Home > Uncategorized > Drama at the Democratic Central Committee

Drama at the Democratic Central Committee

Sorry it’s taken me a week to post this.  I’ve been swamped with non-blog life.  The meeting was last week.

I was asked by individuals on both sides of a DCC controversy to attend last week’s meeting.  On June 13, 2012, the meeting room at the local Democratic Party HQ on 5th Street was filled with elected (incoming and outgoing) and associatemembers, and a few visitors.  Once the more mundane business was finished, two resolutions came up for discussion.  One was tabled (essentially killed I think) and one was passed with some reluctance.

It was the first such meeting I had ever intended.  I recognized some of the players.  Others were new to me.

I was told to expect fireworks.  I should say that while the meeting was fairly contentious, it was tame by Sohum standards.  There are definitely some hard feelings carried over from election campaigns both recent and remote.

The gist of the controversy is that the Committee had made endorsements for this last election, and members had publicly supported opposition candidates.  Specifically, the Committee had endorsed Cheryl Seidner, a Democrat, in the First District race and several members names (and one member’s photograph) appeared on an ad entitled “Democrats Endorse Rex Bohn.”  So apparently at the prior meeting, Eureka City Council Member Linda Atkins made a motion to toss these individuals out of the Committee for a violation of the By-Laws prohibiting such public endorsements.  A written version of the motion was brought to last week’s meeting, along with an alternative motion to “inform” members of the By-Laws and require an oath to abide by them.  I’ve neglected to scan the first motion, but the second one can be read by hitting the link below.  The preamble for each motion appeared to me to be identical.   The resolutions differed in that the second one pretty much called for a warning rather than any punitive action this time around – an option the voting members eventually took.

HCDCC Resolution to Inform Members

The written motions were brought and distributed by Josh Drayton who was in as a proxy for an absent member (I  believe that he and Conrad were in as proxies for Bob and Pam Service, both recently re-elected to the Committee).

The first motion did not even get discussed.  Someone made a motion to table the discussion and vote to the July meeting, and an individual whom must serve as the parliamentarian informed the meeting that such a motion is not subject to discussion.  It passed easily though far from unanimously.  It was pointed out that even if passed, the members would all be reinstated again at the July meeting anyway, so tabling it will essentially mean that if passed the purge would last for minutes.

Then the second motion was brought forth and the motion to table was defeated.  Discussion followed, though not before a bit of contentiousness as individuals making a point of order were accused of arguing against the motion (I’ve seen the issue come up often, and the line between an argument against the motion and a point of order calling into question whether the motion should even be made is often very ambiguous).  Eventually the discussion ensued and after repeated objections from one woman that she didn’t have the opportunity to read the motion (it was only one page, and with the exception of the concluding paragraph, was identical to the first motion – an exasperated Josh Drayton responded “it’s one page!”).

Underlying the discussion was the perception by what I’ll call for lack of better term the left wing of the Committee of a hostile takeover of sorts by more centrist or conservative (depending on who you talk to) members.  In addition to the written materials, Josh D.  (who I’m told ran the Seidner campaign and other past contentious campaigns) distributed copies of the “Democrats for Rex” ad, which included a photograph of member (and recently elected) Virginia Bass and the names of others on the Committee including Richard Marks (who has his own account of the meeting), Marion Brady, and others who are “centrist” or “conservative” depending on your point of view.

At one point Virginia stood up, clearly rattled as she viewed the motions as directed at her.  She sarcastically thanked Josh for providing a photo she hadn’t seen, and Josh sarcastically you’re welcomed her back.  As she was speaking, and my notes don’t include the specific point, someone at the front table verbally acknowledged what she was saying.  Virginia thought the woman was interrupting her as asked to be allowed to finish.  The woman in the front quickly explained herself, and Virginia apologized for feeling “a little jumpy” as she felt that she was the primary target of the motions.  While I tend to be on the opposite side of politics with Virginia, I thought she raised some good points about the tone.

During the discussion Sid Berg stood up and argued that the motion is hypocritical because Estelle didn’t get the endorsement (Estelle was re-elected to the Committee at the same time she was elected Supervisor – although the former was a little bit less of a feat considering that there were four candidates in the Second District for four spots).   He argued that anyone on the Committee should not be denied an endorsement if there are no democrats opposing her – a suggestion which drew some head shaking and a sneer or two.

There was a little bit of confusion as to the second motion as some members didn’t realize that they were arguing against a By-Laws provision which was already in effect.  A few argued the provision as if it was being proposed rather than cited.  Someone, it may have been Josh D., suggested that if they don’t like the By-Laws then they should change them, but that they should be honored until such time.  Some good practical questions were raised.  What if you endorse a candidate long before the Committee gets around to its endorsement of the opposition?  What if you give money?  (apparently, according to interpretation there, you would be limited to 99 dollars so that your donation wouldn’t be public).  What if you were hired as the opposing candidate’s campaign manager?  What if you’re actually the opposing candidate?

The motion eventually carried, but nearly everyone agreed that the By-Laws need some revision and clarification.  It was suggested that members be allowed to endorse whom they want, but not identify themselves as members.  It was suggested that maybe the committee shouldn’t endorse non-partisan positions?  It was suggested that the whole thing is outdated under the current system, which could for instance lead to a Huffman/Solomon runoff and people with both campaigns are members of the Committee.

Richard Marks had led a charge to “reform” the Committee through the election of “moderate” or “conservative” (depending on whom you talk to) members, but of his slate only Virginia won (she did come in a strong second behind Linda Atkins).

The North Coast Journal covered the schism following the denial of endorsement of Estelle.

For me it’s kind of a tempest in a teapot to be honest.  I’m not indifferent to the feelings of those involved.  I don’t know if I could personally hold down the discipline to be a member.  I value my independence and if I want to endorse a non-Democrat I will.  But then, I don’t have to be on the Democratic Central Committee.  Nobody does.  Whether the Committee is run by the “far left” or “developers” really doesn’t mean all that much to me.  I guess the Committee’s endorsement sends a message if there are two Democrats in the race, or only one Democrat who doesn’t get the endorsement.  And I guess the underlying discussion is about what constitutes the values embodied by the party – if any.  The meeting reminded me that it’s a pretty big tent – much bigger in terms of ideological scope than the Republican Party which is probably closer to a European-style political party with a specific ideology than either party has been in decades.  So do you make room for everyone?  If you do, are you watering down the values the party ostensibly stands for?  Is it contrary to Democratic Party values to support property rights against controlled growth?   You can make an argument that it’s not “liberal,” but there are plenty of non-liberals in the party even if they bolt for figures like Reagan and Schwarzenegger (or did anyway).  How do you maintain a tent for both labor and environmentalists when they are often at odds?  For cultural conservatives who are economically liberal (or vice-versa)?

The fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.   I’m sure the discussion will continue into the Eureka City Council elections.  And if Norman pulls out second place in the Congressional race, expect a knife fight – within the left wing itself!

Okay, the photo above wasn’t really taken at the meeting.  But I couldn’t figure out how to use my new Droid, and the photo just seems to capture it all.

  1. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 7:24 am

    This is the circular firing squad Republicans love so much.

  2. Julie Timmons
    June 21, 2012 at 8:08 am

    Eric’s account bears at least a passing resemblance to what actually transpired but the picture of the mob amounts to journalistic malpractice.

  3. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 8:08 am

    But several of these people are Republicans… or were until they found they couldn’t get elected in the new left-leaning Humboldt County.

  4. High Finance
    June 21, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Pass the popcorn and tell me more !

  5. Vegemite
    June 21, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Bwahahahah!

  6. Eric Kirk
    June 21, 2012 at 9:15 am

    Eric’s account bears at least a passing resemblance to what actually transpired but the picture of the mob amounts to journalistic malpractice.

    Fortunately I’m not a journalist. I injected the photo for humor. If I’m missing something, or misrepresenting something, maybe more than a one-line snippy reponse would be more appropriate? Just saying.

  7. June 21, 2012 at 9:29 am

    Another classic example of a failed system – What you get when you vote status quo.

    Hey Eric, looks like you’re falling into my trap – using to many words and making jokes no one gets. Guess the joke is on you.

  8. the old guy
    June 21, 2012 at 9:43 am

    divide and conquer!!!!!!!!

  9. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 9:52 am

    What a mess Milt made. Not much democracy going down at the Democratic Central.

  10. Eric Kirk
    June 21, 2012 at 9:59 am

    Actually, there’s plenty of democracy. No shortage whatsoever.

  11. June 21, 2012 at 10:00 am

    Been a Democrat for sixty years–and voted/ too
    don’t do like the Republicans and “unelect” any dissenters
    and compromisers like Lugor. We are not the NO party.
    We can agree to disagree As they said in the revolution—-
    IF WE DO NOT HANG TOGETHER>WE WILL ALL HANG SEPARATELY!!!!!

  12. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 10:18 am

    “But several of these people are Republicans… or were until they found they couldn’t get elected in the new left-leaning Humboldt County.”

    They lied to get the job, and they continue to lie to maintain the job. And if political tides sway, so will they. It’s no about political moderation, it’s about appearance. A different coat of paint, that’s it.

    It’s a lie, they know it, it is wrong.

  13. Eric Kirk
    June 21, 2012 at 10:19 am

    Jean – the issue is the By-Law provision. I’m not sure I like the way it’s written, but then I’m not inclined to run for the position. An argument was made that the discipline is not for everybody, which is why everybody doesn’t have to be on the Committee. It’s not irrational to expect members to follow the rules. Work to change them if you don’t like them, but follow them until they’re changed. Or don’t be on the Committee. When you dig through the variouis political agendas, this is really the issue.

    I would have opposed the first motion because I think it’s a bit draconian to expel someone on a rule that apparently nobody was clear on – certainly on the first “offense.” But I have no problem with a motion which says to follow the rules and discuss changing them later.

  14. Eric Kirk
    June 21, 2012 at 10:20 am

    They lied to get the job, and they continue to lie to maintain the job. And if political tides sway, so will they. It’s no about political moderation, it’s about appearance. A different coat of paint, that’s it.

    It’s a lie, they know it, it is wrong.

    I don’t think that’s true. Certainly not with Virginia who has actually undergone a legitimate political transformation over the years. Talk to her one on one if you disagree with me.

  15. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 10:43 am

    “Talk to her one on one if you disagree with me.”

    Give me a friggin break. You’re talking about politics, eric. Real world. Let’s paraphrase how a talk would go down, because it’s too obvious to bullshit:

    “Hey virginia, what’s your political affiliation?”

    “Moderate Democrat”

    “But it’s painfully obvious you flip flopped from being a proud, lifelong Republican at the last minute to get your $80k/year government job. You solicited donations across the board in this ridiculously misleading manner, etc.”

    “No, that’s wrong. I’m telling the truth.”

    …end of “talk”.

    THEY LIED, THEY KNOW IT, IT IS WRONG.

    We are all now paying tens of thousands of dollars every month for false representation in Humboldt.

  16. Thirdeye
    June 21, 2012 at 10:46 am

    Local races are nonpartisan. The center is up for grabs. HCDCC is risking making itself irrelevant if it doesn’t embrace that reality. 28% for Seidner should have been a wake-up call.

  17. Thirdeye
    June 21, 2012 at 10:48 am

    OK, 10:43, go ahead and form your opinions based on imaginary conversations and keep spouting ignorance.

  18. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 10:50 am

    “28% for Seidner should have been a wake-up call.”

    How many votes was the win? WHAT A LANDSLIDE!!!

    /sarcasm

  19. Eric Kirk
    June 21, 2012 at 10:58 am

    10:50 a.m. – given the loss of Eureka voters and the entry of Scotia into the First District, it’s probably the most conservative of all possible districts in the county. Certainly the most Republican. Yes, it was a landslide. But that’s almost like taking credit for a liberal win in San Francisco where the Green Party outnumbers Republicans.

    10:43 – I would hope your discussion would be a little more substantial than that. You know, like maybe some defining issues?

    She is considerably more conservative than me. But she is considerably more liberal than West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who is a lifelong Democrat.

  20. George Carlin
    June 21, 2012 at 10:59 am

    RE: 10:46 “28% for Seidner should have been a wake-up call.”

    “The next time they give you all that civic bullshit about voting, keep in mind that Hitler was elected in a full, free democratic election.”

  21. Eric Kirk
    June 21, 2012 at 11:05 am

    And if more leftists had voted, maybe Hitler wouldn’t have been elected.

  22. ghost of George Carlin
    June 21, 2012 at 11:11 am

    Exactly!!!!!

  23. Thirdeye
    June 21, 2012 at 11:26 am

    Actually, Hitler was defeated and came to power in machinations after Hindenburg died.

  24. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 11:28 am

    It would be interesting if someone was able to calculate how much Rex paid for the votes he received as opposed to Seidner. Bohn campaigned for four years, Seidner campaigned for 3 months and still took 30% of the vote-now that should be a wake up call.

  25. Thirdeye
    June 21, 2012 at 11:30 am

    How many votes was that win? More than twice as many as Seidner had. And that’s not even counting the conservative vote for De Modena.

  26. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 11:57 am

    How many votes was that win, thirdeye? “Twice as many” is how many? WHAT A LANDSLIDE!!!

    /sarcasm

  27. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    Erik, what the fuck are you talking about? You think I’ve never talked with a political person face to face? How do you think conversation would unfold? Do you understand the concept of paraphrasing, even if as ridiculous as I did? Do you understand the concept of brevity in blogs? Do you get “blogs”? Your “officialspeak” is your own undoing, you’re like an anal retentive stiff sometimes who can’t get his mind over a typo on a piece of paper rather than what it actually is trying to communicate. Do you really think I would have a discussion with her and be impolite? What world are you living in?

  28. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    …”defining issues”…erik….like what? democrat vs. republican…do you think I care about abortion or gay marriage over the quality of my tap water and cost of living, the future of the environment in the county in which I plan to spend the rest of my life? What a great distraction, gay marriage and abortion….quality of life applies to people whether they’re gay straight or pregnant. Yes, let’s hear where she stands on political issues besides gay marriage and abortion and prayer in school. She didn’t discuss those things at all while campaigning, you can even look up her cached website, it says ZIP. Democrat, “community” bla bla bla.

    She pulled a fast one just like Rex Bohn and others, it couldn’t be more obvious. Why you want to tapdance around it I can only imagine.

  29. Smart 5th Grader
    June 21, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    Anon 12:05 Read “What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America” (2004), a book by American journalist and historian Thomas Frank. Mr. Frank explores this question; How did American voters be manipulated into believing gay marriage is more important than a healthy economy or clean air & water.

  30. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    “Mr. Frank explores this question; How did American voters be manipulated into believing gay marriage is more important than a healthy economy or clean air & water.”

    Same thing happened in Alaska with Palin, pushing nationalist “moral” issues like “same sex marriage” and abortion and prayer and nothing of issues exclusive to all alaskans.

  31. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    I believe Ms. Bass is disingenous. It was a political tactic of her and her husband to change from republican to democrat. Watch and see if she doesn’t try to run for higher office. I have watch her and her husband, Matt Owen, at HCDCC events the past couple of years. Mr. Owen shows up at every HCDCC and takes notes. For whom is he taken notes ? He was Rex’ campaign chairman and was working to keep anyone from running against his beloved Rex. He is a menace and a bully. Yes, he was one of Frank’s Eagle Scouts. So now we have Frank’s Troop 54 in charge of Humboldt County politics. The sheriff is also a Boy Scout leader and introduced Rex at one of his many campaign announcements. Yup, and for many years the John Birch Society met at the Eureka Boy Scouts hall. Gotta love Humboldt County politics (sarcasm).

  32. June 21, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    I love how you keep beating the drums, Eric. “And if more leftists had voted, maybe Hitler wouldn’t have been elected.” For someone that’s supposed to know a lot about history, this comment, is well devoid – actually ridiculous. The choices before the American people today is absolutely no different than the phony choice shoved up the Egyptian people’s posteriors. You call that Democracy? You got all the “left,” the young, the believers in “Hope and Change,” etc. voting this last time and look what you got. Virginia Bass in a converted Republican, now a Democrat working for the people. BULL! She does what she’s told to do like all the rest of them. Pay attention to what’s going on in Egypt. What’s happening there will be on the table here in this country.

  33. Thirdeye
    June 21, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    11:57 If you want to argue that Bohn’s total number of votes is unimpressive, what does that make Seidner’s total? Less than half as impressive as Bohn’s. And the performance of the HCDCC (and by extension their anointed candidate) is what this thread is about. HCDCC would have been better served just staying out of the 1st District race than putting its political capital into propping up such a weak candidate. Whoever gets elected in the 1st District is going to have to play ball with the electorate in that district, and the contempt of the HCDCC and its minions for that electorate kept showing. HCDCC’s choice is to self-reflect and learn from that loss, or stomp, scream, and become a noisy irrelevant faction. Noisy and irrelevant, just like you.

    I tend to disagree with Eric’s politics, but the local blogosphere could benefit from more people expressing their ideas the way he usually does. Glibness, snark, and snottiness get old fast.

  34. tra
    June 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    So it sounds like they didn’t vote to actually expel anyone, and there’s no mention of Linda Atkins’ suggestion (made to the NCJ before the election) that they might try to prevent some newly-elected members from being seated. Instead they opted for a “warning” and requiring members to take an “oath” to follow the by-laws in the future.

    Richard Marks had a post on his blog before the election, in which he asserted that numerous other HCDCC members have supported non-endorsed candidates, including non-Democrats, over HCDCC-endorsed candidates in the past. One example he gave was the 2008 race for the 2nd district Supervisor’s seat (Clendenen vs. Fennell vs. Rodoni), in which he says Fennell was endorsed by the HCDCC, but some HCDCC members actively worked for Clendenen’s campaign. Assuming that’s true, then voting to actually expel Bass (or to refuse to seat her) would have been problematic. Either they would have had to expel ALL members who have done this in the past, or else they would have (rightly) been accused of selectively enforcing the by-laws.

  35. tra
    June 21, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Hopefully they will revise the by-laws to better balance the desire for party unity against the desire to allow individuals to dissent without being gagged, or being required to resign or be expelled.

    Keep in mind that the two top vote-getters in the 4th district HCDCC race were Linda Atkins and Virginia Bass. And this was a “vote for 4 candidates” situation, so it wasn’t necessarily a question of Bass voters versus Atkins voters — many of the same people voted for both. So it seems that a majority of the party’s rank-and-file voters in the 4th district value both of them and believe both should serve as voting members of the HCDCC. To me, this suggests that to the rank-and-file, Bass’s endorsement of Bohn just wasn’t a big issue one way or the other.

    I agree that this whole thing is pretty much a “tempest in a teapot.” For my part, I have no trouble understanding the difference between:

    (1) an HCDCC-endorsed candidate — in other words the person who received majority support when the HCDCC voted, and receives the official endorsement of the Committee, and

    (2) a candidate who was not endorsed by the HCDCC as a whole, but is personally endorsed by one or more dissenting HCDCC members, acting as individuals.

    The first candidate’s literature can state “So and so has been endorsed by the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee.” The second candidate’s literature can state “So and so has been endorsed by Person X and Person Y, etc.”

    I just don’t see what the big problem is there. So I think they should change the by-laws to drop the gag rule. Let the voters decide. If rank-and-file voters have a problem with HCDCC members personally endorsing some candidates that the HCDCC did not endorse, then the voters are free to replace those members in the next election.

  36. tra
    June 21, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    At the same time, I don’t agree with those who propose that the HCDCC should automatically support any candidate who is a registered Democrat in cases where there is no other Democrat running. The HCDCC should continue to be free to simply make no endorsement if that’s what the majority wants to do.

    I say that as someone who thinks that Estelle Fennell deserved the endorsement in the most recent race. But it’s one thing to say that I, personally, think she ought to have received the endorsement, and quite another thing to say that the HCDCC should have been required to give her the endorsement simply because she’s a registered Democrat and her opponent is registered as Decline-to-State.

  37. tra
    June 21, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    And, to go a step farther, I also think the HCDCC should be allowed to give it’s official endorsement to a non-Democrat who is running against a registered Democrat, if that’s what they want to do. But again, dissenters on the HCDCC should be free to personally endorse and support whoever they want

  38. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    who farted? Oh…hi “tra”.

    “I agree that this whole thing is pretty much a “tempest in a teapot.”

    $80k/year governing this county, paid for by the public, is not coffetalk. Look at all your coffee talk. What are you talking about? There was bullshit, now bullshit has a very high paying job deciding where the county is going to construct all the new infrastructure the bullshit has always been trying to dump on everybody.

    No more bullshit in Humboldt’s politics, please!

  39. Tra Talk
    June 21, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    Talk
    It’s only talk
    Arguments
    Agreements
    Advice
    Answers

    Articulate announcements
    It’s only talk

    Talk
    It’s only talk
    Babble
    Burble
    Banter
    Bicker bicker bicker
    Brouhaha
    Boulderdash
    Ballyhoo
    It’s only talk
    Back talk

    Talk talk talk
    It’s only talk
    Comments
    Cliches
    Commentary
    Controversy
    Chatter
    Chit-chat
    Chit-chat
    Chit-chat
    [ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/k/king+crimson/elephant+talk_20078581.html ]
    Conversation
    Contradiction
    Criticism
    It’s only talk
    Cheap talk

    Talk
    Talk
    It’s only talk
    Debates
    Discussions
    These are words with a D this time
    Dialogue
    Dualogue
    Diatribe

    Dissention
    Declamation
    Double talk
    Double talk

    Talk
    Talk
    It’s all talk
    Too much talk
    Small talk
    Talk that trash
    Expressions
    Editorials
    Expugnations
    Exclamations
    Enfadulations
    It’s all talk
    Elephant talk
    Elephant talk
    Elephant talk

  40. tra
    June 21, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    2:25/2:35,

    Perhaps you could learn to make a cogent argument, and then come back and try engaging in a real discussion.

    Or, you could just keep spewing meaningless adolescent drivel.

    Your choice.

  41. Tra Talk
    June 21, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Too much talk
    Small talk…

  42. Eric Kirk
    June 21, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    If you don’t like talk, a blog is a pretty weird place to hang around.

    I do love the King Crimson song. I think you miss its point.

  43. ~William Shakespeare, Hamlet
    June 21, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    “Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
    And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
    I will be brief.”

  44. Bard
    June 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    Eric, It isn’t about “don’t like talk”. I simply don’t like long rambling Fidel style speeches. And I don’t “hang around”, I pop in periodically. Any more assumptions to share Eric?

  45. tra
    June 21, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    “I don’t like long rambling Fidel style speeches.”

    And I don’t like ridiculous exaggerations, but there we are.

    My 1:32, 1:59, and 2:10 comments on this thread take less than a minute to read, and they include some pretty straightforward, specific points, directly related to the original topic of this post.

    If that’s “too much talk” for you to handle, well, that’s on you.

  46. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    tra gets community service hours for this.

  47. tra
    June 21, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    Just when I thought your comments couldn’t possibly get more silly and meaningless, you come up with that absurdity.

  48. Bard
    June 21, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    Talk talk talk
    It’s only talk
    Comments
    Cliches
    Commentary….

  49. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    Meanwhile, back in reality…

    Fellow anonymous @ 8:08 said it best:

    “But several of these people are Republicans… or were until they found they couldn’t get elected in the new left-leaning Humboldt County.”

  50. tra
    June 21, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    Sure, just look at the 4th district race in 2010: Bonnie Neeley and Virginia Bass were both longtime Republicans who had recently switched their party affiliation to Democrat.

  51. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Bonnie had a few years on Virginia. Ironically the Republican base that was something that made Bonnie a traitor but was a necessary evil for Virginia.

  52. Thirdeye
    June 21, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    5:13 Four years. Is Virginia a legit Democrat after two years or does she have to wait a couple more? You seem to be in charge of the time criteria.

  53. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    Both guilty of bullshit that’s for sure, 5:13.

  54. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    I won’t argue that. My point was the Republican response was the ironic part.

  55. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    Both Bonnie and Virginia have been Democrats for over 3 years. They reregitered within 45 days of each other.

  56. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    Broad daylight bullshitting, and now they have the job, and now we’re supposed to just forget about it? That’s what they want us to do, that’s how they work.

  57. tra
    June 21, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    Apparently the actual rank-and-file Democratic voters of the 4th aren’t buying into your “bullshit” analysis. The fact of the matter is that Virginia Bass was the second-highest vote-getter in the 4th district HCDCC election in June, easily winning one of the four open seats.

    And keep in mind, these were all Democratic voters — no Republicans whatsoever. So if she’s not a “real” Democrat, then I guess the more than 1,200 registered Democrats who voted for her aren’t “real” Democrats, either?

  58. Midnite Mojo
    June 21, 2012 at 9:55 pm

    That photo looks like it was taken at the Parole Office. What a bunch.

  59. tra
    June 21, 2012 at 10:13 pm

    There was one thing notably missing from Eric’s account of the meeting. Other than one brief and non-specific reference to “hard feelings from elections both recent and remote,” his account reads as if, when it comes to HCDCC members’ personal endorsements that were at odds with the HCDCC’s official endorsements, history had just started this year.

  60. McKinleyvillan
    June 21, 2012 at 10:50 pm

    Bill Wennerholm is a Democrat??? I’d never guess by watching his antics at McK CSD Board meetings.

  61. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 11:25 pm

    tra, virginia bass was not personable to one thousand and two hundred people prior to seeking candidacy for the government job the public now pays her six thousand dollars every month to occupy. She introduced herself to 1200 people in a calculated manner. It is the rank-and-file voters who have been fooled, duh…that’s the whole point.

    This is internet bullshit, tra, and you are fully aware of it. You cannot look a person in the eye and say that you honestly do not see the intentional misrepresentation that has occured and is occuring in humboldt’s government. It’s weasely ethics, it’s not honest. They write off the people they claim they wish to represent as gullible. In their hearts they know it, and so do you, tra. It really is that obvious, a litmus test of believability.

    If you can’t acknowledge that the party flip flop was just to get the job, you’re full of somebody’s shit if not your own. They are not of qualified character to represent the general public. There are enough people who are that would love the opportunity to “move up the ladder” if only they had the (financial) charisma.

  62. Anonymous
    June 21, 2012 at 11:50 pm

    I was watching the candidate videos on the yooboobtoob and I couldn’t believe the words that were coming out of virginia bass’ mouth, it was hilarious but sad because she now really is a governing supervisor of humboldt county. She says something like “I just don’t understand how people can be so against us when we just want to GIVE something to the COMMUNITY”…emphasising the word give and creating opportunities to use the word opportunity. It was pathetic. Telling, too, that she refered to herself as “us” and “we” when talking about what “they” want to GIVE to the community…monolithic multi-story heaters on a giant cement slab right on the bay, forever. They want to “give” it to us. That’s an lol if there ever was one, and it’s entirely true! Look at these peoples’ history of involvement. How did they vote in matters of real estate? The modus operandi of local politics everywhere. Nobody thinks it’s going on in their sleepy little town…suddenly walmart in humboldt county? And some people are PROUD of it? Saying prayers in the parking lot and stuff? Suddenly a line of district supervisors who pulled party affiliation flip flops to sway the vote? And just about all of them are involved in real estate! It’s really happening!

  63. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 12:06 am

    “It is the rank-and-file voters who have been fooled”

    Well thank heavens that all those easily-fooled rank-and-file 4th district voters still have benevolent sages like yourself to so persuasively explain — using your “bullshit” analysis — how foolish they have all been for voting for Virginia Bass, not just once, but now twice (once for Supervisor, and now also for a seat on the HCDCC).

    I’m sure that those voters will all be so thankful that you’ve condescended to cast your pearls of wisdom among them and show them the so-obvious error of their ever-so-foolish ways, that they won’t hardly notice your arrogance at all.

  64. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 12:35 am

    “suddenly walmart in humboldt county?”

    This is your evidence of wrongdoing that has you so seething mad? Really?

    Well I hate to break it to you, but WalMart was able to move into the Bayshore Mall because the mall is already zoned for large retail outlets. They applied for a permit just like any other business, and were following the laws like everyone else, so the City of Eureka had no legal basis upon which they could have denied the permit. And the County Supervisors had no say about it at all, as it’s not even in their jurisdiction.

    Don’t believe me? No need to, just ask Mark Lovelace or Linda Atkins, the progressive heroes on each of these respective boards, why neither of them made any proposals aimed at stopping WalMart from moving into an existing retail space at the Bayshore Mall. I think they will tell you that, regretfully, no one has been able to come up with any ideas on how that could be done, legally.

    WalMart sucks. I won’t shop there. I’d love to see them rejected by Humboldt consumers, and I’d love to have them give up and leave town with their tail between their legs. But getting all tin-foil-hat and trying to blame city council members and county supervisors for WalMart coming here — something those council members and supervisors had no control over — well it just makes you look silly.

  65. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 12:55 am

    ” she now really is a governing supervisor of humboldt county.”

    In point of fact, Virginia was elected to the Board of Supervisors two years ago. So: What votes has she actually cast as a Supervisor that would justify your fears?

    Can you name some specific vote or votes that she has cast as a member of the Board of Supervisors, where you feel she has shown herself to be “corrupt?” Can you even point to any votes that would demonstrate that she is not a “real” Democrat (whatever that means to you)?

    I’m seeing a lot of fear and loathing based on sweeping generalizations, and plenty of red-hot hyperbole and sky-is-falling scaremongering, but I can’t help but notice the complete absence of specific facts to back any of that up.

  66. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 6:39 am

    tra sounds less “reasonable” these days. what a shill.

  67. June 22, 2012 at 7:30 am

    He’s not afraid of bogeymen. What a shill.

  68. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 8:23 am

    “What votes has she actually cast as a Supervisor that would justify your fears?”

    Yep, nothing to show from her after two years other than public funds are minus $160,000 and rising, put straight into her bank account. She’s living comfy, that much is certain.

  69. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 8:25 am

    If you can’t acknowledge that their party flip flopping was just to get the job, you’re full of somebody’s shit if not your own.

  70. June 22, 2012 at 8:31 am

    The problem with your argument is the rest of the country. Where we see Tea Party wackos taking over Repubs, and sensible people retreating from the party. Everywhere. Even here. But here, when they do, they become BOGEYMEN! Take that, good sense!

    I hope our local Democrats don’t become the party that persecutes thought crimes. We can see how well that’s worked for Arcata taking over the county . . .

  71. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 8:35 am

    That actually is a really good point. Besides avoiding any controversial votes what accomplishments does Virginia have to show for the last few years in office? Considering how much we pay supervisors I can’t imagine why we would want them to waste their time (translating to our money) on being on the HCDCC.

  72. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Arcata kind of did take over the county. Lee Ulansey and Rob McBeth are both 3rd District residents and are the main architects of Estelle’s campaign.

  73. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 8:53 am

    “This is your evidence of wrongdoing that has you so seething mad? Really?”

    That’s not even close to what was said, tra. Mad? What drugs ARE you addicted to, tra? Pills, obviously. You rant just like a tweaker in self check.

  74. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 9:08 am

    “Besides avoiding any controversial votes what accomplishments does Virginia have to show for the last few years in office?”

    If I had the option of getting six grand every month to do business with the same people I’ve always worked with, through a seat in public office, I’d volunteer to clean the toilets of the meeting room as well to secure the job.

    The amount of money the public has already paid the flip flopping liars in humboldt’s government could have solved school bus issues, post office issues, fire department issues, police issues, park service, etc.

  75. skippy
    June 22, 2012 at 9:09 am

    To digress for a moment from a few posts back: there’s one thing to remember that we’ve forgotten in all of the Walmart hoopla. Walmart’s plans were kept secret by the company, Eureka City Council, City Manager, and Carrington Company until the last minute– when the cat was out of the bag and the announcement of its arrival finally had to be made only because there was no other choice. The media, if you remember, told you of its arrival after the plans and building were already long underway. Officials and the company then disclosed and confirmed it in the ensuing uproar.

    Why is this important?

    They very well knew of its plans yet kept it under wraps through an ommission of silence until they were no longer able to do so. They still haven’t explained their actions– or lack of– adequately to constituents. This silently dishonest behavior by the City while enjoining a private company sets a very bad precedent for the future. It’s an important point to remember, one that seems to have fallen by the wayside.

    Thank you. Carry on.

  76. June 22, 2012 at 9:10 am

    8:43, where’d you pull that out of? If it were true, Ulansey and McBeth would have taken over Arcata first, n’est-ce pas? Not hardly.

    Pooping on the people who actually ran Estelle’s campaign for six months (do you even know their names?) is no way to understand why she won. No doubt her countywide coalition helped a lot, with legitimacy and money. Her local support got her elected. You talk as if, like Clif, she didn’t exist until she was propped up for office. Again, not hardly. Get out much?

  77. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 9:18 am

    great point, skippy.

  78. High Finance
    June 22, 2012 at 9:32 am

    Let’s humor the paranoid conspiracy kooks for a minute.

    WalMart is a retail company moving into a retail zoned property located in a SHOPPING MALL. There was no way that the left could stop them.

    What possible evil motive could they have to keep their plans a secret for a few months ? Could anything have been stopped if Heraldo & his merry band picket it and stop anything ? No.

    This was just a business decision by the company. There could be lots of reasons but since none of us were in the WalMart board room we will never know. But you claiming some evil deed here just makes you appear too silly for anybody to waste any more time on you.

  79. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 10:02 am

    I see now, for Estelle its a “countywide coalition”, for Clif its a “Arcata takeover”.

  80. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Walmart’s secrecy has everything to do with public awareness.

    People in humboldt’s government who kept the public from knowing a widely opposed international retail corporation was setting up shop in this county, are among the same people demanding more transparancy of government and public involvement in such decision making. Dirty politics, bar none.

  81. June 22, 2012 at 10:30 am

    10:02, you do see. Clif was recruited, scripted and doomed from outside his district. He only existed for a ripple of Arcata optimism. Their inability to understand other people’s concerns, and resolute unwillingness to try, made Clif’s doom certain.

    Estelle was a great contributer to the coalition created to fight the Arcata Borg (as personified by their Clifbot). She grew with the coalition that she grew. She was already one of the best-known people in our district. Her campaign was locally run, and her victory is historic.

    If there’s a next time, the Arcatans should find someone who doesn’t just take orders. HumCPR sure did.

  82. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 10:38 am

    Walmart’s secrecy also means people who are supposed to be representatives of the public when acting as liasons between the likes of walmart, instead behaved as representatives of walmart acting as (silent) liasons between the public. They catered to an out-of-area private interest, and did so against the duties of their job.

  83. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 10:43 am

    Well I see that no one has been able to name any votes cast by Virginia Bass that would actually qualify as “corrupt,” nor even any votes that would justify saying that she’s not a “real” Democrat.

    Instead we have the complaint that she makes $6,000 per month, as if electing someone else would have meant not paying out that salary, which then could have been spent on school buses, fire departments, police, parks, etc. In reality, her opponent in the last election, Bonnie Neeley, got paid quite a bit more, thanks to “longevity pay.” And, just like Bass, Neeley had also recently changed her party affiliation from Republican to Democrat.

  84. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 10:46 am

    I see you haven’t addressed even a third of the issues, tra. You conveniently ignore the obvious.

    If you cannot acknowledge that the party affiliation flip flopping was just to get the job, you are full of somebody’s shit if not your own.

  85. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 10:50 am

    …and the point of the salary is just that. Bass alone has collected almost $200,000 of the public’s money so far. What’s to show? Her plans remain unchanged. She is going to push a strip mall on the waterfront.

    You ignore their involvement before they were elected as well. They are almost all involved in real estate. They are business associates first and foremost, politicians second. They are not true representatives of the people. Their political flip flop is the tip of that iceberg.

    If you cannot acknowledge their party affiliation flip flopping was just to get the job, you are full of somebody’s shit if not your own.

  86. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 11:16 am

    I don’t know whether Virginia Bass’s change in party affiliation mostly “just to get the job” or not, but I do know that her opponent, Bonnie Neeley –championed as a progressive heroine by the same people who are so virulently opposed to Bass — had done exactly the same thing. So I’m amused, though not surprised, by the selective outrage.

    I certainly suspect that in both cases the choice to change parties was, at least in part, motivated by the desire to be more appealing to Democratic voters, but I would’t doubt that in both cases it also had to do with the candidates’ sincere unease with being part of a Republican party that had veered so far to the right at the state and national levels, and was already in the process of purging out many of its more moderate members.

    Eric Kirk, who has taken the time to talk with Bass directly, wrote in a comment on this thread that he believes Bass “has actually undergone a legitimate political transformation over the years.” He suggested that those who think that her party change was not sincere should talk to her directly before assuming that the change was just a cynical political move. Instead, Anonymous just made up an imagined conversation, as if that proved something!

  87. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 11:24 am

    “If you don’t agree with me, you’re full of shit” is not a real argument, it’s a childish taunt. Chanting childish taunts over and over again doesn’t make them any less juvenile. Quite the contrary.

  88. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 11:30 am

    Who’s talking about bonnie neely but you, tra? Are 130,000 people supposed to seek out our representatives for personal conversation? I saw lifelong republicans who didn’t and haven’t changed her agenda one bit flip flopping their declared political affiliation to get the high paying government jobs they now have.

    The label has changed, the contents are exactly the same.

    They go against their own contention that compromise comes from within. They could have changed the republican party by being outspoken about what they disagree with among their own peers, but they haven’t changed a thing, just their label, and the reasons are obvious.

    They lied to the public, they weaseled their way into the headquarters of the people who don’t want anything to do with what they’re pushing on the public. They are moles.

  89. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 11:31 am

    ““If you don’t agree with me, you’re full of shit”

    Is that what I wrote? Is that what I even implied? What kind of pilled out conversation is taking place in your mind?

  90. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 11:39 am

    Meanwhile, the subject of this thread was the HCDCC and it’s policies on members making personal endorsements that may conflict with the official endorsements given by the HCDCC.

    Any thoughts on that, Anonymous? When longtime Democrat Estelle Fennell recieved the HCDCC endorsement in 2008, was it wrong for individual members of the HCDCC to actively, publicly support her opponent, Decline-to-State candidate Clif Clendenen?

    Should those who preferred Clendenen have been subject to the “gag rule” and required to either stay silent for the remainder of the election, or else pretend they preferred Clendenen to Fennell?

    Are party-locksteppers who are willing to subject themselves to that kind of gag-rule-enforced Groupthink really the kind of people you want serving on as the local leadership of the party?

  91. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 11:44 am

    “Is that what I wrote? Is that what I even implied?”

    Are you unable to read or understand your own words? You’ve repeated, over and over again, that:

    “If you cannot acknowledge their party affiliation flip flopping was just to get the job, you are full of somebody’s shit if not your own.”

    In other words, either I agree with your assertion, or I’m “full of shit.” Yup, that’s a meaningless juvenile taunt. Repeating ad nauseum just makes it a very redundant meaningless juvenile taunt.

  92. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 11:53 am

    “I saw lifelong republicans who didn’t and haven’t changed her agenda one bit ”

    And yet somehow you are unable to come up with even one vote Bass has taken while on the Board of Supervisors that would indicate that she’s pushing a Republican agenda?

    Your claims are certainly plenty strident…but sorely lacking in evidence to back up those claims.

  93. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 11:55 am

    You half assedly acknowledge the bullshit, tra. Why you tolerate it is up to you. Their behavior is not characteristic of who should be in government. Sadly, it’s business as usual. Groupthink? You mean like what a political party is? These people are moles. They are business liasons, not politicians.

  94. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 11:58 am

    “Your claims are certainly plenty strident…but sorely lacking in evidence to back up those claims.”

    I’m not claiming anything. Something happened. There are people in office who were proud lifelong republicans who declared different (and more popular) political affiliation immediately before seeking office. They now sit in meetings of their former political opponents.

  95. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    You sure do like to make sweeping generalizations, but the way you shrink away from requests for specifics reveals how hollow your arguments really are. I feel sorry for you. You’re SO sure that you’re SO right, and that those you are attacking are SO corrupt and SO ideologically right-wing — and yet you seem to be completely unable to marshal any kind of real evidence to back up these certainties of yours. No wonder you’re so grumpy.

  96. Fact Checker
    June 22, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Wow Tra! That is some judgmental, condescending sorrow you “feel” for your fellow man. It is wasn’t for you and Highly Mistaken, we mere ignorant mortals would be stuck in Libtard mode forever.

  97. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Your ironically fact-free critique has been duly noted.

  98. Fact Checker
    June 22, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Apologies. There were no “facts” to check, just a bunch of condescending judgmental superiority.

  99. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Something specific for tra: There are people in office who were proud lifelong republicans who declared different (and more popular) political affiliation immediately before seeking office. They now sit in meetings of their former political opponents.

  100. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 12:42 pm

    “Groupthink? You mean like what a political party is?”

    Very revealing. You may think that a Groupthink approach is healthy for a political party, but I think most people think there should be room for differences of opinion to be expressed, rather than suppressed.

    I have no problem with the HCDCC making their official endorsements based in a majority vote, I just don’t see a problem with individual members being allowed to make their own personal endorsements, not being gagged or required to resign or be expelled, just because they were in the minority on a certain endorsement vote.

    I have no problem with Clendenen supporters on the HCDCC personally endorsing and supporting Clendenen in 2008, despite the HCDCC’s official endorsement of Estelle that year, and by the same token I don’t have any problem with Bass and Marks personally endorsing and supporting Bohn despite the HCDCC’s official support for Seidner.

  101. Jack Sherman
    June 22, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    “I don’t care if the far left or the developers run the HCDCC”. (Eric Kirk).

    There you have it…

    The HCDCC has never been dominated by the far-left, nor has it ever had a handful of life-long republicans suddenly switch affiliation and turn HCDCC meetings into non-productive chaos.

    The HCDCC is a POLITICAL organization! There’s no obligation to enforce it’s by-laws…anymore than a traffic officer is required to fully enforce the Vehicle Code, or issue a warning.

    Trying to turn a political organization into a courtroom of lawyers and judges who are required to uphold legal precedence has, predictably, turned meetings into turmoil and chaos! No wonder the chair and treasurer are resigning.

    In general, the political differences between Estell and Cliff, compared to Virginia and Bonnie….are huge…it’s purely at the discretion of the HCDCC to make the call!!! Bonnie Neely actually sought to hold developers accountable for their most blatant violations…everyone knows Rex, Estelle and Virgina will not, the developers are their largest donors!!! (This is why Bohn can’t remember their occupations on his own campaign statements!!!).

    Combine hard-times with widespread ignorance and we have the perfect storm for the right-wing to get elected by merely offering a shovel for poor families to dig their economy and infrastructure into deeper decay with even more poverty-wage jobs and even more big homes they can’t afford.

    If real reporters and real community media existed to routinely explain how and why the same tiny cabal of developers are willing to spend millions of dollars on rural politics, (and hundreds of thousands of dollars on a single Eureka city council seat paying $500/month), far more than 25% of eligible voters would be participating….with far different results.

  102. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    You are the one who brought up groupthink, tra.

    They switched parties to sway the vote and gain political ground in an opposing party. That much is obvious. Why tra continues to say otherwise, maybe only his doctor knows.

  103. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    very well said, jack sherman @ 1:02

  104. Matthew Owen
    June 22, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    There seems to be one angry anonymous person who constantly posts baseless lies (most of it revolving around land use issues) about my wife, Virginia Bass, and myself.

    I ask but one favor if you feel the need to insult me… at least be the truth and not lies.

    Although Eric Kirk and I do not see eye to eye on every issue, I respect Eric in that we can have a civil discourse of thoughts and ideas without resorting to yelling, lying and hurling personal insults.

    Same goes with most members of the community. As I constantly say, I believe we have more in common than what drives us apart. However, we can only find our common ground when we have a polite face to face conversation.

    The comments section on our local blogs gives certain people keyboard courage in the privacy of their homes as long as they are anonymous.

    Notice how the Times Standard’s comments section went to almost zero once people had to login through Facebook and use their name.

    Your misstatements for the record:

    1. But several of these people are Republicans… or were until they found they couldn’t get elected in the new left-leaning Humboldt County.

    As far as I know, only two local politicians have changed from Republican to Democrat and that would be Virginia Bass and Bonnie Neely. Frank Jager and Lance Madsen seem to be fine with the “R” after their names.

    2. Bonnie had a few years on Virginia.

    Wrong, they both changed party affiliations in early 2009. You can verify this with the elections office.

    3. Erik, what the fuck are you talking about? You think I’ve never talked with a political person face to face?

    I don’t ever recall having a political conversation with you. I remember the angry people.

    4. He was Rex’ campaign chairman…

    I was never Rex’s campaign chair, just one of thousands of his supporters and volunteers, a former neighbor and a friend.

    5. … and was working to keep anyone from running against his beloved Rex.

    Again not true and if so, I didn’t do a very good job as Annette DeModena announced before Rex that she was running for Supervisor and a third candidate entered the race at the last minute.

    6. He is a menace and a bully.

    I’m sorry you feel that way and would be happy to share a cup of coffee to talk about this further.

    7. Yes, he was one of Frank’s Eagle Scouts.

    No I was not one of Frank Jager’s Eagle Scouts. That was my brother. I only attained Life Scout rank and to this day one of my true regrets in life that I didn’t finish my Eagle Scout project.

    8. She (Virginia) is going to push a strip mall on the waterfront.

    I believe you are referring to the proposed Marina Center on the Balloon Track site.
    One: This is a City of Eureka issue, not a County of Humboldt issue. Virginia has no jurisdiction (or vote) over this issue.
    Two: The California Coastal Commission is holding up the Marina Center project along with another $125 million of proposed projects within the City of Eureka.
    Three: The Eureka voters overwhelming approved the Marina Center project (Measure N) by a 70% vote in 2010.

    9. You ignore their involvement before they were elected as well. They are almost all involved in real estate. They are business associates first and foremost, politicians second.

    This was my personal favorite. Let’ s start with the County elected officials.
    Virginia Bass was a waitress/manager of her family’s restaurant for over 30 years before working in pharmaceutical sales.
    Clif Clendenen ran his family apple business, Clendenen’s Cider Works.
    Jimmy Smith was a fisherman.
    Ryan Sundberg worked in insurance.
    Mark Lovelace was a lobbyist for Healthy Humboldt and before that run his own small business.

    Over at the City of Eureka Mayor Frank Jager is retired law enforcement / Coroner / Boy Scout leader.
    Melinda Ciarabellini is retired law enforcement.
    Lance Madsen is retired law enforcement and Eureka Housing Authority.
    Linda Atkins is retired Cal Trans.
    Marian Brady is a graphic designer.
    Mike Newman is a local insurance broker.

    I don’t see a lot of real estate developers in our current elected officials. Do you?

    To angry “anonymous” person, I’m not hard to find. If you are as you say a member of the HCDCC, call or email me and we can set up a time to talk.

    If you feel the need to continue your lies on an anonymous blog please know that you are only perpetuating the reputation of the radicals in our community.

    It’s your call – we can deal with your concerns as mature adults or you can continue your unfounded rants based on half-truths and outright lies.

  105. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    “there are people in office who were proud lifelong republicans who declared different (and more popular) political affiliation immediately before seeking office.”

    That describes Bass, and also her opponent, Neeley. No one is disputing that. This does not prove your claim that either one of them “lied” or was a “mole.” It does not prove that they were not sincerely aligned with the majority of the party platform of the party they chose to switch to, and sincerely felt that, due to changes in their own political views, as well as the dramatic rightward plunge taken by the Republican Party in recent years, the Democratic party now better represented them than the party they had previously belonged to.

    “They now sit in meetings of their former political opponents.”

    Besides Bass, who are you referring to on the HCDCC that switched parties? Estelle Fennell is a longtime Democrat (same with Richard Marks, Sid Berg, etc).

    Bass and Fennell were both elected to the Board of Supervisors by a majority of voters in their respective elections, and both of them were also elected, by registered Democratic voters only, to represent them on the HCDCC. So, yes, they get to “sit in meetings” that they were elected to sit in.

    If you want to operate a little privately-controlled political club where new members can only be added by the faction that currently controls the existing Board, you are welcome to do that. But that’s not how a small ‘d’ democratic party works, and it shouldn’t be how the big “D” Democratic Party works either. The rank-and-file voters get to decide who they want to represent them on the HCDCC, and given the results from the recent 4th district HCDCC race, it is clear that among registered Democrats who voted, most preferred Linda Atkins, Virginia Bass, Pam Service, and Bob Service, in that order.

  106. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    “They switched parties to sway the vote and gain political ground in an opposing party. That much is obvious.”

    By “obvious” you mean you’re absolutely sure of it, though you can’t point to any actual evidence at all.

  107. Amy Breighton
    June 22, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    One of the downsides of rural communities is believing that you know somebody just because you see them so often. Many folks base their vote upon such meager evidence, however, the vast majority know better, and don’t vote at all.

    Maybe it hasn’t occurred to anyone yet, but the HCDCC can be petitioned to have its state certification revoked for failure to enforce its own by-laws after active members have formally attempted to do so, systematically thwarted by a sudden influx of flip-floppers.

    If legitimate HCDCC members are unable to cleanup their own obvious and ugly mess, the state party can do it for you.

  108. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    Who is this “sudden influx of flip-floppers” you refer to? Aside from Virginia Bass, which other recent or new members of the HCDCC are people who were longtime Republicans and recently switched to the Democratic party? Estelle Fennell? Nope, she’s a longtime Democrat. Richard Marks? Nope, he’s a longtime Democrat. Sid Berg? Nope, he’s a longtime Democrat….

  109. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    Matthew Owen, nobody has any obligation to meet you or your wife in person. It’s ridiculous to suggest. Anybody and everybody has a right to discuss the matter however they choose.

    Everybody is subject to the results of your wife’s governing. On the other hand, I’m anonymous with no personable involvement or influence.

    I have also not lied whatsoever. How have you come to that conclusion?

    And why do you insist I am angry? Please don’t distract from specifics with emotional nonsense.

    Naturally, in light of the circumstances surrounding your wife’s employment (she is now a representative of we, the people no less) one has reason to be concerned. It’s a very important and high paying governing position. Do you disagree?

    It goes without saying that you are now enjoying an even greater comfort of living.

    Virginia Bass was in pharmacuetical sales? I didn’t know that. She is way more experienced in bullshitting people than I thought. Which pills did they tell her to push?

  110. just middle class
    June 22, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    The whole issue here is Democrat vs. “progressive” Democrat, with the latter controlling the agenda. The progrssives are the most extreme part of the party and wish to controlt the complete agenda of the local party. Although they hate Estelle they were glad to back Bonnie when she was a Republican. This attempt to stifle opposition is only another reason that the progressives have lost control of elected office. Not long ago when Local Solutions was running the election show, they had significant say and now they are killing their own because of their election failures. The mere fact that they threw Cheryl out as the sacraficial lamb shows how out of touch they are with Cheryl not even achieving a good show against Rex. It is interesting to watch this fight.

  111. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    Here is the list of the current voting members of the HCDCC. These are the people who had an opportunity to vote on Atkins’ failed resolution that was aimed at purging those who failed to abide by the gag rule in the most recent election when they personally supported Bohn against his HCDCC-endorsed opponent, Seidner (while ignoring those who didn’t abide by the gag rule when they personally supported Clendenen in 2008 over Fennell, who was the HCDCC-endorsed candidate at that time).

    So, which of these people are the “sudden influx of flip-floppers” who “thwarted” this attempt to (selectively) enforce the by-laws?

    DIstrict 1 Representatives

    Heidi Benzonelli
    Joan Hubbard
    Phillis A. Seawright
    Julie Timmons

    District 2 Representatives

    Estelle Fennell
    Barbara Kennedy
    Kris Renner

    District 3 Representatives

    Chris Beresford
    Milt Boyd
    Pam Cahill
    Barbara M. Carolan
    Isabella Phipps
    Michael Winkler

    District 4 Representatives

    Linda Atkins
    Charlene H. Ploss
    Pam Service
    Bob Service

    District 5 Representatives

    Sid Berg
    Chuck Harvey
    Jim Smith
    Roger L. Smith

  112. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    This issue has been going on for years. I can remember when the committee refused to endorse former Democratic State Assemblyman Dan Hauser. Just pror to that the committe had been inundated by former Green Party members who flip flopped over to the Dems after the Greens imploded.

  113. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    “The whole issue here is Democrat vs. “progressive” Democrat”

    I don’t know who you believe you’re speaking for, but not me. The issue is intentional misrepresentation. I believe there should be no more bullshit in humboldt’s government. Specific candidates have exemplified bullshit. You, as well, are playing the “but so and so did it too” game. You are not speaking for me. They have intentionally mislead the public, they are intelligent adults who know exactly that.

  114. June 22, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    “Jack Sherman” wrote: “Bonnie Neely actually sought to hold developers accountable for their most blatant violations”

    WTF?

    Redwood Audubon SUED the County in order to get a Grading Ordinance to keep wetlands from being filled in. Gravel operators once ran rampant through our streams. Right? ‘Unbridled growth’ in McKinleyville and Cutten in the late 80’s – early 2000’s with MINIMAL mitigation impacts – all under Bonnie’s watch.

    Bonnie WAS the developer candidate for the bulk of her tenure on the Board and they protected her dearly to keep her seat. They did well too, 26 years.

    It wasn’t until 2006 that she became an ‘environmentalist’/Democrat, getting into bed with “Jack Sherman,” Baykeeper, Healthy Humboldt, Sierra Club and Local Solutions thinking they represented the ‘new majority’. She traded the big bucks from Guynup, McMurray, Simpson, Palco, Schmidtbauer, Sierra Pacific, and Harper for the big bucks from the Casino and the under-left-wing whackaloons and she LOST.

    Kudos for one of the most entertaining threads since the change. The best part is hearing ‘balls-to-the-wall” “R. Trent Williams” singing Bonnie’s praises.

  115. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    Anon 2:08,

    Please name a specific vote on the Board of Supervisors that, to you, indicates that Virginia Bass “misrepresented” herself to the voters.

    The voters have had two years since Bass was elected to decide whether they thought she had “misrepresented” herself or not back when she was first elected to the Board. Judging by the results in the recent 4th district HCDCC race, it seems that most Democratic voters in her district just don’t agree with your assessment.

  116. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    “I don’t see a lot of real estate developers in our current elected officials. Do you?”

    Yes, Mr. Owen, I see plenty of them. There’s a video online of your wife, for example, explaining (before she was even elected) that she cannot understand why people don’t want the real estate deal she is part of pushing on the public. And who else is involved in that agenda?

    How can you say the public has “overwhelmingly” supported such a thing as the “marina center” as you call it? First, you aren’t even talking about 1% of the population. Second, the matter put in front of the people was not about construction of the real estate transaction your wife, among others, has been setting up.

    There’s several other points but I would be pleased if you responded to these first, as we can discuss this as though we were face to face, where we each take turns talking in a civil manner.

  117. just middle class
    June 22, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    Anony, are you claiming the the public does not support the Marina Center? Do you recall the vote on that issue? If not, what do you base your opinion on?

  118. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    3:00, it’s not an opinion that a yes or no decision to construct anything on the bay has been presented to the public.

    I am claiming the real “overwhelming majority” of people in this county don’t even know such a proposal has been in the works. I think that is obvious. I am claiming there are current supervisors who now have influence over such things as land use, rezoning and future planning to accomodate the same real estate interests they were involved with prior to being elected.

  119. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    typo in my 3:13, I should have said it’s not an opinion that such a decision HASN’T been given to the public.

    It is a fact that such a decision has NOT been given to the public.

  120. Smart 5th Grader
    June 22, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    Interesting that conservative bloggers are so full of opinions about how the Democratic party ought to conduct their own party business.

  121. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Well the Balloon Tract rezoning decision was up to Eureka voters, not voters countywide. And it would be hard to argue that Eureka voters were unaware that changing the zoning was aimed at allowing a Big-Box-anchored project, called the Marina Center, to be built there. The “Marina Center NOW!” signs were everywhere.

    So from my point of view it seems pretty clear that Eureka voters were aware that they were voting in favor of Arkley’s Marina Center project. Where they were misled is that they were encouraged to believe that if they passed the re-zoning, they would get the Marina Center “NOW!”

    A more accurate slogan for that campaign would have been: “Marina Center, maybe someday, if the Coastal Commission approves it, financing becomes available, and market conditions make it feasible.” Of course that’s not quite as catchy a slogan.

  122. justanothergoodoldboy
    June 22, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    How funny is this shit. Owen, who is really not my favorite person, gives a very logical factual retort to this really stupid anon. Anon just keeps repeating the same garbage. Salzman, shut the fuck up. Have you not poisoned this county enough. Smart 5 grade, you need to be held back in the 4th grade.

    Most of the bullshit in this county comes from the progressive group. Take your pick, Salzman ie Anons 1-99, Miller ie NAN, Atkins, Glass, Gault ie McKinleyvillIian, and on and on. Well people are tired of you and your going down in flames. Say goodnite, bye.

  123. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    Flames? Oooh.

  124. Smart 5th Grader
    June 22, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    justanothergoodoldhater 3:46 Awww, you’re a Hater!

  125. Amy Breighton
    June 22, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    It’s amusing to read all the deceptive comments obscuring the simple fact that a small group of republican flip-floppers have the HCDCC in disarray. Ignoring Marion Brady’s loss, or the new right-wing HCDCC Associates, doesn’t change that fact.

    “But, the Greens tried to take-over the HCDCC too”!

    Hilarious! The Greens have always shared the bulk of democratic values, principles and agenda…usually voting for a democrat when a democratic candidate is seriously threatened by a republican.

    Why not stay with the same developer-backed republican central committee that bankrolls every one of your candidates…Bass, Bohn, Brady, Jager, et al?

    What, and miss this opportunity to place a periodically successful nemesis in complete chaos?

  126. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    I am not richard salzman, I’ve never met the guy, I barely know who he is.

    I would appreciate a reply and hopefully polite correspondence with Mr. Owen regarding my post @ 2:30.

  127. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    Troop 54, where aarrrre you??

  128. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    No, Matt, I will not have coffee with you. Thanks, but no thanks.

  129. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    Well it’s nice to see that Anonymous 5:01 wants a “polite correspondence” with Mr. Owen.

    I’m just wondering if that is the same Anonymous that has posted numerous comments in this thread loudly declaring Mr. Owen’s wife a liar, a bullshitter, disingenuous, a mole, and most recently, a bullshitting pill-pusher? Cuz we all know that’s a great way to start a “polite correspondence” with someone…

  130. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    JMC, you are truly misinformed. Cheryl was not a sacrificial lamb. She has no regrets about running and even enjoyed the process.

    Matt, stop writing notes and stop your bullying.

    Perhaps, you should go back to the republican party. That is where your friends are.

    Estelle did not get the HCDCC endorsement, because she was the E.D. for a lobbying group, HUMCPR, which represented property rights activists, real estate developers/interests, and TPZ property owners that were concerned about their illegal subdivisions. Lee Ulansey, appointed by former Mayor Bass, is behind HUMCPR. So perhaps that is why Bass is aligned with the real estate interests.

  131. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    TRA, I believe there are several anonymii that share similar viewpoints.

  132. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    Frank n’ Matt:

  133. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    I should clarify: Lee Ulansey was appointed to the Eureka Planning Commission by former Mayor Bass.

  134. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    What’s the problem with Mr. Owen taking notes at meetings?

  135. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    “TRA, I believe there are several anonymii that share similar viewpoints.”

    Sure, but when a number of comments use the same exact wording (bullshit, bullshitting, false representation, intentional misrepresentation, mole, etc.) over and over and over, it seems more likely that those particular comments are all coming from the same person.

    But it would certainly be helpful if people who are going to make multiple comments would just pick a nickname and use that.

  136. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    tra, you are anonymous and post as often as ten anonymi.

  137. Eric Kirk
    June 22, 2012 at 6:57 pm

    10:02, you do see. Clif was recruited, scripted and doomed from outside his district. He only existed for a ripple of Arcata optimism. Their inability to understand other people’s concerns, and resolute unwillingness to try, made Clif’s doom certain.

    No Longwind, that’s absolutely not true. He was recruited by a group of Sohum progressives. We held a number of meetings to find someone who might be able to beat Roger. There was nobody from Arcata in the group. There were two, and only two, people from Eureka who showed up to some of the meetings. We considered Mel Kreb for awhile, but he wasn’t ready to run. Then we met Clif. We learned that Estelle was interested in running, so we decided to put together some questions and interview each. Based upon their responses, we came to the conclusion that not only was Clif the better candidate to challenge Roger, but also that he was the more progressive candidate on issues that mattered for the position. I was unable to attend the interviews, so I did not personally take part in the decision, but decided months later to support Clif when he spoke in Garberville in December of 2007.

    No Arcata involvement whatsoever. A couple of interested Eureka activists attended the meetings at the invitation of the group. They were not all that active in his campaign.

    This time around we had Elizabeth Connor, a very progressive woman who cares deeply about the county. We had a couple of volunteers phone banking from Arcata, but most of the volunteers were from Fortuna.

  138. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    “tra, you are anonymous and post as often as ten anonymi”

    I think perhaps you missed the point — I wasn’t saying that I am any less anonymous than anyone else, I was just pointing out that when anonymous commenters pick a nickname and stick with it, that avoids the problem of one anonymous commenter being confused with another.

  139. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    tra, the phrase “seeing the forest through the trees” applies. If you can’t make sense of a comment as it stands, don’t bother to respond. Unfortunately that hasn’t stopped you yet.

  140. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    you know what’s dumbfounding, in one of those hilariously sad but true ways, is that somebody like an elected official or the spouse of an elected official can have the audacity to act surprised and single somebody out that they are the subject of criticism based on personal issues. It’s a monumental statement about the tiny world they live in. How many people does matthew owen and virginia bass and rex bohn think live in this county? How many people do they think live in this state? They demonstrate full comphrehension of the disinterested population when they broadcast their own messages, being intentionally misleading and unrelentingly kiss-ass to appeal to as many “sway votes” as possible. Then act surprised and insulted when their politics are criticized, citing emotional irrational. It’s insane.

  141. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    No, the comments I’m referring to certainly “make sense.” It’s just that they’re largely composed of sweeping generalizations and unsupported accusations, while being empty of specifics and evidence. In other words, they’re hollow claims.

    The fact that so many of these hollow claims are worded so similarly certainly makes it seem like they’re all coming from the same person. But I can certainly understand why that person might not want to admit authorship of so many hollow claims, even anonymously. Whoever you are, you’ve embarrassed yourself… and you know it.

  142. Wanna endorsement?
    June 22, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Only 2 winners out of 14 endorsements. What’s worse ithan being a HCDCC endorsed candidate?

    2012
    Cheryl Seidner 28%

    2010
    Patrick Cleary 49%
    Bonnie Neely 44%
    Larry Glass 43%
    Ron Kuhnel 42%
    Peter LaVallee 44%
    Jon Brooks 27%

    2008
    Linda Atkins 54% Winner

    Estelle Fennell 29%
    George Clark 37%

    2006
    Larry Glass 49.8% Winner

    Ron Kuhnel 49.8%
    Peter LaVallee 47%
    Nan Abrams 48%

  143. Thirdeye
    June 22, 2012 at 8:46 pm

    7:57, Matt’s point was that you habitually make up complete fabrications to justify your warped views. You haven’t been able to counter his enumerated points in any factual manner. You haven’t been able to come up with anything specific to back your claims when repeatedly asked by tra. Simply repeating the same old bs and personal attacks after you have had your untruths busted isn’t going to get you very far. Anybody can read this thread and see that you have no credibility. But you’re not going to let that get in the way of your online tantrum, are you?

  144. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    “Only 2 winners out of 14 endorsements.”

    What about Mark Lovelace, who won in 2008 and again this year. Didn’t he get the HCDCC endorsement?

  145. Jack Sherman
    June 22, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    HCDCC endorsements are sought because democrats represent most registered voters.

    Most HCDCC-endorsed candidates lose because they were not endorsed by the development community. There are painfully few exceptions to this rule.

    What’s remarkable is that this is the most meaningful political statistic and the one that local media obediently ignores.

    If citizens knew how corrupt local elections are, they might actually register and vote.

  146. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    “If citizens knew how corrupt local elections are, they might actually register and vote.”

    So people don’t vote because they don’t think elections are corrupt enough?

  147. tra
    June 22, 2012 at 10:01 pm

    The thing is, I suspect that many people don’t vote because they believe that elections, and politics in general, are already too corrupt for their vote to make any difference.

  148. SmokeMonster
    June 22, 2012 at 10:40 pm

    Mr.Owens cares so much about this community,so much so the last time I was called for jury duty to serve my community he was literally one of the first people to ask the judge to excuse him due to his job as a consultant.

    Guess since jury duty doesn’t pay the bills its not worth Matt’s time. I missed work for a week straight to do my part in society while he pranced out of there the 1st day with a big huge smile.

    What a stand up guy you are.

    See Matt it is unfortunate that in such a small community posters have to use anonymous names for fear of being fired or not hired while seeking employment and/or other forms of bullying tactics,due to opinionated posts on blogs

  149. Anonymous
    June 22, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    Worth repeating:

    Matthew Owen says: “I don’t see a lot of real estate developers in our current elected officials. Do you?”

    Yes, Mr. Owen, I see plenty of them. There’s a video online of your wife, for example, explaining (before she was even elected) that she cannot understand why people don’t want the real estate deal she is part of pushing on the public. And who else is involved in that agenda?

  150. June 22, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    Hank – this is where you step in and point out how that term ‘agenda’ is so meaningless… LOL. Gotta love it.

  151. Jack Sherman
    June 23, 2012 at 1:10 am

    “So people don’t vote because they don’t think elections are corrupt enough?”

    Not one media source in Humboldt County has bothered to report on the extent to which money has corrupted local politics, not even the obvious “how” and “why” the development community calls the shots.

    Yet, “people don’t vote because they believe that elections, and politics in general, are already too corrupt for their vote to make any difference”?

    Hardly.

    Truth is, they have no idea.

  152. Anonymous
    June 23, 2012 at 7:21 am

    Lots of folks are too busy trying to pay for food and shelter to worry about greedy business people trashing the countryside. They don’t bother to vote because they don’t see how it can help them.

  153. just middle class
    June 23, 2012 at 7:22 am

    Jack,
    Your definition of corrupt is that your candidates lost.

  154. Anonymous
    June 23, 2012 at 8:13 am

    Only 2 winners out of 14 HCDCC endorsements.

    I believe they meant to say, “Only 2 winners out of 14 endorsements (outside of Arcata) in City of Eureka and County of Humboldt non-partisan elections in the past six years.”

    That’s only 15% winners and 85% losers with the HCDCC endorsement. Not a great indicator of election outcomes.

  155. June 23, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    I see the drum-beater Kirk turned the blog over to tra…

  156. Just Middle Class
    June 23, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    In reality, the HDCC should just stay out of non-partisan races. Their endorsement was good, but now is just the kiss-of-death. So if they want to relevant, they should evolve.

  157. Anonymous
    June 23, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    In 06-08 HCDCC endorsed 16 candidates and 15 won.

    “Non-partisan” offices are those chosen without party primaries, which explains the term “non” partisan. Endorsements are fine. It’s up to voters to determine if it’s good for the candidate or not.

  158. tra
    June 23, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Well, somebody’s fibbing.

    “Wanna Endorsement” on 6/22 at 8:22pm named 7 races in ’06 and ’08 where (according to W.E) the candidate had the HCDCC endorsement, and 5 of them lost, while 2 won.

    Anon 6:35 states that HCDCC endorsed 16 candidates in ’06 and ’08 and that 15 of them won and only 2 lost.

    Hard to see how both of those statements could be true.

    My guess is that “Wanna Endorsement” left out a number of races where there was an HCDCC candidate and the HCDCC-endorsed candidate won. And maybe 6:35 left out some where the HCDCC-endorsed candidate lost?

    Not that it really matters…it’s just interesting because it’s one of those cases of conflicting claims where the answer is not really a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of fact. And a matter of public record, which should make it even more straightforward. That’s why I’m a bit surprised at how far apart the two claims are.

    Anyone want to clarify what the actual numbers are?

  159. tra
    June 23, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    Oops, let me correct that:

    Anon 6:35 stated that HCDCC endorsed 16 candidates in ’06 and ’08 and that 15 of those candidates won and only 1 of those candidates lost.

  160. Anonymous
    June 23, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    Eric’s account is accurate but incomplete. He is not aware of the history. If he was he might be a little less charitable to the hostile takeover side. The agenda is about breaking the back of progressive politics in the county.

  161. Wanna endorsement?
    June 23, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    TRA: Wannaendorsement is correct. Just didn’t count any Arcata or Fortuna City Council races.

  162. Jack Sherman
    June 24, 2012 at 1:13 am

    Most HCDCC-endorsed candidates lose because they were not endorsed by the development community. There are painfully few exceptions to this rule.

    What’s remarkable is that this is the most meaningful political statistic and the one that local media obediently ignores.

  163. Anonymous
    June 24, 2012 at 9:23 am

    If you can’t beat them you should join them. Obviously if the candidates you are endorsing aren’t winning you should endorse different candidates. Because it’s all about endorsing candidates that win. Maybe the HCDCC should start endorsing Republicans.

  164. June 24, 2012 at 11:11 am

    Endorsement policy and public support of non-Dems comes from CA Election Code and the CA Dem Party. Thus it is the law (Election Code) that HCDCC members can’t publicly support non-Dems nor may the body endorse non-Dems.

  165. Jack Sherman
    June 24, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    “Lots of folks are too busy trying to pay for food and shelter to worry about greedy business people trashing the countryside. They don’t bother to vote because they don’t see how it can help them.”(Anonymous 7:21 am).

    In reality, these are struggling people who are intelligent.

    They can’t see how voting on local candidates can help them because they don’t have community media reporting in their interests, ie, that routinely exposes how dwindling public subsidies are being harvested by the development community, not unlike the Wall Street bailouts, while their neighborhood schools and public services disappear.

    This is the same development community that dominates campaign contributions and wins most elections…the same individuals who’s occupations Rex Bohn couldn’t remember to report on his campaign statements!

    If local media shared, or even reported the outrage of this level of blatant corruption…the other majority would register to vote.

  166. Anonymous
    June 24, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    “If local media shared, or even reported the outrage of this level of blatant corruption…”

    Exactly. Read the blogs alone, they are rife with complaints about such corruption. People at city government meetings all over the nation bring up these matters, locally it’s no secret among insiders either. The complaint box has been overflowing for a long time regarding this exact subject, yet the reporting remains nill.

  167. HCDCC hypocrite
    June 24, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    I so agree with Rufus.

    “Thus it is the law (Election Code) that HCDCC members can’t publicly support non-Dems nor may the body endorse non-Dems.”

    So when Congressman Thompson and State Asseblyman Wes Chesbro publicly endorsed and gave money – this year – to a non-Democrat over a Democrat – what do you proposed we do to them?

    When former HCDCC chair Milt Boyd and Chris Bersford each gave $100 last year and numerous HCDCC members endorsed a non-Democrat over a Democrat – what do you proposed we do to them?

    When Shane Brinton and Sofia Periera chaired a non-Democrat’s campaign over two HCDCC endorsed Democrats – what do you proposed we do to them?

    When 17 of 23 members of the HCDCC endorsed a Republican over a Democrat – what do you proposed we do to them?

    Should we just kick them all out and start from scratch?

  168. Amy Breighton
    June 24, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Repeating “hypocrisy” over and over again doesn’t make it so!

    Had any member of the committee offered a resolution to enforce the by-laws in ONE of those situations?

    No?

    That’s because the HCDCC members understood that the candidates being “hypocritically” supported, in fact, shared the bulk of democratic values of the HCDCC!

    When life-long republicans suddenly decide to wear Rex Bohn sweatshirts in HCDCC meetings, and a HCDCC member tries to enforce the by-laws…it damn-near passed.

    If the intransigent members of of the HCDCC continue to block its own members from enforcing the by-laws, the state party can be petitioned to de-certify the HCDCC!

  169. Sid Berg
    June 25, 2012 at 1:09 am

    Why can’t we all just get along? I agree with Amy. If the HCDCC doesn’t pull itself together, it will become irrelevant or the State Committee may well step in and pull the charter. I suggest publishing the list of Democratic Values and make all members swear an oath to uphold them under the penalty of scorn due to moral perjury. If we are all clear on what is a Democrat,there should be no reason not to endorse one, especially a member of the Committee.I hope jobs are part of the platform!

  170. Anonymous
    June 25, 2012 at 1:15 am

    How about gun control Sid?

  171. Anonymous
    June 25, 2012 at 1:33 am

    Jobs! Now that is a platform that will differentiate you from all the other parties. Not.

  172. I call BS!
    June 25, 2012 at 9:14 am

    Life-long Republicans didn’t suddenly decide to wear Rex Bohn sweatshirts at a HCDCC meeting. One life-long Democrat decide to wear Rex Bohn sweatshirt.

    That;s because Rex shared the bulk of Democratic values of the HCDCC.

    Can you please explain what your version of these Democratic values are?

  173. justanothergoodoldboy
    June 25, 2012 at 9:22 am

    Lets not forget Jack Sherman as one of Salzman’s anon names. Just read the developer-republican all at fault for everything whine.

  174. Eric Kirk
    June 25, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Why can’t we all just get along? I agree with Amy. If the HCDCC doesn’t pull itself together, it will become irrelevant or the State Committee may well step in and pull the charter. I suggest publishing the list of Democratic Values and make all members swear an oath to uphold them under the penalty of scorn due to moral perjury. If we are all clear on what is a Democrat,there should be no reason not to endorse one, especially a member of the Committee.I hope jobs are part of the platform!

    So the endorsement would be based on the oath only, or what the candidate actually does?

  175. Eric Kirk
    June 25, 2012 at 10:18 am

    Endorsement policy and public support of non-Dems comes from CA Election Code and the CA Dem Party. Thus it is the law (Election Code) that HCDCC members can’t publicly support non-Dems nor may the body endorse non-Dems.

    Law? Can you cite the actual provision please? I would be very surprised if it survived Constitutional challenge, if you’re reading it right.

  176. Anonymous
    June 25, 2012 at 10:42 am

    “I suggest publishing the list of Democratic Values and make all members swear an oath to uphold them under the penalty of scorn due to moral perjury.”

    That would be as easy to bullshit as it is to misrepresent your political affiliation to gain said seal of approval. Talk is moot, they say whatever they have to, but their actions speak for them. You, among others, are VERY hung up on talk. If money was just semantics, we could all be rich. There are liars in humboldt’s government. You can call them typical little white lies all candidates have done thorughout history, but that only helps prove how full of shit said politicians are…and are willing to be.

  177. Just Middle Finance
    June 25, 2012 at 11:00 am

    Yippie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    No Limit On Corporate Campaign $$$
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/25/politics/scotus-campaign-finance/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

  178. Amy Breighton
    June 25, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    It is problematic to enforce an oath…look at how willingly the people’s representatives and law enforcement have historically tossed citizen’s Constitutional right to unionize and to protest on public property out the window.

    Nevertheless, I agree with Sid. We should have meaningful oaths, retain our Constitution, and let our public “servants” live with the shame.

    The HCDCC cannot even enforce its own by-laws! But I would pay $$$ to watch Bass ‘n Owen swear to the fundamental democratic principle that public resources be focused on the poor, so that every class that rests upon them benefits!

    Since when does “job-creation” justify the harvest of everyone’s infrastructure to serve the remote subdivisions of a handful of propertied Good Ol’ Boys who finance and win most elections?

    They’ve developed humboldt into a despicable 20-25% home-affordability rate while these greedheads and their lobbyists fight tirelessly to build the 3rd housing bubble since 1980.

    Their local contributions in tanking the world economy wasn’t enough, they want the HCDCC too?

  179. Eric Kirk
    June 25, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    So it makes sense that a candidate is judged by actions and positions taken.

    Maybe there ought to be a discussion, some sort of internal forum, on what constitutes Democratic Party values at the local level, instead of arguing them out in motions. Maybe a retreat of some sort.

    Oh, and I really doubt that the state is going to revoke a local committee’s charter over disagreement as to its endorsements. They’re not looking for that kind of controversy.

  180. Mitt
    June 25, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    fundamental democratic principle that public resources be focused on the poor…

    Yeah I can see President Obama pitching this on his next State of the Union address.

  181. June 25, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Kirk says: “So it makes sense that a candidate is judged by actions and positions taken.”
    So, what’s the point? This is what’s been done for two hundred years – all with the same results: MORE CORRUPT AND MORE CORRUPTION. Good choice, Kirk.

  182. High Finance
    June 25, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    May I remind everybody again that City Council and Board of Supervisors are non partisan offices ?

    What the hell is the Democrat Central Committee doing butting their noses in those races with endorsements and contributions ?

  183. Eric Kirk
    June 25, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    Same thing the Republican Party does HF, and the same thing they do in counties all over. The races may not be partisan, but they’re no less political.

    I think there’s an argument that the parties should refrain from endorsements in non-partisan races, but then that limits them to races in which the state party apparatus has already made the decision.

  184. High Finance
    June 25, 2012 at 10:08 pm

    The Humboldt County Republican Central Committee does not endorse candidates in non partisan races Erik.

    Neither will they endorse a candidate in the primary unless there is only one Republican running. They will also not endorse a non Republican unless there is no Republican running.

  185. Anonymous
    June 25, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    The Humboldt County Republican Central Committee endorsed ANNETTE DE MODENA for supervisor.

  186. Anonymous
  187. High Finance
    June 26, 2012 at 7:10 am

    You’re guilty of letting your bias get in the way of careful reading.

    That web site did not endorse De Modena. It simply listed all the Republicans running for various offices.

  188. Anonymous
    June 26, 2012 at 7:19 am

    Your problem is with the state democratic party, not the locals.

    One of the reasons to have a local is to make local endorsements.

    The CA Democratic Party gets along fine with HCDCC.

  189. Anonymous
    June 26, 2012 at 7:43 am

    Ain’t that the truth!

    High Finance is most likely the treasurer of the Humboldt County Republican Central Committee. Joe?

  190. Jack Sherman
    June 27, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Why would the Humboldt County Republican Central Committee need to endorse non-partisan candidates?

    Their development community members already contribute to, and win, most elections.

    It’s been this way forever.

    (Here’s where right wingers whine about a few exceptions, then deny the rule).

  191. Eric Kirk
    June 27, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    The Humboldt County Republican Central Committee does not endorse candidates in non partisan races Erik.

    Well, actually it does.

    http://web.humboldtgop.org/p/candidates.html

    They did steer clear of a Brooks endorsement though. I wonder why.

  192. High Finance
    June 27, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    You don’t read others do you Kirk. Otherwise you would have learned the Humboldt Rep site you linked had all the Republican candidates but they did not endorse.

    Their policy is they do not endorse in non partisan races and in primaries for partisan offices with more than one Republican running.

    Pay attention. If you had read 7.10am yesterday you would have learned something.

  193. Eric Kirk
    June 27, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    Well, they don’t have all the Republican candidates. So if it’s not an endorsement, then why aren’t the other Republican candidates on the page? It only says they don’t endorse Republican candidates in contested primary elections.

    But you’re right, I don’t see the word “endorsement” anywhere. They’re just there to help certain Republicans get elected. So how do you get on that list?

  194. What Now
    June 28, 2012 at 12:30 am

    Once again Highly flatulent mistakes the simple ability to read as apposed to the acquisition of critical thinking skills.
    Not surpising as he certainly can’t relate to or understand something he’s never learned or posessed.

  195. Jack Sherman
    June 28, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    If Mr. Kirk is correct, a publication or web posting featuring republican candidates is still an endorsement, regardless of the absence of the word “endorsement”….

    ….another good example of right-wing sophistry?

  196. Heraldo lies once again
    June 29, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    Heraldo says:
    June 5, 2012 at 9:39 pm
    The Herald doesn’t support developer puppet candidates. Sorry.

    Ah, yeah ya do. You supported Bonnie Neely (big time) when she took $10,000 from an Orange County developer and $5,000 from the Forester-Gill developers. I guess that made Bonnie Neely a “developer puppet candidate”. Even with the developer cash she still got her ass kicked. That made Heraldo a supporter of developer puppet candidates.

  197. Jack Sherman
    July 2, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    Right.

    Humboldt County political contributions have been dominated FOREVER by the development community.

    The ONLY way Neely could level that playing field was to accept $$$ from contributors outside the area.

    Ahhh, the beauty of corruption.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…

  198. Buy Local!
    July 2, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    At least we agree that Bonnie was the developer’s whore, who never turned down a check, no matter where it came from – New York, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, Orange County, casinos, etc.

    Now if only Heraldo could correct his previous misstatement about not supporting developer puppet candidates we might be getting somewhere.

  199. Eric Kirk
    July 2, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Buy Local – What did Bonnie do at the behest of her developer puppet-masters?

  200. Buy Local!
    July 2, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    On Jan. 21, 2010 a Houston oil executive closed on a $12 million purchase of an 11,246-square-foot beachfront lot (no house) within The Strand at Headlands community in Dana Point, Calif. That price tag, a record for Orange County to that point, is equivalent to $46.5 million per acre, and this lot isn’t even the most expensive among the 118 that Headlands Reserve, the developer, has been rolling out on this 121-acre property overlooking the Pacific Ocean.

    With that transaction, Headlands Reserve had sold 34 homesites at The Strand for an aggregate $222 million. The largest lot is 26,900 square feet, but pricing is based on proximity to the water, and despite the state’s economic turmoil, “pricing of our homesites continues to rise,” says Sanford Edward, whose company, Newport Beach–based Master Plan Development, bought this property 12 years ago. While some lots go for as low as $2.1 million, the community’s most expensive lot, at $17.25 million, is 11,773 square feet with 108 feet of beach frontage. And buyers expecting discounts have been disappointed: Headlands Reserve priced the 48 lots in its South Strand section in January 2009, “so they’re marked to market,” says Edward.

    A decade ago, it looked like this site would never see a house or a street on it. The Chandler family, longtime owners of the Los Angeles Times and major real estate holders in California, had owned this property for 70 years and spent 25 of them trying unsuccessfully to get it entitled. Edwards had to sue the city to keep 85 of The Strand’s acres from being down-zoned. His company also battled with the state’s Coastal Commission, the Sierra Club, and the Surfrider Foundation before it received final approval in January 2004. The first 18 lots were released in September 2006 and found buyers within 48 hours.

    This $200 million-plus project includes a 90-room hotel and spa, a 35,000-square-foot commercial center, and five parks over 68 acres. A 9,200-square-foot beach club is slated to open in September, says Edward. Financing has come from the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), through its advisory group International Housing Partners (IHP). Edward and CalPERS have also kicked in equity. (Headlands Reserve is the LLC formed to develop this land.)

    The one- and two-story custom homes being constructed on these lots range from 9,000 to 12,000 square feet. The developer lets owners build to whatever architectural style they prefer. It also offers a custom home program, which will manage the design and construction process from start to finish.

    Like his buyers, though, Edward isn’t finding many new land bargains. “This has been the best acquisition cycle in 20 years, but over the last six months lot prices along the I-15 corridor have gone up 20 percent to 25 percent.” But investing in land in California is still worth it, he says, because “demand outstrips supply, and prices aren’t getting any cheaper.”

  201. Eric Kirk
    July 2, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    Is that an answer to my question? Because if it is, I’m not getting it.

  202. Just the facts
    July 3, 2012 at 8:48 am

    I believe what Buy Local is saying is that Bonnie Neely, while on the California Coastal Commission, voted to allow Sanford Edward’s company, Master Plan Development Corporation of Dana Point to strip mine the last piece of the California coast to sell ocean front or ocean view lots from $2 million to $17 million. That’s just for the dirt (or sand in this case) – no house.

    Master Plan Development Corporation then turned around and contributed $10,000 to Bonnie Neely’s last (and final) campaign. Quid pro qou?

    I’m not sure what angered Bonnie’s progressive base more – taking a check from a billionaire developer after voting on his Dana Point project or now taking checks from billionaire developers as a consultant for Noosaman & Associates out of Sacramento to get their projects through the California Coastal Commissioner.

    http://www.nossaman.com/bneely

    Which do you think?

  203. Anonymous
    July 3, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Different Geology, Good Project. So now people don’t like Bonnie because she was FOR responsible development?

  204. July 3, 2012 at 10:42 am

    People didn’t like Bonnie then because to all appearances she was for what she was paid to be for, just like she accused others of being. But she got paid better, and from farther away. Which made the demonizing of her opponents look pretty silly.

  205. Anonymous
    July 3, 2012 at 11:13 am

    If Neely had been for sale with a price tag of $10,000, as is being alleged, Arkley et al would have just bought her rather than spend many times that demonizing her for years because she wouldn’t rubber stamp their agenda.

  206. Anonymous
    July 3, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    re: 2:46pm those buyers are doomed. They’ve just bankrupted themselves, the land and whatever they build will eventually go back to holder who will continue profiting as a larger holder of even more equity. This is simply because, as history demonstrates, the majority of those buyers are going to lose whatever high paying jobs they have or suffer “cutbacks” just the same…the world of the “middle class”…constantly refinancing and reinvesting the whole while multiplying same as everybody. The people at the top shaving another wave of monied chumps off the ladder.

    Meanwhile back in the real world, that much more natural coast is gone forever.

  207. Anonymous
    July 3, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    “the majority of those buyers are going to lose whatever high paying jobs they have or suffer “cutbacks” just the same”

    …in this case I mean “buyers” to be the families who will actually be living on the properties…the “consumers”, is all they are and will forever be to the “investors”.

  208. Anonymous
    July 4, 2012 at 8:38 am

    maybe, but they will be consumers with a view…

  209. Axelrod
    July 5, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    We were well into the lunch hour when Bass started making suggestions on how the letter to the NCRA could be strengthened — to reaffirm the board’s position that port and railroad projects are important, that the trail is only an interim use until the rail returns. She asked the staff to work through the lunch break and bring back those changes. The staff did, and the letter to the NCRA passed on a 4-0 vote. Which is even better than a 3-2 that might have been.

    I was impressed. Since then I’ve heard a lot of comments privately and in emails giving kudos to Bass for chairing an emotional discussion, keeping everyone civil, and for finding a solution — a way forward.

    That’s leadership.

    There it is. Supervisor Virginia Bass’ 2014 reelection theme delivered by none other than Judy Hodgson of the North Coast Journal, bastion of the far-left.

    If I were Bass I’d be sending Judy Hodgson some cookies or something for that glowing endorsement.

  210. Anonymous
    July 6, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Re: 1:36pm

    So virginia bass stresses the importance of presentation. Why was her own so lacking during her campaign? As well as her formal statement to the HCDCC regarding her indoctrination?

    Intentional BULLSHIT is why.

    She reeks of bullshit…political nepotism and the obvious alterior motive of developmental subservience she promoted prior to her new job, for which we all pay her over $6,000 per month to do _______????

  211. Anonymous
    July 6, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    …and the North Coast Journal’s alterior motive’s become more clear as well, as to why the paper never dives into exposing the developers’ monopoly of Humboldt’s government. Because the North Coast Journal’s publishers belong to groups that basically have to kiss political ass themselves.

  212. Eric Kirk
    July 6, 2012 at 8:56 pm

    just the facts – in other words Bonnie was defeated by xenophobia. I’m not denying it. Xenophobia is rampant around here, on all sides of the political spectrum. It’s unfortunate.

  213. April 7, 2013 at 4:28 am

    Think twice before you yell over a spilled glass
    of juice or a stain on the carpeting-will this really matter to
    you when your children are grown and gone. Since family daycare
    homes are run inside of the residence of the provider, they
    tend to be more flexible with parents who have unpredictable work schedules.

    Take a look back at your life or if you’re currently living with your parents, analyze how you interact in relationships and determine if your actions are analogous to your parent’s relationship.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s