Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Johanna appointed to finish Roger's term

TS Johanna Rodoni appointed to finish husband's term
ER Governor appoints Johanna Rodoni to supervisor seat
Hank Schwarzenegger Appoints Johanna Rodoni
Jack BREAKING NEWS: Johanna Rodoni appointed to fill 2nd District seat
Mirror Something new to argue about
Eric SoHum Parlance: Johanna was appointed
heraldo Gov appoints Johanna Rodoni
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced the appointment of Johanna Rodoni to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, representing District II.

(Johanna) Rodoni currently is a member of the Humboldt County Fair Board of Directors, California Cattlemen’s Association, Humboldt County CattleWomen’s Association, Humboldt County Farm Bureau and The Redcrest Grange. In 1996, she joined the Fortuna Chamber of Commerce and served on the board of directors from 2004 to 2007. From 1998 to 2006, Rodoni served as chair for the Humboldt County Fish and Game Advisory Commission and, from 1991 to 1993, served as president for the Humboldt County CattleWomen’s Association.

“I am honored to be in a position to take up where Roger left off,” said Johanna Rodoni. “I will use my years of service within the community to address important issues facing Humboldt County and I look forward to serving with the same honest character as my husband.”


TS Campaign urging votes for Rodoni
Supervisor Roger Rodoni's name will remain on the June 3 primary ballot and his supporters are urging 2nd District residents to vote for the late incumbent...

...The decision to continue campaigning for Roger Rodoni to win the June 3 election is with the full knowledge and approval of Johanna Rodoni, his campaign committee members said

33 comments:

  1. Dumb move if her supporters have a desire to see her serve past January.Expecting Roger to take 50+.001 in June is a huge risk.Would've been much smarter to run her as a write in and advance her to the runoff and a one on one race in November.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think we have a little too much of what's 'smart' in campaigning these days and not enough of just plain what is right.

    You may find you really like her, mresquan. Be open to it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. well said Rose.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Problem is that if I do like her,there's a big risk that I'd only have the opportunity to like her as a Supervisor till January.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rose and Mark,

    Johanna is a very special lady. I wish her all the best.

    She needs to do what she feels comfortable with in such a trying situation. Frankly it is a dumb move to do something that you don't believe in.

    Mike Harvey

    ReplyDelete
  6. And if it is only til January, so be it. Had Roger run and lost, you would only have him until January, too.

    You will like her, mresquan.

    And, Mike, I agree. Wholeheartedly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with Mresquan. I don't really understand why Johanna isn't running as a candidate for Roger's 4th term. Did Roger get more than 50% in June elections vs. November? It does seem a risk to bank on 50% of the June election. What am I not seeing here?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Stephen,

    You and Mark are right it would be a better risk going as a write-in.

    But Roger's name is on the ballot and this was her partner for so many years. There is more at play than odds and numbers.

    Mike Harvey

    ReplyDelete
  9. A write-in vote is a HUGE risk as opposed to checking a box with Roger's preprinted name in it.

    If Johanna/Joanna/Joan (well, you get my drift is mispelled, in any way shape or form, that vote does NOT count.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Maybe I'm not remembering far back enough, but I can't recall a successful write- in campaign...ever, and I really doubt a write- in campaign for Johana would have been successful.

    ReplyDelete
  11. After being at a recount here, you wouldn't believe what a lot of absentee ballots contain. People can't seem to read how to vote on them - no red ink, no check marks, no X marks, vote for one only and it goes on. Voting at a polling place is a little simpler because the ballot is not accepted and comes back out so you can either get a new ballot and do it right or fill in the circles if that is the problem. I don't know what would happen if you wrote in a name and didn't fill in the circle though since you don't have to vote for everything on the ballot anyway.

    I believe it is much smarter to vote for a name that is on the ballot with the understanding that a vote for Roger is a vote for Johanna. No telling what would happen with a write in try.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Enough Already! Just VOTE for Roger Rodoni and lets get Johanna seated for four more years! Spread the word and wear Rogers' buttons. Can't tell you how many people I have spoken to because they asked me why I was still wearing his button.
    D.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Actually she would be seated until 2010 which is the next general election but then could run on her own for a 4 year term.

    It would be good if Johanna gets in.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mark - that would split the vote. I think the "all or nothing" strategy is probably the best actually. If she runs as a write-in and doesn't get the 50 percent, then the election is about her by November.

    I think they're playing it the best way. There are no guarantees either way.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rose - I don't think one way is more "right" than the other. Either could be justified from a moral perspective. Either way, she has to carry his banner and it's understood that she and his supporters want to retain control of the seat. I don't begrudge it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mike - I think you'd be looking at about 5% voting for Roger's name. Not everybody is going to pay enough attention to the write-in campaign and some will just go for the name Rodoni on the ballot.

    I think it's sound strategy, especially if she isn't ready to charge into debates. I probably wouldn't be.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Fred, Wikipedia has some examples of successful write-in campaigns.

    In 1964, a write-in campaign organized by supporters of former U.S. Senator and vice presidential nominee Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. won Republican primaries for President in New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, defeating declared candidates Barry Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller, and Margaret Chase Smith.

    # In 1930 Republican Charles F. Curry, Jr. was elected to the House as a write-in from Sacramento, California. His father, Congressman Charles Curry Sr., was to appear on the ballot, but due to his untimely death his name was removed and no candidate's name appeared on the ballot.
    # Democrat Dale Alford was elected as a write-in candidate to the United States House of Representatives in Arkansas in 1958. As member of the Little Rock school board, Alford launched his write-in campaign a week before the election because the incumbent, Brooks Hays, was involved in the incident in which president Eisenhower sent federal troops to enforce racial integration at Little Rock Central High School. Racial integration was unpopular at the time, and Alford won by approximately 1,200 votes, a 2% margin.[1]
    # Republican Joe Skeen was elected as a write-in candidate to Congress in New Mexico in November 1980 after the incumbent Democrat, Harold Runnels, died in August of that year. No Republican filed to run against Runnels before the close of filing, and after the death, the New Mexico Secretary of State ruled that the Democrats could have a special primary to pick a replacement candidate, but the Republicans could not have a special election, since they had nobody to replace. Runnels' widow lost the special primary, and launched her own write-in candidacy, which split the Democratic vote and allowed Skeen to win with a 38% plurality.[1]
    # Ron Packard of California finished in second place in the 18 candidate Republican primary to replace the retiring Clair Burgener. Packard lost the primary by 92 votes in 1982, and then mounted a write-in campaign as an independent. He won the election with a 37% plurality against both a Republican and a Democratic candidate. Following the elections, he re-aligned himself as a Republican.[1]
    # Democrat Charlie Wilson was the endorsed candidate by the Democratic Party for the 6th congressional district in Ohio to replace Ted Strickland in 2006. Strickland was running for Governor and had to give up his congressional seat. Wilson, though, did not qualify for the ballot because only 46 of the 96 signatures on his candidacy petition were deemed valid, while 50 valid signatures were required for ballot placement. The Democratic Party continued to support Wilson, and an expensive primary campaign ensued - over $1 million was spent by both parties. Wilson overwhelmingly won the Democratic primary as a write-in candidate on May 2, 2006 against two Democratic candidates whose names were on the ballot, with Wilson collecting 44,367 votes, 67% of the Democratic votes cast.[2] Wilson faced Republican Chuck Blasdel in the general election on November 7, 2006, and won, receiving 61% of the votes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good points, Eric. I'd wager that she'd welcome being invited into the debates, and no doubt she knows the issues already.

    I don't know if it is so much "retaining control of the seat" as continuing that independent voice on the Board - kind of the no nonsense approach.

    She's a brave lady.

    ReplyDelete
  19. With regard to the debates, she very firmly corrected me on my assumption (and as erroneously reported to me) that she wasn't invited, at least to the Grange debate yesterday. She said she still views Roger as the candidate rather than herself, practicalities notwithstanding. I don't know about the LOWV debates in terms of invitation, but I assume her response would be the same.

    She is a brave lady. I'm sorry I have to be on the opposite side of a political contest at this time.

    And I should say there are people out there who would milk sympathy for all the political capital it's worth, maybe even as the result of grieving rather than despite it. She hasn't done that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Eric - and I say this gently - you do understand that you DON"T have to be on the opposite side, right?

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Also, Eric, knowing you as a political shill from way back, you are probably delighted in Johanna's choice and reinforcing her decision so that your boy, Clif, has a high likelihood of meeting Estelle after June instead of Johanna who he or Estelle could never beat otherwise.

    50%+1 is not going to be easy even with Johanna's immense popularity. Progs like Eric will be going tooth and nail to stop her getting that 50%. I understand the reasoning behind Johanna's decision and it's a tough call given no time to really grieve. I just hope Roger's would-be voters respond to this situation and urge everyone who doesn't want to see the Prog Machine behind Clif's candidacy successfully invade and politically control the north end of the 2nd District.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I really do believe that calling for a special election will be the only way to insure Roger's constituency which is the proven majority, has a reasonable chance of being represented in the 2nd District if Johanna fails to garner 50%+1 of the June ballot. A run-off between Clif and Estelle means no one's representing all those people in the 2nd District who would vote for Johanna like me.

    I know it's late in the game but I want Johanna to have her fair shot at the election without having to jump the high hurdle fate and ambiguous election laws have handed her and us. I just want democracy, please.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think Arnold needs to know the full situation here to guarantee that democratic representation happens in the 2nd District.

    ReplyDelete
  24. He's married to a Kennedy, Steve can you say Riverkeeper,Coastkeeper,Baykeeper there's not a snowballs chance in hell that he will stop the pregressive takeonver,the county is screwed.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So Republican affiliation means nothing you're saying? You're saying Republicans have no say over their Republican governor?

    I know calling for a special election at this late date would be hard as hell but that's the only thing that can guarantee the bassackwards election laws supposedly covering this situation do not in reality end up creating an impossible running situation for an incumbent's wife picking up the campaign of her husband.

    Rightfully, Johanna should be on the ballot as a candidate for Roger's next term because that's what he was running for. As it stands now, Johanna would lose Roger's vote box on the ballot and would have to settle for write in status which really would set her campaign backwards at this point--more or less forcing her to choose to ride Roger's existing entry FORM.

    We're talking about forms here--it seems to me forms are subservient to human beings, not the other way around. Only calling for a special election will protect democratic representation in the 2nd District, at least that's my opinion but I'm not a Republican, just a friend of Roger's and Johanna's who dearly wants to see Johanna win Roger's fourth term to protect 2nd District voters from the hideous Invasion of the Prog Machine.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Stephen,

    You do not circumvent the current election laws as they stand, just to ensure the candidate you favor has a better shot at winning. I say this as a Rodoni supporter.

    A good man is gone. Politics be damned.

    ReplyDelete
  27. When current election laws are highly flawed, as we can plainly see they are in this situation where there's a high chance of the majority of 2nd District voters losing representation, I think it behooves us to change the law, or at least ask for special circumstances to be taken into account in order for democracy to happen. As is, democracy is foiled by default. Doesn't matter the politics of whoever is caught in the situation, it still isn't right.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Stephen, hyperbole aside, surely you recognize what a horrible precedent it would be for a standing governor to say "the election law be damned, I'm calling a special election." The laws were decided by the legislature at some point or points in our history and they were signed off by a governor. There are procedures which come into play when a candidate dies. You can't just decide to change it in the eleventh hour because you don't like the potential results.

    Relax. I think the Rodoni campaign actually has the advantage right now. But ultimately it's up to the voters in June.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Eric - and I say this gently - you do understand that you DON"T have to be on the opposite side, right?

    :)


    Well, unless I fall asleep next to a pod from outer space sometime between now and June, I could only switch sides against my nature. But I suppose you're right. We can call it a "lifestyle choice."

    Ever hear the story about the scorpion and the frog?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I know it might be hard Eric but it's the right thing to do. An alchy has trouble kicking the sauce but ultimatly his life is saved and society benifits. Liberalism is the crack of politics. Turn away from your addiction come into the the light. Reality is a very nice place to live.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Eric, of course you are siding with the Law on this one, aren't you, when there's a good chance this bad legislature will hurt Johanna's campaign after June and rob the 2nd District of a chance to vote for the candidate of their choice. Not your choices.

    Hypocrisy reeks from you, Eric, because how short a time was it ago when you and fellow Progluddites were demanding, absolutely demanding the existing LAW be changed re Palco.

    phonies phone banking for Clif and Estelle while promoting the trashing of democratic representation for Johanna.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Uh Stephen Johanna and her supporters are hurting themselves far more by this decision than anything any of her (err, Roger's) opponents ever did.She could run as a write in if she so chose and would have a much,much better chance of getting elected to that seat.
    That was done by her and her supporters,not by any "prog" cabal.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mresquan, who are you to judge Johanna's decisions? What I'm trying to get through you Progs thick skulls is that the election process covering what happens after an incumbent dies while campaigning for the next term in this case so skewers democratic representation that it becomes a joke.

    A real joke. Which will happen if Johanna doesn't reach the 50%+1 goal necessary to win office. Coming in first place then being excluded from the rest of the election is such a travesty of democracy as to be ludicrous yet here you exploiting Progs are trying your best to lock us all into this stupidity that benefits your candidates and does in all of Roger/Johanna's.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.