Thursday, October 11, 2007

Who are the "Local Solutions" candidates this time?

Not that you couldn't see it coming with Salzman pimping Pat Higgins. Campaign disclosures from Higgins indicate that he paid "Local Solutions" $105 for 5th District precinct/voter analysis. No donations FROM them showing up, and word is there will be none forthcoming. Their website hasn't been updated, far as I can see since Nov. 2006. Dare we hope we have seen the last of that abomination?

Remember "Local Solutions" mission: We believe that the quality of life in Humboldt County is threatened by unsustainable practices in the pursuit of private profit. To create a more sustainable community, we need leaders and officials with vision and a committment to long-term strategies designed to keep Humboldt County a desireable and livable place for future generations.... because they were inspired by the momentum in winning the initial Paul Gallegos for District Attorney campaign in 2002, defeating the Maxxam-funded D.A. recall campaign a year later

I'd like to hear what they have to say about how that jibes with the destruction of the DA's office, the DA getting semiautomatic weaponry and setting up his own assault team, about his losing all the experienced prosecutors, about his plagiarism - and you know - just how he fits that description about making Humboldt County a more desirable and livable place for future generations. Right now, your track record sucks. Every day's news proves it.


  1. Smear, Smear, Smear... and what about the issues?

  2. "Local Solutions" involvement is an issue. It tells you a great deal about a candidate, actually.

  3. I wouldn't tar all the Local Solutions participants with the Salzman brush.

    Yes, many were Gallegos zealots, and I certainly experienced their wrath. But you have to cut people some slack during a campaign when emotions are whipped up.

    Pat Higgins is a thoughtful person. It's fine to disagree with him, but pretending he's a "partisan gunslinger," to coin a phrase, or a Salzman sycophant... not so much.

  4. Not disagreeing with you, Kevin, but anyone as politically involved as Higgins ought to know better.

  5. Know better than to buy research that may aid his campaign? I guess I don't see what's so wrong with that, for any candidate.

    He's probably looking for likely/liberal voters. It seems like a logical and practical thing for an office-seeker to do, nothing more or less.

    BTW, Richard has a cool hat. Quite debonair.

  6. Gee Kevin - I agree with you on a great deal of things. Richard's hat is not one of them. It looks ridiculous.

    You know the old saying - one man's dinner is another man's garbage....

  7. By the way, didn't Local Solutions and Richard Salzman publicly undergo a really messy divorce quite a long time ago?

    I'm pretty sure they did.

  8. But who was the hero and who was the villain?

    Surely, as with all issues, we have to take sides in this thing.

  9. So rose, who do you think Mr. Ollivier might be beholden too? Did you look at his financial statement? Did you go to the elections office yourself to get the information?

  10. Rose doesn't see any inconsistency that Ollivier's campaign manager is Mike Harvey but Ollivier's large contributions to Dems. has gotten him political patronage in the form of nominal Dem. endorsements. Why doesn't Ollivier wear his Republican connections proudly? I'd say there's nothing in the Local Solutions goals that are inconsistent with Democracy or Capitalism

  11. I'd say that Ollivier's support shows that he wins support from both sides of the aisle, which is rare in this partisan day and age. I believe in supporting good people regardless of their political designation.

    With regards to "Local Solutions" - Kevin and Hank, you both give them far more credibility than I do. I saw their genesis - and saw the purpose of Salzman forming yet another euphemistically named group to serve as a fundraising arm, and draw good and idealistic people into his web.

    They were used, willingly at first, and then it appears they realized their mistake, thus the supposed "messy divorce." But does that mean they no longer go along with him, or just that they cannot afford to be publicly linked to him? I don't know the answer. I don't doubt that some of the so called founders are good people, but their approach is an agenda driven one - and my point is that the aim to get "progressives" into office is bad for this county. And Paul is the clearest example of that - yet I haven't heard one of them decry the gross abuses he has perpetrated.

  12. So on what issue is Ollivier good. Or is he just a good person? Are saying that he dosen't have an agenda? Is having an agenda the same as being politicly active? Don't you have an agenda?

  13. So your agenda is to not have "progressives" elected.

  14. Long answer. You'll be sorry you asked.

    First question first: Ollivier has said that his agenda when he first set out was to be the voice for labor, which he felt was not being represented. Looks like he did a pretty good job, since he obviously has alot of labor support.

    And since this is a real bay, with a working port, and not a Disney movie, that has real value.

    Ollivier and the other longtime Commissioners cared about all those things when being Harbor Commissioner wasn't sexy. All of a sudden its sexy. Why?

    That's where the issue of being agenda-driven comes in. The bad side of agenda driven comes when someone like Salzman pushes candidates because he needs to be able to "count to three" on the Board. He is working for an agenda which isn't disclosed, and doesn't really have anything to do with conducting the people's business. It has to do with accomplishing his goals. You've seen his tactics.

    Enter "Baykeeper." A group with an agenda - and that agenda centers around the bay. Suddenly Harbor Commissioner becomes a position they need.

    It's easy for a candidate to fall prey to this - because they are suddenly being courted, complimented, and supported. "How could a group like "Local Solutions" be bad? They just want to help. They are smart enough to recognize that I am a good candidate, they see my opponent's flaws, they are just well meaning people who want to help. Everyone says they know what they are doing, and god knows I need someone who knows what they are doing. So, as a candidate, I accept their help."

    It's only down the road you find out that there is an agenda attached. And only if you don't do what they want that you learn the consequences. You need look no further than what happened with Jill Geist to know what happens next. Same thing with Harmony Groves. Wails of "she has betrayed her base!" if she dares think for herself, and then the attacks begin.

    From my perspective, you support a candidate because you believe they will make the best decisions for the community as a whole. That they understand and value the concept of community service and they can leave their partisanship, if any, at the door. I don't expect anything in return except that they do a good honest job. I expect that there will be issues that I will not agree with them on, decisions they will make that I will not like. That's life. If there are enough of those, I will not support them the next time, and will not vote for them again.

    That's not what I see happening with certain groups - and the ones who call themselves "progressive" are the primary violators. I call them the "shut it down" crowd. Their agenda is indeed "regressive" and not "progressive" as has been said by many others on these blogs. In the case of Gallegos, again, their poster boy, he has set the county back 20 years, into the dark ages of child abuse prosecution and domestic violence prosecution and victim/witness services, all things which self proclaimed "Liberals" and "progressives" once cared about. Yet they sit mute.

    My "agenda" is not related to candidates. My agenda is related to making sure that the real truth about Paul Gallegos' time in office is clear, and not obscured by skilled public relations activists. It includes Salzman and his cohorts because they are such an integral part of the whole story.

    I look forward to the day when these dishonest influences are no longer part of the equation. I look forward to the day Gallegos resigns from his office, and we get about the work of rebuilding that important office so that the citizens of the community are once again well served by the People's Office.

  15. Wow! You go girl.

  16. Look at the product of local solutions. A huge failure all. Marshal will leave the school board having done nothing. If elected Carlos will bring his shotgun to settle Harbor arguements.

  17. Seriously, can you name one thing Charles has done for labor as a commissioner? Hasen't made any jobs in 16 years.

  18. But does that mean they no longer go along with him, or just that they cannot afford to be publicly linked to him?

    Well, I can see why a fractious, querulous left -- the normal state of affairs -- wouldn't be as aesthetically appealing as a subterranean Stalinist orchestra.

  19. The normal state of affairs is both sides like herding cats. It's like gridlock is good.

  20. Rose, you give Salzman far too much credit. He is not the mastermind of the left. There is no mastermind on the left! There is nothing more than a bunch of well-meaning individuals, separately or collectively doing what they can to acheive common goals, whatever they may be.

    Some people have particular skills to offer, while others simply show up and make their voices heard, again and again. There is no great leader, no man behind the curtain, no sinister and shadowy organization. This should please you. The lack of any cohesive structure is perhaps the left's greatest weakness. If we could ever actually coordinate a real campaign, what might we be able to accomplish?

    Do we make mistakes? Yep! Do we sometimes put our trust in yahoos that don't deliver? Yes! Do lefties sometimes stay too long in the seats they were elected to? Certainly! But guess what? Folks on the right do the same things. Mike Jones, Mel Berti and Anna Sparks come to mind.

    Rose, folks on the left are just trying to do something we believe in, just as you are doing. Sometimes (certainly too often) our goals are expressed by that which we oppose, just as you are defined by your opposition to Gallegos and Salzman. These characteristics are shared by both sides.

    Perhaps one's own behaviour only seems odious when viewed from a distance. We all tend to accept tactics when used by our friends which we would protest if used by our opponents.

    Seriously, we are as disorganized a bunch of folks as you're likely to meet. If we are successful at all, then it is merely a testament to how strongly we believe in our goals. You obviously work hard, too, and I do not begrudge you your opinions though I may not agree with them.

    You are a grass-roots citizen activist, and I applaud your efforts. Like it or not, that is a title which you share with Salzman and others who you pillory. It would be nice if you could extend the same respect to folks who are equally dedicated to the practice of grass-roots democracy as you, but whose opinions merely differ from your own.

    Oh, and by the way, your last sentence should read "It's as if gridlock is good." Sorry, but it's a pet peeve of mine.

  21. I agree with you in large part. I actually wish we could abandon the separatist notion of left vs. right, republican vs. democrat... there is no reason why it should be a surprise that any candidate has supporters - and even volunteers - from many parties, backgrounds and idealogies.

    I respect people who believe strongly in their goals, I think if you knew me you would find I do extend that respect to a good number of people, but not those who use dishonest tactics to get there. And there really are a limited few I put in that category.

    I do often wonder how amazing intelligent people can look at one set of facts and come up with two completely opposite, totally polarized opinions. I guess that is what defines the us vs them, left vs. right. But we can't both be wrong - so where's that middle ground?

    I assume you are talking about "Local Solutions" - and for me the test will be if they honestly support candidates for their own sake, and not with the express purpose of getting a majority vote out of a particular body. That's my definition of agenda-driven, though I guess I need a better term, that more clearly defines that it is the bad side of agenda-driven. Got any suggestions?

    My last sentence... "It's, you know... gridlock is good."

    And for the record, I don't see anyone on the right that is all that organized... like you, there's "a bunch of well-meaning individuals, separately or collectively doing what they can to acheive common goals, whatever they may be.

    Some people have particular skills to offer, while others simply show up and make their voices heard, again and again. There is no great leader, no man behind the curtain, no sinister and shadowy organization. This should please you."

    Thanks for the comment. Hope to talk to you some more.

  22. I don't see how anyone (reasonable normal decent well meaning person) can think of Salzman (and anyting he touchs) as anything but ... sleazy! Manipulative, dishonest.

  23. Dishonest? Like how Rose uses some FPPC information to try and smear a candidate that is honest. The information obviously given to her by the campaign that she is stumping for. And then is silent about how Ollivier's FPPC filing fails to include the contributions that he has received, including polling data from earlier this year, to fund what will be the most expensive campaign in Harbor District history. Who is really dishonest here? Who really has an "agenda"?

  24. Well, I saw Charles tonight at the Rotary dinner, and he expects to pay for his own campaign expenses for the most part, just as he has done in the past. He is very shy about asking for money. Like I said before, the position of Harbor District has been largely ignored in the past. Being Harbor Commissioner wasn't sexy, so the people who ran for and accepted the position did it for the love of the bay, the harbor, the men and women who work and make their living on the bay.

    So - if this is going to be the most expensive campaign in Harbor District history, it must all be on your side. Want to tell me more?

  25. Interesting concept 11:15.if it were true. It is not. Calling attacks on personal freedom,personal responsibility,personal property rights is not grass roots democracy it is socialism at best. It does have dedicated leaders and many are not fools. David Cobb made a definitive statement about the movement on KMUD the other night." I lay awake at night with anticipation and hope in the knowledge that this nation will soon fall." "It is so exciting."


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.