Democratic Party of Orange County releases local endorsements

Frank Barbaro, Chairman of the Democratic Party of Orange County today announced the local Party endorsements of Democrats who are seeking elected office for Mayor, City Council and/or K-14 Board of Education. In the release sent to their email list, the DPOC included contact information so that people can take a moment to volunteer or to contribute to the individual campaigns.   

“We need good Democrats elected to all levels of government, Chairman Frank Barbaro said. “We have a great opportunity to increase the numbers of elected Democrats in November…but only if you help!”

Here is the link to the DPOC 2010 Mayor, City Council and School Board Endorsements and Contact Informationor their website.

  16 comments for “Democratic Party of Orange County releases local endorsements

  1. Santana Resident
    September 9, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    “We need good Democrats elected to all levels of government, Chairman Frank Barbaro said.

    And they endorsed Pulido? I guess Frank’s definition of a “good Democrat” is very, very loose.

    Way to stick up for Santa Ana.

  2. art lomeli
    September 10, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    Santana Resident on September 9, 2010 at 5:30 pm
    “We need good Democrats elected to all levels of government, Chairman Frank Barbaro said.

    And they endorsed Pulido? I guess Frank’s definition of a “good Democrat” is very, very loose.

    Way to stick up for Santa Ana.

    Exactly!!!!!!

    Mayor Pulido has endorsed the the following Republican candidates over Democrats.
    - Bob Dornan over Loretta Sanchez for Congress.
    - Lupe Moreno for Santa Ana School Board
    - Rosie Avila for Santa Ana School Board
    - Carlos Bustamante for Santa Ana Council

    Pulido also supported Prop 187 and when campaigning for Mayor referred to undocumented immigrants as dirty and criminals responsible for all the criminal aspects of Santa Ana. This was his campaign message to the Anglo communities with a high voter propensity. the rest is history…..he won the election and continued to be elected on this message.

    This is important as the vast majority of Hispanic Santa Ana voters are Hispanic. This attitude towards this community does not help the efforts of the local Democratic Party leadership.

    Pulido’s message has changed within the last 2 months in response to Amezcua;s’ popularity within the Hispanic community that Pulido has neglected for the past 20 years.

    A wolf in sheep’s clothing I am afraid.

    • Northcountystorm
      September 10, 2010 at 12:36 pm

      Mr. Lomeli:

      What Democratic candidates ran against Carlos Bustamante in his City council campaigns?

      Has your candidate Alfredo Amezcua ever endorsed a Republican candidate over a Democrat?

      Does Pulido get a hall pass if he endorses a Republican over another Republican?

      Can you produce any campaign piece from Pulido since his first election where he refers to prop. 187? To undocumented immigrants?

  3. Claudio Gallegos
    September 10, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    NSC

    I think Mr. Lomeli is referring to Carlos’ failed Supervisor race where the Mayor endorsed him over Democrat Tom Umberg. I will admit, Alfredo Amezcua is also a guilty part on this. I do not fault Pulido too much for this decision. Nearly all elected Dems are guilty of endorsing a Republican for non-partisan office at one time or another. But two of Miguel’s endorsements of non-partisan reps were two women who are so far off the reservation, there really is NO excuse for his actions as a Dem.

    Rosie Avila in 2004, he endorsed her and promoted her campaign despite the fact that just months earlier she proudly proclaimed at a school baord meeting that AIDS was God’s punishment to gays and was akin to giving a child a slap on the wrist for running into the street. Even REPUBLICAN colleague and Pulido BFF Rob Richardson refused to endorse her in that election.

    Then Lupe Moreno. FOr all his blustering at David Benavides, the only reason she even has any business with the SA library is because of Miguel Pulido himself, as Albert Castillo tried to point out before Claudia Alvarez silenced him. He appointed her to the Library Commission where she tried to push through an ordinance to check the legal status of anyone with a Library Card and make it a requirement to have legal status to get a Card. Despite that Miguel kept her on the Commission. Then he went on to endorse her for the school board in 2002 and even appeared on mailers on her behalf, despite her going around the city telling voters she wanted to put an immigration agent in every school and bill Mexico for educating immigrants(like Harald Martin).

    to me this is inexcusable. But once again, people like Florice Hoffman decide to look the other way and refuse to hold him accountable for this bad Democratic behavior. Unlike John Hanna, who support Royce in order to ultimately HELP the RSCCD and the students there. Pulido’s decisions ultimately harmed students in the SAUSD.

  4. art lomeli
    September 10, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Northcountystorm on September 10, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    The point is this statement ““We need good Democrats elected to all levels of government, Chairman Frank Barbaro said.”

    A good Democrat as described above would encourage , support, mentor identify a candidate for the Bustamante position. No Democrat running and a endorsed elected official not doing anything about producing a Democrat candidate is a bigger issue.

    To my knowledge Alferdo has not endorsed a Republican over a Democrat.

    The reason for the DPOC endorsement …..the criteria for choosing a candidate is deciding which candidate is the best Democrat.

    THEY MUST DECIDE WHICH IS THE “BEST” DEMOCRAT. This is the point.

    “Can you produce any campaign piece from Pulido since his first election where he refers to prop. 187? To undocumented immigrants?”

    YES I CAN. IT IS COMING.

    • Northcountystorm
      September 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm

      Claudio: Mr. Lomelli didn’t refer to a supervisorial race, he referred to a city council race. The fact is that Amexcua endorsed him both for council and supervisor. So did Pulido. But Mr. Lomelli raised the issue of Pulido endorsing Republicans over Democrats and yet didn’t mention the more obvious and recent one, the supervisors race, because……. well, you guess. Either he knew and isn’t being honest, or he didn’t know and Amezcua has not been honest with him.

      I don’t excuse Pulido’s endorsements of Avila and Moreno(terrible) and he should be challenged about it. But if you followed the LOC, Carlos was off the reservation as well. Amezcua and Pulido are of course entitled to endorse whomever they want—I just want to be spared the holier than thou stuff when Amezcua’s hands are unclean as well.

      Mr. Lomeli:

      You claimed Pulido endorsed Republican Carlos Bustamante for city council over a Democrat. He ran twice. I’m still waiting for you to disclose who the Democrat was Bustamante ran against.

      I’d like to see any of the post-first election 187 stuff. The only time I saw it was when candidates running against Pulido would try and mail it out, thinking it would somehow help them defeat Pulido.

      What do you mean by “an endorsed elected official not doing anything about producing a Democratic candidate is a bigger issue”?

      You didn’t answer the question about whether Pulido gets a hall pass if he supported a Republican over another Republican. What’s the party line on that one?

      I thought you were close friends with Amezcua. Maybe you weren’t tuning in because I can’t imagine why he would keep from disclosing to you that he endorsed a Republican. In fact he did endorse and support a Republican over a Democrat, Carlos Bustamante over the Democratic Party endorsed candidate Tom Umberg for Supervisor. Even Claudio knew that. If you want to chastise Pulido for endorsing a Democrat over a Republican, why not hold your own candidate to the same standard? Or at least acknowledge it up front.

  5. art lomeli
    September 10, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    Northcountystorm on September 10, 2010 at 1:42 pm,

    Read my earlier post again. The issue with this thread is the DPOC making a decision on what candidate is the “best” Democrat.

    For the sake of argument you win on all your points. The point remains choose the “best” Democrat.

  6. Santa Ana Voter
    September 10, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    Lomeli,

    Aren’t you a Republican? Didn’t Amezcua endorse you when you ran for the college board? Where do you, a Republican, get off in telling the Democrats what to do?

    • Santana Resident
      September 10, 2010 at 3:27 pm

      Lomeli doesn’t need a pass to voice his opinion. He obviously doesn’t support Pulido because he cares about the city. I care about the city. Why support a mayor who has run the largest city in Orange County from behind closed doors, stolen thousands of dollars from taxpayers in his double dipping of healthcare benefits, and made city government nearly invisible to the residents of the Santa Ana? Just do your homework and find out the location of the next city council meeting for next week and ask yourself why a fully functional council chamber will be left empty.

      Pulido should learn from Chicago Mayor Daley and resign. “Simply put, it’s time. It’s time for Santa Ana to move on.”

  7. Santa Ana Voter
    September 10, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Resident,

    Lomeli has a right to his opinion however as a Republican he really has no place telling the DPOC how to operate or who to endorse. If we were discussing the GOP endorsement then by all means Lomeli should tell the party how to operate, but we aren’t.

  8. art lomeli
    September 10, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Santa Ana Voter on September 10, 2010 at 2:51 pm
    Lomeli,

    Aren’t you a Republican? Didn’t Amezcua endorse you when you ran for the college board? Where do you, a Republican, get off in telling the Democrats what to do?

    My point is…… choosing the best Democrat. There are variations in party candidates. What I was trying to show is what the DPOC must do. I was presenting Pulido you and others are right in presenting Amezcua. My point is that using all available information the decision of the best Democrat was to be made by the DPOC.

  9. Santa Ana Voter
    September 10, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    As a Democrat I fail to see how you, Lomeli, a Republican, are in a position to tell us who we should endorse. Re-register parties and then talk.

  10. art lomeli
    September 10, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    Santa Ana voter,

    I am not telling you…forcing you to do anything. I am stating my opinion as you do.

    We live in a Democracy. Following your argument then Congress and Senate should isolate themselves according to party lines and never communicate with each other. Some of this is occurring and nothing positive is the result.

  11. Santa Ana Voter
    September 10, 2010 at 9:48 pm

    Lomeli,

    This was a Democratic Party endorsement meeting so yes they should isolate themselves from Republicans. You, as a Republican, had no business being there just as I and other Democrats have no business at the GOP endorsement meeting.

  12. art lomeli
    September 11, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Santa Ana voter,

    I was there not as a Republican with a Republican agenda I was there as a USA citizen. DPOC I understand is a 501c-3 not private. It is a public organization the public can attend as I see it.

    Do you have other information? Democrats fancy themselves as protectors of democracy you a member advocates otherwise, maybe you are the one that should change party affiliation to a separatist one.

  13. September 11, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Okay folks,

    The purity argument is a bit weak.

    Art, the “good democrat” argument is weak as well. The DPOC endorssement has been made, and I doubt it will be corrected. However, at the end of the day Barbaro is right that we must work to get as many democrats elected as possible.

    That said, I would really like to see a discussion about what candidates like Miguel and Al pledge to do if elected. It really doesn’t matter whether Pulido supported or opposed Prop 187 all those years ago.

    Miguel has legitimate questions lingering over his head regarding his perks as an elected/appointed official. There are legitimate concerns as to why Mayor Pulido has endorsed the pedophilia promoting Art Pedroza, a man whose home in in the process of forclosure and who could be classified as nuts as Steve Rocco, for the SAUSD trustee. There are valid concerns over the lack of transparency of city government and the unwillingness of the City Council and Mayor to listen to public criticism.

    What I want to hear about is why Alfredo Amezcua is any better then Miguel Pulido. I want to hear how electing someone different, will actually change things at city hall.

    Do any of you folks have an answer to that?

Comments are closed.