Posted on Wednesday, 10/28/2009 - 12:23 a.m. PDT — by WCwatch
The Times endorsing a liberal Democrat? Shocking! This from an Editorial Board that believes Obama is moving too slowly to increase the size and spending of government. Strangely this is the same paper that has been crictical of unions that control our state politicians (i.e. Democrats) and has more than once pointed out that we are in finanical ruin. Yet they still endorse the #2 politican in the state! Amazing. We are the laughing stock of the country, the perfect model of how to ruin the finanical future (not to mention the credit rating) of a state and the Times touts Garamendi's part in helping drive this train wreck as a reason to vote for him. Am I the only one that sees the link between this increasingly spineless left-wing newspaper and their drastically declining readership and ad revenue?
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
The Times wants another Democrat in Congress (using legislative "experience" they claim that makes Garamendi the better choice) to support a taxpayer bailout for newspapers/press.
Joined: May 2008
Current Posts: 83
Yeah, let's elect another liberal Democrat career politician -- because that's worked so well for our state and country. Some people never learn. Just keep trying the same failed ideas over and over -- maybe next time it'll work!
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Failed ideas, or, simply not having any ideas at all, are the stock in trade of the republican'ts.
Joined: Oct 2008
Current Posts: 7
John Garamendi does not even live here. He was a shill for the insurance companies and unions. He supports the full blown Obamacare public option to take away your health care and turn it over to a government bureaucracy. Garamendi will rubber stamp whatever Pelosi and Obama put in front of him. We cannot afford anymore Spendocrats in DC.
Vote for Harmer and send a fiscally responsible representative to office. We also need to send a message. No more too big to fail, no more bail-outs, no more debt, no more printing trillions and placing the burden on the backs of taxpayers.
Vote for Harmer.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Voting for Harmer is a vote for no political experience, no record and no original ideas. Good luck with that.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 1191
We have had people with quite a bit of experience manage this state into th ecurrent mess. Is experience really that important in this job? It did not seem that those on the left felt experience was a big issue last November............but now it is?
Joined: May 2007
Current Posts: 448
Speaking of no original ideas it doesn't appear that Garamendi has any either, just the same old tax and spend mindless drivel that the Dems have been putting out for Years.
Joined: May 2008
Current Posts: 83
Experience is overrated. A person can do a thing wrong for a long, long time.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Experience is overrated? Really? You might as well have said that competence is overrated. It makes as much sense.
Joined: May 2008
Current Posts: 83
I stand by my statement. Experience and competence are not the same thing. Lots of people invested with Bernie Madoff and he had lots of experience. Barney Frank has lots of experience. Our California legislature has lots of experience. GM has lots of experience. I look at measurable success and results. There is a condition called Cognitive Dissonance which is basically holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. You support liberal policies. Those policies clearly do not and have not worked. The problem with liberals is that you often refuse to embrace reality and, instead, keep trying the same failed ideas because they "feel" good. Look at our state.
Joined: May 2009
Current Posts: 16
No political experience, no record and no original ideas is what got Obama elected. Maybe he's just using the same play book.
Vote Libertarian! Study Austrian Economics.
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 20
How can this editorial say he is not beholden to special interests, when as a rancher, he is beholden to the Agribusiness cartel and companies like ConAgra and Monsanto?
Don't you sheep all remember when Bush used all of his ranching buddies as a network of influence to torpedo better immigration controls? The ranchers and growers, generally any business interests of the Central Valley, hate the idea that the border might someday be secured, because that would erode the endless supply of cheap labor.
Ranchers will never accept a reform that takes away their right to subsidies from the Federal government, that give them virtually free land leases and cheap, virtually free water for irrigation. What about the rest of us, the 99.999999% of us who don't have millions of acres of land, and who have to pay a monthly water and sewer bill, bills that have gone up 300% over the last few years, mostly so people like Garamendi don't have to pay any bills.
Not beholden to special interests, please! And its sickening that these limousine liberals, with immense personal wealth, make all these claims that they are for the people, when they are intent on taxing regular people to death while they themselves pay little or nothing!
He also supports OBamacare, which ordinary people can't afford, but of course, HE doesn't have to worry about health care, since he is covered by a very generous state employees plan. Nice how these elected officials are adept at telling the rest of us what we can have, while they enjoy luxurious salaries, pensions, and benefits that are unrivalled in the public sector. How about the special interest of public employees, he is certainly beholden to them, and that is who supports him, all these overpaid public servants who are riding the gravy train we pay for.
Garamendi is also running a negative campaign, and he LIES. He cant even tell the truth about whether his home is in the district (he doesnt live in the district, despite the fact he repeatedly stated that he did).
And, he has made falsely attributed statements to his opponents that they did not make. Even after informed of the erroneous attribution, he continued to make the statements.
I'm voting for anyone but Garamendi. And I've decided Harmer is the best candidate for this district, so I'm voting for Harmer.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 1191
So few understand this.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<How can this editorial say he is not beholden to special interests, when as a rancher, he is beholden to the Agribusiness cartel and companies like ConAgra and Monsanto?>
Only conservative candidates are "beholden to special interests".
The Times editorial board probably thinks that whatever the left wing wants is good (and everyone will benefit from it) so a candidate running on that platform (Garamendi) is not tagged with that label.
Just like the tired "for the people" mantra from liberals when it really is bigger government/increased power for them.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Even screamblame can't come up with any positive spin on Garamendi.
Think about it. Garamendi can't even represent himself. or vote for himself, because he doesn't live in the district. California leads the country in unemployment thanks to policies that Garamendi embraces. Garamendi hasn't met an illegal alien he didn't aid and abet. Garamendi supports the Peripheral Canal II, which the majority of Californians shot down in a special election a few short years ago. So already he doesn't represent us. Why would any sane person elect him to unrepresent them?
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Keep lying about, and distorting, Garamendi's background and record. It is all that unRealAmerican and the rest of you far right wing nuts have to talk about, because your chosen candidate has no record, no experience, and no original ideas. Garamendi will win the election next week, because he is the only candidate who has any qualifications to deal with the serious problems facing California and the rest of the nation. He is the only candidate who has the experience to actually be able to get things done, as opposed to merely spouting cliched campaign sound bites. And he is the only candidate who will, when elected, be able to join a party caucus that actually respects and promotes diverse political views and approaches to the issues, rather than demanding that its members close ranks and march lockstep with its so-called leaders. If you want a John Boehner clone, elect Harmer. If you want a congressman who knows how to think for himself and does so, vote for Garamendi.
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 363
<Garamendi will win the election next week, because he is the only candidate who has any qualifications to deal with the serious problems facing California and the rest of the nation. He is the only candidate who has the experience to actually be able to get things done, as opposed to merely spouting cliched campaign sound bites. And he is the only candidate who will, when elected, be able to join a party caucus that actually respects and promotes diverse political views and approaches to the issues, rather than demanding that its members close ranks and march lockstep with its so-called leaders. If you want a John Boehner clone, elect Harmer. If you want a congressman who knows how to think for himself and does so, vote for Garamendi.>
The problem is the kind of "experience" and "qualifications" he has and what he is able to "get done" - excessive spending, increased regulations, higher taxes, job killing policies, etc.
What part of Garamendi's record is being distorted? That he is a reliable vote for left wing causes and the state that he previously represented is a financial/employment mess?
If you like California's budget and unemployment problems, vote Garamendi. And you'll get more of same plus support from what we've already been getting from Obama/Pelosi.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 1191
In an election in your opinion how big a factor is experience? The reason I ask this is because so many people (on both sides of teh aisle) will use things like experience to promote their candidate but if the other guy is strong in that area all the sudden experience is not a big deal. Look a last election. There is no argument that John McCain had more experiece than now President Obama. Both candidates went in their polar opposite in picking running mates on the issue of experience. You point out that Geramendi has experience but my guess is if he did not and you liked him experince would not be the issue for you in fact it would really not matter. Is this a good assumption and if so why?
As for me I am not big on the experience issue. You can use a record to see if you agree on a candidate on important issues to you but that is about it for me.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 4
ScreenName wrote:
"If you want a John Boehner clone, elect Harmer. If you want a congressman who knows how to think for himself and does so, vote for Garamendi."
You're joking, right? Let's see ...
Still, that same party claims that they cannot accomplish their goals, which are NOT supported by the majority of U.S. voters, because great and powerful John Boehner stands in the way. I've seen and heard John Boehner on TV. If the majority party is having problems arguing against him, then perhaps, just perhaps, there might be something wrong with the majority party's policies and messages. Ya' think?
Even the President himself campaigned for Mr. Garamendi. Perhaps it's time to elect a candidate that is not a carbon-copy of the current failed liberal Left groupthink (you know, the same group that claims that all their opponents are all well-dressed, astroturfed "ditto heads") and can, as you eloquently phrased it, "think for himself and does so." Perhaps it is time to elect a candidate that is NOT funded and beholden to labor unions. Perhaps it really is time for CHANGE.
Please refer to my previous post ("Editorial: Do NOT Elect John Garamendi to Congress!") about where Mr. Garamendi's money comes from.
Joined: Jul 2008
Current Posts: 4
Interesting. The article seems to claim that John Garamendi is not beholden to special interests. Yet campaign contribution records show both candidates have received roughly similar amounts from individual contributors. The difference? Well, 22% of Garamendi's financing comes from Political Action Committies (PACs, a.k.a. "special interest groups") and only 77% from individual contributors. Meanwhile, Mr. Harmer's campaign received just 6% from PACs and 90% from individual contributors.
Google seach for the following terms: "2010 Race" "California District 10" "Total Raised and Spent" (sorry, this site does not allow web links)
And where exactly did Mr. Garamendi's campaign money from? No surprise, you will see the word "union" in the names of many of his top contributors. The list also includes both the AFSCME and SEIU public employee's unions (and interestingly, beer distributors).
Google seach for the following terms: "2010 Race" "California District 10" "Top Contributors" (sorry, this site does not allow web links)
Mr. Harmer's contributors are also listed on the same web site. Notice the difference?
For such an "experienced", annointed candidate, you would figure that Mr. Garamendi's office wouldn't make an amature mistake like quoting the wrong David Harmer in an opposition piece. Perhaps it wasn't accidental and Mr. Garamendi really is an experienced Sacramento politician.
Google search for the following terms: "Garamendi mailer quotes wrong David Harmer"
But, with purposefully gerrymandered districts, it will be no suprise to me if Sacramento's choice wins the election. If elected, Mr. Garamendi can certainly help keep those government printing presses working overtime.
Joined: May 2007
Current Posts: 448
Great post, No hyperbole, just the facts, we have enough of those morons both in Sacramento and Sodom on the Potomac that have a lot of "experience" and look what has happened, we are stone broke and gettting deeper in debt by the minute. Vote for Harmer.
Joined: Oct 2009
Current Posts: 9
You left out one very important difference between the two candidates that, given what is going on in this country today, should be heavily weighted:
"Garamendi is an out and out liar, Hamer is not".
If Garamendi had apologized for his attribution of a quote from a different David Harmer, then we just could have chalked it up to poor fact checking. But his refusal to retract his blatant inaccuracy and apologize for his mistake not only proves that he is a liar, but it gives us a keen insight into his character. I don't know about you, but I do think that character counts. I do not want a liar representing me.
Joined: Dec 1969
Current Posts: 1
Has anyone else read the stories about Assemblyman Stan Statham being appointed lieutenant governor to replace Garamendi?