Don't Step on the Dog

what makes you think "Van Wolfswinkel is committing political suicide by how he’s run his campaign"? If people vote his way, he will prove that dirty campaigning is still the norm in SB, only far worse.

I've a feeling this will only get far worse and for quite a season- I think many of his candidates will get elected, making 2010 a rough year for this political industry

This suicide analogy is sad but the desperation factor that drives some people to jump could be the same factor that drives people to pump $500,000 into a local campaign of a city that they do not even live in. The Conservatives whose policies are causing people to jump, have screwed things up so badly at the national level would be wasting their money on national races. So, they do what they always do and are stirring up the pot in local races. Rather than pump money into futile nation campaigns, conservatives still, and even in tough economic times have money to burn. Don't let a Texas spawned millionaire who resides in Moneycito buy a slate of candidates and promote this irrational Measure B. AGAIN SEND A MESSAGE TO WOLFWSINKEL AND HIS UNDEMOCRATIC TYPES WHO WOULD BUY OUR CITY COUNCIL. VOTE NO ON B AND THIS PHONY "Preserve Our Santa Barbara" SLATE OF CANDIDATES.

Let's hope we choose the best candidates because Santa Barbara is too precious to adulterate.

After reading the comments I'm always amused by DonMcDermott...again he brings to mind the following: (adapted for his pleasure)

Evil Right Wingers to right of him, Evil Right Wingers to left of him, Evil Right Wingers in front of him. Volley'd and thunder'd; Storm'd at with shot and shell, Boldly he rode and well, Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of Right Wing Hell, Rode the mighty McDermott.

Seriously folks; this discussion has gotten so murky that perhaps clear and concise requests should be stated.

My suggestion is that you limit height requirements to no taller than any current building in the city, making sure that strict building, historical, and architectural standards are adhered too.

Some might scream that they can’t make a profit in such an environment, but the reality is far from that assertion.

Done right you will find an appropriate balance that enhances Santa Barbara and supports a vibrant business community that allows your service sector to live within the city and yet creates a tax base that supports the infrastructure necessary to providing the life style we all appreciate.

Just vote your conscience and approach all of these comments, mailers, donations with an educated eye on what YOU want for YOUR city. Daniel Petry

If Randall Van Wolfswinkel really wanted to "Preserve Our Santa Barbara" why doesn't this supposed billionaire buy out the Naples Developer and preserve the Gaviota Coast in perpetuity?

Amen sdpaia!

sdpaia, and your point is? Daniel Petry

sdpaia's point is that Van Wolfswinkel's actions don't back up his words.

As the Angry Poodle and people like Craig Smith have revealed, Van Wolfswinkel has a hidden agenda. He uses the pretense of being a slow-growther and preservationist to split the progressive vote and get his slate of disgruntled conservatives voted in (c'mon, what kind of a one-footed plank is the defeat of traffic calming devices, ala Michael Self? Libertarians and anti-government conservatives blame progressives for being softies but methinks its they who are overly sensitive).

Anyone who can split progressives is OK by me. If he wants to back some politicians that express his viewpoints then more power to him. If his support crushes the opposition...then do it. If he wants to spend his money he has the right...if he has such evil, nefarious plans then you can beat him, and his puppets, at the ballot box.

Since you seem to love the progressive ideology perhaps a brief clarification would help your fans. When people hear the word “progressive” they immediately think of liberals or Democrats, but the truth is they’re not synonymous. Progressivism has less to do with parties and more to do with individuals who seek to redefine, reshape, and rebuild America into a country where individual liberties and personal property mean nothing if they conflict with the plans and goals of the State.

Progressivism is a cancer because it has infiltrated both political parties and the entire political class, which includes bureaucrats, lobbyists, trade unions, and corporations that all look to government as their own personal ATM machine.

One of the hallmarks of progressive thought is the concept of redistribution: the idea that your money and property are only yours if the State doesn’t determine there is a higher or better use for it. Teddy Roosevelt made this view clear in his speech on the “New Nationalism” in 1910, and I believe most of us recall our new President echoing this modern-day Robin Hood sentiment in his exchange with Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher during the last presidential campaign, I digress - sorry.

Roosevelt said that personal property is “subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” Roosevelt’s thoughts on accumulated wealth were equally illuminating. In the same speech he said, “We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.” Theodore Roosevelt was also the first president to call for national health insurance. See a pattern here?

You deride this man for spending his money to achieve some stature as a puppet master to politicians. And I sense that you also feel that his fortune was not honorably obtained and is definitely not being well used. So...I guess that does make you a progressive. How wonderful. Daniel Petry

My goodness, jcrdan, you certainly have a long memory, what with dredging uproareous scandal in the person of Teddy Roosevelt.

Teddy Roosevelt. A brickbat so seldom used in today's Reft/Light dialogue.

But if you insist, may I share with you the following?

- When Teddy made that speech he was not in office, and he was a Republican.

- The Teddy Roosevelt Award is presented annually to Republican members who have gone to the floor of the House of Representatives, on fifty or more occasions, to communicate the Republican message directly to the American people. The award is inspired by President Teddy Roosevelt’s belief that credit should be given to those who stand up and speak their minds.

- I remember quite well candidate-Obama correctly informing Mr. Wurzelbacher that the proposed changes in tax law would benefit aspiring capitalists such as Joe. Joe then made a well-known but lie-ridden response about being a plumber, wanting to buy a business, and bristled at the thought of such a tax break from middle-income folks.

- Teddy legislative efforts include establishing the National Parks, Meat Inspections, Forest Homestead Act, Food & Drug Acts, Employer's Liability: and an additional wealth of formative legislation beneficial to our citizenry & claimed and championed by both Right & Left.

- First to advocate a Jewish homeland in Palestine (1917)

- Consistently ranks in the Top Five of Best US Presidents, from conservatives, liberals, and historians.

- - - -

If the ground laid by T. Roosevelt is the hallmark of Progressivism -- and I truly question that -- than our union should be leaning more in his direction. And you can count me in.

binky. I want to thank you for supporting my assertions. First off, I'm not a Republican. I'm a conservative and since you have shown that you don’t know this...there is a vast difference.

So that there is no confusion let me further illustrate. Roosevelt, like Wilson, didn’t believe there were any restrictions on government power. These two presidents serve as the modern idols and philosophical flag bearers for their respective parties, which perhaps explains why both parties continually produce the same results.

George W. Bush presided over a massive redistribution of wealth with his Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Plan. Even “conservative (and that's a huge stretch)” presidential candidate John McCain cited Theodore Roosevelt as one of his favorite presidents.

The presidential election of 2008 was basically a repeat of the 1912 election, in which America was only offered a progressive Republican and a progressive Democrat as candidates.

Over the last century, progressives have successfully moved our country toward more government control and less personal freedom—and they’re still pushing the envelope. eg. Telling a successful businessman where he should/shouldn't put his money and who he can/can’t back. Better yet to just shut up.

Now binky, I'm sure you view the Constitution as a living organism that evolves with time and changes depending on the circumstances. Am I right? Yes?

If that is so then you and our Founders agree that the Constitution is a set of restrictions, or road blocks, see the 10th & 17th Amendments. - the difference is, the founders believed it was the power of the State that was to be stopped, while progressives believe it is individuals who should be restrained for the greater good of the collective.

Progressives have a serious problem with individual rights and believe in a living State. Woodrow Wilson wrote of government as a living thing. He contended that a living constitution was far superior to the founders’ model, which had considered government a kind of machine that could be constantly limited through checks and balances.

In general, modern liberals favor an expansive and active central (control) government – and vastly expanded in the last 9 months, as opposed to historical liberalism, which sees the fundamental purpose of government as the protection of individual rights, viewing with suspicion any extension of governmental power into areas beyond this limited purpose. God how I miss those rational Dems and Repubs.

So you can count yourself in with the homogenous crowd that believes in the supremacy of the State, centralized control, limited rights, and freedom. Way to go. Daniel Petry

Mr. jcrdan, you miss the essence of Roosevelt, which is not surprising as he was complicated, confused and singular:

Teddy Roosevelt's political doctrines were always blurry. He claimed to be "a Jeffersonian in my genuine faith in democracy and popular government," but "a Hamiltonian in my governmental views, especially with reference to the need of the exercise of broad powers by the National Government."

Though he shared Jefferson's "faith" in democracy, he did not share Jefferson's reasons for that faith. Though he embraced Hamilton's view of the "need" to exercise national powers, he rejected Hamilton's explanation of the grounds and limits of those powers.

Roosevelt argued that the President was "a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do all he could for the people, and not to content himself with the negative merit of keeping his talents undamaged in a napkin." This meant that the President had the right and duty "to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws."

In short, Roosevelt believed the President's authority came directly from the people, not the Constitution, and it was his peculiar job to discern and satisfy "the needs of the Nation" out of the general grant of power given him by the people. Congress and the courts became mere external checks to the executive's application of national will, not institutions designed to deliberate on national needs, to distinguish reason from passion in popular opinion, to uphold individual rights when unjustly threatened by national or state power.

Sound familiar? Witness the origin of the Cheney-Bush reign.

Roosevelt campaigned on a Progressive agenda that aimed squarely at traditional American constitutionalism: his call for popular referendums by which voters could overturn the decisions of state supreme courts was widely regarded as a preliminary to attacking the Supreme Court itself.

[kinda long; continued next]

[continued from previous]

But Theodore Roosevelt had a more coherent political theory than has been recognized. This political theory is represented and summarized in his famous stewardship theory of the presidency, articulated in his Autobiography, published in 1913. The main tenets of the theory found expression from the earliest days of Roosevelt's political career and are marked by a consistent effort to strengthen executive power in the hands of a single individual.

The stewardship theory is the public expression of a political theory with three main elements: classical republican, progressive democratic, and statesmanship.

Statesmanship combines with the sometimes clashing republican and progressive elements to form a cohesive whole, called by some the stewardship theory, or statesmanship as leadership.

This political theory of republican progressive statesmanship that forms the foundation of what has come to be known as the modern presidency. Therefore, to a greater extent than usually recognized, Theodore Roosevelt is the architect of both the theoretical and practical foundations of the modem presidency as practiced by Obama's immediate predecessor.

- - - - --

Rebutting your "description" of progressive beliefs vis a vis the Constitution is best said in what I do believe (rather than what you attempt to guess at): our Constitution and the resultant governmental structure is capable of balancing the needs of the majority with the rights of the minority, and is the best tool yet to provide individual rights within a functional civic order.

Thank you for a verbatim quoting of an abstract of the stewardship theory, and confirming my appraisal that you do believe the Constitution is a living document...open to any interpretation based on the ideology of the moment. Daniel Petry

The Constitution is a vibrant, living document, and that is its power and genius.

I accept your apology.

No apology offered. The Constitution is not a living document, it is a legal document. I think Scalia said it best when he sarcastically said that, "The living constitutionalist is always a happy person."

Now of course nobody in American politics, not even the most fanatical progressive or Statists, will admit openly that he doesn’t care what the Constitution says and isn’t going to let it interfere with his agenda.

So people who mean to do without the Constitution have come up with warm and fuzzy slogans to keep up appearances: they say the Constitution is a “vibrant, living document,” which sounds like a compliment. They say it needs to evolve in response to “changing circumstances,” etc. They sneer at the idea that such a mystic document could still have the same meanings it had two centuries ago.

binky, you have discovered that the Constitution, whatever it may have meant in the past, now means - again, with suspicious consistency - whatever suits your present convenience.

So, Mr. Wolfswinkel, keep doing what you are doing...it is driving these folks crazy. Daniel Petry

As a side note: Certain people on the Left refer to those who wrote the Constitution as "Dead White Males".

To the binky/jcrdan debate: It's nice to see two people with different points of view who are both intelligent and have done their homework. It's a welcome break from the usual Trolls who plague the blogesphere.

Having said this, I fear this debate is in vain. I went into downtown S.B. last night for the first time in several years and was blown away by the number of aggressive, rude, frantic drivers (often piloting vehicles big enough to have their own area codes) screeching tires abounding all in the cornucopia of Green and Progressive thought.

No matter how you cut it, S.B. has turned into an overcrowded cage of frenzied people who aren't even aware of their own behavior. While I am on the side of the Measure B crowd for purely aesthetic reasons, it isn't the visual appearance of the city that most concerns me, but rather the fact that so many people are in such a hurry. (And probably don't know why) It's the overall energy of the place that's changed the most.

As the song by the group Ten Years After goes: "I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do, so I'll leave it up to you". Meanwhile, I'll remember to keep out of the downtown area.

Bill, I couldn't agree more. Although this brief discussion was started about Wolfswinkel and the use of his personal funds. It is really about the fight for personal freedom against a creeping velvet fascism. It even has elements of the old Russian saying, "what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable."

I have been to over thirty countries and have lived, and worked, in nine. I have seen all aspects of the human condition and the results of good government and the direct results of varying levels of totalitarianism. Those people that refer to the Constitution as having been written by "Dead White Males" need to thank God for those same men. For they would be a far different position if not for those brilliant individuals.

Where most countries have a "fog" that covers their people and limits their freedom; it was always a relief to come Home and see that fog lifted. I'm now seeing that same "fog" creep into our country.

Where there used to be skirmishes between those that want centralized control of our lives and with those who believe that the greatness of this nation is in its individualism, there is now a war raging throughout the population. This conflict has been further exasperated by the fact that we now have a one party system of government. Where any differences, between the two, are only measured in degrees.

Freedoms lost begin with small measures. You must wear that seatbelt, eat this kind of food, only buy this kind of insurance, only drive this type of vehicle, think in this manner, spend your money this way...better yet, give it to us because we know best how to spend it.

As those freedoms are lost the people begin to subconsciously realize that they have no real control in their lives. They begin to sense that something valuable is missing...they just don't know what it is...but deep down they feel uncomfortable.

I'm an entrepreneur, always have been. My success, or failure, is the result of my decisions, not the result of some nameless bureaucratic dwarf, or clueless self-righteous citizen, who thinks they know better than I how to run my life and business.

So I say to Mr. Wolfswinkel, keep doing what you are doing...it is driving these folks crazy. And thanks Bill, keep up the good fight because you and I know that it is well worth it. Daniel Petry

jcerdan/Daniel Petry: To add to your comments (and an excellent post I might add) is that it is scary how attached to the grid so many of us are. We depend on The System for our food, water, utilities and so forth. The Victory Gardens of WW2 and the food-growing hippie communes were good ideas.

All this meaningless yakking. You all miss the real problem, you go over it, under it, around it, anything to ignore it! THERE ARE TOO MANY HUMANS! No more discussion needed! Our numbers have left us ungovernable and unable to be free.

Ok 70sbartender...you first. The Surfliner has a set schedule, you just need to to wait and then step on to the tracks as it comes by. Quick and easy...and walla, one less darn human.

Actually 70's bartender, I agree with you 100%--as many of my previous posts indicate. As I've sarcastically joked: This is akin to arranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.

THEN a nobleman said,
Speak to us of Bad Habits.

And he said:
A good habit is the prayer of our desires, an action that when practiced continuously becomes ingrained in our nature.
But we must beware of Bad Habits, for they can easily be formed.

If an idiot were to tell you the same story every year for a decade,
you might end up believing it through the sheer power of repetition.

Therefore beware, do not let your body become trained against itself, as happened to the man who forced himself to eat spiders and became unable to satiate his appetite and died of eating too many spiders.

You told me that story last year, the nobleman said.

Isn't it Cold Spring? I believe there is only one spring, and I'm quite certain that the local watering hole and restaurant is known as Cold Spring Tavern. Perhaps the possessive is getting conflated with the plural.