Our old friend Barbara Giasone penned one of her edgy, hard-hitting news pieces the other day about the upcoming Miss Fullerton Competition.
Since we ran a piece awhile back about the geezers in the Chamber of Commerce laying hands all over complete strangers – women young enough to be their grand daughters, this news flash caught our attention.
The propriety of having these young women present themselves at Chamber events to be touched, and touched often, smiling all the while, seems to be a strange way to have to earn an educational scholarship. Just think about it: okay honey you gotta go to this cocktail party full of friendly guys. Just think of them as your dad, or grand dad. What? You’re not 21? Hmm. Well, it’s really not like it’s a bar, exactly. Anyway there’ll be police there too, so that’s okay.
Why can’t these young women write essays, or feed homeless people, or do something equally uplifting? Why do they have to attend Chamber of Commerce cocktail parties for photo ops? Seriously. Why?
Well, that’s what pageant winners do, for gosh sakes, some will argue. It’s all harmless, and maybe they like it! Well, maybe they do. And maybe they don’t – and just can’t say anything. In any case it’s pretty hard to escape the conclusion that these contests are are just weird hold-overs from the early part of the last century.
Here’s some help: visualize these women without tiara and sash in the same photos, same poses. Damn friendly girls, wouldn’t you say?
We have no idea what the Miss Fullerton competition entails, but it seems pretty clear that the winner’s attendance at mixer events held by the Chamber is inappropriate for several reasons.
And if the idea is so damn hot, and not at all sexist, then why isn’t there a Mr. Fullerton constest? We’d love to see Dick Jones with his arms around the waists of a couple strapping, scholarship-hungry young guys!
Over at his Repuglican PR firm, er, Red County blog, our old playmate Matthew Cunningham has taken great offense at the good post “Rogue Elephant” wrote on the Orange Juice blog the other day, and that we generously shared with the Friends, here.
Why is he offended by Rogue Elephant’s post and our take on it? Because the post pointed out that former State Senator Jim Brulte gave Linda Ackerman $3900 out of his bogus BoE in 2014(!) campaign committee. We pointed out that her husband’s equally bogus BoE 2010 (created in 2006!) committee also gave her the same amount. We noted that these committees were basically money pots that politicians could use to finance their maintenance of power and influence. In other words a scam – create a committee for a fake political campaign and then use it as an influence buying cash cow.
Cunningham got his knickers in a real wad and noted that FFFF is a political committee, too, and that there is no difference between us and the donors to Ackerman. See, it’s all about free speech. Shame on us.
What a howler.
It seems to have escaped Cunningham’s notice that we are not politicians; we don’t raise funds under the guise of a phony run for office. We aren’t pretending to run for anything as a way to hang on to money raised for other offices. We don’t redistribute money as a way to influence elections and buy friends. Our purpose is to to promote causes and candidates we feel are worthy, but we’re not in it to amass wealth, or to keep control of wealth courtesy of people who contributed for other purposes. Too bad none of that can be said about Brulte or Ackerman.
Repuglicans have gotten into the nasty habit of using the “free speech” complaint as an argument to support any kind of deceit practiced in the pursuit of power. But at the core the issue isn’t about free speech – it’s about a fundamentally dishonest way of maintaining influence in Sacramento. Of course the crooks and their hangers-on can’t admit it. If it ain’t illegal it ain’t wrong. Plus the Democrats do it too!
What a culture.
In case any of you Friends happened to come across this 10/12/09 blog post in The Register, by Teri Sforza, you might have come away with the idea that Fullerton City Manager Chris Meyer was the white knight who came to Fullerton taxpayer’s rescue last year when the unions proposed to increase their retirement formula.
The usually healthy skepticism of Ms. Sforza seems to have been suspended in her conversations with Chris Meyer. He fooled her into thinking that he was the fiscally responsible official who put a stop to the craziness.
Wrong! That person was Councilman Shawn Nelson – who the blew the whistle on Meyer & Co., who had been trying for months to push the deal through quietly, behind closed doors. The poor public suckers who are ultimately on the hook weren’t supposed to know what was going on, so the agenda items were not described. It was only after Nelson went public with the news that a pension spike was on the way, and Steve Greenhut of the Register brought wider scrutiny to the secret plan, that it was ultimately dropped. The fact that the market had really tanked by then helped.
For Meyer to try to grab the credit a year later is pretty low. Especially when he was one of the prime architects of the plan. He must think we have real short memories. Here’s your real hero:
Ultimately the credit goes to Nelson for the fortunate turn of events. For Meyer to take credit for any of this is just laughable.
UPDATE: 10/15/09 8:00 am.
AT THE RED COUNTY BLOG CONTRIBUTOR ALLAN BARTLETT HAS POSTED AN ACCURATE TAKE ON THE “DESPERATION” MAILER, ITS POSSIBLE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, AND A STRONG ENDORSEMENT OF CHRIS NORBY. ALLAN IS ON THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE AND IS KNOWN FOR HIS INTEGRITY. GOOD FOR HIM.
Orange County’s own original Fart Boy, Matthew Cunningham may be a poster child for the dangers of methane inhalation. Of course we speak figuratively. As an all around sycophant he has to do a lot of sniffing and smiling, and it can’t be easy. He has finally come across a situation where he can’t compliment everyone in the room for their aroma at the same time.
One of our readers alerted us that today he put up a post about the nasty little sexual harassment hit piece on Chris Norby that his other friends, the Ackermans, let fly through the mail. His bland description of this toxic waste is clearly meant to both disassociate himself from it, and yet avoid criticizing it. He can’t quite seem to screw up the courage to share the facts of the case. So there’s no critique, explaining the fact that the claimant was fired by the County for misfeasance and that no charges were leveled against Norby until after she was fired; no recognition that the the jury foreman claimed after the trial that Norby hadn’t really done anything wrong; and no observation that the nuisance suit was reversed on appeal.
Cunningham has often referred to his “friendship” with Chris Norby. Well here we can see the value of that friendship. It’s obviously not worth incurring the anger of Dick Ackerman, even over a piece of slime that’s low – even for him. Yes, we knew it was coming. But that doesn’t excuse it. Cunningham was probably hoping the excrement would be tossed not by the Ackermans themselves, but rather by a surrogate. Well, too bad. It wasn’t. It has Ackerman’s name on the back. His other “friends.”
And what is really revealing in all of this is that other than this one slime the Ackerman campaign has nothing. Zero. But you’ll never hear that from Fart Boy. What a friend.
We’ve taken a bunch of legitimate shots at Chris Norby’s opponent in the 72nd Assembly District Special Election, Linda Ackerman. You know: she’s doesn’t live in the district; has a fake “residence” with another family on Lindendale; has applied the completely phony “businesswoman” label to herself; has been paid by her husband’s political campaign; and has even cooked up a scheme to get free Hawaiian vacations – compliments of lobbyists. The list of negatives just goes on and on. In fact, there’s hardly anything in her campaign that isn’t fraudulent.
We haven’t taken much time to say why Chris Norby would be good for us, and for California. So now we will.
First, Norby is not part of the slimy and incestuous Sacramento culture of corruption that the Ackermans have immersed themselves in for 15 years, and that’s a pretty big deal. Norby actually has informed opinions about State-wide issues like budget reform, education and Redevelopment; and, unlike Ackerman, Chris doesn’t just shovel out hollow platitudes about being a conservative.
Furthermore, Chris has a real legislative record – standing up for the people of Orange County against the perpetual demands of the public employee unions. He has opposed retroactive pension spikes put in place by some of the same dubious cast of characters that have endorsed Linda Ackerman. Over the years Chris has stuck up for the property rights of small businesses and homeowners against the depredations of government. Linda Ackerman chooses this very record on Redevelopment to draw a distinction between Norby and herself. And of course compared to Norby’s long conservative track record, Mrs. Ackerman has no record at all. Zero. Zilch. Just election slogans put in her mouth by her campaign manager.
We like the idea of Chris in the Legislature; with real ability to work on issues, especially the long-overdue reform of Redevelopment. The lobbyists won’t like the idea of Norby coming up to Sacramento, and that makes the idea really appealing to us.
At local campaign events the contrast between Norby and Linda Ackerman has been stark. Chris has been engaged, knowledgeable, and has spoken authoritatively about real conservatives issues. His opponent hasn’t done any of these things.
Although the Ackermans have tried (and will continue to try) to attack Norby’s morality by innuendo and gossip, it is the Ackermans who gave the disgraced Mike Duvall their support. Voters ought to reflect on that when they consider who is qualified to speak about morality with any authority.
Finally, Chris lives, and has always lived in Fullerton, unlikeLinda Ackerman who moved out ten years ago when greener pastures opened up in Irvine. He has never lived in a “secret, gated community” for “the privileged few.” He didn’t have to fake a residency with another family to evade the requirements of the law.
And so we say: Chris Norby for the 72nd Assembly!
Yesterday Rogue Elephant posted this over at the Orange Juice blog. The gist of the post is that a loophole in state campaign finance laws permits politicos like Repuglicans Jim Brulte and Dick Ackerman to cook up “putative” campaign committees for future office in order to transfer existing campaign balances, raise tons of money from lobbyists for these supposed campaigns, and then distribute the proceeds to exert influence in other elections across the State.
Rogue Elephant notes that Loophole Linda’s 72nd Assembly power grab has received $3900 from Brulte’s 2014(!) Board of Equalization Committee. What he doesn’t mention is that she also received the same amount (the limit) from her husband Dick’s similar committee, also for the BoE. Ackerman set up his “2010” BoE committee in as far back as 2006 according an article in the Oakland Tribune that describes the practice.
Why the BoE? Because these useless barnacles have been scraped off the legislature – termed out, but haven’t finished working the system, not by a long shot. They need a plausible office to “run” for, even if they have no intention of actually running. In the meantime Brulte actually works as a lobbyist for an outfit called California Strategies – a collection of former electeds and appointeds working their contacts.So when he gives Mrs. Ackerman money, he can kill two birds with one stone!
Rogue Elephant sums up his take on this pungent mess:
While Linda Ackerman’s campaign funding smells of Sacramento’s bipartisan Culture of Corruption, it also reeks of a Culture of Creepiness. Voters and taxpayers should find it creepy to see former politicians and lobbyists using political slush funds to pull the strings of candidates like Linda Ackerman.
Just as we reported earlier today about Orange, the Linda Ackerman campaign coughed up some more local endorsements, this time in Redevelopment-friendly Brea – where nobody’s property is safe from the City – if they want it.
Here are the two money “quotes”:
“For over 30 years, Linda has served the people of this community,” said Brea Mayor John Beauman. “I support Linda because she is for people, not politics.”
Ho, ho, ho! Mr. Beauman who is known as a bit of a dim bulb supports Linda because she is “for people.” Evidently he is unaware of her Pacific Policy Research Foundation vacation/lobbyist scam; or that she used her husband’s campaign fund as a family cash cow. But Linda is for people. Well, hell! Linda and Dick are “people,” right? So everything’s kosher.
Then there’s this sparkling little jewel:
“I know that Linda will bring a fair, business-minded approach to the state’s budget debacle. The taxpayers of Brea need her in Sacramento to fight for fiscal responsibility and limited government,” said former Mayor of Brea Bev Perry.
More hilarity! We’ve already discounted Ackerman’s so-called business experience so we can dismiss that; what other tools she has in her shed to tackle the state’s “budget debacle” goes unstated by Perry. We’re pretty sure by now that Ackerman will be fair – and give all those Sacramento lobbyists their day at the trough. As far as responsibility and limited government go, we can only say that putting those words in Bev Perry’s mouth attains a new level of political cynicism – even for the Ackermans. Bev Perry was part of the Brea Redevelopment eminent domain machine that ran roughshod all over property owners in what used to be their downtown. Who’s next Lynn “Bulldozer” Daucher?
What a team!
Yesterday the MWD General Manager abandoned the proposed pension jump for employees that would have raised their retirement formula. Here’s the story. He conceded that the votes weren’t there. Which means, of course, that a vote was held, only not in public. Somehow that seems like it should be illegal – Brown Act-wise, but of course government bureaucracies are legally incapable of committing any sort of crime.
We’re disappointed because a public vote would have put our MWD Board Appointee-for-life, Jim Blake on the spot.
All of his public employee lovin’ instincts would have pointed Blake in the direction of approval; under normal circumstances his pension-spiking Council overlords (and ladies) Bankhead, Quirk-Silva, Keller, and Jones would no doubt have backed him up. Who cares if water rates go up, right?
But these are not normal times, what with militant Republicans agitating for tax revolt and special elections putting the spotlight on people like MWD Boardmember Linda Ackerman – who also gets to dodge the responsibility of the vote. Very convenient!
And the union members will never have the opportunity to know how their buddies would have voted.
With the light of public scrutiny shining on the usually opaque doings of the MWD, the whole thing has collapsed like a house of cards.
