Sunday, July 03, 2005

Does Geist Need a "Progressive" Challenger?

Anonymous made the comment that Jill Geist might be ripe for some "progressive" to challenge her seat on the Board of Supervisors next time around. Seems like she might be losing some support from her left wing base. Wonder how widespread that feeling is?

So I asked Anon who he thought might be a good challenger, if only out of curiousity. How about Richard Salzman? Just kidding.

I'm outside of Geist's district so I can't vote in that race but that didn't stop me from commenting on the race last time. I actually don't remember exactly what my comments were at the time but I know I first thought Ben Shepherd (sic?) would have gotten my vote. I later got interested in Geist because she stated some interest, albeit weak interest, in refusing the federal funds for marijuana enforcement that the Board of Supervisors considers each year. All we'd need is one more vote on the Board and the funds would be refused. Not trying to be a single issue voter but I've always wanted to see the money refused if nothing else than as a moral victory against the pot wars.

So, Geist wins and seems less than enthusiastic about marijuana issues after being elected. Oh well, I suppose that's to be expected. Be interesting to see who the progressives think would be a good challenger although I'll have to admit I find the vast majority of "progressive" candidates to be quite scary. I did vote for Kaitlin Sopoci- Belknap for that Water District seat, though. Probably a first for me.

As far as that federal money for pot eradication, I wonder if it's a non- issue now? I suspect the Supes are so desperate for money they'll accept it from whatever source for whatever reason they can, now. I'll be interested in seeing if Rodoni votes for the money next time around as he's been historically opposed to it. Which reminds me: When the heck does that issue come up? Seems to me we should of heard something about that by this time of year.


At 3:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The McKinleyville Press
by David Elsebusch

The Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury performed its annual blind-siding
event last week when it distributed its report and revealed who they
decided to sink their harpoon into this year.

It turns out their main victim was the District Attorney. The report
reads more like a hatchet job hit piece than the balanced report to
which the taxpayers are entitled. This report is so blatantly biased
it's another reason to abolish the Humboldt County Grand Jury. By
failing to commend the D.A. for doing more with less and producing more
convictions with fewer staff, the Grand Jury confirmed their bias
and took another credibility hit.

The Grand Jury is so presumptuous that it concluded that it is
inappropriate that Deputy D.A.'s hold their jobs "at will" and wants
the D.A. to provide job security to Deputy D.A.'s. There are lots more
"at will" employees in the county other than in the D.A.'s office. The
Grand Jury even goes so far as to criticize the D.A. for trying cases
instead of being just an administrator as his predecessor was! One of
the D.A.'s campaign promises was to actually try cases rather than just
being an executive/politician that Terry Farmer was. Those who
want to pile on and attack the D.A., as Supervisor Geist recently did at
a Board of Supervisors meeting, may find that their attacks will
have the effect of encouraging more support for the D.A. when he runs
for re-election. After all, the voters threw Terry Farmer out because
they didn't like his management style and Worth Dikeman would restore
it. Gallegos may have hit the nail on the head when he was quoted as
saying "Worth (Dikeman) never ran against Terry (Farmer). Implicitly
that means he approved of Terry's management style." Gallegos concluded that Worth Dikeman has been running against him since he became the D.A.

Voters surprised the establishment by voting for the underdog when Gallegos was elected and they may do it again. He will have a more difficult time this time, however, because he has to explain away the bumbling way Stoen handled the Palco case and the outrageous Debbi August accusation. After all, he had to know what Stoen was doing and if he wasn't he should have been. It is too early to make any judgments concerning who to vote for next year for D.A. But it is not too early to ask the Board of Supervisors to stop using scarce public funds to pay for the Grand Jury, which has lost its relevancy and exercises political activism.

At 10:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


You are such a lamebrane. Your support of Gallegos makes me want to hurl. Why is it when anyone wants to hold gallegos accountable for his stupidity, the orks gather round and scream how invincible they are and that the enlightened ones who are simply pointing out that the "emperor" is buck naked are just resorting to blame game politics. I'll back the grand jury on this one.


Post a Comment

<< Home