Victory At Any Cost

The Tom Umberg victory in the February supervisorial race is pretty much a done-deal. And anything that I say on this blog has very little influence over the outcome of the race; I’d only be making unnecessary enemies by criticizing Umberg at this point.Why upset the burgeoning Democratic power structure in OC?

It’s the right thing to do…that’s why.

When Lynn Daucher was running for the State Senate in the 34th District—even though she didn’t honestly live here—I was vocal about my disapproval.

So now that Umberg is running for the 1st District Supervisor seat, and it’s pretty clear that he doesn’t live in the district, it would be hypocritical of me to support him.

Voters can get blinded to a candidate’s faults because of the candidate’s party affiliation. Blatantly dishonest politicians are far too often the front-runners in races, and this is the reason many apathetic voters cite when staying home on Election Day.

Is the party’s endorsement enough to make a candidate an acceptable one? We’ve seen Umberg be dishonest to his family about fidelity, to the voters about his military service, and now again to the voters regarding his residency. I can think of some really great (honest) people that live, work, and genuinely care about the constituents in the 1st District.

I know that there are people that are going to criticize me about this post—and those people are the source of a problem with our political system. A candidate’s chances of winning should not be a reason to support him.

I’m voting for Mark Rosen.

  20 comments for “Victory At Any Cost

  1. January 16, 2007 at 9:00 am

    Wow — I’m impressed. That’s a gutsy post.

    I like Mark Rosen a lot. Frankly, if I lived in the 1st SD I’d consider voting for him.

  2. Ed Velasquez
    January 16, 2007 at 9:52 am

    BRAVO Mike! I think you’ve summed up what many are not willing to say in a public forum.
    I wonder how many voters think like you and will behave similarly in the privacy of the voting booth.
    There is a good reason Mr. Umberg has not managed to break 40% since all of this stuff became public. Unfortunately, in this winner-take-all scenario he might have more than enough votes to win.

  3. redperegrine
    January 16, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    Well, done. Carpetbagging should be discouraged no matter the party affiliation or the office.

    The Democrats have a decent candidate (Rosen) that they can support. Consider this: Umberg’s first official act as a candidate is to lie about his residency.

  4. Kay
    January 16, 2007 at 1:41 pm

    Wow! Now if only everyone followed your point-of-view, then maybe the state of politics wouldn’t be in such disarray.

  5. A Santa Ana Democrat
    January 16, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    Well, Mike, you do have a point:

    Tom Umberg doesn’t live “full time” in the 1st Supe District. This is our dilemma. We (correctly) criticized Lynn Daucher for her carpetbagging in SD 34, while promoting Lou Correa’s “homegrown hometown values”…
    But now, we’ve gone a full 180 by embracing our own candidate with questionable ties to the 1st Supe to run for this seat, Lou Correa’s seat…

    Yet, Tom Umberg is our strongest candidate! He has the most name ID, and he has been able to unite the party behind him. For once, we’re the ones with our act together as the Republicans are sinking. It seems so good, but feels so bad.

    This is our dilemma, and there isn’t really an easy way out. I’m reluctantly sticking with Umberg, but I understand why you’d support Rosen.

  6. Ryan Gene
    January 16, 2007 at 3:14 pm

    “But now, we’ve gone a full 180 by embracing our own candidate with questionable ties to the 1st Supe to run for this seat, Lou Correa’s seat…”

    Another reason why Democrats have zero ethics.

  7. ElroyEl
    January 16, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    Please Ryan. Your comments come in the wake of the acts of so many ethically challenged GOP politicos it is laughable.

    Duke Cunningham should have been tried for treason. It is only by a slim thread of the law that he wasn’t.

  8. Ryan Gene
    January 16, 2007 at 3:51 pm

    Just like they should’ve lost. Unethical Reps need to be taken out back and shot.. or at least given a nice good ole’ whoopin’.

    If someone within our party is doing shady business, they ought to be — and often times are — challenged in their respective primaries.

    However, often times if a liberal Democrat is doing shady business, it’s often overlooked. As long as that elected Democrat votes for and stands up for socialistic principles it’s okay — regardless if he (or she) cheats on their spouse or hides money in a freezer.

    It’s like a political double-standard that shouldn’t exist. If you guys do it, it should be challenged! Unless you all just really don’t care.

  9. A Santa Ana Democrat
    January 16, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    Another reason why Democrats have zero ethics.

    Come on, Ryan Gene! It’s not as if the Republicans exactly have a monopoly on ethical behavior…
    Far from it! I was just pointing out the Dems’ about-face on residency as the SD 34 election shifted into 1st Supe replacement mode. Still if Umberg doesn’t reside in the district, the Republican candidate don’t have the best interests of Central OC in mind! In such a working-class area, how could a supposed representative of these folks advocate such anti-worker, anti-middle-class policies that only favor the ultra-wealthy folks who live outside the 1st Supe?

    I was just commending Mike’s intellectual honesty and moral character. I didn’t know that my words would be twisted to attack my own party. Please, Ryan Gene, I thought you were better than that!

  10. A Santa Ana Democrat
    January 16, 2007 at 4:11 pm

    However, often times if a liberal Democrat is doing shady business, it’s often overlooked. As long as that elected Democrat votes for and stands up for socialistic principles it’s okay — regardless if he (or she) cheats on their spouse or hides money in a freezer.

    No, it’s not overlooked… And I take offense to this charge.

    1. If you call taking a stand for a fair marketplace and a strong middle class “socialistic principles”, then I guess most Americans are “socialist”.

    2. While I certainly do not condone marital infidelity, I also would rather not snoop into other people’s private lives! One person’s marriage problems should never be a whole country’s business!

    3. Just about all of us in the Democratic grassroots condemned William Jefferson’s sleazy actions…
    That’s why we supported Karen Carter in LA-02.

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/8/22911/0286

    While we unfortunately didn’t unseat Jefferson, I’m confident that the Democratic leadership will keep a good eye on him.

    Again, Ryan Gene, please don’t misconstrue our words to attack our party. We’ve been respectful to you and to all the other ethical Republicans. Please don’t resort to these low-blows.

  11. Ryan Gene
    January 16, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    I’m not resorting to “low-brow” tactics.

    I just really take a huge offense to double-standards. If someone is unethical from our side of the isle, they should be flogged.

    If someone from your side of the isle is unethical, they too should be taken behind the woodshed for all it’s worth.

    I’d much rather see the Dems get behind an ethical character, just as I’d like to see our side get behind an ethical character.

    Just because someone is a “sure thing” ala Umberg doesn’t mean that he’s the “right” thing. Same goes with our party. Just because Carlos is a “sure thing” (which actually makes him sound easy lol) doesn’t mean that he’s the “right” thing.

  12. January 16, 2007 at 4:47 pm

    Unethical is unethical, and shouldn’t be tolerated. But to claim that unethical Dems. are tolerated more often than unethical Reps. is silly.

  13. A Santa Ana Democrat
    January 16, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    I’d much rather see the Dems get behind an ethical character, just as I’d like to see our side get behind an ethical character.

    Well, that’s definitely something that ALL OF US should agree on! :-)

    Yes, it’s too bad that BOTH the leading Republican AND the leading Democrat have ethical issues. I probably would have preferred that the Dems get behind a more honorable candidate, but I really don’t know what to do, now that Umberg is the official Democratic pick. I’ve already been volunteering with the party, which has coalesced behind Umberg. It’s a very dicey issue, and I wish that there were a more simple solution.

  14. A Santa Ana Democrat
    January 16, 2007 at 4:50 pm

    Unethical is unethical, and shouldn’t be tolerated. But to claim that unethical Dems. are tolerated more often than unethical Reps. is silly.

    Thank you, Mike! I can certainly agree to that. :-)

  15. Ryan Gene
    January 16, 2007 at 4:52 pm

    Well, the best advice I can give is for you all to elect Umberg this time, find a better candidate within one year, and pull the rug out from under Tom for re-election.

  16. Ryan Gene
    January 16, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    But then again, I’ll still be working hard against any candidate you throw up that is heavily pro-union.

  17. A Santa Ana Democrat
    January 16, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    Well, the best advice I can give is for you all to elect Umberg this time, find a better candidate within one year, and pull the rug out from under Tom for re-election.

    Thank you, Ryan Gene! I can definitely agree to that. While I like Umberg as a person, and I agree with him on the vast majority of th issues, I don’t like his lack of ethics. The only reason why I’m helping him is because he’s the party pick…
    But if we have a strong candidate ready for 2008, I won’t have a problem dumping him and going with a stronger candidate who can keep this seat blue! Thanks again for the freat suggestion, Ryan Gene! :-)

  18. Publius
    January 16, 2007 at 11:55 pm

    Well, claiming that the party “has coalesced behind Umberg” simply doesn’t make it true. There are two Democrats who managed to get elected in Central OC after Umberg abandoned it for greener(-looking) pastures. Together Lou Correa and Loretta Sanchez have about 20 years of experience winning election after election in the area. Someone should ask Senator Correa and Congresswoman Sanchez who they plan to vote for in the Supervisorial special election. My hunch is that neither of them will say Umberg.
    So much for coalescing.

  19. Publius
    January 17, 2007 at 4:51 pm

    I’m waiting to see who funds the expected mailer with quotes from today’s OC Register article on Umberg’s residency and the characterization of Tom as a “compulsive liar” by one who knows him better than any of us. I’m guessing the Register masthead and the Martin Wiskcol byline trumps TheLiberalOC logo and Mike Lawson in all available polling of trustworthy sources (sorry Mike, maybe next election).
    Umberg will likely win in any case. And I reserve judgement on his performance as a Supervisor until I see him in action for a while.
    But I do understand that the primary motivation in running for office once again is not a desire to serve the people of Central OC, but rather to use his position as a vehicle to help retire his enormous campaign debt from previous unsuccessful runs for statewide office.
    So the constituents get screwed once more.
    Oh yeah, Joe Dunn was termed out when he ran for statewide office. And Umberg had one Assembly term left during his quixotic run, leaving Democrats weak and disorganized in Central OC. His departure left OC without a single Democrat in partisan office. You can bet that if Loretta tries for higher office without solidifying her district for a Democrat she’ll hear an earful from me.
    But people continue to ignore my question – has anyone asked the two big fish in OC who they support? Why won’t anyone ask them?

  20. Pingback: The Liberal OC

Comments are closed.