Friday, November 29, 2013

'A very different campaign': Gallegos' announcement leaves Humboldt DA race wide open

The race to become Humboldt County's next district attorney is wide open. - Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard

Apparently we aren't going to get any better coverage of the DA's race this time than we have had. What a SHAME.

◼ ANOTHER Case in point: MATTHEW IN THE MIDDLE: The 2014 District Attorney’s Race - Lost Coast Outpost

Matt Owen opining on the DA's race, and then sort of haphazardly addressing "The Slap." Color me less than impressed.

20 comments:

  1. This...
    "The general public, Lee said, will be interested in topics like charging philosophies and plea bargains, a candidate's stance on marijuana legalization and how they will work with local law enforcement. To insiders, Lee said, the candidates will have to prove they can effectively manage the office and make it run efficiently."

    and this..

    "”People are probably going to look for their cues based on who supports each candidate,” she said, adding that law enforcement endorsements can sometimes have varied impacts in Humboldt County."

    I think that was a decent and informative article. I am coming from a place of very little knowledge of the position or the candidates.

    Why is this article worthy of such a bad review? What information would have been important for you to hear at this stage? Serious not rhetorical questions, I'm curious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr. Green has been around long enough to know who to go to for meaningful input on the race, the issues, and the candidates. He did not do so this time. That's ok. It is early in the season, and it seems his assignment was merely to write a piece demonstrating that the TS is aware that there will be a race this time, but not to really get into the meat of the issues. For instance, he never mentions the elephant in the room, which is the putative candidacy of Ms. Fleming, who dwarfs Mr. Klein and Ms. Firpo in all relevant areas. One expects Mr. Green will show us more, including his interviews with current and former staff, courthouse insiders, and persons in the community familiar with the issues and the candidates, once Ms. Firpo publicly declares (if she does) and once other candidates do likewise (if they do).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr. Anonymous,
    It is obvious you are on team Fleming. In all fairness, she does not compare to the 40 years experience of defense and prosecution Klein has over her. In fact, Gallegos offered her the chance to be his Assistant District Attorney but she turned it down because she didn't want the stress and mess of the office. Get the fact, there is so much more the general public has no clue about.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This..."once Ms. Firpo publicly declares (if she does) and once other candidates do likewise (if they do)"

    Again, not rhetorical, I'm actually not clear on the distinctions and why Elan Firpo's candidacy hasn't been more public, but isn't filing a 501 report with the County considered declaring publicly? Arnie and Elan are the only two that have and therefore it's very appropriate that the article only include those two candidates imho.

    Thankfully I am blissfully unaware of all the politics of this position and can come in fairly neutral. I don't like Arnie's style and the fact that he registered as Dem only in July indicating to me that he is a political equivalent of a carpetbagger. Having said that, any DA that will take mj seriously and go after offenses, especially ones effecting the environment will get a serious look from me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. also, since I'm new to this blog, Rose? I notice the same snow effect that I find on the Humboldt County Republican blogs, are we comfortable enough to discuss connections or is this just a coincidence of blog preferences.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's an ODD question "Democratic" Jon. Why would you ask whether 'we' are comfortable enough to discuss connections?

    Would you like the code so you can add it to your blog?

    It's no secret. You're new to all this, I take it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Does it make YOU uncomfortable? You seem to like putting people in boxes. My God! What will you do with someone who has REPUBLICAN affiliations!

    ReplyDelete
  8. My God! What will you do with someone who has REPUBLICAN affiliations! I would hug them and say thank you for being open about it for starters! The Republicans are making a mess of it right now and sending everyone into our tent. Matthew Owen, et. al., now Chet Albin, and now Arnie Klein? I don't know about the latter, if he was a Republican, ever, but he is a New Democrat.

    I don't like putting people in boxes as much as I would prefer it if people could be up front about their prioritized values.

    Btw, I heart your name and avatar. In Turkish Rose is Gül and was my Father's name. Just FYI to break the ice and let you know I am partisan but not into feuds for feuding's sake.

    No, don't want the code, yes, I am new to this. I've voted for Paul twice but as one who is not terribly interested in crime or law. Now, as I connect those opposed to land use planning, which is my passion, to an adversion to law enforcement, specifically adverse to weed law enforcement but also adverse to law and regulation enforcement related to codes and environmental regs, I realize that the DA position will be important to make sure we do all we can to disallow the illegal weed trade.

    Right now I'm feeling a little bamboozled by Weed Inc. Which is as important a foe to central planning of land use (and enforcement of environmental regs) as the indeterminate logging used to be.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I like your response, Jon.

    I don't care for the Party Purity witch hunts - who cares what they're registered as, or when they changed parties, or declined to state? This scouring of people's Facebook pages to see if they pass the virginity test is really like something out of 1984/Soylent Green, don't you think?

    Sure, I think people ought to stick with the party I like, but as one who almost switched in protest of the attacks on Clinton over Lewinsky, I can understand that people each have their own trigger points and reasons for switching.

    And, at any rate, our local offices are NON-PARTISAN for good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I like your response, Jon. TY!

    "This scouring of people's Facebook pages to see if they pass the virginity test is really like something out of 1984/Soylent Green, don't you think?"
    Absolutely not. Rose, Matthew Owen, I'm sorry to pick on him, but I can because he is outspoken, has become a Democrat to win. It's pretty clear and he has told me as much (not in those words mind you and I'm sure he would deny it) even if he won't admit it publicly. The result is in a county which votes overwhelmingly for a Democrat for President (18 points?) we have an extremely, if not Tea Party, conservative Board of Supervisors. This is demonstrable, thank goodness, in simple language as they re-wrote the Guiding Principles where they saw fit to try to "honor landowners".

    What is the good reason local offices are non-partisan? The most important one I can think of is that Republican's have about a 10 point disadvantage. If the positions were reversed, I might argue the same, but knowing me a little, I still think I would hope partisanship would be a part of local politics, even if my party had a disadvantage.

    The reason is this. Party affiliation is a quick and dirty way to understand a person's values. It's not perfect, but parties have state and federal platforms which inform a voter the basics of the political philosophy behind the letter.

    Now, what I don't mean by partisanship is feuding or cruelty, or insincerity, or dishonesty, or win at all costs, etc. I want to be partisan and I want to be friends. It's important to understand and I think that's why people are so adverse to partisanship because they assume it means winning at all costs - including personal relationships. No!

    And kudos for you on the Lewinsky baloney. (assuming you meant you almost dropped the R's b/c they impeached a President over a lie (technically)). This is also why I bring up Matthew Owen instead of Supervisor Bass. I think her conversion is for genuine reasons, I just also think she is still very conservative, or Republican on things like dealing with our homeless problem and land use planning.

    But dropping a party for one-time things like Lewinsky is so self-defeating. If you have conservative or liberal values (ie focusing on personal responsibility or focusing on a shared responsibility might be one quick and dirty and fair(ish) way to describe them). If a person leaves for a single topic like the Lewinsky affair, where does it leave them on having a voice for the 100 other policy decisions that having a foot in a party gives you a voice on?

    Anyway - obviously I have thoughts on the subject. That's a start to them.

    Thank you for the conversation - nice to internet meet you and I'm sure we will have an interesting race. I don't see us agreeing too much, but that doesn't mean we have to dislike each other. I HOPE! For one, like I said, I love your name! :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. NON-PARTISAN: Because SERVING should not be about representing a team, Jon.

    Are you familiar with Dr. Seuss's 'Star-Bellied Sneetches"?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'll have to look up that Dr. Seuss. When you serve, you serve as a representative or officer of all your constituents. When you run, say for Supervisor, people should judge you on your qualifications, let's be honest, some people will judge on your physical traits, other's like me will put a great deal of emphasis on your policies. For Supervisor, I think the General Plan Update was a perfect example how when push comes to shove, it really is all about teams. I've been watching the Guiding Principles really carefully Rose, it was all about the teams and we knew it at the very beginning. The policies I believe in - the ones that would SERVE our community best are not at all represented. These types of policies would "protect natural resources" and/or "protect agriculture and timberland for the long term".

    You are right Rose. Serving should not be about representing a team. I believe the 4 Supervisors in there now do represent a team - team Money or team Weed or team Property Rights. But not team larger community. On this we agree any office holder from dog catcher to the President, when serving, should serve all of their constituents. And yes, in our two party system, we tend to forget that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Now you're switching teams, Jon. Unless you're saying all democrats are anti-private property rights. I don't think that's true at all.

    And you're ignoring the 'team' that set all this in motion. What Lovelace hath wrought, his overreach stripped people of their property rights and the blowback wasn't at all what he and his 'team' anticipated, now was it?

    You have a skewed idea of what 'serving' is, imo, if your idea of 'serving' is to take money from other people to spend in a way that makes you feel righteous. Ignoring that those who've worked and built a community contribute in ways you can't even dream of.

    What you call a 'team' is in fact people making SURE that those who are into taking don't get to slip their agenda into that ruling document. They were asleep at the wheel during the TPZ debacle and before. They won't be making that mistake again.

    And it doesn't have a damn thing to do with 'Democrat" or "Republican."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thing is Rose, don't you see how partisan even your definition of "serve" is?

    That's partisanship. That's what we will be arguing about going forward, we should be able to call it by it's name and we should be proud to disagree and do our best to explain why.

    Oh, and to view the GP as sans agenda now is, well, demonstrating your agenda.

    I'll let you have the last word, if you want it, but I don't want to move the subject away from the topic any further. Again, it was nice to internet meet you Rose, and again, it seems like we will disagree a bunch. I'll do all I can to disagree without being disagreeable as an open and honest conversation is the most important thing to me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I had to add this.

    Is "protecting agriculture and timberland for the long term" without qualification an adgenda? If it is, then I do have one, you are right.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You don't have to worry about going off topic, Jon, it's part of the fun of blogs.

    If you want to 'protect timberland' then go out and buy some, Jon.

    But watch out, because those with an agenda will attack you even then.

    THINK. Remember. Were you around during the TPZ debacle? Did you hear the attacks on people who do on timberland? And weren't cutting? People like Lovelace, who full well knew better, calling them tax cheats? Do you remember that?

    I get the feeling you really don't know what has gone on here.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Back to your partisan issue - with what party someone registered as - why would it matter unless you only vote for someone based on the R or the D after their name? I would NEVER vote for a person just because they had an R after their name. I know people who do vote straight D, all the way and have their entire lives. I don't understand it. Are you one of those people?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rose, you always come across as such a bitch! Do you ever read back your comments?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rose, I apologize for that commenter. It wasn't me AND I don't appreciate the comment at all. I am sorry!

    I read these last night and I had a thought. I think this sentence "If you want to 'protect timberland' then go out and buy some, Jon." really goes to the heart of our differences. I wonder if you would allow me to attribute it to you. Obviously I will be disagreeing with it, but I hope in an agreeable way. If not, I could just say something general like "a conservative friend of mine once told me blah blah blah..
    " Let me know and I'll respond further later.

    I like that you are open to divergent conversations in the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks, Jon, and don't worry. It's par for the course.

    Yes, "If you want to 'protect timberland' then go out and buy some, Jon." I think if you look into what Rondal Snodgrass has accomplished, you'll see, it can be done.

    Private property rights are vital to the success of our entire way of life, Jon. They are to be respected. "without qualification an agenda"

    Everything you have and everything you enjoy flows from that simple fact.

    ReplyDelete

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