Author’s note 7/30/10: The link in the article below no longer goes to the original U-T article upon which I based this post (see the reposted article at Tenants Together). I’ll let you all decide whether the new article is an “update” or a “correction,” because in many ways it is a whole different animal.
The new article, dated July 28, 2010 makes no allusion to the El Cajon Young Republicans, which was also cited in the original article as a source of “seat saver” money.
It remains to be seen if this is last iteration of the U-T Watchdog on the subject. If that is the case, significant questions remain. Why did the original article refer to the El Cajon Young Republicans?
Derrick Roach, the secretary of the Republican Party of San Diego, and Tony Kravic, the president, present two contradictory statements about the source of the compensation. Where is the Watchdog journalism that would resolve this discrepancy?
Shout out to the sharp reader to pointed out to us the change in the U-T article!
I’ve been ranting and raving that the Republicans haven’t created one single job since they achieved a majority in the House of Representatives. But lo! The party of the Job Creators is stepping up to the plate. According to a recent U-T article about a third of the 300 people attending a Chula Vista city council meeting about rent control at a local mobile home park had received $20 from the El Cajon Republicans. In fact “Ray McMurty, 62, said he received $40 for attending the meeting from a representative of the Republican Party.”
The proposed ordinance, which people like McMurty were paid to support, passed 4-0. Future renters would not be covered under the current rent control practices. I am shocked! Absolutely shocked!
The mobile park owners were informed by a South Bay political consultant who works for San Diego Group that there were “50 confirmed seat savers,” but the principal of that political consultant firm has been hanging out in Martha’s Vineyard and has absolutely no idea what anyone is talking about.
Proponents of the right are outraged that their integrity has been impugned and that anyone would dare to question the free market’s ability to maintain its divine, noble course. We also know as honest to god fact that the other people in the audience, who supported rent control, were paid and bused in by the unions and given lavish expense accounts during their time here.
The article ends by striking that just right Fox fair and balanced approach. “I don’t see any particular problem with it, if someone is willing to step up on any side and advocate for a position or item—it’s just giving a voice to someone and it is appreciated.”
Mr. McMurty, who is on social security disability, sees no problem in being a paid activist. “He said $40 goes a long way in helping with groceries through the week in his household.” I’m sure Mr. John Wainio, the principal of San Diego Group and currently ensconced in Martha’s Vineyard doesn’t see a problem either.
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
Creating jobs is counterproductive to the Republicans idiotic schemes to export good paying, private sector American jobs.
NAFTA, PNTR, etc were Republican sponsored initatives designed to export American jobs to the cheaper 3rd world labor force for their GREEDY Wall Street/ Multi-National Corporation Masters.
Shows how STUPID the Republicans really are – as even those tools ought to realize that the poor Americans they create from former members of their middle-class – aren’t very likely to continue to vote for them.
Brainless idiots, really.
Not that history matters, but NAFTA was completed and signed by Clinton.
Both parties, Republicans first, need to be done away with. I mean that in the most literal sense.
How many jobs can the Republican House create when what it passes must go through the Democrat Senate? Maybe the question should be, why should we rely upon government to create jobs to being with?
Since the “job creators” which is to say the rich, aren’t creating jobs and haven’t been creating them for the past decade, a massive federal infrastructure investment is vital, just for starters. Our public infrastructure is badly deteriorated and that kind of investment would be a real job creator in the construction and manufacturing segments of the economy. If you take the position that government shouldn’t be creating jobs to begin with, how are you going to convince Apple, which now has more cash than the American public, to create jobs?
I understand that everyone enjoys bashing corporations around here, but when there is uncertainty as it pertains to regulations and the healthcare act, it makes it very difficult for businesses to invest in further employment. Listen to Steve Wynn, for example, who supports Harry Reid and other Dems. He’s not alone in the uncertainty that his company faces for the future.
I know some of you won’t catch my drift on this, but here goes. It would behove both political parties to start paying some one for something. If there isn’t any work, some body needs to come up with something.Some one such as myself is better off in society being given some kind of gainful employment rather than being left to my own devices. Iknow it would be alot less costly working me rather than paying to keep me in a cage. Although I’m not stupid enough to do any violence, Icould sure wreak some damage to some local pocket books.
@tj:
Self-identified Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to have 4-year college degrees. The trends for the years 1955 through 2004 are shown by gender in the graphs below, reproduced from a book published by Joseph Fried.[77] These graphs depict results obtained by Fried from the National Election Studies (NES) database.
Regarding graduate-level degrees (masters or doctorate), there is a rough parity between Democrats and Republicans. According to the Gallup Organization: “[B]oth Democrats and Republicans have equal numbers of Americans at the upper end of the educational spectrum — that is, with post graduate degrees…”[78] Fried provides a slightly more detailed analysis, noting that Republican men are more likely than Democratic men to have advanced degrees, but Democratic women are now more likely than Republican women to have advanced degrees.[79]
Republicans remain a small minority of college professors, with 11% of full-time faculty identifying as Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#Voter_base
Hmmm, not certain where you’re going with this or what your intent is. You signed yourself “Republicans R Smarter”, so it seems as if that is your premise. And if so, then you’ve missed a major issue, and that is, the Democratic Party has been for generations the party of the poor, the disenfranchised, and the working masses. By definition the poor aren’t going to have the same numbers of degrees that more well-off people have. The GOP has always been known over the last century for being the party of the well-off. So, you have missed the point.
The point is, degrees don’t make you “smarter” – look at whom the Republicans have voted in: Nixon, Reagan, Bush over the last few decades – 3 disasters that we’re still paying for.
It seems, Frank, that you have missed the point. Reread my post. It was directed @tj who said Republicans are, “Brainless idiots, really”. I was merely pointing out they are more educated which hardly qualifies them as brainless or idiotic. Did that really escape you? I am not a Republican, I am a registered Independent. I’m also all about truth. tj needed correcting.
As for your assessment of Nixon, Reagan and Bush, I won’t defend 2 but Reagan was the best president this nation has had in my lifetime and probably yours. Of course being a liberal you would probably bestow that honor upon the disbarred, impeached liar and accused rapist Bill Clinton. If so, so be it. Just remember, for 6 years of Clinton’s reign we had a Republican led congress. You can’t overlook that fact, can you now?
“Of course being a liberal you would probably bestow that honor upon the disbarred, impeached liar and accused rapist Bill Clinton.”
Adulterer yes, but rapist? Not sure about your world but in mine there is a difference.
I said “accused rapist”. I’m not sure what world you are living in but in the world of reality that is 100% factual.
Anybody who titles their online identity as “Republinuts R Smarter” has got to enjoy being one. Perhaps you should change your comment name to “Republicans are not smarter just richer”.
As in physics where there is a reaction to every action, it is in politics and social reality. Reagan represented the counter-revolution to all the social achievements made in the sixties and seventies. His job was to turn back all the progress – “the revolution” – made during that time. And he did a good job too, blaming “government as the problem” while illegally funding the Contras, negotiating with the Iranians to make Carter lose the election.
Reagan was one of the worst presidents this country has ever had.
Your opinion of Reagan lands you squarely in the minority and it’s clear that your lack of understanding of fundamental politics combined with your partisan hatred for anything republican are to blame. Reagan was voted to be the president of all time. You can’t change that you can only add it to the long list of things you clearly don’t understand.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/146183/Americans-Say-Reagan-Greatest-President.aspx
It’s funny you should mention Carter as he was the epitome of everything that is wrong with the democrat party. Frankly, Frank, there is no democrat party anymore, just a bunch of snot-nosed incompetents hell-bent on exploiting the poverty they create. The incompetence displayed by your party’s latest offering, one Barack Hussein Obama, rivals that of Carter only with one small difference, Carter actually had some qualitative executive experience before he assumed office. Even so, his administration was a complete disaster. Hussein is no better, as he is nothing more than a clueless Soros lackey who, like his democrat predecessor Bill Clinton, will never be bestowed the honor of having a ship or federal building named after him. Do you want to know why, Frank? Because like Clinton, he is a disgrace to the office he holds. Tell me, Frank, did you approve when Clinton invited one of the sleaziest men in the world, Larry Flynt, into the White House? Did you approve when Clinton ignored the advice of the US State Department and the US Commerce Department and sold our missile guidance systems made by Loral Space & Communications to the communist Chinese, providing said communists with the same technology to guide their missiles into American cities that we would use to guide ours into theirs? What Clinton did was tantamount to treason. And thankfully, because of his actions, he will never enjoy the honor duly earned by President Reagan.
I am no Republican. I used that screen name I did because I thought I would be writing one response correcting tj’s erroneous offerings. Truth be known, I critique the GOP as often as I do the dems. But they are, as a group, more educated, a fact that you have yet to even attempt to dispute.
Have a nice day, Frank.
He wasn’t accused of rape Sparky.
For your edification, Sparky.
“The newspaper reports that Mr Clinton persuaded Mrs Broaddrick to have coffee with him in her hotel room during a conference of nursing home administrators in 1978. She alleges that he then forced her on to the bed, where he held her down, bit her lips and raped her.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/feb/20/clinton.usa
And there were more.
“Not that history matters, but NAFTA was completed and signed by Clinton.” RB
+1
Absolutely correct RB – & it should matter.
Clintons shameless pandering to the Wall Street Banksters & their multi-National Corporations, just like a typical Republican, are largely the reason we have the economic disaster we “enjoy” today.
Only the most thoughtless, stupid, & incredibly shortsighted political MORONS – export their own peoples jobs.
But NAFTA & PNTR were Republican sponsored, their typical Wall Street pandering – & yes – fully backed by Sold-Out Lawyer-Politician Clinton.
The little opposition that existed to the legislation was primarly Democrats, & & few renegade republicans like Ron Paul. Check it out.
Politicians selling out their own people’s jobs, & tax base – only in America.
Idiots.
NAFTA was equally supported by Bush Sr. and Clinton and would have gone through regardless.
However another factor you touch upon with mentioning multi-national corporations, would also have been realized with either Bush Sr or Clinton but with interesting differences, because of the China factor, let’s face it, NAFTA wasn’t the real problem, the fact it was a stepping stone for exodus of mfg. to China was. (I worked in sales at Shore Office Furniture in National City from ’95-98, we had a location in Tijuana to capitalize on outfitting maquiladora offices, it boomed then dried up just as quickly as they folded, leaving laid off Mexicans no choice but continue north. Sadly, many didn’t survive the high desert crossing forced by operation gatekeeper)
Anyway Bush Sr. would have facilitated the exodus of mfg to China out of pure greed, conspiratorial with corporations lustful to liquidate brick and mortar assets like factories so their stockholders could short sell after chargeoffs for laying off whole companies, and take the money and run after engineers were sent to China to teach the Chinese how to make an acceptable product. In small towns everywhere, 500 employees in a sprawling factory, replaced by 10 shipping and receiving boxes from overseas. They sold out America and helped the Chinese mfg prowess leapfrog a generation. This is what triggers the mortgage collapse later- after massive layoffs people coast along, in houses they bought with factory jobs that didn’t return, refinancing with rollover mortgages and no real income.
(which is pretty much how Darrel Issa made his fortune, selling his shares to finance his bid for Congress- DEI absorbed a/d/s, Precision Power, Orion and other cash strapped powerhouses of car audio, closed their factories in Phoenix and Boston suburbs, and used American test labs to analyze the first Chinese sample replacements they’d sell under the established names-which they bought for the distribution channels to dealer floor space- I knew a guy they flew to China repeatedly to correct their defects)
However all this happens anyway under Clinton who can balance the budget with the capital gains taxes paid by those greedy stockholders but he adds a bizarre twist, Bill Clinton, both through ideology he carries from college and political and business friendships with former Chinese nationals from Little Rock, holds global socialist sentiments. I’ll extend the benefit of doubt and imagine it’s because he’s a great humanitarian who hates to think of a billion chinese starving and oppressed- that’s probably true because though he’s comfortable financially it doesn’t appear his net worth multiplied in Cheneyesque proportions. While he is relaxing commerce policies to benefit the Chinese which these corporate vultures are cashing in on, he’s also fighting for human rights for Chinese citizens in the international arena. In 1996 his party gets messy with some money from the PRC in its coffers, and returns it- Bill’s Little Rock friends had their fingerprints on it, we don’t need to dwell on that as it was business as usual, except usual isn’t usually a foreign country. The GOP isn’t content to present an honest case on its own merits, the Cox Report of 1999 laughably tries to wrap the treason angle around some nuclear secrets transfer Clinton couldn’t have known about, which causes any substance of a Chinagate scandal to be forgotten.
I don’t hate Clinton, and who really cares about Monica, if you expect an altar boy out of any of these guys you’re a big dope. In fact by all accounts he is one of the greatest statesmen of our time- meaning he can look you in the eye, lie to you and lift your wallet out of your pocket and it feels so good you thank him for the favor.
Which sums up his legacy pretty well. Those 8 years of supposed prosperity was actually us setting up our downfall, we were all participants as we devoured cheap imported goods and Chinese industrialization exploded. The economy which completed its transformation to virtually complete service sector employment, was pushed off two 110 story towers on 9/11 as consumer confidence was destroyed, kept falling and as bad as it is hasn’t hit bottom yet.
Bush the Cheney puppet seems to have thought a mashup of ww2 and Reaganomics put on cruise control would rebound us but nothing ever can, not when you taught a man (China) to fish, gave him a boat and tackle and set him loose on your own lake. People in denial actually talk about things like American ingenuity making up the slack, oblivious that the Chinese hold our patents and copyrights in utter contempt. The Nikes you and I pay $80 for at Foot Locker because Nike gets $60 for their name, sells on the streets of Beijing for $20. Not a copy, same shoe. Arrgh….
(Feel free to call me full of **** on any of that, just educate me so I get it right the next time. )
I won’t say you are full of anything; we should all be free to voice our opinions here w/o being disrespected by those who disagree. With that said, it is undeniable that the Republican Party has had a cozy relationship with the Communist Chinese that started with Kissinger and Nixon and continues to this day. And why not, ‘free trade’ is good…right? It is to the point that American jobs are being lost by the millions which is exactly what has happened.
I own a business and I don’t begrudge any business owner for wanting to make a profit. So where do we draw the line? When does it become acceptable for government to intervene in one’s business affairs and when should it not? I’m afraid I don’t have that answer. You are correct, though, in that both parties are complicit in creating the situation we have now. With that said…my prior mention of Bill Clinton and the Communist Chinese was to highlight the fact that Bill Clinton did more than have a cozy relationship, far more. He sold our missile guidance systems to the Chinese which essentially leveled the playing field militarily; I consider that treason. Unfortunately, it is not up to me to prosecute him for such crimes for if it were I surely would.
And I disagree that Clinton was a good statesman. I acknowledge we can’t and shouldn’t expect a choir boy to occupy our White House but we don’t need and shouldn’t settle for a sleaze ball either. It is widely known that President Reagan would not enter the Oval Office unless he was wearing a suit. He held that standard because he respected the Office and what it stood for. Conversely, Bill Clinton not only did not respect the Office, he used it for a bordello. Additionally, I don’t give a rat’s behind how many portly interns he porked while his wife was busy illegally browsing confidential FBI files. But when asked about it while under oath he should have told the truth and that is something we know he did not do.
Thanks for your input John.
Fair enough, 2 clarifications:
His administration looked the other way while Loral Space Systems, whose CEO Bernard Schwartz was the DNC’s primary contributer in ’95 or ’96 (not sure) with over $500,000 donated, analyzed the results of the rocket that crashed and destroyed their satellite (and with it most of a town of about 5,000 in a spectacular accident involving a full load of hypergolic fuel-that means chemicals needing no ignition source) and “accidentally” divulged the contents of a report intended for internal use by Loral. I believe other companies were involved. The report dissected the crude guidance the Chinese were using and gave details of state of the art US designs. Clinton’s justice dept balked at doing anything but pressure from the GOP ultimately caused a ruling after Clinton left office fining Loral something around $11 mil. Even afterr this event and censure from a bipartisan Congress, Clinton continued to allow technical transfers to China along with personal visits.
You may know this , and again it’s from memory so I may have a detail or two off. So what do you think about that Bosnia affair…. both ground personnel who would have knowledge of the transponder’s state of operation take their own lives within a week of the accident, one by self inflicted gunshot wound to the chest? At that point we walk away whistling, “nothing to see here”. Or as I like to say, “death by koinkydink”.
Finally I think you misconstrued the meaning of great statesman. He is not a great man, nor were his deeds great.
Such a man simply leaves everyone believing he was great, the further away from actual greatness he actually was only adding to that. Reagan? He was my commander in chief. I didn’t like him at the time, he dismantled many social programs and the negative repercussions still exist such as mental health. When I want to salute the stars and stripes and whistle the national anthem, I watch clips of his farewell address, or several other iconic deliveries, and tears come to my eyes. He helped write most of those, he may be the last great american president- great american for that matter we’ll see.
Then I pinch myself, wake up and remember that everything we thought we knew about America, its wars, its history, is only taken at face value by the naive. It’s all bull**** and Reagan was part and parcel to continuing the charade. When he ran in 80 he blasted Carter for his Trilateral Commission Council on Foreign Relations cronies that made up Carters cabinet….then at the convention, made a deal with them whereas Bush Sr became his running mate and they became most of his cabinet too. (John Hinkley was the son of a good Bush Sr. friend in Texas, koinkydink? Hmm…) So Reagan the great, is a charade it may be blissful to live in…. but I cannot as my political party is the no bull**** party, and if my guy- as if he exists- ever gets in the country likely won’t be a better place.
It’s nice to know you are no dummy. I respect that from any ideology, almost as much as honesty.
I think a more important aspect of this story is what apears to be low or lower middle income people were paid a small some of money to turn on there future neighbors or even themslves if they move to a trailer park in the future. It is similar to retired people who workrd for the government or are on SSI and medicare joining the tea party. It is the same as the middle class and poor fighting to take away others retirements and pensions just helping lower the bar for their own benefits. They should have took the money and spoke for the other side. The Right side in my opinion is not taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
Steven- that is precisely what interested me in this fascinating story. Special interest groups, with substantial wealth behind them, are able to affect policy that benefits those interests by co-opting the very individuals who have the most to lose from them. Mr. McMurty comments that $40 goes a long way toward his weekly food budget and that his current rent control benefit is not under attack. There was no obvious down side for him to sit in the audience wearing a sticker supporting decontrol and collecting the $40.
While Mr. McMurty’s motives are revealed to the article’s readers, the identity and motives of the special interests involved are shadowy at best. These interests are obviously too busy, their time is too important, to sit in a packed city council meeting with the rest of us shlubs. They decline to comment and we are not even sure who the interests are in the U-T’s shape shifting coverage.
Our democratic process is not in good health when those who stand to benefit the most hold that process in such contempt and when those who stand to lose so much are indifferent to what that process offers them.
sounds like the dems and ACORN……
Sounds like repubs and ALEC