“Victory at any cost.” Damn Right!

Tom Umberg

The characterization of Tom Umberg being “dishonest with the voters about his military service is false.”  These allegations were spun up by political consultants with one objective in mind, discrediting Tom Umberg.  It appears that they were successful in convincing you, but that does not make them true.  In particular there are two allegations on this issue that have been distorted, for the most part quite effectively distorted, to suit their purpose.The first allegation was that during the first Gulf War, Tom Umberg sent a letter to voters claiming to be in Iraq, while he was stationed on active duty in California.  The message Tom sent was clearly identified as being sent from a military base in California, and never stated that Tom was in Iraq.  That fact has been excluded by those who are using that mailing to attack Tom.  The message said he was on active military duty because of the Gulf War and that he was writing it while in the desert.  Both statements were true.

The second allegation was that Tom Umberg claimed in a mailing that he was on active duty serving in Guantanamo in 2004 because of the second Iraq war.  Tom’s active duty assignment was the prosecution of detainees.  He worked in Cuba, and Washington, D.C. and because he was on active duty was unable to campaign in person for the State Assembly.

On the issue of marital infidelity, Tom has apologized to his wife and family for the pain caused by his indiscretion.  Tom’s wife Robin has forgiven him for those indiscretions, and the matter is a non-issue.

The matter of residency has been floated in three elections now and I do agree that for some voters it may be an issue.  Tom Umberg maintains a home in Villa Park, and a home in Santa Ana.  Tom Umberg is registered to vote at his home in Santa Ana. This issue has been brought up before and did not resonate with voters then and will not now.

What matters here is whether or not Tom Umberg can represent the needs and will of the residents of the first district.  Tom Umberg has proven that he can.  Tom Umberg has an extensive history effectively representing the people of central OC.  Tom Umberg has proven that he has the moral courage and integrity to stand up for the rights of all people in the first district.  Tom Umberg stands with consistent and unwavering resolve in support the working men and women. Tom Umberg will fight to maintain the important services offered in this county, while ensuring that we keep our county on a sound financial footing.

Finally, Mike Lawson is right, the term “Victory at Any Cost” is appropriate to this race.

It is appropriate because there are two members the Board of Supervisors who have only one mission.  That mission is the destruction of important and vital services offered to the public through the elimination of the qualified and talented workforce of current public employees, and contracting those services remaining to their friends who will rip off the taxpayers for a profit.  These guys are hoping to do the same thing the Bush administration did in Iraq.  The result, if they get their way, will be that needed services won’t be delivered, and the OC taxpayers will be left holding the bill.

The main issue in this election is who can win.  I believe that all of the Democrats in this contest can effectively represent the needs of the working men and women in this county, and would preserve the institutional knowledge facilitated by a county workforce that is provided with fair pay and benefits.  In this race, Because of his history of effectively representing central OC, his name ID in the district, and his core base of support (greater than that of any of the Democratic candidates), Tom Umberg is the best chance we have of keeping a rational voice on the Board of Supervisors.

The Republicans supported Daucher against Correa in the 34th because they saw her as their best chance to win.  I have no problem supporting Tom Umberg for the same reasons.

  12 comments for ““Victory at any cost.” Damn Right!

  1. January 17, 2007 at 9:48 am

    Great, Chris. At least you’re honest enough to admit that you don’t care Tom Umberg is a resident of the 3rd Supervisor District and not the 1st Supervisor District.

    Why not just rent an apartment for Al Gore and put his name on the ballot?

    The ends justifies the means, eh?

  2. Publius
    January 17, 2007 at 10:41 am

    To claim that Tom Umberg has “moral courage and integrity” is laughable, Chris. If Tom wants to respresent the people of the 1st District, he should have the decency to live among them.
    And when did “the main issue in this election” become “who can win.” Why bother holding an election, then? Just create some formula based on polling, money raised, number of endorsements, and quality of staff and award the seat to the person. Last time I checked, elections were about convincing voters that your candidate is the best among those LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO RUN. Tom’s experience is impressive, but I don’t believe for a second that he meets the basic qualifications to hold this office.

  3. January 17, 2007 at 11:22 am

    Thanks, Chris! You reminded me why Umberg is the best candidate for 1st Supe. He is the strongest of all the Dem candidates, and we need a strong Dem on the BoS to ensure that working people do not suffer any further assaults on their rights. It’s bad enough having “The Terrible Two” Moorlach & Norby on there. I agree with you, Chris, that it’s in the best interest of working-class OC families that we NOT allow a third vote on there that will enable the Moorlach-Norby Anti-worker Agenda!

    : )

  4. January 17, 2007 at 12:57 pm

    At least we don’t punish others in our party for having a set of opinions on a candidate(s). I applaud both Mike and Chris for letting their opinions known.

    On the plus side of all of the coverage on OC Blog is that it just gives us more free coverage from Matt and his bloggers.

  5. redperegrine
    January 17, 2007 at 1:36 pm

    Well, Chris, I hope having one vote on a five person board means enough to you to toss your own integrity by the wayside.

    You’ve got to stop selling yourself for little; professional politicians love to abuse you cheap dates.

  6. January 17, 2007 at 1:53 pm


    I do not consider Tom Umberg a liar. As far as I’m concerned, the law regarding residency and qualification to run is so cloudy that if someone chooses to register to vote at a particular location, that is their residence. This was significantly established in the Rudat case.

    Bottom line, If you register to vote at a residence that you either own or rent, then you are eligible to vote in any election in that community and to seek office in that community. This has been pretty well established by existing case law. To claim that a candidate is dishonest because they use a loophole in existing law is not accurate.

    For example, if I were to own two homes, one in garden grove and one in Malibu, i shoule be able to choose where I want to register to vote because I would have an interest in both communities. The same wouid apply if I owned one home and rented another.

    The amount of time a person spends in one residence or another in a suburban community such as Orange County has a minimal relationship to a person’s ability to represent that community.

    I do believe it is relevent to point out that a candidate has multiple residences and may not spend enough time in their residence of registration to know the needs of the community they want to represent. But I do not see their choice of where they wish to vote as dishonest, unless they try registered to vote in two different locations at the same time.

    Tom Umberg is not a liar. He has establised a residence in the 1st SD by paying rent for a residence and registering to vote at that location. He meets the qualifications to run. If people feel that Tom Umberg cannot represent the first SD because he doesn’t know their needs well enough, then they should not vote for him. The red herring of residency is a non-issue and is certainly not an issue of honesty.

    Not written or transmitted using County of Orange resoures or time.

  7. ElroyEl
    January 17, 2007 at 2:20 pm

    I couldn’t agree with Chris. Right here Jubal’s demigod John Lewis states, ” Apparently, campaign ads must trump the verbiage of the law itself, says former state Sen. John Lewis, who is a consultant on the anti-D campaign.”

    So. The question needing to be asked. Does Umberg’s residency exist within the verbiage of the law? If so there should be no problem. If not, that is a matter which should be addressed. Since no one is willing to take on this issue, I can assume it must be a loser.

  8. January 17, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    As far as I’m concerned, the law regarding residency and qualification to run is so cloudy that if someone chooses to register to vote at a particular location, that is their residence. This was significantly established in the Rudat case.


    Actually, the Rudat case established no such thing. Judge Gray declined not to rule on whether Rudat lived at the Orange bungalow when she registered to vote there — creating an escape hatch so he could say, “yeah, she barely meets to qualifications.”

    As for Rosen, I had lunch with him a few weeks ago and covered a gamut of issues. He’s too pro-union for my taste, but that aside, he has a libertarian streak and if I were a 1st SD resident I would seriously consider voting for him.And Mike, it’s my pleasure to send some traffic this way.

  9. January 17, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    And Chris:

    I think you mean “damn right” not “dam right”

  10. January 17, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    Thanks for the spell check Matt. That’s what I get for posting before the coffee kicked in this morning.


  11. Dan Chmielewski
    January 18, 2007 at 8:56 am

    I think the voters are smart enough to figure out whch canddiate will best represent them.

  12. Dan Chmielewski
    January 18, 2007 at 9:50 am

    Before I forget, isn’t the Republican Party perfectly OK with a “Victory at Any Cost” approach. Look at some of the national low blows in campaigns of years past, and it’s pretty clear that win at any cost is an ongoing strategy.

    What’s that old joke? Scientists are replacing Lab Rats with Republicans. Why? Because there are some things rats won’t do.

Comments are closed.