No on D’oh!!!

Well it looks like the revolution in Santa Ana is on hold.  Voters approved Measure D with just under 54% of the vote extending city council terms from 8 to 12 years.  Measure D’s and Mayor Miguel Pulido’s demise were greatly exaggerated by many in the “No on D” camp, but once again Pulido proved himself to be a master politician.  Councilwoman Michele Martinez led the opposition to Measure D, which essentially pitted her against Pulido and Pulido won.  That should put an end to any thoughts she may have had about challenging Pulido for Mayor in November.

Yes on D took an early 2000 vote lead when the absentee and mail-in results were announced and it never relinquished the 2000 vote margin.  The fact that the “Yes” side did so well with absentee voters comes as a big suprise considering they did nothing whatsoever to target those voters.  All the sour grapes about the “No” side being outspent 10-to1 are irrelevent.  The election was won on the absentee ballots and none of the money raised went towards targeting those voters.

The “Yes” victory is also a repudiation of the nasty, hateful and dishonest personal attacks leveled at Councilmembers Sal Tinajero, Vince Sarmiento and especially Claudia Alvarez.  Some in the blogosphere with an axe to grind used the “No on D” campaign as their personal firing range to level slanderous attacks on those Councilmembers.  Even in defeat many of those folks refuse to show any humility and continue to fire away with angry potshots.

“If D passes, Irene Ibarra will take out Claudia in November…. And Sal won’t survive past his first term anyway. He has already succeeded in pissing off the entire city. I think he would be hard pressed to round up six fans at this point…”, said Orange Juice political prognosticator Art Pedroza.

When is Pedroza going to stop making political predictions?  This guy is dead wrong everytime he tries.  He has been telling us for months that “D” was dead and that its defeat was going to catapult Michele Martinez into the Mayor’s office and it would sweep Alvarez, Tinajero and Sarmiento from office.  He was wrong last night and he will continue to be wrong in the future.

The election is over and it is time to move on.  There is a lot of work that needs to be done and we need to refocus on improving our community.  We must continue to put pressure on the city in regards to Ware Disposal and their illegal activities in Logan.  We need to keep scrutinizing the Renaissance Specific Plan to make sure that everyone gets the best deal possible.  We need to push for a higher standard and a higher number of affordable housing units in our community.  We need to insure that all residents of Santa Ana are given an equal voice in our city.

We will not be able to accomplish any of this if folks insist upon continuing the personal and vicious attacks on City Councilmembers.  We must make sure that they are accountable but that does not mean that we should do so in an immature and juvenile way, using name calling as the main line of attack.  It is time to raise the bar and bring the political discourse in Santa Ana to a level that we can all be proud of.

  47 comments for “No on D’oh!!!

  1. Anonymous
    February 6, 2008 at 9:36 am

    You are just glad Measure D passed because Measure E also passed and I believe that means you get to keep your planning commission post just a bit longer now.

    This is a sad sad day for Santa Ana.

  2. Mike Tardif
    February 6, 2008 at 9:49 am

    Sean – Are you proud of and do you stand by the Yes campaigns deceptive tactic of portraying Measure D as limiting developers influence on City Hall?

  3. February 6, 2008 at 9:53 am

    Sean: I am shocked that you are taking such glee in the passage of a measure greatly funded by your (rightfully) eternal enemy and a woman who also funded attack ads against Sal, Judy Ware. Am I missing something here?

  4. February 6, 2008 at 9:54 am

    Mike,

    Are you proud of the name calling and the dishonest attacks on Councilmembers Alvarez, Sarmiento and Tinajero?

    Politics is like chess and Pulido once again proved that he is a better chess player than his opponents.

  5. Anonymous
    February 6, 2008 at 9:55 am

    Now that the developers and waste management interests in the city have weighed in heavily in support of passing Measure D, the question now facing Santa Ana is what will be in the adopted “Code of Ethics and Conduct” According to Measure D, “these new standards be adopted
    within six months of the effective date of this Charter amendment”.

    If voters were really supportive of this measure because of the inclusion of a “Code of Ethics and Conduct” that was promised to them in Measure D, let’s see what the City Council comes up with.

    It probably will not look anything like the Oaks Initiative in Santa Monica and Pasadena: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/advocacy/nw/?postId=6682

  6. February 6, 2008 at 9:58 am

    Gustavo,

    Judy Ware’s money is not going to buy her way out of the mess she has gotten herself in regarding Logan.

    I got assurances last night from Sal, Vince and Claudia that they will not allow her to continue to operate illegally in Logan.

    Look at the bright side, she wasted all that money she gave to the “Yes” on D campaign because she is still going to be brought to justice.

    What I am taking “glee” in is the repudiation of the vicious and dishonest personal attacks leveled against Sal, Vince and Claudia.

  7. Mike Tardif
    February 6, 2008 at 10:00 am

    Sean – I guess that I should have been more direct.

    Do you stand by Mayor Miguel Pulido’s lie that Measured D will limit developers influence in City Hall?

  8. February 6, 2008 at 10:08 am

    Mike,

    You and I both know that as long as we don’t have campaign finance reform developers will have an influence at city hall.

    Perhaps now you can answer my question, “Are you proud of the name calling and the dishonest attacks on Councilmembers Alvarez, Sarmiento and Tinajero?”

    Will you condemn those that leveled vicious personal attacks on those folks?

    The only way we will be able to move forward on issues like the Renaissance Specific Plan is if we raise the level of political discourse in our community.

  9. Mike Tardif
    February 6, 2008 at 10:28 am

    sean – I am glad you agree with me that Measure D was fraudulent in pretending to deminish the influence of predatory developers in City Hall.

    Miguel Pulido knows that as well.

    I am against personal attacks and name calling by either side.

  10. fiala fan
    February 6, 2008 at 10:51 am

    i find it hilarios sean says name calling is bad since he calls his enemies the usual suspects and the strouds the angry couple sean mill is a hypcrite

  11. February 6, 2008 at 11:00 am

    FF,

    They are “angry”. And I bet they are even angrier today.

    With the passage of Measure E that means they have now have to spend an additional four years writing letters demanding my removal from the Planning Commission.

  12. February 6, 2008 at 11:06 am

    Sean,

    We were outspent ten to one by the Measure D campaign, which was fronted by your pal Sal and MIguel Pulido, and run out of Claudia’s house. And we almost one. This should send shudders up the collective backs of the hacks that lied their pants off during this pathetic campaign.

    In my opinion, the taint of Measure D will sink all of those who were affiliated with Measure D. Sal will be a one term Council member and Claudia will be defeated in November.

    I have already found candidates to run against Sarmiento and Claudia. I am working on finding someone to run against Bustamante.

    We know where Sal, Claudia, Miguel and Sarmiento stand. They are liars who are funded by developers, waste companies and other special interests.

    Keep bashing Michele – we all know that she was the lone Council Member to stand up against Ware, Bisno and company. Every time you bash her you lose even more credibility, not that you have much left at this point.

  13. February 6, 2008 at 11:18 am

    Art,

    If you have indeed “found candidates to run against Sarmiento and Claudia” do them a favor and stay as far away as possible from their campaigns. Your support for them combined with your constant lies and attacks on Vince and Claudia will surely sink their campaigns.

    You aren’t exactly someone that should be pontificating on the credibility of others. Once again you applied your scorched earth tactics and once again you have been repudiated. Michele would do herself a big favor if she distanced herself from your politics of hate and demonization.

    It is time to move on and hopefully Michele realizes this. There is a lot of work to be done in Santa Ana and Michele has much to offer. However is she continues to spend time with you in the sandbox leveling personal attacks at everyone that disagrees with you it will be her that is one term and done. And she’ll have you to thank for it.

    Try to show some humility. You lost. Move on.

  14. Santa Ana Lover
    February 6, 2008 at 11:27 am

    Sean Mill you are the king of the sandbox. Come on you would probable push down a three year old if they called you a doody head.

    You don’t move on from a loss. You try to find new ways to fight the corrupt and believe me nobody is gonna stop and more and more people are seeing the light. Sleaze can not stay in the dark slinking around forever.

    The RSP threat to a poster above was real nice by the way don’t think that one got past us. Concerned residents and business owners are going to stay right on top of this.

  15. February 6, 2008 at 11:34 am

    “The RSP threat to a poster above was real nice by the way don’t think that one got past us.”

    What threat are you talking about? Did Pedroza let you borrow his tin foil hat?

  16. Mike Tardif
    February 6, 2008 at 11:41 am

    Sean – I am waiting for a response to my above comment.

    Remember – we both agree that Measure D was fraudulent and Pulido knew about it.

    No response?

  17. February 6, 2008 at 11:52 am

    What comment are you looking for a response on Mike?

    As I already said, we both know without campaign finance reform we won’t be able to take the special interests power out of city hall. I never said that Measure D was fraudulent, it was just a well played political manuever by Pulido and the other councilmembers that supported it.

    And please tell me, what is this so-called “RSP threat ” that Santa Ana Lover spoke of? The response that they are referring to was my comment to you. How was anything I said to you about the RSP a threat?

  18. Mike Tardif
    February 6, 2008 at 11:55 am

    Sean – You probably should not be blogging about the Renaissance Specific Plan. Remember, you are on the Planning Commission and you need to be unbiased?

  19. February 6, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Mike,

    I have not stated a position on the RSP. Are you telling me that I should not even mention the words “RSP”? Until I blog about specifics or take a position either way I think this is off base.

    Again please show me where I have said something that would give the impression that I am “unbiased” on the issue.

  20. Mike Tardif
    February 6, 2008 at 12:04 pm

    Oh, and thank you for setting me straight.

    I understand now – the new definition of lie, fraud and deceit is:

    Well planned political maneuver by Mayor Miguel Pulido.

  21. Santa Ana Lover
    February 6, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    I don’t have a tin hat? Is yours fancier than Art’s maybe I could borrow yours?

    I think you have good intentions some of the time. I don’t think you always act on those intentions is all and almost back track away from what you know is right. You resort to Sandbox theatrics. If what I read as a threat was indeed not a threat then my apologies but I think Mike’s right you shouldn’t be talking about RSP. It seems that power just breeds corruption in our fair city its a sad sad thing.

  22. Mike Tardif
    February 6, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    Santa Ana Lover:

    Yes, it is sad when power trumps truth and honesty.

    That is how the game is played – and Sean has decided which team he is on.

    “well planned political maneuver,” ….. my a*s.

  23. Anonymous
    February 6, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Measure D was passed by using false promises and developer money. Conduct and ethics will either not change or get worse at City Hall.

    Sean, you are right that we definitely need campaign finance reform. May it come more sooner than later.

  24. Mike Tardif
    February 6, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    So, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous,

    Who would you say made the false promises?

    What do you think that developers expect in return for this payment of money?

    Do you really care or are you just trying to change the subject?

  25. February 6, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    Sean

    Who wrote the Yes on D ballot statement?

    Does Sal Tinajero agree with the Yes on D statement?
    Does Miguel Pulido agree with the Yes on D statement?

    Did Sal Tinajero participate in raising money for Yes on D?
    Did Miguel Pulido participate in raising money for Yes on D?

    What are Sal Tinajero’s feelings about Yes on D taking money from Judy Ware and Mike Harrah?

    What are Miguel Pulido’s feelings about Yes on D taking money from Judy Ware and Mike Harrah?

    Back in November you presented to the Council the Sunshine Act.
    Why has 8 weeks gone by and not one mention of it since?

    Do you approve or disapprove of the City Council closing public comments on Monday night and refusing to allow me to speak?

  26. February 6, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    Sean

    Do you approve of the help Yes on Measure D hired, mainly Alex Vega, who yelled ” they should tear down Logan” at Sam Romero on monday night?

    Would you approve of a councilmember appointing someone to a commission after that same person had “given” money to Yes on D?

    Do you think someone who does business with the city, or gets business from those in positions of power in this city should be appointed to a commission?

  27. COOK
    February 6, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    Many voters came to the polls with a card with the answers printed on them.

    They had the name for president and yes on “D” & “E”. (Of the ones who needed help, those where the only votes on their ballots)

    If the name for president was not on their ballot, they asked for another ballot.

    Almost 25 percent of the voters at the polls changed their party on the spot. This is the most ever I’ve seen in 12 years working at the polls.

    It is pretty “low” to imply that if the voter doesn’t vote these items that they will lose their job.

    I wonder if this could be considered voter intimidation?

  28. Mike Tardif
    February 6, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    COOK,

    Get a clue dude – this blog is concerning the fraud, lies and deceit of the Yes on Measure A campaign.

    Stay on subject !! – Focus !!

    FRAUD – LIES – DECEIT – MEASURE A – got it?

  29. Mike Tardif
    February 6, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    COOK – I guess I need to focus.

    This blog is concerning the FRAUD, LIES and DECEIT of Measure D !!

  30. February 6, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    “This blog is concerning the FRAUD, LIES and DECEIT of Measure D !!”

    Mike,

    As the author of this post I beg to differ. That isn’t what this post is about at all. It is about the repudiation of those in the “No” camp that once again misjudged the will of the people.

    You have done a lot of talking against the “yes” side, perhaps you would like to address the dishonesty of your cohorts on the “no” side. Or perhaps you can discuss that despicable campaign of personal attacks by folks on your propaganda tool the Orange Juice.

    The results are probably just as much of a repudiation of the despicable tactics of some on your side as it was support for Measure D. If you want to blame anyone for the passage of D look to Pedroza and company.

  31. The Lovable Curmudgeon
    February 6, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    My hunch is that this will get closer over the course of the week as new numbers are released.
    But if anything, the numbers FOR Measure D prove that you still have to make calls, send mail, and talk to voters in an organized way to win an election.
    Sitting in your den writing stuff on a political blog read mainly by insiders does nothing to further your cause. The 1% of voters who read these things mostly have their minds made up.
    Where were the robo-calls to absentee voters? Where were the fliers reprinting and translating the newspaper articles linking Measure D to the slimy folks who do business with the city?

  32. Santa Ana Lover
    February 6, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    You are just another piece of the pretty little corruption puzzle Mill. Right when I think maybe you are not a hopeless waste to the people of Santa Ana who need you, you go and prove me wrong.

    You like to argue you spend a lot of time arguing with people who you think so low of, doesn’t that put you right down in the dirty dirty mud with them. Yeah you are one of those guys, the all talk no action hide behind anything I’ll fit behind kinda guy. Then I’ll turn around and pull your pig tails when nobody is looking oh wait I forgot you aren’t actually 5.

    Stop fighting with your lame attempts to make honest people who care about their city feel bad, for caring. These people care they aren’t looking to advance their political careers like most of you and your little buddies. Despicable campaign of personal attacks sound like you are talking about yourself.

  33. Mike Tardif
    February 6, 2008 at 3:40 pm

    Sean,

    I do not believe that personal attacks or misrepresentations are appropriate or beneficial for either side.

    But when a big lie like “Measure D will keep the lobbyists out of City Hall” is perpetrated, …. well, I just have to call Bullsh*# !!

    Anyway – thanks for the very fair blog opportunity.

  34. February 6, 2008 at 3:45 pm

    “You are just another piece of the pretty little corruption puzzle Mill.”

    Santa Ana Lover,

    Now this statement absolutely proves that you have borrowed Pedroza’s tin foil hat. Please provide some sort of documentation that links me to any sort of corruption. If you can’t, and you can’t, save these type of posts for the Orange Juice where this type of garbage is the norm.

    Again you are the one leveling personal attacks. Obviously this is why you feel so comfortable with the “No” on D folks.

    You lost. Get over it.

    Now hurry up and get Art that tin foil hat back, he’ll need to write his next ridiculous and dishonest smear piece for the Orange Junk.

  35. February 6, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Mike,

    Thanks for commenting. I welcome your comments any time whether I agree or not. Unlike many on the “no” side I believe that you are fighting for what you believe are the best interests of our community. I can’t begrudge for that.

  36. February 6, 2008 at 4:14 pm

    Thomas:

    “Do you approve of the help Yes on Measure D hired, mainly Alex Vega, who yelled ” they should tear down Logan” at Sam Romero on monday night?”

    I am not responsible for who was hired to do work like putting up signs for the campaign. I stand with Sam and have for over 20 years and he knows this. I have been one of the strongest defenders of Logan and will continue to be.

    “Would you approve of a councilmember appointing someone to a commission after that same person had “given” money to Yes on D?”

    If the person is qualified to serve I don’t think that they should be precluded from serving just because they gave money to a political campaign. Should the Stroud’s be removed from their positions because of their involvement with the “No” side?

    “Do you think someone who does business with the city, or gets business from those in positions of power in this city should be appointed to a commission?”

    It depends on whether or not the position they are being appointed has anything to do with the money they are getting from the city. I mean some guy that has a contract to fill potholes should not be prevented from serving on the Library Board.

    As far as your other questions perhaps you should direct them to Sal, Miguel and the council. I am not their spokesperson.

  37. Lionheart
    February 6, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Sean:
    Get your head out your rear.
    (1) There is not enough that can be said against Claudia Alvarez, who is as dishonest, sleazy, and self-serving a politician (and human being) as you will find. All anyone needs to know to evaluate you is your support of such a profoundly divisive, nasty scumbag as Claudia.
    (2) To have Claudia say that Measure D was to prevent undue influence by developers is such a blatant lie it should get her sanctioned by the state bar. I mean really: it was funded by a big business developer that has massive pending projects with the City, has given Claudia’s personal campaigns massive amounts of money from him, his business partners and family members, and is designed to perpetuate her time on the council. This developer funded the No on D campaign for the same reasons he funded Claudia’s prior campaigns – she is for sale, bought and sold. Now she can sell out the City’s interests for another four years beyond her present term. Any questions of where she puts her values? She is essentially funded by the developers, the mortgage industry and the real estate industry. No wonder they were able to rack up so many foreclosures in Santa Ana.
    (3) I used to have respect for both you and Art – now you are just poisoning the well with your sycophantic (syc·o·phant (sÄ­k’É™-fÉ™nt, sÄ«’kÉ™-) n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people) posts.
    (4) Chris – what a shame you waste space on your blog for Sean’s pathetic rants. If he showers any more love on Claudia and Pulido, give him some condoms.

  38. February 6, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    lovable curmudgeon,

    We did have robo-calls for No on D. We did walk precincts too. I personally walked to over 350 homes in my area. We did send out a mailer too. And we had a very decent ballot argument that was mailed to all the voters.

    But the Yes side lied, lied, lied. Their entire campaign was a lie. The voters were lied to by Pulido and Tinajero, whose names were on the fraudulent Yes on D ballot argument.

    We lost mainly because we were outspent by a ten to one margin. The Yes on D side was awash in special interest money. We gave them a good fight, and got almost half the vote, but the Yes on D side fooled enough people to win.

    For Mill to say that the loss is my fault is pathetic. I did not see Mill standing with us. He was on the wrong side this time.

    I gave it my best, as did everyone in our campaign. Just look at the media exposure we were able to elicit. The LA Times, the OC Register and the OC Weekly all ripped the Yes on D side, repeatedly, and that certainly did help us. Who do you think coordinated all of that media exposure?

    The fight is not over by any means. We are recruiting Council candidates to take out Pulido’s smarmy crooked Council hacks. And we are working on our own ballot measures to help us take back our city.

    Sal made a HUGE mistake by signing on to Measure D. He may not know it, but his political career is DOA. As is Mill’s.

  39. Anonymous
    February 6, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    Art, lay off of the declarations of who is going where in politics. You are a gossiper, not a political strategist.

    Sean, lay off the personal attacks and stick to the issues.

  40. February 7, 2008 at 6:56 am

    11:14,

    The tip about Claudia came from a very good source. As usual, I cannot name the source. As for whether or not I am a strategist, I will leave that to others to decide. I would add however that there is a reason that the underdog No on D campaign was able to get so much media coverage from the L.A. Times, the O.C. Register and the O.C. Weekly. Strategy may have had something to do with that.

  41. February 7, 2008 at 7:15 am

    This thread is mis-named. It should have been called Yes on Dough. That, it seems, is what the initiative was all about.

  42. February 7, 2008 at 8:29 am

    “the underdog No on D campaign was able to get so much media coverage from the L.A. Times, the O.C. Register and the O.C. Weekly”

    And yet Art still found a way to screw things up and lose. All this talk about being outspent 10 to 1 is hogwash. The “Yes” side did raise more money but both side each put out mailers, did an equal number of robo-calls and the “No” side got ALL the positive media spin.

    We don’t have the final financials on this thing yet and Pedroza and company are spinning this as “we only lost because they had more money”. You lost because you got out strategized.

  43. cook
    February 7, 2008 at 11:05 am

    What would Billy Jack say?

    Even after 30 plus years the message / theme of the never released to the big screen. The movie Billy Jack goes to Washington, still hold true today. The political machine can buy elections.

  44. The Lovable Curmudgeon
    February 7, 2008 at 11:17 am

    Isn’t part of strategy figuring out how you’re going to raise the money to tell voters your side of the story?

  45. Dan Chmielewski
    February 7, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    There’s an old expression fellas” We get the government we deserve.”

    The vote Tuesday is the last word so all of this “did so/did not” argument between the two of you is beating a dead horse. Stop. Move on to the next thing.

  46. February 7, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    Dan,

    The people of Santa Ana don’t deserve a corrupt City Council. I will never stop trying to remove our Council Members from office. These people are Democrats Dan. They make your party look bad on a daily basis. That ought to bother you. It certainly bothers me. It is one of the reasons I remain an independent.

Comments are closed.