anything that I have noticed.

Endorsement: Rudy Martinez for Los Angeles City Council

I have to be honest about one thing: I don't really know Rudy Martinez that well.

I haven't had time to research his issues or to know everything about him.

I did catch about ten minutes of him on his TV show "Flip This House" and he seemed like a responsible businessman who understands that you cannot spend more than you take in.

My main reason for endorsing Rudy Martinez is that Jose Huizar has become an embarrassment to the 14th District. Huizars recent revelations about his Nixonian "enemies list" made it clear that he is a self-centered egomaniacal politician who only cares about himself. Any community member who found their name on that list can be sure that they would not receive fair attention or efforts from Huizar or his staff.

Selective constituent services was what this mafioso-style thug was into.

He also appears to have embezzled City money to pay sky-high salaries to his staff members.

The voters there need a clean break from this dirty past with Jose Huizar in CD 14.

Rudy Martinez would be the fresh start that CD 14 needs.

I endorse him and encourage others to vote for him this March 8th.