From this week’s Journal:

  1. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 12:36 am

    Spot fucking on.

  2. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 12:41 am

    say it ain’t so.
    gj on the ego run xandra.

  3. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 1:40 am

    The same goes for a thank you to Hagen from Gallegos.

  4. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Cry Babies!

  5. Dont be fooled again
    November 13, 2010 at 7:04 am

    Wait a minute…Why did’nt Jeff get one from Virginia?

  6. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 7:11 am

    on the other hand, higgins or mann may have won.

  7. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 7:29 am

    enough with the sour grapes

    get on with life and other interesting issues

  8. anon
    November 13, 2010 at 7:38 am

    Higgins lost fair and square in the primary and couldn’t get beyond his (and his wife Diane’s) huge freakin’ egos. I can tell you Pat is done in many a folks book, so he better buddy up to Ryan.


  9. Jack Z
    November 13, 2010 at 7:39 am

    Rehabbers from DC going to nurture Bon-Bon or just card her?

  10. anon
    November 13, 2010 at 7:40 am

    Talk about sour grapes……Higgins and Hagen can’t get beyond themselves for the greater good. chumps, both of them.

  11. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 8:15 am

    The only possible outcome of the Manns Kuhnel Newman campaign was a split between the humanitarians. Brandenberg did you get paid off?

  12. Eurekan
    November 13, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Mielke’s getting better and better. He’s still the only one milking the latent humor in the Humboldt grower/monster truck/backwards-baseball cap meme. I look forward each week to reading his (usually deserving) spoof of a new Humboldt subculture.

    Party on, dude.

  13. Richard
    November 13, 2010 at 9:15 am

    1:40 you must be joking.

    With out Hagen in the race Gallegos walks to victory in June. It’s Jackson who has a thank you note waiting for Hagen (in the form of a job offer Hagen’s already spoken of), if she somehow pulls it off this election or in four years. She would have been DOA in June and never heard from again.

    Sundberg can also send Hagen a thank you note, as had Hagen not forced a run off in the DA race, the efforts poured into that campaign would have been redirected to Cleary (and Neely and Meserve and Eureka City Council). It easily would have put Cleary over the top hundreds of votes, and would have been of some help to the others. Thank Hagen and his surrogates, starting with Lovelace if Sundberg pulls out a victory.

  14. Lodgepole
    November 13, 2010 at 9:21 am

    The devilishly talented Mielke strikes again.

  15. Voter
    November 13, 2010 at 10:26 am

    someone had to say it! Because we’re all thinking it. Thanks, Joel.

  16. Wow
    November 13, 2010 at 10:35 am

    Richard: It is scary when you make it out like that. So indirectly, by supporting Hagen, Lovelace cost Cleary a win, Kuhnel a win, Meserve a win, and more campaign workers for Neely, Lavalle and Glass. Did you call Mark and explain the consequences?

  17. November 13, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Mielke is good but honestly he needs to get out and about of the county more. His continuous bagging of Eureka subculture shows how little he gets out. Eureka is the county seat(obviously) with mall,courts,social services,larger medical facilities,etc. People from outer areas frequent the city leading to people like mielke generalizing them as Eurekans. I guarantee Eureka would be a whole lot different scene if they moved the SSI/welfare offices to say Orick or even Arcata

  18. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Anon 8:15 rumor has is Brandenburg went Tea Party and had it in for Kuhnel over teen challenge and the cell tower, Manns got played. Sad sad stupid people can’t see the big picture, shame on them both.

  19. Manns supporter
    November 13, 2010 at 11:28 am

    Let me get this straight. Apparently you are saying that in order to run for City Council you need to check with the “big boys”. An honest grassroots candidacy is not OK unless it is sanctioned by some unelected group of people who have decided that they are the ones with the power to choose.

    No one consulted the people of the third ward. No one but Xandra represented our interests. I was not going to vote for Ron Kuhnel in any case, and yes I am angry about the cell phone towers.

  20. anom
    November 13, 2010 at 11:29 am

    Higgins lost fair and square in the primary and couldn’t get beyond his (and his wife Diane’s) huge freakin’ egos

    Amen to that

  21. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    11:28 and what % of the vote did she get? There is nothing at all wrong with a grassroots candidacy as long as you RUN not just limp along enough to screw another candidate which is exactly what she did at the insistence of a friend who was mad at her opponent. She clearly had no chance of winning therefore all she could have done was take down Kunhnel or ensure Mike Newman the seat. If we were true ward and she only needed the third you would be right but we are not therefore it was a stupid choice and will certainly affect the 3rd ward as well as the rest of the city. STUPID!

  22. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    Ron Kuhnel got his precious one-on-one race four years ago and it did him no good. Keep whining (instead of implementing ranked choice voting like Chris Kerrigan and Mike Jones were ready to do five years ago) and you will keep getting what you deserve.

  23. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    in order to run for City Council you need to check with the “big boys”.


    Goes for Supervisor too. Ask Higgins, they kept wanting him to drop out although Pat had much better name recognition and a track record in the district. and then they wonder why he didn’t endorse Cleary.

  24. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    Not to mention the fact that Larry Glass was in a three-way race in 2006 against an entrenched incumbent (Mary Beth Wolford) and a popular third-party candidate (longtime local writer/reporter Tish Wilburn) and WON.

    Then Larry gets his one-on-one race this year and LOST.

    So your theory is officially bullcrap. Either you run a strong campaign or you don’t. Your vote totals are your own damn fault and nobody else’s. Take some fracking responsibility you petulant little whiners.

  25. Richard
    November 13, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    Pat did not need to drop out, but once he lost in the primary, he should have endorsed in the general election and yes Lovelace knew full well he was going to cost Cleary et al resources, but his personal grudge against Gallegos was more important to him. He never even endorsed Gallegos in the run off against Jackson, so he was apparently willing to live with the consequences.

    The Third District should be represented by a more progressive voice anyway, including one that will speak out against Richardson Grove. Someone should represent a dissenting voice for those in the community that do not want to go along with corporate/CalTrans interests.

  26. armchair watcher
    November 13, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    I agree with Richard at 4:03-someone should represent a dissenting voice against widening Richardson Grove.

  27. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    So will now the conservative candidate in the next 3rd district supervisors race have Richard to thank?

  28. November 13, 2010 at 7:48 pm

    Richard. You really need to stop lying.

  29. mresquan
    November 13, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    So it was okay for Cleary to support the Richardson Grove project,but not Lovelace?

  30. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    Maybe those resources would have been better spent helping the truly progressive candidates than propping up a DA who still needed that much help after 8 years in office.

  31. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    he should have endorsed in the general election

    why? word around town was that he talked to sundberg and cleary about water issues and sundberg had the right answers.

  32. Anonymous
    November 13, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    More like Sundberg left an impression of being more impressionable than Cleary.

  33. November 13, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    My big mistake was thinking people really meant it when they said they want a candidate that didn’t push the same-ol’-same-ol’. That people really are concerned about the environment and plastic and pollution and traffic and a city council that just says “next” whenever anyone brings up an issue. That people are tired of big money spending to buy their votes. That people communicate via the internet–did anyone read my website position papers???

    I was wrong. So, Ron or Mike got elected and to me there is no difference in what either one will do on the council. It will be the same ol’ same ol’. Lots of luck!

  34. November 14, 2010 at 12:00 am

    Thanks to the 800+ people who did vote for me. And I will continue to work on the issues that I think a lot of us care about, including Richardson Grove protection.

  35. Anonymous
    November 14, 2010 at 12:31 am

    It will be over 1,000 by the time all the ballots are counted, Xandra.

    A good foundation to start from, I think. There’s no way Kuhnel’s running after getting defeated twice in a row. He shouldn’t steal votes from you next time.

    November 14, 2010 at 12:39 am


    Good Job!!! It takes a bit of an ethical ego to run as YOU DID. I feel ya, and say ditto with respect to money being the brainwashing tool used to conjure-up votes among a majority of the voting base. Sadly, the voting base, when culling out the more informed or connected, is kinda sour and diluted. In fact, the dilution and sourness is so rife, it takes “eye-candy” (displays) to stimulate the mindsets of those barely able to cope with the fact that political involvement is almost a mandatory requirement without being mandatory. In todays world, lack of political education is a death warrant. When more and more of the country is headed toward the reaper due to lazy-arse voters who vote like it is ra ra High School ASB contests re-visited, then the country is represented by those who can’t represent, inevitably.

    Sad but true – in 4 years time, the proof will be available yet again, like clockwork!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  37. Shaking her head, sadly
    November 14, 2010 at 12:43 am

    Xandra, you just don’t get it.

    No matter how much you put your fingers in your ears, shake your head and tell yourself, “No, no, no!”, Ron Kuhnel will never be Mike Newman. Not even close.

    Mike Newman is Eureka Chamber of Commerce President. For you to proclaim that Ron Kuhnel is in the same boat as Newman, politically or otherwise, is just a lie you are telling yourself to justify your misunderstanding of the whole process. Politics is, as they say, the art of the possible, and what you didn’t get (and still appear not to get) is that your platform, however wonderful and “right” it might have been, never had a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding in Eureka. Arcata, maybe, possibly . . . but Eureka? C’mon, be just a little realistic. Please?

    You were told over and over again that you were going to be the “spoiler” in this race. Now that it has come to pass exactly the way everyone said it would, don’t you have the honesty (Ross Perot did) to come clean about the effect you had on the race?

    It seems like you want to believe there are only two ways in life: yours, and everyone else’s. For someone of your age and level of sophistication, frankly, this is shocking.

    You are an idealist, but if you haven’t been paying attention, politics is not the forum in which idealism tends to succeed – at least not in this town, and certainly not at this moment. Maybe for fleeting moments, here and there in history, but never for long. Let me be blunt: you never had a chance. Given this, why do you keep insisting that your run was noble? Is it really just all about symbolism to you?

  38. Anonymous
    November 14, 2010 at 1:04 am

    It was noble because we’re never voting for your insider good ol’ boy candidates. Ever. Again. If Xandra hadn’t run there would be fewer people VOTING in this race because we are NOT represented by your two-party scam.

    GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. We’re independents and we’re never voting for your kind again. And our numbers only keep growing.

    November 14, 2010 at 1:17 am

    It seems like you want to believe there are only two ways in life: yours, and everyone else’s. For someone of your age and level of sophistication, frankly, this is shocking.

    You are an idealist, but if you haven’t been paying attention, politics is not the forum in which idealism tends to succeed – at least not in this town, and certainly not at this moment. Maybe for fleeting moments, here and there in history, but never for long. Let me be blunt: you never had a chance. Given this, why do you keep insisting that your run was noble? Is it really just all about symbolism to you?

    Wow, it seems like most people in society are that which is said above, especially those types who violate SIMPLE AND APPROPRIATE rules and conducts that eventually create tensions and lessens the ability for more feasible aproaches to societal’s head-butts and problems. In fact, are not parents, paritioners and the “current” government’s pyramidal POWER AND CONTROL schemes IDEALIST AND FUNDAMENTAL IN DESIGN AND MODUS OPERENDI? Fact is, truth takes much to achieve a following. Time often details truth. Voters will reflect in due time their errors and misdeeds. Starvation, homelessness due to joblessnesses, higher and higher societal costs, lower living standards(actually a good thing, cost wise and attitude wise), medical ailements, more street violence, rationings, etc… Yeppers, the future is looking quite peachy so say the voters in majority.


  40. Anonymous
    November 14, 2010 at 1:28 am

    Does Lance Madsen’s vote total anywhere near approach the number of folks who voted in that Ward 3 race?

    No, because people skip that race when there’s nobody they care to vote for.

    And again, Larry Glass did WORSE with his one-on-one race then he did in a three-way race four years ago. Your anti-independent bigotry on behalf of your Democrat Central Committee friends doesn’t hold up to facts.

  41. Ponder z
    November 14, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Hey H. will you be closing down this blog? Looks like you are running out of ideas.

  42. mresquan
    November 14, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Xandra is a fantastic person who doesn’t deserve to be torn up for running for the seat.If there ever was a reason for Ron,or his most ardent supporters to bring forward an initiative to the voters to implement ranked choice voting it is now,and should be done so that it is on a Nov.2012 ballot at the latest.Ron would have won(actually he still has a shot as a lot of votes are left to be counted) this time around handily if RCV was in use in Eureka.
    I really dislike the “spoiler” argument,it comes off being pretty elitist in a way when someone automatically assumes how a third party voter or a less popular candidate would vote if their preferred candidate wasn’t running.
    Do I wish that Ron would have won?Yes,as I believe Ron was a bit more qualified and a hell of a good guy.But folks,please quit attacking Xandra for stepping up and running,and those who voted for her because they saw her as a nice alternative to her opponents.

  43. High Finance
    November 14, 2010 at 9:11 am

    The accusation against Xandra as a “spoiler” depends on two assumptions.

    That Xandra’s supporters would have all come to the polls if she wasn’t on the ballot & that they would have overwhelmingly voted for Kuhnel.

    Neither one of those assumptions can be made with any real degree of confidence.

  44. November 14, 2010 at 9:35 am

    I appreciated Xandra’s position on Measure N. She was the only city council candidate to come out and say she opposed it.

  45. tra
    November 14, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Close, but not quite, HiFi.

    The claim is that enough (not necessarily all )of Xandra’s supporters would have come to the polls and that enough of those folks would have voted for Kuhnel to put him over the top.

    I admire Xandra, she had every right to run, and I agree with those who are saying that she shouldn’t be attacked for running or for choosing to stay in the race. A runoff system (instant or otherwise) would pretty much eliminate the “spoiler” effect and I agree with those who are suggesting that the city would benefit from adopting such a system.

    I don’t agree with Xandra that there is “no difference” between what Kuhnel and Newman would do on the council. Presumably the vast majority of the voters who voted for either Kuhnel and Newman also believed that there would be a difference.

  46. November 14, 2010 at 10:48 am

    The same people who wield the “good old boy network” boogeyman as a weapon are the ones subverting the democratic process by attempting to dictate who is allowed to run for office. Wake up. When someone is all about “accruing progressive power” you have a problem.

    It is getting to where people are seeing it, because enough good decent people, like Xandra, find themselves attacked and vilified for getting in the way. Their only sin? The “Godfather/OZ” has a plan and they’re not part of it.

    Leave her alone. Or thank her for standing up, for offering herself up to serve her community.

  47. Anonymous
    November 14, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Those are some pretty wet crocodile tear you have there Rose.

  48. Redwood
    November 14, 2010 at 11:20 am

    Xandra was a spoiler.Much respect to her but she’s wrong.
    Prop 19 & the DA’s race were on the ballot.Her supporters would have voted anyway or are you saying there’s a “Xandra cult” in Eureka?
    But if I’m not mistaken there’s no longer a spot on future California ballots for “spoilers”.Open primaries make this the last November election with more than 2 candidates per race.

  49. Redwood
    November 14, 2010 at 11:27 am

    If you could have a do-over,would you still run again? If yes,what would you do different? Who would you have endorsed between your 2 opponents had you dropped out? Who did you endorse for DA?
    Much love.Thank you.

  50. Anonymous
    November 14, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    “Spoiler” implies that you two party scum own my fracking vote. YOU DON’T OWN ME. WE’RE NOT YOUR SLAVES.

    And again, since Redwood is too dimwitted to do the math, look at the Ward 5 race where Madsen had no opponents. Thousands of ‘undervotes’ which means people left THAT race blank while voting on DA or Prop. 19 or whatever.

    If Xandra wasn’t on the ballot, my Ward 3 spot would have been BLANK, just like Ward 5 for many of us.

    November 14, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    EXACTLY 12:03 pm,

    exactly. You don’t have to cast a vote for no candidate, especially if your an anti-dualopoly voter like more and more citizens are being transformed into due to the continual political backstabbing and abuses that CREATE VICTIMS.

    Seems to me, a percentage needs to be applied as to what denies the results of any election and guarantees a redo election with additional candidates. It is my belief in knowledge of the human species and traits that suggests we need elections that INCLUDE THE INVOLVEMENT OF ACTUAL VOTERS IN A MAJORITY WHEN COMPARED TO EVERY POTENTIAL AND POSSIBLE VOTER AT THE TIME ANY ELECTION IS OCCURING.

    as an example – if less than 75% of those qualified voters don’t vote, then redo the elections. Currently, elections do not, and I repeat DO NOT (DON’T), represent the majority of the actual citizens or their human interests in common (childen, other dependents, etc..).

    Sorry to remind so many folks again and again, but until you change your voting ways and allegiances, you will only help destroy this country more quickly.



  52. November 14, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Sadly shaken 11-14-12:43am: I said I was mistaken, not noble.

    Redwood 11:20am: I don’t know if I would run again; time will tell. If time were turned back, I would do it all over the same way. I would work harder to get my message out: walk and talk with people more.

  53. Anonymous
    November 14, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    why didn’t kuhnel step down and let mann run?

  54. Not A Native
    November 14, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    I don’t think the Madsen undervote argument holds any water to explain the possible result if Manns hadn’t run.

    The result of the Madsen ‘race’ was a forgone conclusion. So filling in the Madsen box wouldn’t be casting a vote that could possibly make a difference. Unless you were his friend and wanted to express ‘popularity’.

    Also, Madsen didn’t campaign for votes. Because he knew he didn’t need votes, he didn’t bother convincing voters he was a good candidate. And naturally he didn’t get their votes.

    People regularly call for a ‘none of the above’ ballot category to express thier dissatifaction with the offered candidatess. Since there isn’t such a category, an undervote is the closest equivalent.

  55. Redwood
    November 14, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    Which “Eureka-only” race* had the most under-votes?* excepting Ward 5. DUH ?
    Xandra’s race has almost twice the under-votes(764) of any other Eureka race at this point.She almost lost to the “others”.

  56. JW
    November 14, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    I voted for Xandra. I didn’t want to vote for either political “machine”. HDCC? nope. MO/LU candidate? nope.

    I wanted an independent voice that would look at things from a new perspective.

    If Xandra hadn’t ran, I would have voted same way I did in the 4th District Supervisor race. I would have voted for a “write in” candidate and put in the name of SOMEONE, ANYONE, I felt could do the job better than the printed alternatives.

  57. Not A Native
    November 14, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    You know JW, for many years I was a poll worker and as part of the closing procedure, we segregated write-in ballots. It was amusing to see the votes for Mickey Mouse and Elvis, childish expressions of ‘protest’ that made no difference in anyone’s lives.

    So go on holding your breath and threaten us you’ll turn blue rather than participating in a democratic process and influence candidates who have a real cahnce of winning. Play your ‘pretend’ games and believe you are behaving like real adults do. Or maybe you really believe that Elvis will serve if he just gets enough votes.

  58. Anonymous
    November 14, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    With ranked choice voting we wouldn’t be having this discussion, we’d be celebrating a solution.

    But you prefer your two-party monopolism to freeing people to make their own decisions free of your holier-than-thou crap.

  59. Redwood
    November 14, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.
    A vote for Perot was a vote against Bush Sr.Any argument?

    November 14, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    What NAN means to say is……..MONEY CAN’T BUY YOU TRUST, but it can surely buy an election, see below.

    Democracy on EARTH is not all that it is “cracked-up” to be when money takes the place of rational thought THAT THEN dictates a voter’s consumptive appetite for social destructions (usually not ever even thought about by the abuser) based on greeds of materialized wants and not human needs. Sadly to suffice and say: Tiskit, tasket the majority voters in charge are building more caskets.

    NAN – Since you are a former poll worker, are undervotes a collective of “write-in” and “no votes”? Anyhow, I am interested in understanding what the #’s are in the DA and 5th District Supervisorial races.

    As far as Mickey Mouse and Elvis, that is better reserved for citations and such! Officers get a good laugh, believe it!


  61. Anonymous
    November 14, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    Clinton in 96, Gore in 00, Kerry in 04, Obama in 08 won California by over a million votes no matter how strong Nader was. So your precious fracking sellout Democrats got 100% of California’s electoral votes every time no matter what I did.

    So no, Redwood, I don’t argue with you, because your argument is complete bullcrap to begin with on it’s face.

  62. Not A Native
    November 14, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Gee anon 3:19, by your thinking California Democratic voters in 00 and 04 should just as well have voted for Mickey Mouse(or Nader) because, in the end, their votes didn’t matter.

    Political change is a product of conflict and politics is a struggle for power. By being ‘outside the pale’ of an organized group, you’re not making a principled ‘statement’, you’ve just eliminated your voice from being listened to at the table. And thats exactly where those you most dislike want you to be. Because when you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.

  63. Anonymous
    November 14, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Independents decide elections these days.

    Most political analysts understand this. Not A Native doesn’t.

  64. Anonymous
    November 14, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    The more Xandra tries to justify her big ego and stupid action I am reminded of the following.

    “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt. “

  65. olmanriver
    November 14, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    Give everyone $50 to show up to vote. The parties attempt to buy votes with all the lame, negative, and false claim advertising, directed to the emotional “brain” of the electorate… they can still stay to their low road tactics and have money to pay the disaffected who are disgusted with the system and don’t vote.
    Just an idea to save the idea of dumbocracy as it is practiced in this country.

  66. Not A Native
    November 14, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    anon 4:50 99.9+% of elected officials are registered as Dems. or Reps.

    What is it about that fact you don’t understand?

  67. Anonymous
    November 14, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    “why didn’t kuhnel step down and let mann run?

    Xandra Manns could not have defeated Newman. She would have been lucky to have received 25 percent of the vote.

    For that matter had she been the only one running against Kuhnel, it would have not been any better for her.

    That is because those that know Xandra realize she is in an ideological nut case. The more she would have campaigned, the more obvious this would have been. In fact if she had campaigned harder, she might have received fewer votes, not more.

    In short, Xandra just “doesn’t get it”,

  68. after digesting the blurbs
    November 14, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    I understand what everyone has to say on this blog, whether I agree with it or not. You all have merit. You can express yourselves elequently, or profanely. You have words, theories, anger and proposals that I understand. Then I read the Lytle. I have a better than average IQ, but perhaps I enjoy my evening glass of wine more than enough. However, I think Mr. Lytle is a double speak artist, because after I have read through his arguments, more than once!…they still have no meaning, make no sense, nor do they pursuade. Is that just me?

  69. LOL
    November 14, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    Funny! The emporer (Lytle) is wearing no clothes…at last!

  70. Ditto
    November 14, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    @ after Digesting the Blurbs

  71. Funnygirl
    November 14, 2010 at 6:38 pm

    The reason people running for office are registered Dem or Rep is so that they can get $$. Try running as an independent for governor. Or governot. Or whatever.

  72. Redwood
    November 14, 2010 at 6:41 pm


  73. Not A Native
    November 14, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    But Funnygirl, your analysis overlooks why people donate and vote consistently. Someone who simply wants to get party campaign money has no guarantee they will be nominated by a party.

    Most donations are to specific candidates, not parties. In fact, potential party nominees always have to demonstrate ability to obtain contributions independently. Party funds are strategically allocated, no candidate has certain claim to them.

    The reason people give money to Dems or Reps is that they want them to be elected and they understand that political success depends upon staying in unity over a lenghty period of time.

  74. Anonymous
    November 14, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    Anyway, Funnygirl, a person is not going to win as an independent, at least in these times.

  75. Anonymous
    November 14, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    Like the new governor of Connecticut — who happens to be an independent. Or the re-elected mayor of Richmond, CA. Or Ross Mirkarimi, the two-term Supervisor who will probably be the next Mayor of San Francisco.

  76. Redwood
    November 14, 2010 at 8:48 pm

    or Sen Lieberman(I) Conn,or Sen Bernie Sanders (I) Vt,or the Sen-elect from Ak.
    Independents with name recognition can win.
    A vote for Nader in Texas,Miss,California or New York (clearly red or blue states) was different from a Nader vote in Fla,NM,Ohio or Penn.This election I voted Green or Lib. in every race unless I thought my vote would really make a difference i.e. Cal AG & County DA.But I’m a “dimwit” What do I know?

  77. tra
    November 14, 2010 at 9:13 pm

    The new governor of CT is a Democrat.

  78. tra
    November 14, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    Perhaps you were thinking of Maine?

  79. Anonymous
    November 14, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    Rhode Island, that’s it. Heck, even Obomber wouldn’t endorse the Democrat in that race.

  80. tenth street dreamer
    November 14, 2010 at 10:06 pm

    Why would Kuhnel, the best qualified candidate, drop out of the race? Too bad the electorate couldn’t figure that out. We will see, after four years, if they like what they got, which is not much.

  81. Not A Native
    November 14, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    So Redwood, when you ‘think your vote will make a difference’ you vote for someone who you like and think can actually win. But how do you know who has a chance to win? Oh, you must follow polls and just figure its a ‘done deal’ because everyone(but you) will just slavishly vote the way the polls say. But YOU are more clever than those poll obedient sheeple and have outwitted the pollsters using reverse psychology and strike a blow for freedom, casting a ‘safe’ vote that won’t make a diference. How brave you are!

    You know Redwood, cheap thrills and hiding behind polls is cowardly and immature. Why don’t you grow up and take responsibility for your actions instead of relying on other people to do the right thing so you can indulge childish rebellion to do the wrong thing?

  82. one perspective
    November 15, 2010 at 12:15 am

    Nobody is saying Xandra “had” to do anything.

    Xandra was asked politely by many people on the progressive side of Eureka to do an honest appraisal of her chances of winning, and then to make a similar honest appraisal of which of the remaining two candidates, given the reality that she had no chance of winning, would better serve progressive goals and ideals for Eureka.

    She essentially put her fingers in her ears and said, “La-la-la-la I can’t hear you la-la-la-la.”

  83. Walt
    November 15, 2010 at 5:19 am

    I’m with Xandra. There’s really not much point in voting if the only people who run are vetted by two organizations who have obviously sold out to the corporatocracy. What ever happened to the concept of voting for what you believe in? Frankly, the difference between Obush and Bush is pretty minimal: two weevils are still just two weevils. And Xandra, I didn’t get to vote for you, but I would have, because you had the guts to do what you believed in, rather than what you were ordered to do. If people like you don’t run, our “democracy” is a total sham.

  84. Anonymous
    November 15, 2010 at 6:41 am

    Vetted? Newman may have been, but Kuhnel didn’t ask for any vetting. He has been an intelligent and generous citizen who learned about the city, gave of his resources, and knew he could contribute to the betterment of the city. He didn’t have to be sought out and have the position explained to him, he was already prepared to do the job.

    Nice work electing Newman, Manns. Progressives had a chance to elect someone who shared many of the same values, but also had a real chance of getting elected and was truly capable. Selfish choice on Manns’ part. Hope she enjoys the new levels of idiocy that she helped to usher into city hall.

  85. Anonymous
    November 15, 2010 at 7:37 am

    The Republican and Democratic Parties are a total sham. That’s why more people in public opinion polls now reply as ‘independent’ rather than as members of either one.

  86. High Finance
    November 15, 2010 at 8:31 am

    There is a system already in place that would stop “spoilers” or stop the machine candidates from putting pressure on some other candidates to drop out & not even file.

    That system was in place up until about 10 years ago when the city council dropped it.

    It is called the primary. In the past all the candidates ran in June & the top two vote getters would move on to November. The same way the Supervisors race is done today.

  87. tra
    November 15, 2010 at 8:48 am

    “There is a system already in place…”

    “That system was in place up until about 10 years ago…”

    It seems like the second statement kinda contradicts the first one. Clearly that system is NOT in place any longer. But that same system could be put BACK in place, or something like an “instant runoff” system (IRV) could be adopted. Of course it might not be that easy to convince those council members who have benefitted from the current system to nonetheless support changing that system.

  88. High Finance
    November 15, 2010 at 9:13 am

    No Tra, the system is still in place, the city just isn’t using it. The county is using it, all the city has to do is to use it again.

  89. tra
    November 15, 2010 at 9:25 am

    “the system is still in place, the city just isn’t using it.”

    Well that’s pretty vague, HiFi. If the council voted to stop using that system 10 years ago, and it hasn’t been used in 10 years, then I’m not sure what you mean by “the system is still in place.”

    “all the city has to do is to use it again.”

    Which means a City Council vote to re-instate that system, right?

    Anyway, I hope the City DOES adopt (or reinstate or whatever) some kind of runoff system. In my opinion, the nonpartisan primary/runoff system that is used by the County works pretty well. I realize there are pros and cons related to both the primary/runoff system, and IRV, but I think either one would be preferable to the current system.

  90. Redwood
    November 15, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    Not Native,
    It worked for me.And your way of thinking brought us George Bush.Thanks.
    Cowardly?Childish? One man one vote.Got it.
    You are a legend in your own mind.
    And right 99.9% of those elected are DEM or REP.??Got any REAL facts to back up that exaggeration.Talk about sheeple – look in the mirror.

  91. Largo
    November 15, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    The Supreme Court gave us George Bush, not the people who voted for Nader.

  92. Not A Native
    November 15, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    Redwood, fess up boy. In 2000, voters who played games like you do voted for Nader, and brought us George W. Bush.

    Justifying your cowardice as ‘one man one vote’ is as despiciable as deserting in a firefight. Its really a lame excuse for selfishly boosting your ego, imagining you alone will ‘send a message’.

  93. mresquan
    November 15, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    The people who voted for Bush,with the help of the Supreme Court,brought us Bush.

  94. 3rd ward voter
    November 15, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    I voted for Xandra, because she was the only candidate that represented our concerns. Ron Kuhnel supports both cell phone towers in residential neighborhoods and the Marina Center. It is my right to vote for the candidate I believe in as it is Xandra’s right to run for office. It is in the Constitution. Nowhere does it say you need to check out your candidacy or your vote with a political interest group.

  95. Not A Native
    November 15, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    Add these cards to your Hallmark Collection:

    FROM: The Republican Party

    TO: Redwood, mrresquan, 3rd ward voter

    MESSAGE: Thanks for believing winning isn’t important (so we don’t have to worry about not winning)

  96. A-Nony-Mouse
    November 15, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    3rd Ward Voter, you bought the Big Lie, hook, line, and sinker! Ron is not a supporter of the Marina Center although he is open to rational development on the parcel. On the cell tower, there are so many lies, it makes me crazy. Ron did vote for the tower on the first go-around because NOBODY showed up to protest. There was no legal reason, at that point, to refuse it. Yes, the reason no one showed was poor notification but that was NOT Ron’s fault. When the notification problem was corrected and the neighborhood got organized, Ron voted AGAINST the tower, having finally heard from the people. Other Commission members outvoted him and passed the tower. Do not blame Ron for what was not his fault once he had a clear understanding of what the people wanted.

    Sue Brandenberg, who apparently HATES Ron, campaigned hard for Xandra because she could not understand or accept those facts. Now we have Newmmy. Thanks a lot, you jokers. I hope you have what you deserve. I just don’t know why you had to inflict it on the rest of us.

  97. Redwood
    November 15, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    Some votes are cast to help a party like the Greens get matching funds.
    I never said that I opposed Xandra’s platform or I wouldn’t vote for her in a 2 person race.
    You can name zero Republicans that I ever voted for.
    The “Polls” were remarkably accurate in 2010.Pretty hypocritical to be ranting about polls on an interWeb blog?
    How bout voting for just Dave Meserve in Arcata & letting the other vote be an under vote? Was he asking people to vote that way?

  98. Anonymous
    November 15, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    Dave means well and is a good person and member of the council but he lost me when he tried to make the Plaza a walking street. It doesn’t work economically now and not for me personally. The greener they make the cars the more I want close parking, and I also have a knee problem, so don’t make me walk forever. Also he wants Arcata to be too involved in national politics. This isn’t what we voted for- we want local representation.

    November 15, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    NAN says, Political change is a product of conflict and politics is a struggle for power.

    Response: It is true politics IS kinda a wee bit a manifestation for power and control for which mankind created by way of treaty to instead of murder, rape, death, kill in the most gruesome and physical sense, to conform to live a lifestyle that of one where murder, rape, death and kill become somewhat social conversions through means of economic and judicial processes that divied up society? In a way, as long as mankind has been more than 2, the dominant to subdominant human interactions would seem to be a good indication that politics in some form has existed as long as man has – obviously not in the same form(s).


  100. Redwood
    November 15, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    The HenchMan obviously believes in full-contact politics.

    That 1st sentence has 65 words including rape,murder,death & kill twice each. Anybody ever see JL at a debate or town hall?

  101. Anonymous
    November 15, 2010 at 9:38 pm

    Eureka should either have IRV or run offs. No one should be elected with less the 50% of the votes.
    Also the 1/2 ward system is 1/2 crazy.

    November 15, 2010 at 9:53 pm

    Anonymous says:
    November 15, 2010 at 9:38 pm
    Eureka should either have IRV or run offs. No one should be elected with less the 50% of the votes.
    Also the 1/2 ward system is 1/2 crazy.

    Response: How about the 50% rule being applied to the full electorate, not actual voting electorate. So, if only 3 people vote, but the electorate of qualified voters is 1000, why would anyone want a 2 to 1 result (66.67% to 33.33%) with 997 no shows, not 997 no votes or 997 under-votes. For me, dwindling down the voter base to that of just dualopoly participants is not a balanced election nor is it a healthy or accurate representation of all pov’s. Voters need an “opt out-redo the election” OPTION imo. The disenfranchised understand the rigged political system and figure their vote would not count anyhow when so many party politics voters are still choking the chicken.


  103. 3rd ward voter
    November 17, 2010 at 9:14 am

    In response to A-Nony-Mouse

    I was there when Ron Kuhnel voted for the cell tower after hearing from a large group of people who asked the Planning Commission to vote no. It wasn’t just Ron’s vote, but his lecture on the merits of cell towers and his deference to Mr. Mc Murray who was given an undue amount of time to present his case.

    The election is over, but those of us in the 3rd ward want elected officials to know that we have had it with everything that other people don’t want in their neighborhoods being put in ours especially cell phone towers.

  104. Anonymous
    November 18, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    It was distressing, but no surprise to watch the Eureka city council refuse to appoint its first volunteer with a masters degree in urban planning and years of experience, to the Planning Commission, (Xandra Manns).

    I personally spoke with Xandra and her friends at the Coffee shop-welcome of Green party Gubernatorial candidate Laura Wells. I’m sure Xandra voted for Laura, but NONE of those around her told me they would, they were voting for Jerry brown.

    Thank you.

  105. Thirdeye
    November 18, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    Kuhnel’s problem was that he wanted to have it both ways on the Balloon Track issue. He lost a two-way race against Jeff Leonard two years ago, when he forthrightly opposed the Marina Center development. This year, he danced around the issue and got some of the vote that supported Measure N (as was his intention), but his triangulation, dithering, and obfuscation made him seem untrustworthy to those who had been following the Balloon Track issue, either pro or con.

  106. Anonymous
    November 21, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Jeff Leonard ran his first campaign on a platform of limiting the size of big boxes. He lost developer’s support and barely won against a better-funded liberal opponent.

    Once in office, Leonard immediately voted against an ordinance to limit the size of big boxes!

    “Triangulation, dithering, obfuscation and untrustworthy” indeed.

    Leonard proved to be a liar and it won him the critical support of the developers he needed to succeed in his second campaign).

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s