My take on Otto Bade

When we first learned that the Californian United PAC was behind the Otto Bade write-in for the 34th State Senate District, I wrote about my disappointment here.

A few hours after that post appeared on this site, Martin Wisckol linked to it over at The Total Buzz, and I got a couple of emails for some friends.  One email was from a conservative reader who told me that he was happy to see that I could be critical of my party when it was warranted.

The other email was from a recognized local lefty who criticized me for criticizing Correa in the midnight hour.  “You might as well hand over control to the GOP if we are going to be acting like this,” he wrote.  “You can huff and puff all you want after the election.  Buddy, we must be united if we want to hold the 34th.”

My response was simple: “I want to hold on to the 34th as much as you, but I’m not in this to spin stories to make them look good for our guys…that’s Jubal’s game.  Not mine.”

And the Bade candidacy didn’t look good for our guy, and I was disappointed.  But I hadn’t and won’t go as far as saying that the official Correa campaign had anything to do with encouraging Bade to run.

In the Sacramento Bee yesterday, however, Dick Ackerman said that he suspects Dems on Lou’s campaign had coordinated the Bade write-in.  There was no evidence included in the article to support such a claim, but my mind is open to hearing any factually-based arguments on this matter.  You’d suspect that Ackerman has some evidence, right?  He’s yet to show any of it.

But let me ask this: if the Republican Party ran a strong Republican instead of centrist Lynn Daucher, would an Otto Bade make any difference?  I can remember reading quite a bit of Daucher disparagement written by Republicans this last election cycle:

“I like Lynn Daucher personally, but not even by a herculean act of self-deception could a person fool themselves into thinking she is a conservative by any measure.” Written by Matt Cunningham at OC Blog.

And this one is good too:

“[Daucher] supports higher taxes, bigger government, is an adamant foe of property rights (pro-eminent domain and pro-Smart Growth), is zealously pro-abortion and has supported some of the more left-wing elements in the gay activist agenda.” Written by Steve Greenhut at The Orange County Register.

The votes that Bade was “stealing” weren’t coming from the middle; they were coming from voters that felt that Lynn was too soft on issues that they cared about.  An indpendent PAC encouraging a candidate to run as a write-in that would give those 900 extremely right-winged voters someone to vote for may be slightly underhanded, but it’s completely legal (and effective).

Your own medicine doesn’t taste so great, does it, OC GOP?

[Sacramento Bee] [Total Buzz]  

  35 comments for “My take on Otto Bade

  1. Dan Chmielewski
    November 19, 2006 at 5:17 pm

    Note to our conservative friends and especially those writers on the Register’s editorial pages. No one I know is PRO-abortion. We are Pro-Choice. Every child should be a wanted child.

  2. Jubal
    November 19, 2006 at 10:53 pm

    Mike:

    1) I’m not in this to spin stories to make them look good for our guys…that’s Jubal’s game. Not mine.” Thanks for the cheap shot, Edward R. Murrow. I’ll keep that in mind from now on when reading your “I’m the fearless oracle of truth” postings.

    2)For guy accusing Dick Ackerman of lacking evidence, you’re making some big assumptions yourself. For example, I assume yoiu have some evidence to support your assertion that Otto Bade 899 voters are “extremely right-winged”?

    3) The Otto Bade campaign was “slightly underhanded”? Now who’s spinning?

    4)?”An independent PAC encouraging a candidate to run as a write-in that would give those 900 extremely right-winged voters someone to vote for may be slightly underhanded, but it’s completely legal (and effective).” Actually, Mike, that would be illegal. It’s called “coordination.”

    5) Your own medicine doesn’t taste so great, does it, OC GOP?

    What are you talking about?

  3. Jubal
    November 19, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    Dan:

    Some pro-choice people are exactly that: pro-choice. Some pro-choice people are, in fact, pro-abortion. I have met them myself. They are Democrats, Republicans and independents.

    And every child should be a wanted child, Dan. But they’re not. And being unwanted or unplanned shouldn’t result an in utero death sentence.

  4. November 19, 2006 at 11:39 pm

    Jubal,

    Can you point me towards something to read regarding coordination in campaign law? All I can find is this from the FEC:

    In order to be considered “coordinated,” the candidate has exercised “control or decision-making authority” over an ad paid for by an outside spender, or that the ad result from “substantial” discussion with the candidate, “the result of which is collaboration or agreement.”

    But I’m not well read in campaign law, and I know that it gets tricky. Is there something that I’m missing?

    And yes, it was a cheap shot. If you haven’t noticed, this is “The Liberal OC.” I consider this an oasis for progressives in this conservative RED County. Cheap shots at conservatives are not only tolerated here, but a reason for this site’s existence.

  5. Jubal
    November 20, 2006 at 8:06 am

    I’ll have to consult the FPPC, which would be the governing authority here. To my mind, an IE commitee encouraging a candidate to run — your words — is coordination. But that’s for the FPPC bureaucrats to decide. if they adopt your “see no evil” posture, Otto Bade and Californians United should be just fine.

    I had noticed this was a fool’s paradise…excuse me, “oasis” for progressives. I didn’t know the real name was the “The Petty, Snotty, Liberal OC.”

  6. Publius
    November 20, 2006 at 9:02 am

    Very insightful indeed, grasshopper!

    This was a unique situation with the moderates from both parties winning their respective primaries. In a race with two centrists and no third party candidates, there is nowhere for people who identify as strongly liberal of strongly conservative to go. Had there been a Green or Natural Law candidate on the ballot, they would have drained some support from Correa. A Libertarian or Reform candidate would have had the same affect on Daucher. The addition of a Republican write-in was masterful.

    By the time Otto Bade qualified as a write-in Californians United had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Lou’s behalf. But campaigns, like most things are subject to the Law of Diminishing Returns. Spending more money on mailers and phone calls becomes less and less effective. There are fewer and fewer undecided voters in the middle to go after. But there is a creative way to pull some votes from the extremes.

    Does anyone else remember Libertarian Thomas Reimer or Lawrence Stafford of the Reform Party? Had they not both decided to run for Congress 10 years ago this month, I doubt we’d be having this discussion today.

    Finally, if Matt/Jubal is looking for pettiness and snottiness, he should look no further than OCBlog. Thanks Mike, for choosing insightful over inciteful.

  7. November 20, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    Jubal:

    5) Your own medicine doesn’t taste so great, does it, OC GOP?

    What are you talking about?

    He’s talking about that time back in ’96 when Republicans conspired to run decoy candidate Laurie Campbell in the Assembly election eventually won by Scott Baugh. Remember? Back when Rhonda Carmony (now Rhonda Rohrabacher) pled guilty to two counts of falsifying campaign documents and was given 300 hrs of community service and a $2,800 fine?
    Yeah. I think that’s what he’s talking about.

  8. Dan Chmielewski
    November 20, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    In defense of Matt a bit here, you can’t fault him for comments made my others on his site. I, for one, appreciate the fact he allowed good political discourse on his site. And I will give you an example; someone posted a whiney piece about a “racist mailer” against the GOP mayoral candidate in Irvine (I want to say it was Chuck DeVore, but I am not certain). Just about all of the comments to that post were from lefties basically telling the poster to suck it up. Matt could have purged those but he didn’t.

    Like I’ve said before, politically speaking, I don’t agree with Matt on a lot of things (the abortion debate is one), but I believe he is interested in fair-minded debate.

    That said, in Mike’s defense, sarcasm doesn’t always translate well, and Matt, Mike was being sarcastic.

  9. Jubal
    November 20, 2006 at 10:34 pm

    Finally, if Matt/Jubal is looking for pettiness and snottiness, he should look no further than OCBlog. Thanks Mike, for choosing insightful over inciteful.

    I don’t mind Mike’s cheap shot so much as the insufferable self-regard that went along with it.

  10. Jubal
    November 20, 2006 at 10:37 pm

    He’s talking about that time back in ‘96 when Republicans conspired to run decoy candidate Laurie Campbell in the Assembly election eventually won by Scott Baugh. Remember?

    Alex:

    I realize you were probably in 5th grade at the time, which is why you fail to mention that Laurie Campbell was never on the ballot. So there was no “medicine” for the OC GOP to take in the 34th SD.

    Thanks for pitching in, but I’d prefer for Mike to explain what he’s referring to himself.

  11. Jubal
    November 20, 2006 at 10:38 pm

    Dan:

    Thank you. I think you’re a good guy, too.

  12. November 20, 2006 at 11:36 pm

    Jubal;

    I realize you were probably in 5th grade at the time, which is why you fail to mention that Laurie Campbell was never on the ballot. So there was no “medicine” for the OC GOP to take in the 34th SD.

    Actually I was repeating 10th grade at the time. And I never SAID she ran, I said they conspired to run her.

    But you’re not one to be dissuaded by a little thing like accuracy, are you Matt?

    Looking forward to posting on OC Blog again so you and your cohorts can beat me like a pinata with similar disregard for what I actually say. Martinets, the lot of you.

  13. Pub Lee Us
    November 21, 2006 at 12:17 am

    Some people just can’t take criticism, no matter how light-hearted. Get used to it, Matt. Welcome to a two party county. Politics is a tough biz. I’m surprised you haven’t yet grown a thicker skin.
    And I don’t understand what you mean by “insufferable self-regard” – please explain.

  14. November 21, 2006 at 12:31 am

    Jubal,

    I wasn’t actually referring to a time when a write-in spoiled a race. What I was referring to was the feeling of getting duped by underhanded tactics.

    I was referring to the way that the Democratic candidate for the 72nd Assembly District felt in 1998 after he lost an election where poll guards were used to intimidate Latino voters into going home before voting.

    I was referring to the way that Orange County Democrats felt when they found out that Republican’s had paid people to switch their party registration from Democrat to Republican.

    I was referring to naturalized citizens receiving letters in the mailing telling them that they could be deported if they attempt to vote.

    Therefore, the medicine metaphor.

  15. November 21, 2006 at 12:34 am

    Doh! I meant 1988.

  16. Jubal
    November 21, 2006 at 7:50 am

    I was referring to the way that the Democratic candidate for the 72nd Assembly District felt in 1998 after he lost an election where poll guards were used to intimidate Latino voters into going home before voting.

    Mike, you’ve posted this canard before. Find me an honest Democrat who was there at the time who believes Christian Thierbach lost because of the poll guards. If that incident caused anyone to lose an election, it was Curt Pringle in 1990.

    I was referring to the way that Orange County Democrats felt when they found out that Republican’s had paid people to switch their party registration from Democrat to Republican.

    Spinning again, eh? I thought that wasn’t “your game”? The OC GOP didn’t “pay people to flip registrations.” The party paid for a voter registration drive and some of those workers got very greedy in early 2006 and flipped a lot of registrations. That was wrong, and the OC GOP terminated those folks as soon as they found out. To contend this was a deliberate effort on the part of the OC GOP goes against locig and common sense. Why would the party pay good money for bad registrations? I’ve yet to find a Democrat able to offer a rational explanation for the accusation you regurgitated.

    I was referring to naturalized citizens receiving letters in the mailing telling them that they could be deported if they attempt to vote.

    More spin, Mike, and dishonest spin at that. The OC GOP had nothing to do with that letter, as you know full well.

    But you don’t play that game, do you.

  17. Jubal
    November 21, 2006 at 7:54 am

    Alex:

    Hey Mr. Accuracy: the Laurie Campbell incident took place in 1995, not 1996.

    Pub Lee Us:

    I can take crticism just fine. I’ve been married for almost ten years, for one thing. And I run a blog where I am blasted almost daily for commenters like yourself.

    I’ve been involved in politics for more than 15 years, so please spare me the “it’s a tough biz” lecture. That doesn’t mean I can’t respond to Mike Lawson’s holier-than-thou cheap shot.

  18. Pub Lee Us
    November 21, 2006 at 9:27 am

    My point is that many of us did not find Mike’s jab “holier-than-thou” or “cheap.” Witty and good-natured, I’d say. You do have a pattern of overreacting to criticism.
    I think ML did a great rundown of the campaign dirty tricks played in the recent past by GOPers in OC (thought not necessarily the OCGOP as a body, which if you read the actual words, Mike did not claim).
    On the 1988 poll guard incident – I happen to have longtime family friends who were involved with that. An elderly couple, both lifelong residents of Santa Ana (he was a WWII veteran), who were SCARED TO VOTE. Close your eyes and think about that for a moment. Imagine strolling to your polling place, decisions made, sample ballot in hand and being too FRIGHTENED to go inside. Whether or not it was widespread enough to change the ultimate outcome, we’ll never know. But I don’t think that anyone can defend the “Poll Guard Incident” as ethical or appropriate.
    You’re welcome to try, Matt.

  19. November 21, 2006 at 1:27 pm

    Matt;

    It was regarding the ’96 election. But thanks for proving my point.

    I pine for a time when political debate can be about actual issues rather than persnickity details.

  20. November 21, 2006 at 7:37 pm

    Jubal you asked:

    “Find me an honest Democrat who was there at the time who believes Christian Thierbach lost because of the poll guards. If that incident caused anyone to lose an election, it was Curt Pringle in 1990.”

    I was here and living in the district. I sure felt it played a role. Of course, with voter suppression you never really know the impact because the vote is suppressed.

    Maybe you can remind us what the margin was in that race?

    As far as the Tan Nguyen letters are concerned, it has been established that the Republican Party had no direct role in the matter. That cannot be said about the 1988 Poll Guards. So please forgive us if we continue to view the Republican Party apparatus with suspicion. Your party has done a good job of training us that there is reason for us to be suspicious.

  21. Dan Chmielewski
    November 21, 2006 at 7:51 pm

    It’s bigger than Orange County; Republicans were convicted of tampering with Democratic phone banks in New Hampshire. The huge number of tossed registrations in largely Democratic districts in Ohio; the miscounts in Florida. Sorry, but I am always suspicious of election time.

  22. Jubal
    November 21, 2006 at 10:44 pm

    Pub Lee Us:

    Let’s take this in sections:

    1)…Witty and good-natured, I’d say. Hmmm, I’d say Mike’s comment “…but I’m not in this to spin stories to make them look good for our guys…that’s Jubal’s game. Not mine.” Was neither good natured nor witty, but a cheap personal shot. Mike agreed with that assessment.

    2) “I think ML did a great rundown of the campaign dirty tricks played in the recent past by GOPers in OC (thought not necessarily the OCGOP as a body, which if you read the actual words, Mike did not claim).”

    Let’s see. Mike said: “Your own medicine doesn’t taste so great, does it, OC GOP?” I then asked him what that meant. Mike responded with the “great” rundown — yet somehow you claim he isn’t talking about the OC GOP.

  23. Jubal
    November 21, 2006 at 10:45 pm

    Matt;

    It was regarding the ‘96 election.

    Alex, the recall election to replace Doris Allen was in 1995.

  24. Jubal
    November 21, 2006 at 10:51 pm

    Pub Lee Us:

    On the 1988 poll guard incident – I happen to have longtime family friends who were involved with that. An elderly couple, both lifelong residents of Santa Ana (he was a WWII veteran), who were SCARED TO VOTE. Close your eyes and think about that for a moment. Imagine strolling to your polling place, decisions made, sample ballot in hand and being too FRIGHTENED to go inside.

    I’m sorry for your friends, but I really have a hard time believing all Latino voters are so fragile. Iif my retired, union Democrat father-in-law were in the same situation, who would have gotten angry, told the uniformed guys with the “Non-citizens can’t vote” signs to go to hell, and cast his ballot. And I think that’s how most people would react. Most Latinos aren’t the wimps and idiots some liberals make them out to be.

  25. Publius the original
    November 21, 2006 at 10:53 pm

    Testy, testy there Matt. Why do you expect a free pass here on TheLIBERALOC?
    We’re here to call you when we smell BS. If you don’t like it, you can stop reading or posting your defensive missives.

  26. Jubal
    November 21, 2006 at 10:56 pm

    Maybe you can remind us what the margin was in that race?

    Gladly, Chris. Curt won 50.6 to 49.4 for Thierbach — the margin was 867 votes out of about 67,000 cast.

    I’ve had this discussion several times with BladeRunner, whose one of the most honest Democrat politics in the local blogosphere. BR doesn’t believe the poll guards won it for Pringle, Curt and the OC GOP simply outhustled the Dems. Our side used to do quite a bit of it back in the 1980s in najority-Democrat districts.

  27. Jubal
    November 21, 2006 at 11:00 pm

    Testy, testy there Matt. Why do you expect a free pass here on TheLIBERALOC?
    We’re here to call you when we smell BS. If you don’t like it, you can stop reading or posting your defensive missives.

    Is this the kind of comment you’re reduced to? Liberal blogger bravado about rooting out “the BS” and “not taking crap” from conservatives? And when did I ask for a free pass here on TheLiberalOC? I responded to a cheap shot and Lawson’s subsequent comments. Why does that bother you so much?

  28. November 22, 2006 at 1:06 am

    Thanks for the info Matt.

    I do remember feeling at the time that the election was stolen. However, I do have a few more years experience under my belt now and I have to agree with you and BladeRunner; the guards probably did not have an 867 vote effect.

    I also agree that the Republicans were working their tails off when I was part of the “flock,” ’80-’86, and they did a great job at GOTV and vote by mail.

    The Dems seemed to have taken OC for granted at that time, but we have recovered and will continue to gain in numbers at time moves forward.

  29. Publius the original
    November 22, 2006 at 11:16 am

    As I see it, Matt is attempting to defend the indefensible here.
    On the 1988 Poll Guard Incident -
    Call me strange, but I don’t CARE if 5 voters were intimidated by poll guards or 500. It doesn’t matter to me if the election was decided ultimately by 800 votes or 8000. Attempts to intimidate voters are morally wrong in my book. And I am glad that our legal system agreed and fined the OCGOP for this act.
    Great for your father-in-law. I would probably have done the same, but not everyone would (or did). And should we really expect some people (in this case working class Latinos who reside in barrios) to overcome an additional obstacle to voting that is not faced by all voters?
    And Matt, I know you post after a long day, but please be more careful about the quotes you attack – I’ll give you “BS” versus “the BS” as an innocent typo. But I can’t find “not taking crap” anywhere.
    Finally Matt, I know that as a conservative in OC you have been pretty insulated from those who come at issues from a completely different perspective. But we liberals are here and not going away any time soon. I’d suggest that when you choose to post here you prepare yourself for some spirited disagreement. In the end it’s healthy for all sides.
    We’ll just have to agree to disagree on the significance of the Poll Guard Incident.

  30. Jubal
    November 22, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    As I see it, Matt is attempting to defend the indefensible here.

    It figures you would see my comment that way.

    Finally Matt, I know that as a conservative in OC you have been pretty insulated from those who come at issues from a completely different perspective.

    Man, you are a know-it-all. Amazing how you know so much about someone you don’t know. It’s a good thing you can rely on your stereotype of what a “conservative in OC” is — it saves on the thinking.

    As for the “not taking crap” — I shouldn’t have used quotes because that indicated you said it,m which you didn’t. I was paraphrasing the tendency I’ve seen among liberal bloggers to start patting themselves on the back about how they’re “not going to take crap from the right” as both a substitute for not presenting an actually argument as a justification for being vulgar, nasty and insulting.

  31. Publius the original
    November 22, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    Do you always have to get the last word?
    Must make your wife crazy!
    I haven’t seen anyone here being “vulgar, nasty, and insulting.” Do you have specific examples?
    As for “not presenting an actually [sic] argument” how do you respond to the points made earlier -
    Do you believe that voter intimidation is only an issue when it is proven to change the outcome of an election?
    Should some voters be required to overcome additional obstacles (like signs and uniformed guards) before exercising their rights?
    Finally, you claim that you “can take criticism just fine.” Here’s your chance to prove it.

  32. Jubal
    November 22, 2006 at 7:17 pm

    Do you always have to get the last word?

    No.

    I haven’t seen anyone here being “vulgar, nasty, and insulting.”

    You’re kidding, right?

    Do you have specific examples?

    Well, any Chris Prevatt post will generally provide you with that. But if you’d like an example, for starters there was the time when Chris Prevatt asked me if my wife had given me my balls back, because I wanted to spend the weekend with my family rather than debating him about banning smoking on county beaches.

    As for “not presenting an actually [sic] argument”…

    Oooo…the old “sic” jab. Good for annoying opponents in the comments section. I confess to resorting to that ploy myself sometimes.

    Do you believe that voter intimidation is only an issue when it is proven to change the outcome of an election?

    No. And if you’d read any of my posts on the Tan Nguyen letter, you wouldn’t have asked that question.

    Should some voters be required to overcome additional obstacles (like signs and uniformed guards) before exercising their rights?

    Those aren’t obstacles. Good grief, Iraqis risk being blown up or shot when they vote. The danger of being killed in order to exercise the franchise can be considered an obstacle to voting. But a letter or some guys in security guard jackets with signs saying “Non-Citizens Can’t Vote”? Be real. Anyone who’s been through the naturalization process (like my wife) knows they can vote — it’s drilled into a persons head during naturalization.

    I’m not defending the poll guard incident or the Tan Nguyen letter — but calling those obstacles to voting is ridiculous. One throws the letter away and walsk past the guy with the sign.

    Finally, you claim that you “can take criticism just fine.” Here’s your chance to prove it.

    Did I prove it, Mr. Anonymous Critic?

  33. Publius the original
    November 22, 2006 at 9:54 pm

    Not yet, but I’m sure you’ll have plenty more chances. ;-)

  34. November 23, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    I give thanks for rigorous political discourse between mutually respectful adversaries.

    Happy Thanksgiving y’all.

  35. Craps Playing
    February 2, 2007 at 2:50 am

    I finally got a chance to check out your web page, and I must say that I’m impressed. Hope everything is going well. Take care!

Comments are closed.