Showdown for Hoa Van Tran

The Democratic Party of Orange County met tonight to determine if Hoa Van Tran will be the Tan Ngynen pariah of the 2008 election cycle.

The question:

Will the Dems take a stand, or let things slide further down hill?

Questions about the ethics and integrity of Hoa Van Tran have been raised by all of the local blogs; Red County, TheLiberalOC, Bolsavik, and even Orange Juice. The Orange County Register has chronicled (after the blogs did) the gang ties of the campaign.

Nope!! Hoa keeps the endorsement. Democrats lose!! 

Looks like the Dems are acting like the Catholic Bishops who denied child abuse. I’m not a very proud Democrat tonight.

Publisher’s Note: In the comments on this posting I made a comment regarding the Teamsters Union and their local leader Patrick Kelley that were both divisive and inappropriate. I never should have referred to my brothers and sisters in labor in such a derogatory way. I apologize for my comments, and while made in the heat of passionate discussion they were quite simply, inexcusable. I have withdrawn those comments I made from the thread of comments. I have also closed further commentary on this post.

- Chris Prevatt

  69 comments for “Showdown for Hoa Van Tran

  1. May 27, 2008 at 10:08 pm

    I have a detailed report on my site.

    It’s unfair to compare the DPOC with the Catholic bishops. The bishops are not supposed to make moves based on political or P.R. calculations, whereas the DPOC is a political party; it’s supposed to make political moves. That’s what political parties do.

    At the end of the day, a political party will take actions that are politically advantageous.

  2. Dan Chmielewski
    May 27, 2008 at 10:13 pm

    The voters have the ultimate say next week.

  3. May 27, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    I’m not a very proud Democrat tonight.

    Nor I.

    Hoa Van Tran has brought nothing but shame to the Democratic Party of Orange County.

  4. May 27, 2008 at 10:59 pm

    If you ask me Gila it is you and your angry band of miscreants that has brought shame to the DPOC. You folks have tried with all your might to undermine Hoa and his campaign and you have failed yet again. Move on.

    My only regret was that I wasn’t there to see the disappointment and deep seeded anger in all of your faces. You people think YOU are the DPOC. Well you thought wrong.

  5. greater good good
    May 27, 2008 at 11:16 pm

    so how about we all just wait for art pedrozas analysis

    till then go Hoa!

    paul you suavwe me campain.

  6. May 27, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    Yeah, I don’t get your comparison, either. The Catholic bishops covered up the rapes of innocents; I don’t see the DPOC covering up for Hoa–perhaps ignoring some pertinent issues, but that’s a different argument. So, where are the similarities again?

  7. May 27, 2008 at 11:18 pm

    I was the one who suggested the Catholic bishop analogy to Chris – I thought he would give me credit! – but that’s okay because he changed it and got it wrong.

    I was talking about HOA, who seemed the more I listened to him talk to be in total denial of the abuses happening under his nose, making excuses for his “abusive priest” you-know-who, and “blaming the victims” who had come forward and complained to him and were ignored.

    And I came in there expecting to be sympathetic to Hoa. He and Misha turned me into a Jacobin!

    “Bishop Hoa” is MINE. Just waiting on my photoshop wizard.

  8. May 28, 2008 at 12:01 am

    Sorry Vern. I hit post rather than save. you do deserve credit. I just hadn’t gotten to it yet.

  9. May 28, 2008 at 12:05 am

    I understand Chris. You sure were looking perturbed there, blogging on your I-phone over your post-debacle vodka.

  10. May 28, 2008 at 12:26 am

    I should have ordered a double.

  11. May 28, 2008 at 12:49 am

    The problem with political calculation is that sometimes it comes back to bite you in the rear-end.

    Either way the Dems were screwed on this one. They never should have endorsed Hoa in the first place but chose to give him the benefit of the doubt in April. After that point they were in a no win situation. If they pulled the endorsement they would be open to accusations of not supporting a Vietnamese democrat. If they did not pull the endorsement they would be open to the accusation of being played as fools for supporting a candidate who has no integrity.

    In the end, the central committee chose to stand on the belief that the Vietnamese community values ethnicity over integrity. I think they were wrong, and I hope that in the long run the Vietnamese community will forgive them for their presumption.

  12. May 28, 2008 at 12:58 am

    I like Vern’s analogy about the Bishops better. My point was that the denial by the Central Committee, in the face of overwhelming evidence, is similar to the denial of sexual abuse allegations by the Catholic Bishops who covered up the problems.

    By no means do I believe that the failure of the DPOC to act is remotely close to as deplorable as the failures of the Catholic Bishops to recognize the cancer within the church. But I see similarities none the less.

  13. Denise
    May 28, 2008 at 9:02 am

    Hey Chris –
    Where are you?

  14. Thug Life
    May 28, 2008 at 9:37 am

    Classy Sean, keep gloating even though you know your padron is only going to take 5%. At least after the election you’ll have your friends at In N Out to comfort you.

  15. May 28, 2008 at 9:46 am

    My wife Lindy and I are members of the Central Committee. We went to the meeting with semi-open minds. I was going to vote against Hoa unless he gave me a reason not to. Lindy was going to vote for him unless she heard something so damning she couldn’t vote for him. Gila’s speech was great against him. Steve Young’s speech was great in favor of him.
    His “speech” was the deciding factor. He gave us the same tired crap about being the “Great Vietnamese Hope” of the Democratic Party he did at the meeting last week. He totally ignored the questions about gang members and Edgardo’s behavior, even after I specifically asked him to talk about these issues. His and his assistant’s “blame the victim” response to Mischa’s story was worthy of Clarence Thomas, but not worthy of a Democrat.
    In the end, our votes against him were easy. I was very disappointed in the members who voted for him. If you want a Democratic Party endorsement, act like a Democrat, not a Republican.
    On the positive side, I don’t think he’ll win the election, and I don’t think we’ll ever see him at a Central Committee meeting again. The same goes for Edgardo.

  16. Sean H. Mill
    May 28, 2008 at 9:58 am

    TL,

    Is that the best you can do? Cheap shots? Too funny you loser.

    Why do you hide behind a pseudonym? Clearly you have something to hide or you are simply a coward.

    You people failed again! Ha ha ha!!!!

    Keep the In-N-Out jokes coming. Clearly that is the best you’ve got since you continue to repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

    You are a cowardly loser and I LOVE it.

  17. Sean H. Mill
    May 28, 2008 at 10:56 am

    “Comment Edited by Publisher”

    The DPOC needs the support of labor and unions like the Teamsters and their leader Patrick Kelly. Attacking them is not very wise.

    As I said in a post here on the LibOC, the DPOC needs labor support and you folks that are trying to undermine Hoa’s campaign are also undermining the party’s relationship with labor.

    Time to move on now dontcha think?

    If you and the other’s in your cabal keep bashing labor it will have ramifications.

  18. Thug Life
    May 28, 2008 at 11:26 am

    Not so sure you’ll be laughing after Hoa gets massacred June 3rd

  19. Sean H. Mill
    May 28, 2008 at 11:33 am

    TL,

    I’ll be laughing loud and hard when you and your ilk get your comeuppance. Your not so stealth campaign to undermine Hoa is going to have some casualties on your side.

    Now that you folks have decided to take aim at the Teamsters and Patrick Kelly I think your fate will be sealed sooner than later.

  20. May 28, 2008 at 11:34 am

    So Sean. That wasn’t a threat was it?

    If so I really don’t give a flying crap. I have recieved plenty threats over the past several weeks. An additional one from you, on behalf of whomever, really doesn’t move me.

    Given that the central committee caved to the will of Kelley, they have pretty much saved themselves from any “union” retribution.

  21. Sean H. Mill
    May 28, 2008 at 11:46 am

    Chris,

    What is with all this paranoia? Threats?

    I am not issuing threats, rather stating facts. You and your cabal are undermining the relationship between the DPOC and labor. The truth of the matter is that you and slightly more than a handful of folks have control of the bully pulpit and have used it to bash Hoa and anyone associated with his campaign.

    You would have us believe that there is a huge amount of support for your actions and clearly there is not. It is time that Melahat reel you folks in and ask you people to calm down before you do serious damage. If she cannot do that then perhaps Frank needs to put his foot down.

    The DPOC cannot afford to have a small band of renegades undermining the relationship it has with labor. If I were Patrick Kelly I would start making phone calls today and remind folks how much the Teamsters mean to the DPOC. He needs to call Loretta and Lou and Frank and tell him he is disappointed in the actions of their minions.

    I am sure that Lou, Loretta and Frank all understand how much labor and the Teamsters mean to the DPOC. They must put a stop to the wreckless behavior of you and your cabal.

    Move on Chris. You guys lost. Do what’s best for the party and stop trying to undermine its relationship with Patrick Kelly and the Teamsters.

  22. May 28, 2008 at 11:54 am

    Sean,

    Since you have now firmly established yourself as a spokesman for the Teamsters and Hoa Van Tran, I would like to clarify what you mean by casualties?

    Are we talking broken knee caps, stuffing in a 50 gallon drum and dumped in the ocean, or just a drive by shooting by Edgardo’s homies?

    To our readers, if anything happens to me, or Gila, or Misha, or Courtney, or anyone else who has spoken out about Hoa Van Tran and his incompetence, ask Sean he seems to know already what’s coming.

  23. Sean H. Mill
    May 28, 2008 at 12:17 pm

    Chris,

    Are you still drunk from last night? That last response is the ramblings of a crazy man. Has all this stress you have put on yourself to destroy Hoa finally led you to the breaking point.

    You continue to claim that threats are being issued. Clearly you have become a paranoid mess.

    Get some sleep and try to relax. You and your ilk lost. Move on. Stop trying to destroy the party.

  24. Dan Chmielewski
    May 28, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    Actually Sean, you used the word “casualties” and even I took it as a threat of harm by the Hoa campaign against its critics.

    “Your not so stealth campaign to undermine Hoa is going to have some casualties on your side.”

    Answer the question; just what does this mean?

  25. May 28, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    Sean:

    Exactly how are Chris, Gila and others “undermining” Hoa? It’s Hoa’s campaign. He’s ultimately responsible for its blowing off campaign disclosure laws, for the harassment of staff by Edgardo, for bringing gang members into the campaign, and for standing by like a mannequin while all this is going on.

    It’s pretty clear it is Hoa and Edgardo who’s sins of omission and commission that are doing the undermining, your smashmouth commenting campaign notwithstanding.

    You are unyielding in ignoring that reality and instead trying foist blame for Hoa’s problems on those who’ve simply pointed them out. That’s like blaming the weather man for the weather.

    Your man Hoa — and his svengali, Edgardo — created this disaster all by themselves.

  26. Sean H. Mill
    May 28, 2008 at 12:55 pm

    Dan,

    You know very well that I was not inferring physical harm on anyone. However seeing as how folks at the DPOC like Benny Diaz were intimidated by a bunch of teenage girls perhaps I should choose different language because some folks scare easily.

    I believe that once the folks involved in the “Nixonesque” smear campaign against Hoa are exposed and there support for Janet Nguyen made public, they will have to pay for their sins. What that payment is will be up to those in charge. People like Loretta, Lou and Frank will have to make that decision.

    Now that they have chosen to attack the Teamsters, a valuable ally of the DPOC, I am sure something will happen. Melahat is going to have to put a stop to whats been going on. Patrick Kelly and company are much more important to the DPOC than are those that are involved in this smear campaign.

    Folks must be purged.

  27. Dan Chmielewski
    May 28, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Pay for their sins? You have no proof anyone here supports Janet. I threw her under the bus last week.

  28. Sean H. Mill
    May 28, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    Jubal,

    Please explain why Misha ran to a partisan Republican like yourself to air dirty laundry rather than take it to her lawyer or to Frank Barbaro. Clearly her goal was to sabotage the campaign.

    And surely you aren’t declaring folks guilty without a day in court. All the allegations by Misha are just that, allegations. Nothing has been proved yet.

    Outside the handful of local bloggers that are going cuckoo, this whole issue is not that big a deal.

  29. Sean H. Mill
    May 28, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    Dan,

    I was told by another local blogger that Chris Prevatt sent him an email last week proclaiming his support for Janet. Chris just asked the blogger not to refer to him as a “Jannie” around Dems.

  30. May 28, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Sean:

    The change-the-subject act is getting old. That’s for 7-year olds who get in trouble with their parents (“What about Tommy? Why doesn’t he get in trouble?”), and campaign press secretaries trying to deflect unwelcome media inquiries.

    And maybe you can explain why you assert as fact things that aren’t true? For example:

    “Please explain why Misha ran to a partisan Republican like yourself to air dirty laundry rather than take it to her lawyer or to Frank Barbaro.”

    Misha didn’t come running to me. I poked around and got in touch with her. The pictures were sent to me by party or parties unknown.

    “Clearly her goal was to sabotage the campaign.”

    Did Misha bring KPC members into the campaign? Did she fail to report 82% of campaign expenditures? Stop trying to blame Hoa’s problems on everyone but the people who are responsible for them. It’s like blaming an auto accident on the person who reports the accident.

    Do you think Hoa’s gets a free pass because he’s a Democrat?
    Outside the handful of local bloggers that are going cuckoo, this whole issue is not that big a deal.

    Wake up, Sean. This issue has torpedoed whatever chance Hoa had of making it into a run-off, and ruined him as a future candidate.

  31. Northcountystorm
    May 28, 2008 at 1:44 pm

    Sean, While someone may have slipped a dose of hyperbole into Chris’ double vodka last night, may I suggest your use of terms like “miscreants” and “cabal” aren’t helping with his hangover. Some of the more vocal opponents of Hoa felt very strongly about the stated ethical shortcomings of his campaign and the claimed inability of Hoa to control his campaign and felt these a more important criteria than Party building or the appearance that the Party was creating a standard for Vietnamese Democratic candidates that it had not created for other Democratic candidates. While I disagree with some of the assessments that Chris lays out I respect the reasons he is concerned about them. You should also know as a Clinton supporter how irritating it is when supporters of Obama start taunting Clinton supporters or showing lack of respect. Winners and those ahead are supposed to be magnaminous. Your first comment on this thread is anything but that.

    Chris– You have performed a public service with some of your posts on the 1st S.D. While a fair reading of your posts from late February(or whenever Joe Dunn bailed and you last called for David Benvenides to run) to the present could be that they were designed to hurt Hoa and Dina and therefore indirectly help Janet, I also belive your efforts shone a light on some campaign practices that at a minimum were sloppy and and worst, grossly negligent(and with respect to an individual, possible intentional misconduct).

    I think your characterization of the majority of the Committee members was unfortunate. In politics, like sports, one has to not only be a good winner(note this Sean) but also a good loser. A sore loser diminishes the efforts they put into their cause. This is the mantra you will be telling the Clinton supporters this summer and fall if, as expected, your candidate gets the nomination. I’m not expecting you to walk precincts for Hoa; unlike other opponents who are central committee members you don’t have any obligation to support Hoa. But for what its worth I think a good sport in your situation would bemoan the result without besmirtching the members who had a different point of view .

    I also think you were unfair to the Teamsters Union and Patrick Kelly. While I’ve supported a number of issues and candidates supported by the Teamsers and Patrick, he has also let me know very frankly how disappointed he was with a couple of my own endorsement decisions.
    So while I’ve had my differences with Peter I take exception to your characterization of the Teamsters as union thugs. That’s not what happened Tuesday night and that’s not Kelly. Forceful and agressive? You bet. A thug trying to muscle people Tuesday night? No way. Using the phrase “union thugs” just plays into right wing anti-union stereotyping . You’re a union guy and should know that. Other union leaders whose union chose not to endorse a candidate also weighed in on this. Kelly’s take on this is just different than yours and you probably put far more effort into rescinding the endorsement than Kelly did to reaffirm it. Florice’s take about the 60% vote needed was in good faith if she was told that by the State Party. I’ve seen that 60% argument before. It’s just wrong.The DPOC bylaws are silent and Roberts Rules are clear that since there was notice to the meeting a simply majority of those present and voting would suffice. But it was irrelevant because Chairman Barbaro indicated only a majority vote was needed to rescind(for what its worth that’s the advice I gave him).

    There was a fair opportunity to be heard and arguments made by both sides. The opponents of the endorsement had 1 1/2 bites out of the apple. Again, while I don’t expect you to start posting for Hoa I would suggest easing up on people who came to a different conclusion than you did. And if you want to discuss the substance I’ll be happy to do that off line. You buy the beer.

  32. Sean H. Mill
    May 28, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    NCS,

    You are right, I should have been toned down my enthusiasm. However I found it quite hard to do so after listening to the small, but vocal, band of Hoa bashers over the past couple of weeks. They were so confident in their efforts that they did not prepare themselves for what happened.

    Their response speaks volumes to this. Via Chris Prevatt this group has slurred members of the central committee, Patrick Kelly and the Teamsters Union. In my eyes this is reprehensible. How are their actions helping the party?

    I will not allow myself to be bullied by this small band of folks that think “they” know what is best for the DPOC. Somebody needs to take control of this situation and straighten these people out. Perhaps you can be that person. If they are allowed to run crazy like they are currently doing, who knows what kind of damage they may cause.

    I cannot believe what I hear coming out of the mouths of these so-called “liberals”. Union bashing and playing on the racist fears of the community are Republican tactics. However, Chris and others have chosen to embrace these tactics as their own. That is shameful.

    I want to thank Patrick Kelly, the Teamsters and the Democratic Central Committee for standing up to these folks. Most of this anti-Hoa crew doesn’t even live in the First District, I do. Why don’t they stick to screwing up the communities they live in and leave mine alone?

  33. alabaster-lentes
    May 28, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    NCS

    the numbers are in (PDI) and HOA is in.

    How do u recommend that the greater good prevails in this case.

  34. May 28, 2008 at 3:41 pm

    Thanks for the photo of Lindy and me with Hoa on bosevik.com.

  35. Dan Chmielewski
    May 28, 2008 at 3:54 pm

    So Edgardo — what is PDI? Possible Democrats Indicted? Explain what PDI is and reveal the polling. I frankly woulnd’t trust the campaign to tell me the sky is blue.

  36. May 28, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    PDI is Political Data, Inc., a vendor of voter files http://www.politicaldata.com.
    They process voter lists and provide information to campaigns. They don’t do polling. In many races, all sides purchase their voter data from PDI..

  37. alabaster-lentes
    May 28, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    keep at danny boy

    why am suprised that u don’t know what PDI stands for.

    why am i not suprised that you are showing unposted blogs to steve young

    Dude you have been used and manipulated and your so called indepent stance on all this is a sham. Look what they did to your best blogger.

    look at the people aligned at with chris and ask yourself if these folks are capable of coordinating a big lie campaign?

    post this i dare u

  38. Dan Chmielewski
    May 28, 2008 at 4:33 pm

    I work in tech moron; PDI is a standard for high def cable. Well Edgardo, at least I’m not being used by you. I look at the campaign and see that they will lie with impunity. Unposted blogs to Steve Young? Uh? Haven’t trouble communicating in English?

    Show us what you got hotshot Show us the PDI numbers and then lets compare them on election day.

    Sean — if you have an email, produce it. You can take the last set of headers off if you want. But there’s no way Chris has throw support to Janet.

  39. alabaster-lentes
    May 28, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    take it easy

    true blue danny

    anger leads to irrational thinking…don’t you know

    some one at your blog screened a posting

    and then showed it to steve young

    then steve young called fred

    and misrepresented my posting as a poll to fred ….

    of course i am lying again and spinnig things.

    I am a moron I guess

    trying to appeal to the greater good.

  40. Dan Chmielewski
    May 28, 2008 at 5:26 pm

    you get no agrument from me; about being a moron. I haven’t spoken with Steve Young in months….

  41. alabaster-lentes
    May 28, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    danny boy….breathe

    TALK ABOUT DISPLACEMENT

    hEY IF IT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER TO GET ANGRY AT ME
    THEN GO AHEAD…HEAL UP

    ME INGLES NO BUENO…SORRY SENOR….feel superior …Ok

    so can you put on thinking your cap while steam is still comming out of your ears? let’s see.

    WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT YOUR BUDS AT THE oc liberaI that they are censoring posting but feel that it is worth showing each other but not with anyone else.

    deal with danny boy

    mexicans have a saying, “el que se enoja pierde”

    lovable curmdgeon…you roll with these fools..”ay dios mio.”

  42. May 28, 2008 at 8:32 pm

    When Chris Prevatt is bashing the Teamsters and making statements like this, “Patrick Kelley was behind the effort to prevent the rescision of the endorsement….They (the Teamsters) chose to side with thugs and gang members. I used to believe that the old days of union thugs were over. Last night, I learned, that at least with some unions that appears to not be the case.”, why is Melahat Rafiei, Executive Director of the DPOC, making phone calls trying to get people to silence me?

    Melahat you need to focus on reigning in these folks that are doing all they can to undermine this party, its relationship with labor and its standing in the Vietnamese community. These are your people that are doing this and it reflects poorly on you.

    The inmates are running the asylum and you are enabling them to do so by focusing your attacks on me and ignoring their borish and destructive behavior and actions.

  43. May 28, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    Sean,

    You do not know what you are talking about. But throwing accusations at Melahat is beyond your level of insanity. Melahat doesn’t give a crap about you or what you say. But if you continue with the libelous statements, I will shut you up on this blog.

    Final Warning.

  44. May 28, 2008 at 9:11 pm

    Chris,

    First of all you need to check the facts before you attack me. Melahat made phone calls today which I am sure she will confirm when asked.

    Nothing I said was libelous. Your attack on the Teamsters is another matter.

    When can we expect that apology from you?

    I expect this type of behavior from Republicans not a fellow Dem. That is rather authoritarian and fascist of you to threaten censorship. Is this what the party has become? You don’t like what I say so you try and silence me?

    This threat speaks volumes about you and not me.

  45. iron lion
    May 28, 2008 at 9:22 pm

    NCStorm –

    While I respect your opinion on a great many things, and on the remainder respectfully disagree, you called this one wrong: Patrick Kelly is a thug. And I am not anti-union, so please do not go there.

  46. iron lion
    May 28, 2008 at 9:32 pm

    Ok, maybe not “Thug” in the strict dictionary definition, but rather as in threatmongering, myopic, unreasoning blowhard who wants only what he wants and is happy to use his size, his lungs, and intimidation to get what he wants exactly the way he wants regardless of any other considerations beyonds his own.

  47. Salmonloaf
    May 28, 2008 at 9:55 pm

    Sean,
    I’m sorry, but you need to be called out on all of your specious lies and libel that you’ve been spreading on this and various other blogs. You keep saying that Melahat and the other members of the supposed “Apple Dumpling Gang” have been making calls and other things to further their goals of having Hoa drop out of the race. Really? That’s a serious allegation, surely you must have some proof to back that up? We want names, times, and places Sean…..

    Tell you what, let me answer that question for you….The correct is answer is NO, you don’t have any proof because IT DOES NOT EXIST. See, Melahat or anyone else does not need to sabotage Hoa’s campaign–he seems to be doing a great job all on his own. But this is not about Hoa, this is about you making statements we both know YOU CAN’T BACK UP.

    Since the only thing you seem to understand are ad hominem attacks, let me spell this out for you. Melahat has done a lot for the DPOC–and I can venture a guess that a lot people would agree with me. I definately know she has done more for the Party than you and your apparent two very lonely brain cells will ever do. You may not agree with everything that she does, and you’re within your right to disagree, but she does it out of the love for the party, and the ideals that the Party represents. That’s why she puts up with people like you, who think that they know everything, but in reality don’t know squat, because the Party is bigger than you Sean. Because what we stand for as Democrats is bigger than you Sean.

    So, I know this is an rhetorical exercise, but once again Sean where’s your supposed “proof” that Melahat made all these calls leading up to the DPOC meeting yesterday? I’m no lawyer, but you’re the short bus to libel-land if you can’t deliver the goods. PUT UP OR SHUT UP Sean, PUT UP OR SHUT UP

  48. Northcountystorm
    May 28, 2008 at 10:05 pm

    iron lion….I respect your take but my experience with Kelly is that he is aggressive, sometimes loud and will make every effort on behalf of his membership.

    Understand that I have no axe to grind here–Kelly doesn’t especially like me and these comments aren’t going to change his point of view. I’ve been involved in a very heated discussion with Patrick but this is a tough business. If you are a Casper Milqtoast your membership will get rolled by the employer, and your candidate will probably lose. With Kelly, I never felt intimidated. I’ve seen more bitter and personal attacks on the OJ, Daily Kos and, I’m afraid to say, this blog than I’ve gotten out of Kelly. Maybe your experience is different. I know your definition of thug is not one that I would share. Using your definition of thug(and maybe eliminating size) would include so many people in politics that it would render the term meaningless. But if you have some facts to back it up, I’ve got an open mind. Since this site seems to have become The Trash Talking OC, bring it on.

  49. May 28, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    “Sean where’s your supposed “proof” that Melahat made all these calls leading up to the DPOC meeting yesterday?”

    I never said Melahat made calls leading up to the DPOC meeting yesterday. Maybe you should stop huffing paint or sniffing glue and focus.

    Melahat made phone calls today to individuals known to me and essentially asked them to have me stop mentioning her name. I am not going to reveal the names, but if you want to know who she called ask her.

    You people and your mob mentality does not scare or intimidate me. When the truth all comes out I will be vindicated and I am sure of that. Until then keep bashing me, Edgardo, Kimchi or whoever else you want. The fact that you are focusing your venom on me tells me you have taken your eye of the ball and with that you will be defeated.

  50. Northcountystorm
    May 28, 2008 at 10:17 pm

    What Sean said about Mel was not libel but just wrong. Mel does a great job and I know for a fact she was trying to work things out to avoid a train wreck Tuesday night.

    Sean, I haven’t talked with mel about this so I don’t know if she was making calls. But if she did make phone calls about you I suspect it would not be to silence you but to get you to back off some of the people whom you’ve gone after since Tuesday night. Now I realize you’ve had it thrown at you also but as I said to Chris you need to stop personalizing the attacks and simply defend Hoa and the reason the Democrats were right in retaining the endorsement. It’s always easier for the winner to take the high road–and politically your side won Tuesday night(although Jubal might be right about the SS Hoa Van Tran taking a hit from a nuclear tipped torpedo sent from the USS Janny).

  51. Salmonloaf
    May 28, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    OK Sean,
    Color me unimpressed….We both know you’re full of it, and have nothing other than your ample hot air.. But I’ll this pledge to you, I’ll stop sniffing glue if you promise to back away from the Doritios, while watching “Revenge of the Clones” for the umpteen time in your Darth-Vader underoos.

    “You people and your mob mentality does not scare or intimidate me.”

    Pot, meet Kettle………….

  52. just...asking?
    May 28, 2008 at 10:52 pm

    Sean,

    You jumped the shark at the OJ, think your time has come here as well. I really liked you Santa Ana takes, but your blind allegance to the goons behind Hoa is really inexcuseable.

    The day Jubal’s position on an election is reality and yours is fantasy should be your cue that your time has past!

    I get the argument Steve presented about pulling endorsement so close to the election, but everyone must agree that this was a very special circumstance. The issues surrounding Hoa’s campaign merited the party to revisit this endorsement.

    And after watching the video’s I plan on buying a primer on Robert’s Rules for Frank. By the way if you want to pull an item from the agenda, it requires a super majority (75%) vote. And no rules exist on pulling endorsements unless local committee bylaws exist.

  53. May 29, 2008 at 12:56 am

    You know, all of this crap over a two-bit-puppet from Little Saigon is giving me a head-ache.

    Sean, when Hoa loses this Tuesday, I hope that he and his boss Do Phu will slink off into oblivion along with Reynoso. Please join them.

    Although, there will still be those nagging problems with campaign finance reporting that will more than likely still be hovering like the empty thought bubble over Hoa’s head when Edgardo doesn’t tell him what to say or KimChi fails to write his thoughts out for him.

    Note to Hoa: When your Treasurer reports in-kind expenditures for television advertising, in addition to the requirement that all contributions must be reported, they are required to be reported at full market value. It is also required that the value of such contributions be within the TINCUP limit of $1,600.

    Just thought you should know.

  54. May 29, 2008 at 1:42 am

    To just…asking:

    It’s been decades since I had to look up Robert’s Rules, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t say anything about endorsements in there.

    I’ve also never looked up the DPOC bylaws, but it seems to me that the body ought to be able to pass whatever motion is made and seconded, unless it’s contrary to the bylaws, no?

    So, if the bylaws are silent on pulling endorsement, then a motion can be made and voted on to pull an endorsement. No?

  55. not in this valley
    May 29, 2008 at 2:34 am

    questions

    twice the bloggers got it wrong on Hoa losing his endorsement.

    these same folks hope that hoa loses tuesday. their praying.

    What happens if Hoa wins, what happens if gets in the race?

    What happens to the folks that Hoa says are actively seeking to undermine his campaign, folks that work at the party? The staffers for elected officials.

    anybody got an answer for that?

    here’s wishing for a three way tie.

  56. May 29, 2008 at 6:05 am

    Speaking of Robert’s Rules, point of order: Hoa Van Tran does NOT equal Tan Nguyen. Tan was an evil, racist incompetent. Hoa is merely imcompetent.

  57. May 29, 2008 at 7:47 am

    Gustavo,

    I will agree that Hoa Van Tran is not a racist. Hoa is an incompetent man who condones the physical, sexual and emotional harassment of female employees, and retaliated against those employees when they raise concerns causing them to quit and report his actions to authorities.

    The photo describes a comparison is that Hoa Van Tran is to the Democrats, what Tan Nguyen was to the Republicans.

    The difference is how the two parties responded. The Republicans did all they could which was to strongly repudiate Tan Nguyen and his actions demanding that he withdraw from the race. The Dems changed a motion that lightly repudiated the actions of Hoa Van Tran and representatives of his campaign to one that told all candidates to follow the rules and not associate with known gang members.

    I am just not very clear in my opinion which is more embarrassing; Hoa’s actions and lack of control over his campaign, or the Democrats failure to find those actions worthy of removing an endorsement or strong rebuke.

  58. iron lion
    May 29, 2008 at 8:11 am

    “iron lion….I respect your take but”

    “Since this site seems to have become The Trash Talking OC, bring it on.”

    So are you saying I am trash talking, NCStorm? How can you “respect (my) take:, respectfully disagree from your experience, criticize trash talk ( I agree people need to tone down rhetoric and name calling on this site, ironically, but in the same breath, look at the formerly respectable Orange Juice for true perspective) and then trash talk yourself (“Bring it on”) ?

    I mean, come on.

  59. jose s.
    May 29, 2008 at 8:14 am

    there is a huge difference between the two. tan nguyen is a filthy communist who made a threat to mike lawson while he was here. i actually think it’s offensive to hoa to even be compared to him.

  60. May 29, 2008 at 8:25 am

    Jose,

    I think Hoa is simply offensive. That unfortunately places him in the same species category of Tan Nguyen. Homo-offensivous.

  61. Banned Dina from Politics
    May 29, 2008 at 9:55 am

    Here’s why HOA VAN TRAN and THE TRANNIES gets along well and why VAN TRAN also endorses Hoa Van Tran…. they are all peas from the same pod.
    This is how Dina gets her face and her name covered in the local papers!!! By using paid writers and Van Tran’s influence over these local papers to spread his lies and propaganda!!!
    http://bolsavik.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/van-trans-camp-capture-of-viet-media/

    This is one of the reasons why people say Dina’s background is SHADY!!!
    http://orangejuiceblog.com/2008/05/was-dina-nguyens-brother-arrested-in-a-huge-international-drug-bust/

    This is JANET’S reponse to Dina and her clans dirty tricks of calling janet a COMMUNIST, how pathetic!!!
    http://bolsavik.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/janet-hits-back/

    This one you must read, it will tell you how DUMB this candidate is, it will also tell you that those that helped her campaign don’t even want the public to know; WHY? It will also tell you that Van is really the one behind this campaign, we know all along it’s Van Tran against Janet NOT Dina at all, she has no ability.
    http://bolsavik.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/dina-nguyen-interview-pt2-whos-who-in-her-campaign/

    Please read before you cast your vote

  62. jose s.
    May 29, 2008 at 11:16 am

    chris, what about: homo-offensivouscommunisticus-rex? i hope i dont offend any t-rex’s.

  63. May 29, 2008 at 11:51 am

    Is “Banned Dina” actually an internet “bot?”

    Does Janet have hackers as well as hacks?

    This identical comment pops up everywhere like spam, spam, spam, spam….

  64. Northcountystorm
    May 29, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    iron lion–Who says one can’t respect the take of a trash talker? If I can respect one of the biggest NBA trash talkers Charles Barkley I can respect you, Chris and others.

    But you’re right, my question could have been posed better. How about
    “But if you have some facts that would back it up(your calling Kelly a thug)I have an open mind if you want to provide specifics.” Especially about Tuesday night because as I’ve been no so gently reminded, I was not there for most of the meeting. I was told Kelly didn’t say anything and did not do anything that might be construed by a fair observer as warranting the “thug” description and I didn’t see anything like that on Art’s video(and if there was some conduct that would justify describing Patrick as a thug Tuesday night you better believe anti-union Art would have had it up on the OJ immediately.) However unlikely it is, maybe Art missed something.

    I know Kelly has rubbed people the wrong way. For example some people are burned by his strong and aggressive support of Claudia Alvarez. Or for his strong and aggressive negotiating and organizing tactics for the Teamsters in their interaction with trucking companies, the OCTA and others. I just haven’t seen the evidence of his being a thug in the classic sense(though it appears you’ve backed away from the actual definition) and don’t think your own definition of thug makes sense for reasons already expressed. I’m sure there are some other adjectives to be used to describe Patrick–some of them might be applicable to me as well—I just don’t think the word thug given its incindiary use by the anti-union crowd is appropriate.

  65. Jubal
    May 29, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    You don’t like what I say so you try and silence me?

    Sean Mills complaining about being “silenced” — that’s rich!

    You might try reading the comments you’ve been leaving, telling Chris and other Hoa critics to “watch their step” and other veiled threats.

  66. Sean H. Mill
    May 29, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    Jubal,

    It’s Mill not Mills.

    I have not issued any threats outside of those concocted in the paranoid heads of you and Prevatt.

    I just reminded folks that for every action there is a reaction. Chris Prevatt attacking the Teamsters and its leader Patrick Kelly can’t bode well for the DPOC. His slur of Kelly and the Teamsters is bound to have some sort of lasting effect on his relationship with that organization and its members. That isn’t a threat, but it is likely a reality.

    I realize that you folks have been trying to play the race and fear cards in your bi-partisan attack on Hoa, but enough is enough. I haven’t threatened anyone so it doesn’t matter how many times you and Chris repeat that lie won’t make it true.

  67. Jubal
    May 29, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    Gosh, sorry for the typo on your name.

    They were veiled threats, Sean. That way you can make them, and then deny they are threats.

    …paranoid heads of you and Prevatt.

    Paranoid about what? Hoa’s laughably incomplete campaign disclosures and flippant attitude toward county campaign ordinance? Did I imagine the KPC members?

    …you folks have been trying to play the race and fear cards…

    What next? An accusation I’m engaging in “the politics of personal destruction”? Keep the cliches flying, Sean. It saves on thinking.

  68. Sean H. Mill
    May 29, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    “It saves on thinking.”

    So does posting pictures of young Latino males that were stolen from a campaign computer and accusing them all of being gang members in order to play on the racist fears of the community.

    It looks like your right wing tactics are rubbing off on Chris Prevatt. You two have worked so closely on this “smear Hoa campaign” that he has taken up the right-wing mantra of union bashing. His attack on Patrick Kelly and the Teamsters was textbook Republican tactics.

  69. just...asking?
    May 29, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    Bolsavik,

    You are correct, there are no rules in Robert’s that are specific to endorsements. Officially they are handled just like any other motion.
    That said, many boards and clubs set up local rules for endorsements, think DPOC has the 66% rule for endorsement. Since no local rule exists for withdrawl, the 50% rule could be argued. This is where the chair and parlimentarian should be prepared.

    As for the agenda item being pulled, Robert’s is very clear. Modification of an established agenda requires a “Super Majority” defined as greater than 2/3rd’s or 66%. Again the Chair has a lot of leeway here to gain concensus on a motion that most find agreeable to answer the question before the group. Think this is were Frank lost control of the meeting, likewise the Chair can stop the substitute motion train before it becomes ridiculous. Motions and substitute motions should be to the point. A motion “for” should not be sub’ed for a motion “against”, both would acheive the same result based on how you vote.

    Gustavo,

    Agree’d, Hoa is a good guy that is being blinded by the bright lights of this campaign. He’s no Tan!

    Sean,

    It was not the endorsement was so important at the meeting, it was Hoa’s credibility. Unfortunately, after reviewing all the video’s he lost badly on that point. When the only real defense of the candidate was party policy and face saving of the Central Committee the candidate himself is pretty weak.

    Hope I’m wrong, but all these hinky happenings may give Van Tran what he wanted, a run-off between his Dina vs. Janet in November

Comments are closed.