Hannah-Beth Jackson Concedes to Tony Strickland

Don't worry Hannah-Beth. Any other democrat would have gotten slaughtered in that cut-up republican district. You deserve to be in Congress when Lois Capps retires.

Hannah Beth-

Go home. Retire. Call it good. Don't worry we won't elect you to Congress or even ask you to run.

In an election year when the word "Republican" was nothing short of the mark of the devil, Strickland wisely (and dishonestly) chose to hide his party affiliation with the moniker "Indpendent Leadership". Quite likely a decent percentage of the people who voted for this phony environmentalist and protoge of hack career politican Tom McClintock thought they were supporting an Independent not an, ugh!, Republican.
Two lessons to be learned from this: running a smart, effective and high profile campaign trumps a weak, poorly structured and unfocused effort, which is what Hannah-Beth was handicapped by due to an inexperienced campaign manager.
Secondly, now that "environmentalist" Strickland has the office he so badly wanted, the public, both here in blue Santa Barbara County and purple Ventura County and mostly red Simi Valley should watch this guy's every move. He is unquestiionably a slippery character and every single promise he made on the campaign trail should be re-visited and scrutinized as he begins using his new powers.
So, Tony, where can we all apply for well-paying green collar jobs at your GreenWave company? Oh, I forgot. Its a fake non-entity shell corporation used only for winning votes and fooling the public into thinking you give a damn about the environment.

emptynewsroom:"both here in blue Santa Barbara County and purple Ventura County and mostly red Simi Valley should watch this guy's every move. He is unquestiionably a slippery character"
They're all slippery characters, that's why they're politicians, regardless of party affiliation.
Backrooms w/ intercoms piping the conversation to the masses should be more common.
Politician: a 2 component word from the Greek "poly" meaning many & English "tick" meaning bloodsucking parasite :) henry

"cut up Republican district", as in gerrymandered? The vote was almost dead even. For a shining example of gerrymandering, check out Lois Capps' congressional district, nationally known as "the ribbon of shame" - Capps won 65% of the vote.

Oh and check out today's NewsPress for a report on how gracefully (NOT) Taxin' and her team conceded. Disgraceful in office and disgraceful in defeat.

Back when Jackson was running for office a few years back, (I think it was in 2000) she used the argument that the implementation of school vouchers raised issues of church/state separation because money they provided could be used for religious schools. (Bear in mind that there are secular private schools as well where the money could be spent) This argument is flat out wrong because it isn't the *government* which decides how the money is spent, but the *parents* who make that decision. Using her logic, that would mean that the G.I. bill would have to be eliminated because a soldier could spend it to go to a religious university of *their* choice, and to take the argument to its seemingly absurd yet logical extreme, welfare would have to be done away with because someone could take some of the money from their welfare check and drop it into the collection plate at their church. At the time, I wrote her three times--twice by e-mail once by snail mail raising these points--if she responded the response never got back to me.

I can speculate as to why Jackson (and the Democrats) are so defensive about school vouchers, but what I *do* know is that for all of her pro-choice rhetoric when it comes to abortion, she sure isn't pro-choice when it comes to working-class parents being able to decide what sort of institution will educate their kids. For that matter, neither are the Democrats when they speak as an organized party. (continued)

About a year and a half ago, when Hillary Clinton was running for president looking as though she would win, Jackson was on the Paul Berenson show, (www.paulb.com) she was saying that all things being equal, we needed a woman president. She was also saying that she had opposed the war from the beginning but of course failed to mention that Hillary Clinton had voted for this war. Noting her inconsistency, I called the show and pointed out that all things are *not* equal because unlike Clinton, Dennis Kucinich had been against the war from the beginning, pointing out that if Bush in fact had lied about the war, that meant Kucinich was smart enough to see through the lie but Clinton wasn't smart enough to see through this (assuming Clinton simply wasn't playing both sides of the war debate by voting "yes" and then opposing the war for which she voted) and as such Jackson should support Kucinich since she had been saying on the show that she was against the war from the beginning. She instead evaded the topic by saying that we need to put Clinton's voting record behind us and pointed out that nobody is perfect and that we should support her nonetheless. So what's my point?..party politics and perhaps gender prejudice win out over idealogical consistency. Since Berenson archives his shows on his website, you can listen to this exchange.

I'm not here to say whether or not Strickland is good or bad, so if other bloggers want to attack me as a Strickland stooge don't waste your time. The issue here is that I've pointed out Jackson's history of twisting facts around for her political gain, or, in the best case scenario, her incompetence. My advice to party-line Democrats is this: If you want to win, thoroughly examine the issues and learn them and make sure your candidate has irrefutable arguments based on fact rather than social or personal agenda

And let's not forget that Beth-Jackson voted for driver's license for illegal immigrants when in the Assembly. No doubt she would have continued to vote to give benefits to illegal immigrants if elected to the Senate.

Anyone who takes even 10 minutes looking into school vouchers can find out why a lot of people, including many Republicans, are dead set against the idea. Quiet simply, it sucks badly needed money out of public schools, further ensuring that the U.S. education system, already an international laughing stock because our government prefers to spend untold billions on the defense industry, remains underfunded and ill-equipped to compete with more "socialized" countries. Educators agree that vouchers are the slippery slope to even an worse public education system. Folks who want to send their kids to private or theology-based schools should find the money to pay for it on their own or seek out scholarships.

Anyone who thinks Tony Strickland's victory over a better-qualified and far more honest Hannah-Beth Jackson should know the following about Tony and his slimey way of "getting things done":

Mr. Strickland has exerted quite a lot of influence over the Ventura County School Board (4 of 5 elected reps were helped by Strickland). The board hired two lobbyists and the general consensus is that these pricey people have done nothing for Ventura County Schools except take $20,000 a month. The gotcha: They are both consultants who have contributed to Strickland and tied to Strickland machine.

Both Tony Strickland and wife Assemblywoman Audra Strickland have made baldfaced efforts to commandeer the efforts by the citizens of Camarillo to stop the controversial prison by starting their own Republican only coalition -- undermining the broad existing coalition -- which is raising money for a legal challenge. The gotcha: apparently there are serious questions being asked about where the money is actually going.

The Stricklands have been investigated for paying each other from each other's PAC's and paying common consultants from each other's political funds. While this has been covered a little by the media, this story is ready to blow with just a few phone calls and some connecting of the dots.

I have two questions for all who read this and would appreciate a response:

If it costs the schools (I'm making up a cost here because I don't know the real cost) $3000 to educate a pupil, and the school gets $3000 in funding for that pupil, then to my understanding if that pupil leaves the public school the school loses $3000 in funding but at the same time doesn't have to spend $3000 to educate that kid so they break even.

Is it possible that the public education system is padding the per-pupil costs and getting more money than they need per pupil?

Here is a separate question: I've heard that private schools spend less per pupil because of less adminstrative overhead. If this is the case, (whether it is, I don't know) wouldn't the voucher system actually save taxpayer money?

Another question: What is the per-student expenditure for those enrolled in U.S. public schools? How does this compare to what is spent in other countries with high literacy rates? Is the money actually going to educated the students or being siphoned off to other areas?

Forgive my cynicism but while voucher may or may not be the answer, we keep passing bond measures to help the schools in addition to the funding already given them and the situation remains abysmal. For what it's worth when the California lottery came to be I remember hearing how it would help our schools. Why hasn't this happened?

I'm not at all against spending lots of $$$ on education, but I'm questioning how the money is being spent.

To blame Jackson's loss on "a weak, poorly structured and unfocused effort, which is what Hannah-Beth was handicapped by due to an inexperienced campaign manager", as does the emptynewsroom, is very surprising. Didn't Das Williams manage her campaign, if not be campaign manager, then high up there is the campaign leaders? He certainly has boasted frequently of his work as a political consultant/manager.

I don't know what is the blame for her loss, probably a combination of factors, the LA district, the NP editorials, and most of all the candidate herself who for all the money rasied/spent on those expensive flyers touting herself is divisive. Her "come together" concession speech is laughable or at least smileable, coming from that candidate. I heard many say, a plague on both their houses, better to vote for neither, or the lesser of two evils - hardly a ringing endorsement.

1066etal: Das Williams DID NOT manage HBJ's campaign.

Also, I don't know why she would "tout herself as divisive" in her flyers, especially during an election cycle that was demanding an end to the scorched Earth politics of the Bush GOP. I think you are confused about her positioning as a bi-partisan leader willing to work across the aisle.

Finally, Jackson's fundraising was considerably less than Strickland's; in one evening alone in Simi Valley a Mitt Romney dinner raised over $250,000. HBJ never had a single event even close to that haul.

I sit corrected, then, empty, about Williams and the Jackson campaign. I was told that he was running it. As for the "divisive", missing (sorry!) are commas: "and most of all the candidate herself, who for all the money rasied(sic)/spent on those expensive flyers touting herself, is divisive." It's Jackson who is divisive, not - d'oh - the flyers, although they might be considered so also, but that's expected of advertising. She may well have "positioned herself" as a bi-partisan (would-be) leader but that's not how she is perceived by many.

The amount of money in that campaign was obscene: Strickland with $6 mil; Jackson with $4 mil. Once the final vote tallies are in, it will be interesting to see how much was spent/voter. As a registered Democrat, I received masses of flyers from Jackson, most of them ego trips, few of them helpful. The post office boxes were overflowing with that glossy, non-recycled junk mail.

Where does one find the final tallies of campaign income - campaign outgo?

Where does one find the final tallies of campaign income - campaign outgo?

===

Check the California Secretary of State website. They have complete campaign finance information for all candidates.

So far no one has been able to answer my questions.

"Mr. Strickland has exerted quite a lot of influence over the Ventura County School Board (4 of 5 elected reps were helped by Strickland). The board hired two lobbyists and the general consensus is that these pricey people have done nothing for Ventura County Schools except take $20,000 a month."

"The Stricklands have been investigated for paying each other from each other's PAC's and paying common consultants from each other's political funds."

Sounds like a bunch of empty news - appropriately, from emptynewsroom....after all,
The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters.

What are you so upset about? That the skunkwoman is roadkill, or that a Republican won?

AShaw: Funny how right wingers, the same people who endlessly lecture everyone else about "family values", honest government and morality, are always first in line to disregard the corrupt activities of their own.

What do you know about the allegations about career politicians Tony Strickland and his wife, except that hearing about them annoy you because as a Bush-Cheney supporter you already have backed criminals in the past? If Republicans spent more time supporting transparent government and holding elected officials accountable and less time worrying about gay marriage and abortions, no doubt the country would be a lot better off.

Its well known that the single biggest flaw of GOPers is their propensity to worship authority. Its how we ended up with two stolen elections and the disastrous Bush administration. One trillion dollars for a war, 7,000 dead Americans, 1.5 million dead Iraqis and we're leaving Iraq with our tail between our legs as losers in 2012! Well done, Bushie!

Hope all you brown shirt wearers are happy with the results.

"What do you know about the allegations about career politicians Tony Strickland and his wife."

My point was what do YOU know? You're making charges with no evidence, just suggestions. I don't know anything - you brought it up! Back up your claims instead of attacking those who question them and making assumptions about the questioner ( I am not a Republican and I am not a Bush Cheney supporter so what else ya got?). Otherwise, it's just empty news.

Per the AShaw/Emptynewsroom battle: I will attest to the fact that AShaw IS an independent thinker who has been very critical of G.W. Bush. Emptynewsroom has referrred to those who don't bark his/her party line as "brown shirts". (For some of those out of the loop, Nazis were known as Brown Shirts so if you don't agree with emptynewsroom in this matter, you're a Nazi according to them, which is too bad because as I recall, emptynewsroom has made some good, sensable posts over time.

Emptynewsroom has also failed to even address the points I raised about school vouchers.

What I see is that AShaw weighs the evidence, and draws a conclusion. Emptynewsroom is committed to party line loyalty and as such is threatened that some of us have dared to call into question the merits of career politician Hannah-Beth Jackson.

I don't judge emptynewsroom because back in the days when I was a rabid Democrat I didn't want to hear any criticism of the party that I truly believed was working in the best interest of the Common Man. In short, emptynewsroom is in the situation I was once in. These days, I question everything and have come to the conclusion that with very few exceptions, both political parties are full of bull-crap.

What I want to draw attention to is not that one party is right and the other wrong, but that people allied with either party must try to make their own parties better, THEN go after the faults of the other. THAT is the ultimate challenge.

Well, Bill you can also see Mr. A Shaw DEFENDING the McCaw debacle in his posting on the closure of the Goleta Valley Voice. At this point only people with a serious ignorance of the basic principals American journalism are still finding excuses for the sideshow that has become the News-Press.

The term "brown shirts" refers to people with a political bent a tad to the right, as in the fascism of Germany and Italy. You can't deny that a lot of Republicans-Libertarians are slightly fascist in their views.

Ignoring the sliminess of people like Tony Stickland does not mean there is nothing to investigate, it simply means the allegations are out there and have not been discredited.

As to school vouchers, I've never said I'm an expert on this subject, I've merely pointed out why a lot of people think they are a bad idea. Do a little Googling about vouchers Bill and I'm sure you'll satisfy your curiosity.

"Well, Bill you can also see Mr. A Shaw DEFENDING the McCaw debacle in his posting on the closure of the Goleta Valley Voice. "

""A different subject from the one I was addressing and since I don't know enough about what AShaw was saying in *that* case, I am in no position to argue with you.

"The term "brown shirts" refers to people with a political bent a tad to the right, as in the fascism of Germany and Italy. You can't deny that a lot of Republicans-Libertarians are slightly fascist in their views."

I partially agree with this statement. There are some Republican-Libertarian-cum "independent conservatives" who are quite whacked out in their views, so you won't get any argument from me there. The same is also true of some liberal-"progressive" types. The part I don't agree with is the "brown shirts" part. All of my life I've understood that term to refer to the Nazis. I submit the following link in defense of my argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_shirt...

"Ignoring the sliminess of people like Tony Stickland does not mean there is nothing to investigate, it simply means the allegations are out there and have not been discredited."

If Strickland is doing things illegal, then he should be prosecuted. If he's a simple hypocrite, then his hypocrisy should be exposed. This having been said, his behavior does not alter Jackson's morality one way or the other, nor does her misdeeds--which I've pointed out--make him a good person either. The true danger is that most people will settle for the lesser of two evils.

"As to school vouchers, I've never said I'm an expert on this subject, I've merely pointed out why a lot of people think they are a bad idea. Do a little Googling about vouchers Bill and I'm sure you'll satisfy your curiosity."

So far, no politician has been able to clarify their anti-voucher position, although I myself will take a left turn by saying that ultimately they may fail by virtue of the fact that private schools may end up subjected to so many government rules that they end up being de facto public schools.

I have done a little studying on this issue and from what I know, there are strong political ties between the Democratic Party and the National Education Association. In fact, I have heard that during one of the elections a few years ago the NEA was the single biggest contributor of delegates to the Democratic National Convention. *If* this is true, it would explain a lot, just like when Bob Dole was running for president he said--with a straight face--that he wasn't sure if tobacco was addictive, and we know about the tobacco companies giving $$$ to the Republican Party.

As long as people are willing to settle for the lesser of two evils in any given election, we can only expect more misery to follow us.