Thursday, April 13, 2006

More Endorsements

A lot in the news this morning about candidate endorsements. Good news, indeed, that the Eureka Greens decided to oppose Measure T. Way to go Eureka Greens!

It was also kinda nice to see them endorsing Rich Marks, for 4th District Supervisor. No surprise there, as I believe someone posted info here earlier suggesting that would be the case. I'm just glad to see the underdog in the race get some support.

Worth Dikeman is supposed to be announcing his endorsements in the near future. I suspect there will be few surprises there, with most of them coming from the law enforcement community. A quick look at his current list of endorsements shows that to be the case, already, at least from some of the names I recognize.

Jill Geist seems to have picked up a number of endorsements from the usual suspects. Of interest to me is that all her colleagues on the Board of Supes have endorsed her, with the exception of Bonnie Neely. Seems to me the same is true with Bonnie Neely, although I could be wrong.

I thought I saw somewhere where all the Supes except Geist endorsed Neely. Anyone remember seeing that? I wonder what that's all about?

Probably the same old thing I've seen all my life where some women just don't get along that well. It seems to me, at just about every job I've held in my life, if there was a personality conflict between co- workers on the job, it was always amongst the women.

I guess I should have asked Bonnie Neely about that when she came by my house campaigning last week.


At 10:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard the young communist-democrat Shane Brinton from NHUSD is heading up the Marks campaign, count on a late insurgency.

I don't think that will be the last we hear of leftist opposition to Measure Torpid, either.

By their dirty tricks, shall you know them.

At 10:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


You speak the truth man! Women at work are always fighting each other. my wife hates all her lady coworkers (she would never admit it though! She always has a reason why, but funny how it is always all the women that get her riled up)

You should write an entry about this, you are on to something and would make for a good discussion here. Have other people noticed this too?


At 11:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At 11:18 AM, Blogger Fred said...

M.H. writes,"You should write an entry about this, you are on to something and would make for a good discussion here".

Indeed it might. I'll have to come up with something. Give me some time.

At 11:23 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Richard wrote: "".

Well, I was wondering when you'd get a web page up. I see you're supporting Measure T and have Shane Brinton as endorsing you.

Not a very good start, but I guess you have to use whatever you have available.

Good luck.

At 11:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn, I thought Marks had enough sense to stay away from T, especially since it targets the company he works for. Looks like Shane Brinton is already having an influence.

At 1:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:59- I signed the petition for Measure T many months ago. I am for campaign reform in many forms. Measure T will be decided by the voters.
Richard Marks

At 1:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh yes, let me add a shameless plug for the Marks for Supervisor Sphagetti feed fundraiser on April 20th at the Samoa Women's Club from 5-8pm. $10 a head. Money raised locally for a local candidate. Great concept.

At 1:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone told me that Fred was working on the website for Richard Marks, is that not true? I thought he was your guy Fred.

I'm confused - should we be backing this guy or not? I like that he's a mill worker, but if he's being backed by communists, then forget it.

At 1:54 PM, Blogger Fred said...

1:39 writes: "Someone told me that Fred was working on the website for Richard Marks, is that not true?".

No. Well...kinda. Some time ago I made a comment here that Marks didn't even have a campaign web page.

Then I thought I'd have some fun and I started a real simple one by stealing a pic of one of the local news web pages and added a statement, supposedly from him, along the lines of, " I'm the only progressive in the race. Besides, I live in Samoa so I deserve your vote...", or some such.

Then I posted a comment along the lines of, "Oh, I guess he does have a web page..." and listed the url. Just having some fun. I took it down after a week or so.

At 3:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's no ill will between Neely and Geist.

At 9:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Probably the same old thing I've seen all my life where some women just don't get along that well. It seems to me, at just about every job I've held in my life, if there was a personality conflict between co- workers on the job, it was always amongst the women.

You probably just have some hangups about women, Fred. I think you see only what you want to see.

I've always noticed plenty of conflict among both men and women at every job where I've worked.

At 10:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had a free website and I didn't know it? Yee, you are killing me Fred. Could have saved a few dollars for signs. Union made mind you. Do you really think Bonnie just so happened at your house? She has a list of voters and their addresses, just like me. I am sure she is target walking, just like I am. I have hit over 1,000 homes. My goal is 7,000 before the election. And I will average over 50 hours a week work between my mill job and working for the city of Eureka. If the other two candidates out work me I will be impressed. I am treating this like one of my union organizing campaigns. I relate to the average working class in the fourth district. What do the other candidates really have in common with the average Humboldt County resident. They are both depending on out of town contributions. Campaigning the old fashion Republican way. Buying the office. Check out

Fred, do I get a spot on your lawn for a sign or what?

Richard Marks

At 10:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's common in hotly contested races - if two people are running - not to endorse each other.

At 5:43 AM, Blogger Fred said...

10:47 wrote: "It's common in hotly contested races".

Very astute, anon. Didn't occur to me that they don't want to chance pissing off potential voters by endorsing someone that voter may not like.

Richard writes: "Fred, do I get a spot on your lawn for a sign or what?".

Don't you think it would be a bit silly for me to have a NO On T sign in my front yard and have a sign for a candidate who favors T in my yard as well?

At 2:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

just because you sign a petition doesn't mean you endorse the initiative!

At 3:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Marks -

Do you support Measure T or not?


At 4:41 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Richard Marks' web site has a plug for Measure T, so it's safe to assume he endorses it.

At 4:55 PM, Blogger Fred said...

2:04 wrote: "just because you sign a petition doesn't mean you endorse the initiative!".

Indeed. Many people sign things just to "get them on the ballot". A bad idea in my opinion.

I alluded to this earlier on:

I remember a paid petition guy out in front of Safeway, back when Prop 10, the latest tobacco tax, was being worked on.

A lady came out of the store, and was approached by the signature gatherer.

The guy gives his line for a new tobacco tax. The lady says, "I smoke, so I don't know that I want to sign that...".

The petition guy says, " This doesn't mean you agree with it, it just puts it on the ballot...".

The lady, uncomfortable as so many of us are, with being approached (and like so many of us, unable to say NO), says, "Well...ok...", and signs the petition.

She made a major mistake, as she just helped give herself a big tax increase, since Prop 10 won. Kinda dumb, on her part, as any initiative that attacks minorities usually wins.

Don't sign those petitions, unless you know what they mean, and agree with them.

That said, even if you agree with them, it might not be a good idea.

At 5:39 PM, Blogger Rose said...

You are so right, Fred. I have made that mistake in the past. I will never make that mistake again after what I have seen the last couple of years.

At 11:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to hear this from Mr Marks directly:

Do you support Measure T? And if you do I'd like to hear why.

Thank you,

At 11:57 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Richard Marks is listed as one of the individuals endorsing Measure T on the web site.

At 10:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MH: Sorry, I am over in the valley organizing non union workers. (As an unpaid volunteer) Yes I support Measure T and signed one of the original petitions at the Eureka Co-op where I shop often. I support various kinds of campaign reforms in many flavors. Fred has offered up some ideas I like the taste of, but measure T is the only one serving an actual meal in the form of a vote. I will not agree with everyone on this subject. The other two candidates in the Supervisor race will be highly financed by out of the area money. Why? Got me. I am running a campaign on issues affecting the working class in general. I am not a one issue horse. So please don't ride me out of Dodge on this one subject! Please check out for more information on my working class platform.
Thank you,
Richard Marks

At 2:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Le's review:

Richard Marks is a registered Democrat but is supported by self-admitted communist Shane Brinton. Marx supports Measure T.

Bonnie Neely is a registered Republican but is supported by the misnamed "Local Solutions" leftists. Neely is raising unlimited money from anyone who will give it to her.

Nancy Fleming is a registered Republican with a proven track record of working well with everyone. She has pledged not to accept more than $500 from any donor.

Seems clear to me...

At 11:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What has Nancy Flemming ever accomplished in her political career?

At 3:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nancy Fleming took $2000 from Kurt Kramer. $500 pledge my ass.

Salzman got in trouble for writing letters under his dog's name. But Nancy would take $500 from Salzman and another $500 from his dog and call it upholding her pledge.

Her pledge isn't worth crap. I wouldn't want someone pulling a fast one like that in office.

At 3:53 PM, Blogger Fred said...

3:11 wrote:"Nancy Fleming took $2000 from Kurt Kramer. $500 pledge my ass.".

Maybe I'm remembering the wrong thing (please correct me if I'm wrong), but I believe Kaitlin S-B, from Democracy Unlimited, said something along the line that Kramer gave $500 and some family members contributed $500, as well. One of those things where it all gets lumped under one name.

I'm not sure that's the right case I'm remembering, though. Too lazy to look it up right now.

That said, we've seen here where the Measure T supporters are defending Paul Gallegos receiving his largest contributions to date: $10,000 from his brother in New Mexico, and $5000 from some guy in Berkely.

Seems to me there's a disconnect here. Gallegos largest single contributions come from out of the area and are three times the total of the Kramer contributions. Yet you're concerned about Kramer?

I assume that must be either because Kramer's a developer, he's incorporated, or both?

While I don't agree entirely with the line of thought, I think that Eureka Green Party Treasurer dude who was quoted in the Humboldt Sentinel was right in there. To paraphrase: "It's not where the money came from, it's how much..".

This out of county contribution thing seems to be a red herring being thrown out just cause it sounds good, at least when some people hear it.

Don't be complaining about out of county contributions, or large contributions, when your side is doing the same thing.

And a reminder: I don't care how much money Gallegos raises, or where it comes from, myself.

I just don't like the hyprocrisy of the "Vote Local Control" folks doing pretty much the same thing they're trying to prohibit ONLY the other side from doing, especially when we're told they're doing it because they know what's best for everyone else.

At 4:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a corporate issue Fred! I do not care if any individual writes as much as he wants personally to a candidate, that is his business. But not any corporations for out side the county. How about no money out of the county period. Just throwing that out there.

At 11:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

maybe it could be stomached if it banned all nonlocal contributions completely. Why have a nonlocal union or a non-profit PAC?

It is the obvious that fairness isn't the issue here.

At 12:43 PM, Blogger Fred said...

A number of people have expressed the opinion that all non- local contributions should be banned, but Measure T doesn't do that.

While sympathetic to both suggestions, I don't know that I would agree to either banning all non- local contributions, or, campaign contribution limits.

But, as I've said before, that's because minorities already have an inherent disadvantage in electoral politics. A wealthy company or individual might allow the minority opinion to at least play on a level playing field in trying to get their message out.

At 1:28 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

As long as corporate personhood exists,any contribution limit would still be argued as a violation of free speech( by those who care to argue it).So I would think.I still don't understand why these so called free speech advocates who come out against T haven't done anything to garauntee a corporations right to vote,or run for office,if indeed they have the same rights as an individual.

At 2:07 PM, Blogger Fred said...

esquan writes:"I still don't understand why these so called free speech advocates who come out against T haven't done anything to garauntee a corporations right to vote,or run for office,if indeed they have the same rights as an individual.".

I don't believe I've heard any of the anti- T forces bring up the issue of corporate personhood, but maybe I missed something?

Seems to me, this "corporate personhood" issue is just a fixation with the pro- measure T folks (and the Left in general) and actually just a red herring being thrown out to confuse the issue.

Would it be any different if all corporations were dissolved overnight and turned into privately owned businesses instead? They'd still have the money and, as far as I'm concerned, they'd still have a right to have a voice in political matters.

I don't see how the legal structure of a business has anything to do with with political contributions of whatever kind.

Whether individuals or entities from outside a community should be able to contribute to political causes inside that community, is a different question entirely. It shouldn't matter what the structure of the entity is.

At 9:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did it ever occur to anyone that we have enough banning, enough ordinances, way more than enough rules? Can't we just stop passing more rules, more restrictions, more no-this no-that shut it all down, push us into cookie cutter worlds that are sanitized to match a TV reality...

Just stop. No more.

At 9:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those comments are not allowed here.

At 12:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...



Post a Comment

<< Home