Local ACLU Holding Candidate Forum
Looks like our friends over at the Redwood ACLU will be holding a candidate forum for the Eureka City Council candidates next Monday. Among other things they'll be looking for the candidate's views on local civil liberties issues. What those issues are remains to be seen.
This is kind of neat. While certainly one wants to know if a candidate supports or opposes some of the more common projects in Eureka, like becoming a tree lined city, I've always been more interested in the more libertarian aspects of the race: How the candidate feels about asset forfeiture in regards the seizing of cars of men found soliciting prostitution in Eureka, or the towing of cars found parked for more than 72 hours where there hasn't been a complaint made.
I'm not saying the ACLU is necessarily a libertarian organization, although we certainly hold common ground on some issues like Measure T, but at least this forum might address some issues more in line with my concerns.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:04 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
I don't seem to remember the ACLU sticking up for the prostitutes on third street -- probably because their office is right there and they don't care for the tweaker trash on their doorstep any more than the rest of us.
I do look forward to them frying up Clark and Atkins on a skillet for supporting Measure T after it all blew up this week WaMu style.
Good to see the ACLU doing something constructive. And all the candidates might actually show up, since they're not as moronic as the fake Green Party, who hosts a debate for EUREKA candidates in ARCATA and couldn't even get them all to come.
"I do look forward to them frying up Clark and Atkins on a skillet for supporting Measure T after it all blew up this week WaMu style.".
It will be interesting to see if they bring it up. I think it is relevant as city council business could certainly lead into dealing some kind of campaign "reform" and I believe both Clark and Atkins were measure T supporters.
You might have noticed earlier this week the Eureka Reporter ran a story on Clark and Jager going back and forth over campaign contribution limits. Jager wanted the two of them to voluntarily limit donations to under $500. Clark balked at that, insisting other reforms were needed.
Seems to me the same sort of thing happened back during the Measure T campaign when Chris Crawford suggested to Kaitlin S-B they work together for campaign donation limits. She wouldn't go for it, for obvious reasons: Measure T gave her side an edge over businesses.
URL to the Eureka Reporter story has been shortened for ease of use:
http://tinyurl.com/3ndtqb
Hmmm,can't remember Linda being involved in the campaign,and she's not on any endorsement list,so I don't know why one would confirm that she supported it.I know that her stance now is that she'll bide by it as the voters approved it.
Hmmm,can't remember Linda being involved in the campaign,and she's not on any endorsement list,so I don't know why one would confirm that she supported it.I know that her stance now is that she'll bide by it as the voters approved it.
Fair enough, Mark. It'd probably be to everyone's advantage to leave Measure T in the dustbin of history, where it belongs, and focus on some real constructive reforms developed through a real community dialogue, instead of another hair-brained scheme hatched up in David Cobb/Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap's kitchen/office/pancake house.
That slowly rising stink is starting to strike the nostrils of the more thoughtful elements of well-meaning progressives in the local political scene.
The feeling is of having been hoodwinked by a group of shady operators who were never interested in a real campaign finance law. The big casino money thrown at Bonnie Neely right after Measure T was passed was the first sign that something wasn't "reformed" at all.
Now the liberalest of liberal courts has chimed in, and the dissidents on left and right were right all along: T stood for turkey, and was doomed before the disbarred lawyer from Texas even collected a single signature for it.
Reality is starting to set in, now that the fog of David and Kaitlin's fake revolution has blown away, as all hot air eventually is.
Candidates, politicos, and activists from the Chamber of Commerce and the ACLU are also sounding the same theme: Contribution limits are the way forward, no matter how much the Cobb faction is opposed to this solution due to its complete lack of anti-corporate rhetoric.
Anyone else note the lack of activity from Local Solutions in Eureka's races this year, how Clark/Atkins is getting along just fine without their "help" once so vaunted in the lapdog local press?
The axe on Cobb from the Times-Standard was the first sign this summer, and now with the death of T and the self-imposed exile from local elections this year, the signs are clear. DUHC's "local control" of the local progressive community is quickly becoming a thing of the past.
All David Cobb has left to him is a desperate rear-guard action to keep an environmental lawyer and Democrat from removing his girlfriend from the Water Board seat she has spent most of her time away from in the last four years. Her loss will also equal the end of elected Greens in office in Humboldt for the first time in 20 years, making David and Kaitlin's hostile takeover of the Green Party an exercise in futility.
For the real progressives, it's morning in Humboldt County again.
"before the disbarred lawyer from Texas"
I think anon meant to add that he was disbarred because he no longer resides and practices there.And was he really axed from the Times-Standard?Or is that an assumption much like Linda Atkins supported Measure T.
Is that all you have to contribute Mark, more pathetic defenses of David Cobb, or do you actually have something of substance to add? Aren't you the one behind the "Humboldt Voter's Association"...is this another Democracy Unlimited front group, or do you people actually think for yourselves?
Well just clarifying why he was disbarred,and that he may not have been axed from anything with the T-S.Sorry if you can't handle that.
So what's the Humboldt Voters Association then and what does it promote BESIDES the crushed Measure T?
It's morning again all right. Hopefully in this brand new day, we'll get something meaningful to vote on, not bullshit like Measure T.
Word is that the ACLU didn't bother to notify Endert or Jager until over the weekend for a Monday debate while Clark/Atkins knew for over a week. What seemed on the surface to be a legit event now seems to have an ulterior motive. For the ACLU it doesn't seem very civil at all, or for that matter even ethical. Too bad a good organization sells out.
dont worry about the ACLU form. There were only 6 audience members there, 1 moderator and 1 clark helper. It was a nothing event, i know, i was one of the 6 there. Clark continued spewing completly fabricated statment that have absolutly no substence in fact. The guy really is an egotistical know it all, and he is either a lier or really ignorant. i am not sure which, but either way he is n ot fit to serve.
By the way, is it true that Clark used to work at HSU, sued them and got enough money to start his restraunt? I have heard this several times but AM NOT SURE IF IT IS TRUE. IF ANYONE HAS INFO IN THIS, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, PLEASE POST
Post a Comment
<< Home