Lou Correa gets a nearly unanimous endorsement from DPOC

State Senator Lou Correra in the VIP suite with his LiberalOC sticker (c)2009, TheLiberalOC.com

State Senator Lou Correra in the VIP suite with his LiberalOC sticker (c)2009, TheLiberalOC.com

Former State Senator Lou Correa, the only Democrat in the race to replace Janet Nguyen on the County Board of Supervisors, was nearly a unanimously-endorsed candidate for the special election seat but his bid for 100 percent party support was foiled by disgraced former North County vice chair Greg Diamond who objected to an endorsement by acclamation. For those keeping score, it’s Greg Diamond 1 versus the support of everyone else in the DPOC.  What should have been a no-brainer is now a liability for the Correa campaign to overcome compared with the OC GOP’s endorsement of Andrew Do for the same seat. We’re told Diamond cited Correa’s endorsement of Anaheim council members Kris Murray and Gale Eastman and suggested “Lou is barely a Democrat” as reasons why Correa should be denied the endorsement.  Diamond perhaps ought to account for his informal endorsement of conservative Tea party candidate Tom Tait for Anaheim mayor for his hypocritical pitch to deny Correa the party’s unified endorsement.  And Diamond’s softball interview with candidate Chris Pham places Pham in Diamond’s pro-Republican club. 009 Lou is the best candidate to represent the interests of the residents of the First district as well as those of the DPOC.  It would sure be great if Diamond, who’s been a failed candidate three times in the past two election cycles, could focus his energies on going after Republicans instead of Democrats.    

  42 comments for “Lou Correa gets a nearly unanimous endorsement from DPOC

  1. Diamond Greg
    December 16, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    How dare you question the wonderful and all around wise guy and all time greatest Democrat Greg Diamond. He is all knowing and is never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever wrong. Everyone is always entitled to his opinion.

    • Greg Diamond
      December 20, 2014 at 9:57 am

      Personal to Chris Prevatt: While we at OJB do allow comments by those who are lampooning other personas (as with our “Dan D. Stalker” — whose real-life identity I don’t know, and who comically apes your writing partner in our comments section) I try never to allow them to use the person’s real name. If I had a comment from “Chmielewski Dan” or “Murray Kris” or “Brandman Jordan,” I would either delete it or change the name of the author to “Anonymous.” What you do is your choice.

      • Greg Cubiczarconian
        December 20, 2014 at 3:34 pm

        This comment was among the most hypocritical, disingenuous statements ever from Greg Diamond. That’s saying a lot considering the verbal wreckage he has strewed on the information super highway!

        Greg and Vern have allowed unabated attacks on people they disagree with, while seemingly seeing fit to CRUSH anyone who lampoon them. I have watched as state assembly members, council people, activists write and attack on OJB, enjoying complete anonymity, but big bad Greg is always first to call someone a coward when he disagrees.

        The Greg Diamond blog is as useful as the Register, when it comes to getting accurate information. What a jerk.

        • YouKnowWhoItIs
          December 23, 2014 at 11:32 am

          Dan D Stalker’s identity? Hmm. He hates Dan. He hates Skally. Friendly with Zenger. Homophobic. Jealous. And his favorite insult is to suggest someone fetch something for someone important. It’s Sean Mill. You’re lucky he didn’t call your brother in law an infected piece of $h!t

      • December 21, 2014 at 9:06 am

        I’m sure there are a few Diamond Jim’s out there in the world. “whose real-life identity I don’t know…” thanks for the laugh.

      • December 21, 2014 at 10:52 am

        if you adhere to blog comment guidelines from several respected mainstream publicans and journalism organizations, you either allow the entire comment or delete the entire comment; editing the comment is considered unethical. When someone left a comment as “Larry Agran” on this blog, I immediately thought it was a sock puppet. I was able to confirm Larry Agran did, in fact, leave a comment on this blog so I left it up. But if we got a comment from a “Greg Diamond” and it wasn’t your typically IP address and the writing style was clearly not yours, that’s a violation of our long time terms of service and it would be deleted.

  2. junior
    December 16, 2014 at 4:28 pm

    I think that Lou will win – but of course what do I know – I am just a nihilistic fascist lacking a moral ethos.

  3. cynthia curran
    December 17, 2014 at 9:09 pm

    Taitt, a tea party person, I doubt that since he supported the Artic and good John Birchers and Libertarians disliked it. I think TOm says he is Tea Party to get their support. In fact many OC Repubs are more RInos than Tea party but use the Tea Party label to get support.

    • Greg Diamond
      December 20, 2014 at 10:08 am

      I don’t recall Tait ever saying, either verbally or in writing, that he is a “Tea Partier. ” If you or your Chum know otherwise, you should come up with a citation. (I have heard him admit to libertarian tendencies, but they are combined with a very un-OC libertarian concern for the interests of poorer citizens, and not just in a “send them all to soup kitchens and make them pray for their meals” kind of way.)

      Tait does have support from some people who identify with the Tea Party — or rather with one of the various “Tea Parties” — but those people tend to be ones who have criticisms of the Republican Party that echo leftist critiques of Democratic party leaders as self-interested, corrupt, and generally subservient to monied special interests. There’s simply little place in the establishment Republican Party anymore for that sort of internal critique — and so they accept that economically and procedurally populist portion of Tea Party ideology as their affiliation. But anyone who can’t distinguish Tait from Debra Pauly, though they will agree on some issues (as do she and I, given her strong support for the Irvine Veterans cemetery), is being willfully blind.

      Since the initial vote, and as more has come out in the meantime, Tait has been critical of ARTIC — most recently regarding the giant electronic billboards that their Staff says that they suddenly need because their economic projections for the station were, as predicted at the times by critics, completley bogus.

      • December 21, 2014 at 9:04 am

        Greg — Tait embraced tea party support all the way back to 2010; after I researched his background from that race, his Tea Party ties were all I needed to know about him.


        • Greg Diamond
          December 22, 2014 at 5:07 pm

          That page shows that an independent blogger purporting to be part of the Tea Party supported Tait. It does not say anything at all about Tait’s solicitation, awareness, or acceptance, of that support. And even if he had, to the extent that that was a function of some of the BETTER values espoused by people associated with the Tea Party, such as fighting public corruption and waste (rather than anti-immigrant and anti-poor policies), there would be nothing WRONG with it. The problem would arise if Tait held BAD Tea Party positions and ideals — and even after all this time you present no reason to think that he actually does.

          • December 22, 2014 at 7:26 pm

            Like I’ve said, “tea partier” has become just a lazy insult that lazy Democrats like to throw at pretty much any Republican they don’t like – it doesn’t even mean anything any more.

            • December 23, 2014 at 7:28 am

              Now that’s quite the stretch. Try telling those who’ve suffered due to heavy budget cuts, anti-immigrant policies, homophobic/transphobic policies, and Cliven Bundy approved attacks on the very notion of common government that “‘TEA Party’ doesn’t mean anything any more”.

              One can debate just how “TEA Party” Tom Tait is and how much common ground progressives can claim with him, but one can’t deny he’s more than occasionally positioned himself to win “TEA Party” votes.

              • December 23, 2014 at 11:48 am

                Most of that sounds like a lot of Republicans since the 90s or so, way before there was a “tea party.”

                • December 23, 2014 at 11:49 am

                  And, I should add, sounds nothing like Tait.

                • December 23, 2014 at 3:12 pm

                  you mean the guy who hates unions, cops, seems to have no plan for creating jobs locally, keeping the Angels, rejects deals as mayor that he chases for his business…but glad Tait is there to Uber you around Vern

                • Ryan Cantor
                  December 23, 2014 at 3:21 pm

                  That kind of willful inaccuracy is despicable, even for you, Dan.

                  You’re an embarrassment. Putting that kind of lie into the world give current events is just reprehensible.

                  I sincerely hope that others treat you without the same prejudice and vitriol that you direct at Tom Tait. Getting a taste of your own bile would be a real shame.

                • December 23, 2014 at 3:54 pm

                  Ryan — Tait’s voting record on unions contracts is well documented. http://www.theliberaloc.com/2014/02/04/taits-usually-a-lone-vote-no-against-anaheims-public-employee-unions/ Police did not endorse him (neither did the DA for that matter) perhaps because the man doesn’t use the gavel when public speakers yell F**k the police in chambers. Please do share Tait’s plans to keep the Angels because there isn’t one. And Tait’s business is engaged in developments in nearby Garden Grove that don’t exactly help Anaheim hotels. By all means Ryan, detail my inaccuracies.

                • December 23, 2014 at 3:55 pm

                  do you have anything else you’d like to accuse me of doing?

                • Ryan Cantor
                  December 23, 2014 at 4:09 pm

                  Detail? You first, genius.

                  You’ve provided nothing, absolutely nothing, that demonstrates Tom Tait hates anyone, least of all public employees.

                  You go to hell with your request.

                  You’re an embarrassment. Particularly for Prevatt, who I respect.

                • December 23, 2014 at 8:00 pm

                  In voting no on several bipartisan labor agreements, Tait has more than demonstrated contempt for Anaheim’s middle class.

                  Why don’t you head to the local nativity scene where you, Nelson and Diamond can gaze adoringly upon the baby Tait in his manger. Oh, silly me, only wise men can do that.

                • Daniel Lamb
                  December 23, 2014 at 7:13 pm

                  Ryan Canter/Mayor Tom Tait,

                  Much of our conservation has disappeared from Facebook messenger. Did you hack into my Facebook and delete the comments? Given that the deleted sections involve you harassing me for being gay, it could be relevant to possible hate crime litigation in state and federal courts. So you were not just breaking the law by hacking, you were destroying evidence. Does anybody know a lawyer I can talk to about this, or how I would file a criminal complaint against Team Tait.

                • Ryan Cantor
                  December 23, 2014 at 11:01 pm

                  Dan C, I’m not exactly sure what school of PR you graduated from, but mocking manger scenes is generally frowned upon. I’ll consider it just poor judgement on your part rather than something more severe. Anyway, in general, voting “no” on a policy item (particularly if it involves spending taxpayer money) does not equate with “hating” any particular group. Stating such is not only a reckless disregard for the truth, it’s an insult to logic grasped by second graders. For the third time, you’re an embarrassment.

                  Dan Lamb, you’re delusional. What you state happened in a messenger exchange between you and me (although I can’t tell if you’re addressing me, some fictional person who has a name similar to me, or Tom Tait) never occurred– and quite frankly it’s defamatory . . . to me, fictional me, or Mayor Tait. I want nothing to do with you. Get help.

                • December 24, 2014 at 4:42 pm

                  Merry Christmas Ryan. I hope Santa brings you a clue that not everyone agrees with you

                • Ryan Cantor
                  December 23, 2014 at 11:02 pm

                  . . . and moderating every comment of mine is juvenile.

                • December 26, 2014 at 12:48 pm

                  actually its appropriate

                • December 24, 2014 at 5:53 am

                  Well, it’s not like the “TEA Party” itself is really new. It’s just another “rebranding” of the far right fringe (after George W. Bush & Tom DeLay ruined the 2000s era conservative brand). And judging by how many Republicans are now shying away from the “TEA Party” label (but not the actual ideology and policies), they’re trying to “rebrand” yet again with “conservatarian” and “libertarian populist”.

                  What I’m getting at is the meaning of “TEA Party”. Yes, it does mean something. It means a hard commitment to austerity economics and usually a strong helping of hard social conservatism.

                • Daniel Lamb
                  December 25, 2014 at 8:35 pm

                  Ryan Cantor, it did happen… And it can be verified through Facebook. It is obvious to everyone that you are working as an agent (legally speaking) for Mayor Tom Tait. I don’t know who was using the Facebook account under that name at that time, but disturbing stuff was said and then it disappeared the next day.
                  Further, this is not the first time Team Tait hacked into and stole my personal property. I am hopeful all of this, and more, will be worked out in a federal court someday. You can try all you like to intimidate me/extort me into staying silence, but you guys should know by now that I will not be deterred by such thuggery. So bring it, the more you push, the greater my odds at vindication. And the repeated “get help” rhetoric deployed by Team Tait in my direction is evidence of harassment and coordination. Who uses it? When did it begin?

                • Ryan Cantor
                  December 26, 2014 at 8:58 am

                  No one deleted anything and it’s not verifiable because it never happened, Dan. Spouting out lies about disturbing commentary, no matter how often you claim it, doesn’t make it true. You can interpret “get help” in any light you wish, but it’s a sincere suggestion. You need it.

                  And for the record, I’m not an agent for anyone, least of all Tom Tait.

                • December 26, 2014 at 11:26 am

                  Last sentence made me spit out my coffee…..suuuurreeeee

                • Ryan Cantor
                  December 26, 2014 at 11:43 am

                  Really? The last sentence?

                  The original accusation is what should cause you to do a double take.

                  That I’m not on someone’s payroll or taking direction really shouldn’t surprise you. After all, you claim the exact same status . . .

                  But hey, whatever floats your boat. I’m sure you’re enjoying this crazy little exchange.

                • December 26, 2014 at 12:08 pm

                  “And for the record, I’m not an agent for anyone, least of all Tom Tait.”

                  –don’t believe that for a second because “being an agent for” doesn’t necessarily mean you’re being paid for it; Diamond clearly is and he’s not paid for it.

                  No, I’m not on anyone’s payroll and don’t take direction from anyone but you guys never believe it anyway so ….

                • Ryan Cantor
                  December 26, 2014 at 9:23 pm

                  Believe whatever you want, Dan. This won’t be the last obvious thing you’re wrong about.

                • December 27, 2014 at 11:15 pm

                  Might want to enroll in some anger management classes Sport. Did you get coal in your stocking or something?

          • December 23, 2014 at 9:30 am

            Go back and look at Tait’s 2010 website and literature; Tea Party all the way. And thanks for the continued defense of conservative Republican. Are you angling for a job with Tait & Associates?

  4. cynthia curran
    December 17, 2014 at 9:12 pm

    Really, I think Junior is right, Lou has a good chance

  5. December 18, 2014 at 11:03 am

    But Lou still secured the DPOC endorsement, right?

    To be fair, other local party central committees forbid endorsing any non-Democrat in any race where a Democrat is running. But AFAIK, there’s no such rule at DPOC. I know some local prog’s still can’t stand Lou due to all the shenanigans he pulled in Sacto, but they must realize that he’s truly Democrats’ only chance of placing any non-conservative-Republican on the Board of Supes.

    • Greg Diamond
      December 22, 2014 at 5:18 pm

      The worse alternative would be conservative and highly sketchy Republican Andrew Do. But the other frontrunner, Chris Phan, describes himself as a moderate Republican and I’ve seen nothing to contradict that. In fact, I see only two issues where he seems much different from Lou — public safety issues, where (given his dedication to fairness and due process and his not being bought by the private prison industry) and support for unions, where he says he wants to deal with them fairly so long as they are being reasonable. That’s not as good (from the union perspective) as what people are suddenly PRETENDING that Lou is, but it is just as good (if not better) than what Lou ACTUALLY has been while in office regarding Labor.

      So, yes — one can easily oppose Lou and still neither want nor expect to place a “conservative Republican” on the Board. As for breaking “the Republican strangelehold” — that’s just self-delusion on the part of Democrats. One or even two Democrats on the Board won’t have that effect, especially so long as they are “go along to get along” types that typically cooperate with Republicans so long as they will be able to wet their own beaks. What Lou as an ineffectual, conservative, “part of the problem” Supervisor would more likely do is to even further damage the Democratic brand with voters who hope for change.

      But, who knows, maybe that’s what the party wants — to avoid the riff-raff.

      • December 23, 2014 at 7:14 am

        I remember another Garden Grove Republican who served on the city council and promised to govern as a “moderate” once elected as OC Supervisor And we all know how Janet Nguyen’s political career is turning out.

        Perhaps Chris Phan will be different. One major difference is that he doesn’t seem to have the institutional support that Nguyen has enjoyed over the years. Perhaps that’s what’s keeping him “clean”. It may also be why Andrew Do seems to be consolidating Republicans behind him.

        I’ve explained at OJB why Lou Correa is not my favorite OC elected. I’ve also explained there and here how Lou can make a major difference on the Board of Supes. There’s a huge difference between “go along to get along/part of the problem” and reaching across the dais to deliver the goods for Central OC. Not every legislative deal is “corrupt”, and sometimes it makes more sense to cut the best deal than to let oneself be cut.

      • December 23, 2014 at 9:34 am

        you are not allowed to declare frontrunners after calling the city council race in Costa Mesa prematurely.

  6. December 18, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    He did….I’m pretty amazed Greg used the “Lou backed Kris Murray and Gale Eastman” argument when he was completely in the tank for Tom Tait. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me

    • December 18, 2014 at 2:34 pm

      Well, let’s just say that the typical partisan dividing lines are quite scrambled in Anaheim. City politics is polarized, but not so much on a left-right scale. I’m personally disgusted by the corporate welfare loving Pringle Bloc on the Council, but I also acknowledge Tom Tait is a far cry from “progressive”.

      The anti-Lou progressive crowd should ask themselves if “purity” is more important than ending Republicans’ unanimous control of the Board of Supes.

Comments are closed.