The second ever Bill Martin award for lunacy in government goes to the proponents of Measure Q.

As not reported in the Auburn Journal

They sued the Placer CRA – actually the Placer County Clerk’s office because they accepted our ballot argument against the Colfax school district’s school tax measure.

The Colfax argument in favor was replete with the same platitudes any school tax measure is full of – but the kicker is that the Placer CRA got mobilized to submit arguments against every local tax measure on the ballot.

The folks in the Colfax Unified School District wasted taxpayer money to SUE US over people who signed the argument against this tax. That’s correct – we need you to tax yourselves to pay for more whatever, but we are going to use money we say we don’t have to fight to get this tax passed.

After having a San Francisco law firm serve us with papers – apparently, the district decided against proceeding with their lawsuit.

A copy of the dismissal is posted here

The Colfax Unified School District has earned the second ever Bill Martin Award for Lunacy in Government – the first ever given to someone not named Bill Martin.

Click here to read about the Sordid past of Auburn Journal Editor Deric Rothe – his Felony Conviction for drug trafficking

Remember Steven Kubby?

He was extradited from Canada to the USA when he ran to avoid prosecution for Narcotics production. (at least Rothe stuck around)

Before and after Rothe had his civil rights restored from his prior Drug Trafficking conviction – the Auburn Journal took up the cause of Stephen Kubby.

In 2003, Kubby’s felony conviction was reinstated as reported by the Auburn Journal

There was a follow-up story trumpeting Kubby’s plight as he applied for refugee status in Canada

And another in 2006 when his ‘stay’ in Canada was about to run out

And this is basically a commentary printed in the AJ taking Kubby’s side

And this year a follow-up story was run:

By Gus Thomson

Journal Staff Writer

A Mendocino County court has dismissed the remnants of a 1999 Placer County prosecution of medical marijuana proponent Steve Kubby.

The ruling – which sees Kubby’s misdemeanor convictions for possession of a magic mushroom stem and peyote buttons expunged under California law – came last week.

Full erasure of the conviction would take a governor’s pardon, but Kubby said Tuesday that the court decision to dismiss the case leaves him “fully vindicated and in possession, once again, of my inalienable, inseparable, non-transferable rights.”

Mendocino County Chief Probation Officer Wesley Forman issued a statement said that he had no objection to the dismissal by Judge David Nelson because Kubby had complied with the terms of his probation.

Kubby’s legal challenges started after a January 1999 raid on his Olympic Valley home in Placer County. The raid netted 265 marijuana plants from an indoor grow.

Kubby was a chief proponent of medicinal marijuana law Prop. 215 when it was passed by voters in 1996 and ran for governor as a Libertarian two years ago. He was also a candidate for Libertarian Party presidential nominee this year.

Kubby’s chief defense at the trial was that he and his wife had a doctor’s recommendation for medi-cal use of marijuana and that his use kept a rare form of adrenal cancer at bay.

In one of the most contentious trials in Placer County legal history, a mistrial was declared after a jury leaning 11-1 for acquittal on possession-of-marijuana-for-sale charges remained deadlocked after five days of deliberations and four months of testimony.

Kubby would eventually serve 20 days of a 120-day jail term in Placer County on the jury’s peyote and mescaline possession convictions, both misdemeanors.

Kubby, 61, now lives in Mendocino County. He said that he has fond memories of much of his life in the county but that he wouldn’t return as long as the district attorney who prosecuted the case – Brad Fenocchio – was still in office.

The Journal’s Gus Thomson can be reached at gust@goldcountrymedia.com. A more detailed story will appear in a future edition of the Journal.

Blogger’s Notes – I can hardly wait to see the full story. What I have read thus far looks pretty biased in favor of the pothead. While Rothe didn’t write any of the stories, he has a responsibility to make sure his paper isn’t used to pimp an agenda.

Even worse – a reporter by the name of Ryan McCarthy wrote some of the stories. McCarthy was a known pot user himself. Given how Rothe and the journal have reported on crime over the years – why should anyone be surprised?

Looks like we are going to have 8 candidates filing for Rocklin City Council.

If I was handicapping that race, I’d say the incumbents look pretty good – however, George Magnusen may have seriously hurt himself endorsing Liberal Democrat Elaine Rowen.

Dan Dafoe – Democrat Activist is the most recent to pull Rocklin Papers. There appear to be two little to unknown Republicans in the race as well.

Sierra College Simmons seat – someone from Whitney Ranch looks to have pulled papers. Word is that he is supported by the incumbents on the Rocklin City Council. Magnusen must have missed that memo.

There look to be two other contestants besides Elaine Rowen – Rowen is a liberal Democrat Activists being supported by Liberals like Joanne Neft, Bill Martin (the masterminde of Save Sierra College (from what!?)) and Barbara Vineyard.

Don’t look now, but JoAnne Neft is starting a “Republicans for Brown group” – no suprise there. I have a post coming out about her and the Placer County Raging RINO’s.

Aaron Klein – whose endorsement of Tom Cosgorve was a major victory (Cosgrove was a vociferous critic of Klein’s in the past) – is going to draw an opponent as well. The opponent appears to be an associate of Cheryl Maki. Maki is the former Mayor of Auburn, while she is personally Conservative, she does not like Aaron Klein very much.

Scott Tim Leslie will run unopposed.

Roseville City Council looks like Allard, Garcia (incumbents) along with Sam Cannon, Pauline Rocucci (recognize that name?) and liberal Democrat Activist Rene Aguilera.

We could be seeing a redux of what Aguilera did to Rocky Rockholm in 2006 – running to split the vote in an attempt to help Rocucci.

The Party will oppose local tax increases, bonds, & spending measures

Roseville CA August 1, 2008—-The Placer County Republican Party Central Committee voted to OPPOSE these local ballot measures:

Measure M Los Rios Community College District Bond
Measure N Center Unified School District Bond
Measure P Placer Hills Fire District Gann Limit Waiver
Measure Q Colfax Elementary School District Bond
Measure R Placer County Board of Supervisors Pay Increase
Measure S County Counsel Elimination of At Will Employment
Measure T Alta Dutch Flat Parcel Tax
Measure U Tahoe Truckee Unified School District Bond

The Central Committee also made endorsements for the statewide ballot measures that will appear on the general election ballot:

Proposition 1 – NO High-Speed Rail Bond
Proposition 2 – NO Farm Animal Treatment Mandates
Proposition 3 – NO Children’s Hospital Bond
Proposition 4 – YES Child & Teen Safety and Stop Predators Act (Sarah’s Law)
Proposition 5 – NO Drug Offender Early Release
Proposition 6 – NO Safe Neighborhoods Act
Proposition 7 – NO Alternative Energy Mandates
Proposition 8 – YES Protect Marriage
Proposition 9 – YES Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights
Proposition 10 – NO Alternative Energy Bond
Proposition 11 – YES Voters’ First (Independent Redistricting Commission)
Proposition 12 – YES Veterans Home Loan Bond (Revenue Bond)

“Polls show that the Placer County Republican Party endorsement is the most important and most persuasive endorsement a campaign can receive in Placer County,” said Tom Hudson, the Chairman of the Placer County Republican Central Committee. “Our Committee members and volunteers research the issues, attend hearings, meet with officeholders, and listen to both sides before making recommendations on ballot measures. People know that we understand the issues before we take a stand, so our endorsements are widely respected.”

“These endorsements are a public service by the Placer County Republican Party,” said Jerry Simmons, the Endorsements Committee Chairman. “Unlike slate cards and political action committees that sell their endorsements to the highest bidder, the Party endorsements are based on Republican principles, not petty politics. We have not received any funding from these campaigns.”

With these endorsements, the Placer County Republican Party intends to send the clear message to our hard-working local elected officials that we expect local governments to live within their means after several years of record-breaking budget increases at the local level. The last thing we need now are tax increases, whether in the form of parcel taxes, bonds, or exemptions from the Gann Limit,” said Hudson.

“We respect our county supervisors, but we fear that the 60% pay increase they have proposed for themselves will attract the wrong sort of candidates for that position. We want part-time public servants and community activists on the Board of Supervisors, not career politicians in search of a full-time pay-check for part-time work. Supervisor Bruce Kranz did the right thing by opposing this salary increase.”

(Blogger’s Note – Kirk Uhler vociferously opposed measure “R”. The tapes of the BOS meeting will show as such, he and Bruce were the 2 vote minority opposed to Measure “R”)

The Placer County Republican Party works aggressively to assist all of the campaigns of the ballot measures and candidates that it has endorsed, with direct mail, telephone calls, and precinct walks to Republican households. Over the past decade, Placer County voters have agreed with Placer County Republican Party endorsements more than 85% of the time.

Additional Contacts for this story:
Jerry Simmons, Endorsements Committee Chairman:
Tom Hudson, Placer County Republican Party Chairman:

By now our local officials have had a few weeks to mull over the crushing defeat they were handed by the electorate in Placer County and the 4th congressional district. Something tells me that the will of the people has not quite sunk in for our good friends.

Perhaps they did not get the message that this election sent loud and clear: Republicans want a clear unambiguous ideological conservative that will take the Republican Party back to the principals of Ronald Reagan. The voters of Placer County and the 4th CD rejected the vision of the status quo that Doug Ose and our local elected officials put forth. Republican voters rejected the notion that Washington DC is like a giant ATM machine from which we can get all the monies we need to fix local problems. The voters know intuitively that the system in Washington DC is broken and needs to be fixed. The voters know that Washington DC needs a man like Tom McClintock to join with like minded representatives from all over the country to restore our government to fiscal sanity.

Voters in Placer County are sick and tired of continuously being asked to reach into their pockets for one “good government” funding scheme after another. It is time our local officials got the message the era of big government is over. The era of small government has arrived. It is time for government to shrink in size. The burdens being placed on the tax payers dictate that all levels of government should go on a diet.

Doug Ose Spent 6.2 Million dollars in his bid to purchase the 4th CD nomination, and was doomed from the beginning thanks to his “I can deliver all the goodies you will ever need” approach. The people of the district said “no thanks” and sent him packing by 15% margin. McClintock was outspent by a 6-1 margin and won a resounding victory.

It is time that our local friends understand that Tom McClintock’s victory on June 3rd was a triumph of ideology. A traditional conservative triumphed over “pragmatic moderate”. I look forward to our local elected friends understanding the will of the people and charting a new course for Placer County’s future. I also look forward to our local elected friends endorsing our nominee Tom McClintock and working hard to help defeat Charlie Brown. I will be by their sides as we walk the precincts and call from the phone banks this fall.

In an effort to get some blog diversification going – I have some Red County Placer exclusives.

Exclusive to the Placer CRA Blog are the political updates from local offices in Placer County, and insider commentary about County Central Committees and the State GOP.

Yesterday – I posted an exclusive article about Dan Logue leading a legal challenge to the half-baked Gay Marriage ruling by the CA Supreme Court.

Article

Be sure to check out the comments from the anon Charlie Brown supporters… I think we can figure out where Charlie stands on Gay Marriage.

Today – I started a special exclusive series called “Rampage Watch” – this is where I am going to track the editorial habits of Deric Rothe of the Auburn Journal as he attempts to use his publication to influence the elections results in 2008.

Article

Only got a one-week break, damn.

LINK TO ARTICLE

Principle Beats Pork in California
By JOHN FUND
June 7, 2008; Page A9

Sacramento, Calif.

House Republicans clearly suffer from a form of split personality. Last month, Minority Leader John Boehner unveiled a series of reform proposals he dubbed “Change You Deserve.” But a few days later, over half of his GOP caucus voted for a farm bill full of pork-barrel projects.

Pragmatic Republicans who voted for the farm bill defend themselves privately by claiming GOP voters send mixed signals, saying they want smaller government while also pressing for federal largesse. But is that still the case following the egregious spending excesses of the Bush years, and the victory of John McCain, an antipork candidate, in presidential primaries?

This week, a GOP primary for an open House seat in California featured a major clash between pragmatic and principled conservatism. The clear winner in the Sacramento-area district was state Sen. Tom McClintock, a politician popular with grassroots voters for his principled campaign for governor in the 2003 recall election won by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Mr. McClintock trounced former Congressman Doug Ose 54%-39%, winning all of the nine counties in the solidly GOP district. Mr. Ose spent nearly $3 million of his own money slamming Mr. McClintock as an “obstructionist” who rejected retiring GOP incumbent John Doolittle’s success in bringing home earmarked federal dollars. Voters were given a clear contrast between Mr. Ose’s “effectiveness” argument versus Mr. McClintock’s pledge not to “fight for table scraps” from Washington. “Earmarks aren’t only bankrupting our nation, they are corrupting our Congress,” Mr. McClintock told voters. “An earmarked project winds up costing the community that gets it far more in taxes in the long run.”

By mentioning Congressional corruption, Mr. McClintock was alluding to ethical problems that forced Rep. Doolittle’s retirement this year. The FBI raided the congressman’s home last year as part of a probe into allegations that his wife Julie received money from lobbyist-turned-felon Jack Abramoff in exchange for political favors for Abramoff’s clients. Mr. Doolittle insists he and his wife will be cleared.

Mr. Doolittle had built a local political empire by excoriating liberals while bringing home federal bacon. He once told me that he marveled over how well Democrats and Republicans got along on the Appropriations Committee he sat on: “It’s because we so often have the same priorities” – namely, spending other people’s money.

Over 70 local officials that Mr. Doolittle showered with money backed former Rep. Ose. During his House service from 1998 to 2004, Mr. Ose was scored by the National Taxpayers Union as voting more often for higher spending than the average House Republican. Placer County Supervisor Kirk Uhler told the Sacramento Bee that “Doug understands the federal government has the responsibility to solve problems.”

Mr. McClintock agrees the government has a role, and says he has voted for road projects that were part of a statewide transportation network. But local projects, he notes, often confer private benefits that represent a waste of money as well as divert resources from needed maintenance on existing infrastructure.

“Government can help most by keeping taxes down and providing a climate for people to flourish in,” he says. “Jefferson warned about the corrupting influence of pork-barrel spending and said those costs would be reduced if paid for close to home.”

Mr. McClintock was unprepared for the attacks on him financed by Rep. Ose’s personal wealth. Ose ads noted that he grew up locally, while Mr. McClintock was a carpetbagger who currently represents a state senate district 400 miles to the south. Then Mr. Ose blasted Mr. McClintock for accepting per diem living expenses, even though his main residence in Sacramento was within driving distance of the state Capitol.

But the geography argument fell flat when GOP activists lined up behind Mr. McClintock. They approved of his voting for only five state budgets during his 22 years in office. They also liked that he was the only state legislator to oppose a budget-busting contract for the powerful prison guards union. “They decided Tom wanted to fight for what he believed and Ose was a pork-obsessed insider,” says Jon Fleishman of the news blog FlashReport.org.

The GOP central committee in Placer County, the district’s largest, voted 19-5 to endorse Mr. McClintock. National conservatives also pitched in. Former presidential candidate Fred Thompson did a fund raiser, and the free-market Club for Growth weighed in with ads attacking Mr. Ose’s fiscal record.

The McClintock victory is just one race, but it clearly represented a fundamental clash between what Mr. McClintock calls “two very different visions” of government.

When it comes to federal spending, Republican grassroots voters may have given their Washington leaders a pass in previous years. That may be changing. They’ve nominated John McCain, who’s pledged to veto all earmarks and called for repeal of the Medicare prescription drug entitlement. And this week in California, they’ve made their preference known for a candidate who campaigned explicitly on a no-pork federal diet.

Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.

There appears to be a group that has formed to overthrow the Rocklin City Council… There are three Rocklin Councilmembers whose seats are up.

There are increasing rumors of a Recall being fomented against the remaining two Members whose seats are not up this year.

It would appear that the leftists and anti-growth Sierra Club types are behind this effort. Primary in their platform is stopping any new development of through roads in Rocklin.

Pauline Rocucci – who registered Republican just before running against Rocky Rockholm for Supervisor in 2006 has decided to run for Roseville City Council.

There is also a former LaMalfa Staffer who has thrown his hat in the ring – John Allard, an incumbent who used to work for Senator / Assemblyman Tim Leslie is running for re-election.

Pauline Rocucci is bad news and needs to be stopped.

Meanwhile – Bruce Kranz is re-grouping to head into the runoff election against extreme liberal Jennifer Montgomery.

There were two bellweather races in Northern California GOP politics that were decided tuesday.

There was the 4th Congressional District – a race watched nationally and the 3rd Assembly District – a race watched by insiders, whose impact is no less significant.

Dan Logue ran against Sue Horne for the 3rd AD

Tom McClintock ran against Doug Ose for the 4th CD

Both races effectively pitted Doug LaMalfa / Establishment against Rick Keene / Sam Aanestad / Ted Gaines / Conservative activists.

If you looked from afar – you saw Sue Horne and Doug Ose’s huge endorsement lists. Establishment types lined up behind both candidates.

As the campaigns kicked off – it became apparent that Both Horne and Doug Ose were attempting to hide behind their endorsement lists. Once both were starting to get outed for the liberals that they are – then the gloves came off.

The only reason why Sue Horne did not spend an estimated $4.5 million assassinating Dan Logue’s character was that she didn’t have the means to write herself the checks to do so.

Ose did. Even with polling data showing a month out that he was down 30 points – Ose continued to pour money into his race (some $1.5million after the poll was leaked)

Horne, for her part – continued rolling out eatablishment endorsements well into her race and spent what little money she had on unbelievably nasty hit mailers.

Both Horne and Ose’s campaigns activated the Conservative base – earning them both Censures from local Republican organizations / Central Committees.

Logue won by 9.5% and McClintock won by 15%

The Logue v Horne race was seen as a proxy fight between Rick Keene and Doug LaMalfa – round one, Rick Keene.

The McClintock v Ose race was seen by observers all across the country as a referendum on the future direction of the Republican Party.

Logue and McClintock’s races proved that Principle does indeed win on the battlefield against the establishment.

The NRCC and the nimrods in Washington D.C. will do well to open their eyes and realize that:

Ose had the insiders lining up his endorsement list
Ose spent $4.5 Million – a primary record

McClintock had the activists and a few core Conservatives
McClintock spent $1.1 Million – 1/4 what Ose spent

David truely slew Goliath.

When the chips were down – Dan Logue was on the right side. Rick Keene, Sam Aanestad and Ted Gaines established the standard for Northern California.

The big loser was the establishment.

Frank Ford is an Auburn busybody considered a political guru, who actually makes a living by having several developers pay him to find pro-development and pro-tax candidates. This sounds a lot like a talent agent. When a Bond / Parcel Tax passes, who gets the project? His clients…

I was assailed for referring to the local officeholders as the Emporer’s Club. I have been scratching my head trying to understand why all the folks on Ose’s list have neither dual-endorsed nor changed their endorsements.

When Rico Oller was the presumptive Conservative nominee – it seemed to me that there was a mass witch-hunt against Oller. The Irony is that Oller was assailed over personality-related issues – the same kinds of complaints I heard about McClintock from Local Electeds I spoke with.

It still defies logic that good, sensible people would throw ideology aside and stay alongside someone whose campaign and career has been a train-wreck. Convention suggests that $4 Million and an aggressive smear campaign would work. In fact – Ose’s endorsement list is incredible, so incredible that I have asked myself – how did it come about and why have all of those people endorsed a Democrat like Ose?

I was contacted and told Frank Ford was picked by Doug Ose to approach local candidates and get them to support Ose for Congress. I suppose Ford would tell them that if they support Doug they would get campaign donations from Ose.

If they did not jump on board, the story goes that Ford would threaten them saying Ose has lots of resources and will remember who did not support him. Implied was a promise that Ose would then bankroll candidates against the ones who could not be bought. This is also consistent with Ose’s past pattern of aggressively exterminating Conservatives.

This is a powerful suggestion of why so many people would turn their backs on the Republican Party’s core principles to support Ose over Oller/McClintock. The Republican Party has suffered because of the Establishment types like Ose. However, the establishment has considerable power – you have seen it in your mailboxes as Ose’s seemingly limitless resources have pummeled McClintock. The establishment pattern is to attack outsiders without ever telling anyone why they themselves deserve support – except for one key premise: I am connected, my opponent is not.

Frank Ford is the kind of political operative Placer County needs to rid itself of. Hopefully when Tom McClintock is elected we will be able to break the death grip of folks like him running Placer County. Our City Council members need to be free of intimidation and influence peddling.

I was told of another player whose influence helped assemble the Emporer’s Club behind Doug Ose… Placer County Executive Officer Tom Miller.

Miller has reportedly told every Placer County department head as well as every city and special district administrator that they must back Doug Ose as Tom McClintock’s anti tax and spending philosophy will leave them broke. The department heads and city administrators then went to their people (city council members) and said under Tom McClintock the cities would all go broke.

As a result – the local electeds placed Earmarks over principle in supporting Doug Ose. In the end, the talk about Oller/McClintock’s personality would appear to be a façade in light of this data.

Life, Marriage, Family, Gun Rights, the Borders and a host more Conservative ideals were tossed aside. The tremendous influence of Miller and Ford completely explains why last week’s rumors of the ranks breaking did not occur.

It leaves me scratching my head about politics in general – the consultants that read this blog shrug and cash their checks and accept this sort of stuff as standard faire…

When “Joe Lunch bucket” hears about this sort of behavior, it gives them a gag reflex.

In either event, principle is the loser… and there goes the Republican Party with it. Thank God McClintock came into the 4th CD to save the district from itself.

Blogger’s Notes: Team Ose and some elected officeholders have gone to CRP Legal Counsel Chuck Bell, a noted Moderate to get a legal opinion in an effort to de-legitimize the Placer GOP endorsement of McClintock.

Tom Hudson sent the following e-mail to 200 county chairmen, treasurers and CRP officers that basically debunks any of the assertions Team Ose is making to the contrary.

Dear County Chairmen and Treasurers,

Recently, there has been a great deal of discussion about whether County Central Committees can or should endorse in primary elections. I have had several inquiries about this lately because the Placer County Republican Party has been working very aggressively to elect Senator Tom McClintock to Congress in the Fourth Congressional District. Unless your situation is like mine, I am certainly not suggesting that you or your Committee should take sides in a primary battle. However, in case you are interested in this subject, I am forwarding some comments that I made to a couple of County Chairmen :

Party Bylaws: The California Republican Party Bylaws have long prohibited local county Central Committees from making pre-primary endorsements. This prohibition was put in place at a time when state law explicitly prohibited such endorsements, so the Bylaws conformed to state law at that time. As explained below, the legal prohibition on pre-primary endorsements has been repealed and the relationship between the State Party and the local Central Committees has also evolved since then.

For an analogous situation, take a look at Article 2, Section 6(b) in the current California Constitution. It still says: “No political party or party central committee may endorse, support, or oppose a candidate for nonpartisan office.” It is right there in black and white. Every Central Committee that endorses non-partisan candidates is violating the plain language of the California Constitution (and we need not worry about doing so because that language itself is unconstitutional, and thus null and void).

Supreme Court Action: The major change in this controversial area came when the United States Supreme Court overturned California law and the California Constitution in a case known as Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214, in 1989. (Do not be fooled by the legal citation: numerous Republican Central Committees participated as plaintiffs in this litigation, including the Alameda County Republican Central Committee, of which I later served as Chairman.) The case is all over the Internet, but here is one place you can read it for yourself:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/489/214/case.html

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court made it absolutely clear that Central Committees and their members have a First Amendment right to free speech and we can endorse whomever we please.

Legislative Reaction: The California Legislature responded to Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee by repealing large sections of the California Elections Code. Senator Quentin Kopp was the author of a bill in 1993 and it was treated as an omnibus Elections Committee bill, which had no opposition inside or outside the Legislature. I have often spoken to staff members who handled that bill and the pro-freedom intent was clearly understood by everyone involved.

(As an example of the sweeping legislative change, there is no longer any reference to Central Committee membership dues, which was once set by state law as $24 per year. The Legislature repealed that section because everyone agreed that the Legislature had no constitutional authority to tell Central Committees what their dues should be. Ironically, several Republican activists around the state have incorrectly concluded that Central Committees cannot charge dues because that section of state law was repealed; they seem to think that we need permission from the Democratic majority in the Legislature to set our own internal dues, which is exactly the opposite of the position the courts have adopted.)

Party Reaction: Since the law changed, political parties have amended their internal rules to allow pre-primary endorsements. The California Republican Party has amended its Bylaws on a case-by-case basis so that, for example, the Party could officially endorse Dan Lungren and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Our Party has not categorically repealed the endorsement ban, as we logically should. It is very interesting that almost every time the State Central Committee has amended the rules to allow endorsements, they have only allowed themselves to endorse but have continued to prohibit local Central Committees from exercising that same First Amendment right. The only exception is in the section that I wrote myself (Section 3.02.02, subsection B), which deals with disloyalty in Legislative redistricting efforts.

There is a great deal more that could be said about this history, but for now I will just point out that the California Republican Party itself has made pre-primary endorsements over the years and so have various County Central Committees. Nothing disastrous has happened, although endorsements are always controversial.

Relationship Between State and Local Party Committees: It is critical to understand that local Republican County Central Committees are not mere units of the California Republican Party, like the chartered units of the California Republican Assembly. Instead, County Central Committees are separate, independent legal entities in every sense and they have been largely independent since they were first founded. Almost 100 years ago, County Central Committees became democratically elected bodies, while the State Central Committee is still an appointed body, with a few exceptions. While state and local central committees may share common goals, we do not share common operations, common membership, or common rules. We are not required to follow common procedures or particular campaign tactics and strategies to achieve our common goals.

Relationship as Defined in the State Bylaws: To reinforce what I just said, I should direct your attention to Section 1.03 of the current Standing Rules and Bylaws of the California Republican Party. I will reprint them below for your convenience. Please note this sentence in particular: “There is no affiliation relationship between the [State Central] Committee and such Republican county and district central committees.” Here it is in context, with emphasis added:

“Section 1.03 Role And Relationship To County Central Committees and National Committees

The Committee is the official organization of the ballot qualified Republican Party, and exercises general direction over the statewide election campaigns for Republican nominees for state elective offices. The Committee works together with the local Republican county and district central committees, which are provided for in the California Elections Code and operate under their own bylaws and direction with respect to local election campaigns. There is no affiliation relationship between the Committee and such Republican county and district central committees in connection with federal election campaigns. The Committee and the Republican National Committee California Account, the National Republican Senatorial Committee California Victory Fund, and the National Republican Congressional Committee Non-federal Fund ( California ) are and shall be affiliates of the Committee as provided for in the California Government Code, Title 9, commencing with Section 81000 et seq.”

Federal Ramifications of Affiliation: It is very important to understand that there are major ramifications if local County Central Committees are controlled by the California Republican Party as local affiliates of a single entity. Under federal campaign finance laws, for example, there are strict limits on campaign contributions to parties. In states where state and local party organizations are affiliated as a single entity, under common rules, the Federal Elections Commission has ruled that a donation to any local party committee counts toward the overall donation limit for that donor. Local parties are forced to coordinate very closely with each other and with the state party to avoid breaking the law by exceeding contribution limits.

By contrast, in California , our state and county parties operate independently under different rules. The Placer County Republican Party, the El Dorado County Republican Central Committee, and the California Republican Party are each a separate parties for purposes of federal contribution limits. When my Party received a donation from PG&E, for example, I did not have to worry about the fact that PG&E had given more than $10,000 to other Committees before giving anything to my Committee.

If the California Republican Party could control the operations of the Placer County Republican Party and supplant our local rules with the state rules, then it seems likely that we would be deemed to be a mere local affiliate of a unified political entity. That would mean that my Committee, your Committee, the State Central Committee, and all the other local party organizations would be subject to a single contribution limit (and thus, we are all criminals for exceeding that limit).

Given the controversy, why endorse? I understand that just because we have a constitutional right to do something does not automatically make it a good idea. We always need to act in the best interests of the Party. Endorsements are inherently divisive, so we need to think twice before we act.

In Placer County , the present circumstances heavily favor pre-primary endorsement. The June 3rd primary election is a unique, once-in-a-lifetime event for us. We have no president or statewide candidates on the ballot. Our Assemblyman and State Senator have no opposition at all, not even write-in candidates. We have no local ballot measures and no contested elections on the ballot, with the exception of the Fifth Supervisorial District (the smallest, least Republican part of our county). Our cities, school districts, and special districts are not holding elections until November. There are no local initiatives, no local bonds, no parcel taxes, no charter amendments. The two statewide initiatives both deal with the obscure and arcane subject of eminent domain reform. (I know: Yes on 98, No on 99!) The Fourth Congressional District primary, an open seat with nationwide attention, is the only game in town. Voter turnout is completely tied to the Congressional race because that is the only race where our votes will determine the outcome. Congress is the only thing that our volunteers, donors, and voters have any reason to care about. We ignore that race at our peril.

Fortunately, the Placer County Republican Party Bylaws allow the Central Committee to endorse by a two-thirds vote, so there was no procedural obstacle to prevent us from getting involved.

I realize that other counties have different rules and different circumstances. My point is just to explain our perspective on this controversial issue.

Yours for a Republican Majority,

Tom Hudson, Chairman

Placer County Republican Party

P.S. These off-hand comments are not intended to serve as legal advice, but I should mention that I have worked as an elections attorney in private practice. I studied Election Law at UCLA under the first chairman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, who helped draft the Political Reform Act. I served as the Policy Consultant for the Elections Committee in the Senate Republican Caucus for several years in the California Legislature, etc.

“The Republican race for the Fourth Congressional District is shuffling once again.

Citrus Heights attorney Suzanne Jones has officially filed papers and has announced she will vie for the seat being vacated by Rep. John Doolittle, R-Roseville, who said in January he would not seek a 10th term in Congress.

Though she currently lives in Citrus Heights, she said she has plans to move back to Granite Bay.”

Wow, I guess another person outside the district is running…that makes it 3 of 3 now. Does that issue really matter in this race now?

LINK

sacbee.com

“A new program in Placer County aims to ensure that every child age 5 and younger has health insurance.

The First 5 Placer Children and Families Commission this week unveiled the program, which works to enroll eligible children in government-funded insurance programs and offers a new health insurance product for those from families whose incomes are too high to qualify.

Coverage costs between nothing and $15 per child, with a maximum monthly payment of $45 per family. Eligibility is limited to families with incomes less than 300 percent of the federal poverty level, about $60,000 a year for a family of four.”

Who’s the Placer Co official behind this one? Don’t we have enough budget problems in this county? You’re telling me someone making $60K a year is elgible for public assistance? So where were the Placer Co. Stupivisors at when Oracle and HP are paying $30K for most of their lower level employees? I guess these folks should be on food stamps and in public housing.

In this weekend’s Jim Ruffalo column, it is replete with Ruffalo taking cheap shots at the Placer County GOP Central Committee… including Mike Holmes announcing his candidacy with a near-endorsement from Ruffalo.

In the process of announcing his candidacy – Holmes denounces NeoCons (must be us Doolittle / McClintock / Rico Oller CRA-types), and talks about how we need to return to the big tent. (that would be the same high-tax/big government big tent that caused us to lose our butts in 2006)

Click here for the whole column Or keep reading for the Good parts…

No place like Holmes: City councilman Mike Holmes, who left the Fourth Congressional race just at the right time, says he’s not through with politics.

He told the Meddlers that he was running for a seat on the Placer County Republican Central Committee, which to my way of thinking is somewhat akin to volunteering to test hand grenades in a closet.

Holmes said the current status of the county GOP usually results in not enough candidates for the central committee’s available seats. (Cheap shot number one)

“So then we wind up with just enough people volunteering so that there’s no election, or worse, where there are not enough candidates, and the central committee winds up appointing their friends,” he said. (oh those right-wingers… they probably have Bible studies, too!)

“What I’m trying to suggest is that we get enough people to run so that there’s a real election. Without a vote, central committee members don’t have that gravity of having been voted in by their peers,” Holmes added. (Cheap shot number three – we never keep people from filing, in fact, both times I was elected to the committee I was on the ballot Mike… check your facts)

With that in mind, he’s tossed his hat into the ring, and is actively recruiting other would-be candidates to file before the March 7 deadline. (There you have it, proof of what we blogged a few weeks ago)

Of course, there could be some problems, such as the current entrenched leaders yelling and screaming that Holmes’ efforts might amount to a takeover by Progressives (and we all know how close we’ll come to the Apocalypse should that happen). (Cheap shot number 4)

“I hope this doesn’t get construed as a battle between RINOS (so-called Republicans In Name Only) versus the Neocons,” Holmes said, adding that it’s time the local GOP organization returned to Ronald Reagan’s Big Tent idea. (Cheap shot number 5, memo to Mike Holmes, us CRA-types are real conservatives, not Neo Cons)

No doubt Reagan, whose famed 11th Commandment insisted that “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican,” probably wouldn’t have liked the idea of a central committee endorsing one party member over another in a primary. (no doubt Reagan would have something to say to Mike Holmes as well for running against Doolittle twice and for taking cheap shots at 27 fellow Republicans on the Committee)

• Charlie Brown has a primary opponent!!!

In the same column, read about Coloniel Klink’s primary opponent! Now Coloniel Klink will know how John Doolittle felt when Mike Holmes ran against him in 2006.

Unlike Holmes who refused to endorse or support Doolittle after losing – adding fuel to the speculation that his run was a coordinated strategy against Doolittle – I am sure this opponent is independent of the Dem machine.

How sweet it is, I hope this new guy gets some traction to make Charlie Brown spend his money.

Below is a comment I left on the column that I am linking…

Column

Jim – I will address only the issue you raise about the Placer GOP Committee’s endorsement being divisive.

The elected officials in this county have all endorsed – well most of them. The members of the GOP Committee are themselves elected, so it is consistent that they should be able to endorse as well.

In your effort to write your column to show the committee as divided, you omitted the previous motion to supress was defeated by a count of 4-21. This means that there were 21 votes to support – actually 22 if you include Ken Campbell who had to leave early. the final vote of 17-8 was because 4 people had an issue with there being no notice – not because they didn’t support Rico.

the opinion of the committee was that Doug Ose’s views are inconsistent with the voters that elected the committee members to their offices. Ose is pro-choice, F rated by Gun owners of America, voted against the defense of marriage amendment and has voted for open borders.

Further, in your column… you blame Tom Hudson for the loss of GOP Registrations further underlining your bias against the Central Committee. The loss of Registrations has more to do with the State GOP having no money for a registration program and the poor performance of Governor Arnold than anything you lay at Hudson’s feet.

The Central Committee would not be doing its’ job if it was acquiescent with everything the leaders of the GOP are doing - including supporting a congressional candidate like Doug Ose who is scarcely different than Charlie Brown.

Ted Gaines should be saluted for standing up last night for principles and values. Last night Ted stood up with Doug Ose present at the Central Committee meeting.

Ted Gaines standing up prevented Doug Ose from intimidating members of the Central Committee. Ted provided the counter-weight to Doug Ose – this is leadership under fire.

George Park – President of the Placer CRA and the 1st Vice Chair of the Placer GOP said, “Ted Gaines deserves 100% support of the Placer CRA for as long as he wants to be in office”

George went on to say that he had never seen, short of Rico Oller in the past, a member of the State legislature stand up in this manner for Conservative Principles.

According to George and others on the committee – Ose was carrying himself in an arrogant and condescending manner the entire night.

Example – when Jim Dutton mentioned the NRA dinner coming up he made notice of gun control laws that prevented him from bringing the grand raffle prize to show people. Dutton was afraid to bring the rifle to the Hotel because he thought they would call the police on him.

Ose’s reaction was incredulous.

Before the Central Committee voted 17-8 to endorse Rico Oller… Bruce Kranz brought up a motion intended to prevent the Central Committee from endorsing in Partisan Primaries.

That motion failed 4-21. This means that Rico has the support of 21 of the Central Comittee members – 4 that didn’t vote to endorse Rico were doing so over procedural objections.

George stated, “Senator Cox and Senator Aanestad’s letter attempted to dissuade the Central Committee from endorsing in the 4th Congressional District had no effect”

The primary counterpoint to that argument was delivered in the debate on the motion – the Central Committee members thought that Senator Cox and Aanestad’s point about the divisive nature of a Central Committee endorsement was absurd because they had endorsed themselves.

The big winners tonight were Rico Oller with the endorsement and Ted Gaines for showing his mettle as a leader.

The big loser was Doug Ose not only because he showed up and lost – but also because of the way he carried himself.

The biggest news – Prop 93, Term Limits fraud, loses. Big winner, Steve poizner – big loser, Fabian Nunez and Don Perata.

Prop 94-97, the referrenda against the Indian Gaming compacts put on the ballot by the Labor Unions failed. The CRA supported these measures while some could not sort through the Gambling issue – the voters did, by about 10% statewide.

Big winner – property rights! The NIMBY / IHMYCHY crowd couldn’t stop measure H in Rocklin.

Big Winner – taxpayers…

Measure J fails 58-41 in favor (needed 67%)... this was the measure that would have increased the park tax 50% and then indexed it in future years. They should have tried to renew it at the same rate…

Measure G fails 52-48 in favor. This was one of those 55% bonds that the Loomis School District went to the ballot with for the third time.

Don’t forget that the Placer GOP Central Committee and the Placer CRA were being attacked over our opposition before we even opposed this measure!

Because the Central Committee is now an endorsing body – there are several who now want to take the committee over for the express purpose of preventing any future endorsements. This is another of the angles in the Ose v. Oller race – Ose has participated in the Liberal takeover of two county committees in the past…

Rumor has it that Placer is in the crosshairs. Those supporting Ose have to know about this angle as well…

Yes, you read right, the Ose 5 are looking for more money. Even though this is barely a part time job, $30K is just not even. What’s the median income in Placer County you say? Well, not much more than $30K and yet these guys want more money. And they will push for almost $100K in March!!!! Are you flipping kidding me? Well I say if you want more money get a second job or get a real private sector job. I heard CarMax and the Casino are both hiring.

By Art Campos – SacBee.com
Published 12:00 am PST Thursday, January 31, 2008

Placer County supervisors soon may try again to increase their annual salaries, which have been capped at $30,000 because of charter requirements.

Voters would have to approve any changes in the county charter, and they have defeated past attempts to raise the supervisors’ salaries.

The supervisors reviewed the salary issue earlier this month and asked their staff members to return on March 11 with further information.

A charter review committee made up of Placer citizens has recommended that the $30,000 salary cap be replaced with an annual salary, including benefits, for the supervisors.

The committee said eight counties of comparable size to Placer are paying an average of about $99,000 annually to their elected supervisors.

The committee also has recommended that a statement be made to the charter that the county supervisor position is at least a full-time job.

Placer County voters approved a charter in 1980. The charter can be reviewed every five years to consider recommended changes.

Link

Mark this one as unbelievable – informed sources in Rocklin have called and e-mailed this blogger.

Recently, Ted Gaines and others attended a School Board meeting over a Charter for a new High School in Rocklin. Gaines, Doolittle and Chalie Brown(!) (the Tin Soldier) all have publicly endorsed a Charter for the 7-12 Western Sierra Collegiate Academy.

The amazing part is that a new Charter School would bring jobs to Rocklin. It would not impact current facilities.

At the previous school board meeting, the questions asked by the school board were amazing – one about low achievers by Camille Maben (a liberal Democrat who works for the CA Dept of Education for a day job) and English as a Second Language Education by Greg Dailey.

It appears to this blogger that the school board was grasping for Red Herrings to deny a charter to the school. Rocklin is 99% white or something like it and has almost no need at all for ESL… low achieving students have a variety of special options (way more than average students do) and it is a standard teacher’s union attack against Charter Schools to bring that issue up.

In the past, the Rocklin School board has made life difficult for the Rocklin Academy – including forcing the Academy onto two separate campuses (to drive costs up?) and limiting access to Rocklin Academy by opposing expansion and mandating that 20% of the students come from outside of Rocklin.

The 20% mandate effectively limits the size of the academy because most kids want to go to school in their own neighborhood – and, Rocklin taxpayers paid for a facility their own children are precluded from using.

The dramatic irony here is my sources have told me that at this time the board is expected to vote on the Charter for WSCA as follows:

Democrat Camille Maben: Yes
Democrat Wendy Lang: Yes
Republican Greg Dailey: No
Republican Todd Lowell: No
Republican Steve Paul: No

The Placer GOP endorsed all three Republican members at one time due in no small part to their professed support of Charter Schools. As you see from the above, the Republicans are going to be on the wrong side of the issue!

I am in possession of their candidate questionnaires from 2006 and they paint a very different picture than what is about to occur on Wednesday.

Please come and make sure they see you when they vote – This meeting will start at 7:00 pm at the Rocklin School Board District Office (2615 Sierra Meadows Drive, Rocklin) on Wednesday Jan 16th.

Measure “E” the Dry Creek School Bond – I replied to someone who posted a comment criticizing us for opposing their bond.

I asked the obvious question about an audit of the district to see what they did with their money… On New Year’s Eve, I was at a get together with someone who is a substitute teacher in the district who told me…

That the Bond is being floated to complete a middle school campus that the district ran out of money to complete. The issues at hand were cost overruns and money that was spent on items other than the school.

The administrators attempted to compel this person and others to campaign on behalf of this bond. This acquaintance refused to do so and characterized the sentiments of others as being the same.

Like Western Placer Unified – some heads need to roll in the Dry Creek District, starting with the Teacher’s Union who hand-picked their board.

Measure J – the Rocklin Park Tax.

The measure was not put on the ballot by the Rocklin City Council. This measure was put back on the ballot by the same citizens board that got the original tax passed in the first place.

The issue that burnt me out on this tax was not only do the proponents want to increase it 50% per parcel – they want to index the tax up every subsequent year for the CPI!

Measure H – the Environmentalist groups referendum against development. Vote yes and support the Rocklin City Council, vote no and support the Sierra Club and people who like small clogged freeways and cities with nowhere for people to live.

Visit Clover Valley for All to learn the facts that the local media and the Sierra Club can’t hide.

Measure E – Dry Creek School Bond – NO
This is a fiscally-irresponsible $67.3 million school bond for the Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District in the Roseville area. This District has adequate funding and their revenues are growing rapidly, so they have no business asking taxpayers take on additional debt.

Measure F – South Placer Fire “Tax” – NO
UPDATED 1/3/2008
Measure F – Spending Limit Exemption for the South Placer Fire Protection District – NO
This ballot measure would exempt the South Placer Fire Protection District from the Gann Spending Limit. District officials insist that this measure will not lead to future parcel tax increases or benefit assessments, and no such taxes and fees have been proposed by staff or by the District’s Board of Directors. However, this measure would allow the District to continue to spend more than the California Constitution would otherwise allow and we oppose it on that basis.

Measure G – Loomis School Bond – NO
This is a fiscally-irresponsible $17.7 million school bond for the Loomis Union School District . This well-funded District needs to prioritize its spending, rather than demanding higher taxes every year.

Measure H -Clover Valley Development in Rocklin YESFor many years, environmental wackos and “no-growthers” have opposed every plan to develop the privately-owned land in Clover Valley, which has been slated for development for a generation. The Rocklin City Council finally approved a dramatically scaled-back development plan, with widespread community support, but leftist radicals gathered signatures to force it onto the ballot. If this measure fails, the land owners will either demand full payment for the private land that they have not be allowed to development (which would be astronomically expensive and un-affordable for a small city like Rocklin) OR they will take back all the compromises and build a much larger development that the environmental wackos will hate even more. For the sake of private property rights, voters need to support Measure H.

Measure J – Rocklin Park Tax Increase – No
This is an unnecessary and unfair parcel tax that the proponents have tried to disguise as the mere continuation of an existing tax that was about to expire. In fact, this measure would increase the expiring tax by 50% from $30 per parcel to $45 per parcel (regardless of size, value, or benefits received), then increase the tax every single year to adjust for inflation. In a small city whose budget has doubled in five years, the proponents are pretending that the only way they can fund parks is to increase taxes, despite the fact that most city residents already pay enormous Mello-Roos bonds and developer fees to pay for these same parks.

Bush’s latest bill signed into law lets irresponsible home owners who borrowed too much money, paid too much for their home, spent the equity in the home like it was free money from an ATM machine and squandered it all, off the hook. Normally, if you are forgiven payment on a debt, the IRS makes you pay tax on that balance. Now a borrower can walk scott free from their house, not pay back the mortgage and not pay tax on the forgiven debt. Bush’s legacy will be that he allowed deadbeats to get away with murder. What kind of message does this give to America’s kids? How is this moral? Bush is really becoming a liability to the Republican Party. Wait til next November and see who wins office. Thanks George, you’re the best Democrat ever to take office.

By Jim Wasserman – jwasserman@sacbee.com
Published 5:49 am PST Friday, December 28, 2007

For households mired in mortgage troubles, there’s one less worry this year.

That’s the nasty tax consequence of avoiding foreclosure by selling a home through a “short sale” or other loan rearrangements.

A bill signed by President Bush last week lets homeowners off the hook for a little-known tax bite that occurs when mortgage debts are forgiven. The reprieve applies to households that use short sales or other mortgage relief efforts during 2007, 2008 and 2009.

The National Association of Realtors is among those saluting the president’s action, calling it “an issue of fairness and not kicking people when they are down.”

First, the definition of a short sale. It’s where the bank agrees to accept less than it’s owed when a home sells. These sales, which enable banks to avoid the even costlier process of foreclosing and selling the house in a declining market, have become increasingly common this year.

Under the standard short-sale scenario, if you sold your house this year for $350,000 but owed the bank $400,000, you’d have hefty tax consequences in 2008. The IRS would count that $50,000 in canceled debt as taxable income. It’s what’s known as “forgiven debt” and typically triggers a 1099 tax form.

But now, the IRS is required – for three years – to abandon its traditional tax rules on canceled debts. The moratorium also applies if a lender forgave some of your mortgage debt through a loan workout.

It’s a temporary measure during this real estate slowdown and is only for loans involving a primary residence. It does not apply to investor-owned properties.

The hope is that without the fear of incurring an IRS tax bill, more struggling borrowers will call lenders and negotiate alternatives to foreclosure, according to the real estate industry, which backed the bill.

In the capital region, one short-sale specialist praised the move but said it won’t really bring much debt relief.

“Many of these people weren’t going to pay the tax, anyway,” said Scott Thompson, a partner in Mortgage Resolution Services in Carmichael. “There was a part of the tax code that granted them immunity if they were insolvent.”

But, he added, it’s “clearly a good thing” that people already under financial stress won’t have to worry about additional tax problems.

File this one under the category of things that make you go hmmm…

In LA County, they are going to float a $52 per parcel, parcel tax for Road Construction.

How much forced Mass Transit is in this measure? How much union payoff money is in there? How much will get WASTED on bogus environmental impact reports?

These are questions you have to ask anytime a Bond, Parcel Tax, Breathing Tax, Sales Tax, Benefit Assessment or any other form of institutional robbery is proposed…

In Placer recently, the Mosquito abatement district used a Prop 218 benefit assessment to sneak a parcel tax through on the whole county. Because of the way they did it, its’ passage was assured because those who were going to get the money for the projects had the most votes.

In LA County – the following article details the beginnings of a movement to add another tax to the bills of property owners… LINK

Could this be how the 1/2 cent sales tax gets resurrected?

A very reliable source on the Rocklin City Council has contacted this blogger and revealed that after a planning commission meeting, the following has been determined.

Due to improvements on I-80 and Sierra College Blvd, the voters have seen the two worst perceived traffic issues dealt with. Thanks to Congressman Doolittle’s earmarks brought back to the district, these problems have been addressed.

However, the complete project on I-80 is not funded. At least one direction will not be expanded between Douglas and the 65 freeway if no additional funding is obtained.

Of further note is that the HWY 65 bypass around Lincoln will only be one lane in each direction as the funding is not there for the second phase which is the second lane in each direction.

The biggest issue cited by my source was a lack of public knowledge that the issue was even going to come to the ballot. Only 18% polled in the private poll even knew that a 1/2 cent sales tax was being considered. Amazing…

Look for a possible redux of this issue in 2012.

Did you know that so far in 2007 there have been two tax increases slipped in under the radar?

There are also more on the way… what’s frustrating is that I actually am leaning twoard supporting the rumored transportation levy. With the dearth of taxing that could be coming onto the ballot – people might just get a gag reflex and vote them all down.

While serving on the Placer County Republican Party endorsement committee, I can remember something like 18 tax measures that we had to look over to consider endorsing. It was staggering to think that in such a conservative county as Placer that would be the case.

So far in 2007 – there was the now infamous Mosquito Tax that was style in such a way that its’ passage was assured. Other Placer CRA club members have been leading the charge to inform people.

Also in 2007 – a specially carved out district within the Roseville Joint Union High School district was drawn with the express purpose of assuring successful passage of a school bond – only 12 people were in that “district”. They were all exempted from the Bond, but the homeowners whose homes are not yet built will be subject to it.

Coming soon in 2007 – Loomis School Bond Tax, the Placer CRA has not even taken a position on this Bond, but word has come back to us that at least one of the proponents of said bond has been criticizing the Placer CRA.

Loomis Fire District Benefit Assessment

Rocklin City Council wants to renew the Park Tax. Most Rocklin City Council members have been long standing supporters of the congressman by the way… I have yet to talk to any of them about their rationale for wanting to renew that tax.

Finally, there is the soon to be proposed 1/2 cent sales tax to pay for desperately needed transportation improvements. John Doolittle can not bring enough earmarks home to pay for what we need in Placer County.

I also am have read that the Sierra College board are considering floating another bond.

Rico Oller is not running for Assembly, I wrote that weeks ago and Rico is telling everyone.He is telling everyone at the same time as he is telling everyone he will not run against John Doolittle. Rico still polls exceptionally well, like Tim Leslie and their endorsements are incredibly valuable and still with John Doolittle. (And with Dan Logue)

Roseville City Councilmember John Allard has been working the phone non-stop for the last several weeks, he has discovered that John Doolittle’s base is not only solid… most are Annoyed and some are livid over what is being done to John Doolittle. (media smear / Eric Kerry-Egland’s campaign, etc…) Most of the animosity is directed at Ted Gaines.

This confirmed my conversations with a lot of the same people. There are many looking for a new Assemblymember in the 4th.

Eric Hogue is also making tons of calls – he is super serious about running as well.

Both Hogue and Allard are committed Evangelical Christians. Allard worked for Tim Leslie for 12 years, Hogue was on a political talk radio circuit for 6. Hogue has a name ID advantage on Allard, Allard has an insider advantage on Hogue. If one of them commits to running weather or not Ted backs down from running against Doolittle, this will get very interesting.

Notice how you have heard little from Ted Gaines lately? One could construe it as either Ted trying to wait the storm out, or that he is reconsidering. It is not too late for Gaines to get out, but he is going to have to do it soon. www.DontDraftTed.com recently hit the radar screens of local media and capitol insider reports.

Prediction – John Doolittle will file his re-election papers within one week of the filing opening. In fact, I am willing to bet anyone a steak dinner on that fact.

In addition, the only people talking about Eric Kerry-Egland outside of myself are bunch of his brave anonymous commenters. Egland, why didn’t you run for a School Board… the Roseville City School Board has two extremely liberal Democrats on it! The Roseville Joint Union High School District is run by the teacher’s union – we could have used the help! What’s sad is EGLAND would have won running away!

In the 3rd Assembly which covers a slice of Placer, Sue Horne showing weakness started to attack Dan Logue a couple of weeks ago. I had a bombshell laid in my lap a couple of days ago that I posted right here on the Placer CRA Blog.

Also posted today is a sampling of Horne supporter’s comments who have descended on the blog. I also interspersed some comments of my own in the post.

The response was incredible and I was interviewed for a story with the Nevada County Union newspaper which should hit tomorrow.

It is way too early for all this activity – but this is fun stuff for us junkies!!!

You read it here first!

Eric Hogue is serious and he wants you to get to know him!

With the fur flying and Ted Gaines seemingly committed to taking on his mentor, John Doolittle in the 4th Congressional Primary… people have been looking at the 4th Assembly seat.

The most notable candidate in terms of name ID is Eric Hogue. If you remember, (despite claims to the contrary), the recall of Governor Gray Davis started on Eric’s Radio program with Ted Costa of the people’s advocate during asking people to come down and sign petitions on that fateful February morning in 2003.

Eric has been on the air for 7-plus years in the Sacramento area and as the host of 1380 KTKZ’s Eric Hogue show he became very familiar with California’s political system.

Eric reviewed legislation intimately to prepare for his show and did so on the air. While he was on the air, he was quite literally the only person providing vital information as to the inner workings of state government. The same inner workings that the Bee and other media go to absurd lengths to conceal.

Eric also has rapport with GOP leadership all over the state and should round up endorsements easily without the assistance of a consultant.

Eric is currently host of the Eric Hogue show between 5pm and 7pm on AM710 KFIA. KFIA’s SITE

Eric Hogue wants to hear from you

For more information on Eric Hogue, please contact vicepresident@placer-cra.org and I will forward your inquiry on to Eric

Tim Leslie
Former State Senator and Assemblyman

LOYALTY MATTERS

As Benjamin Franklin said so well, so long ago, “a friend in need is a friend indeed”. Our friend John Doolittle is under attack from the liberal left and now from those to whom he has shown true friendship.

In a startling and disappointing display of opportunism and self promotion, Ted Gaines has broken the faith not only with a true friend John Doolittle but with the cause for which John has born the standard for so many years. Of course, those of us who have fought in the arena beside John Doolittle know not only his actions, but over time, his character. John has never wavered in defense of the unborn. He has never faltered in defense of the second amendment. He has never shirked the battle for freedom.

And yet, those who see an opportunity to advance themselves stand ready and willing to join the Sacramento Bee and their left wing minions in viciously attacking John Doolittle. Shame on these small men.

I am calling on you to join me in rejecting the designs of the misguided few. Their faithless assault will only result in harming the conservative cause and the America we love.

America needs John Doolittle. He is our friend. Please join me in supporting him.

Blogger’s Note: This was just received in my e-mail minutes ago.

This will leave the 4th Assembly District vacant as well.

How are the deck chairs going to be re-arranged now?

The feeding frenzy that is ensuing here in the 4th Congressional is quite absurd.

Some things I do know:

1. This dooms Eric Kerry-Egland’s campaign

2. There are no heir-apparents to the 4th AD and there is going to be a mad scramble.

3. Everyone I have talked to here locally is shocked by Gaines’ decision.

Why did all of us coalesce behind Ted only to have him bail on his Assembly seat 6 months into the term?

(This was posted first on another blog, then copied here)

It should be obvious to anyone that knows Placer Politics that Ted Gaines is his own man and is not John Doolittle Junior.

Of course since Mark Williams is just interested in stirring the pot for ratings, he attacks a man he dosen’t even know… Ted Gaines.

Mark Williams is supporting Eric Kerry-Egland for Congress. (Did you know Kerry-Egland served in Iraq?)

Ted has not declared to run for congress, and as an insider in Placer County (I sit on the local GOP Central Committee) I can tell you with authority that Williams is dead wrong about any ‘cabal’.

Mark Williams should never be considered a credible source on anything as he has gone insane with hatred for Governor Arnold. There is a difference between hatred of a man and vehement disagreement with his policies. Mark thinks everyone in the GOP is in league with Arnold Schwarzenegger. (even though our own committee has adopted multiple resolutions against his policies and opposed every one of his candidates for California GOP office)

Mark Williams has attacked pretty much everyone in Placer politics at some point, this leads one to the conclusion that Williams uses some sort of alternate reality to construct his opinions.Koolaid5b

I would like to re-introduce “Kenny” the mascot of the absurd in Placer politics, Kenny is the mascot of the weekly Kool-Aid award. The Kool-Aid award is reserved for the absurd, such as Mark Williams rantings about some secret cabal to keep the 4th congressional seat away from Eric Kerry-Egland. (who Williams will have to re-register to vote for)

The Kool-Aid award goes to Mark Williams, for thinking that Eric Kerry-Egland is the savior of CD4 for the GOP. This jug’s for you, Mark!

Much like the absurd media reporting around our congressman and the half-truths and engineered stories designed to attack John Doolittle – we have the Placer Mosquito Abatement District.

They sent ballots out to parcel owners in innocuous yellow envelopes that looked like junk mail.

Inside was an official ballot and a 12-page flyer with a picture of a mosquito 1,000 times its’ normal size and hyperbolic information about west nile virus.

The bottom line is that after investigation and the reaction of certain board members to the accountability afforded them by the County Central Committee suggests that the Mosquito Board Knew what they were doing and they rigged a tax increase guaranteed to pass.

This Parcel tax is another grab bag of stuff for building facilities and the like… just like any school bond. Except a parcel tax charges the Galleria’s Parcel the same amount as my folk’s home lot. Nice.

Need more info – e-mail this author.