Correction with Apologies to Michelle Rhee and John Hrabe

Word on the street was wrong.  John’s old boss was Michelle Park Steel, not Michelle Rhee

From Wikipedia …

 “Steel promised to protect taxpayers from the overbearing government that her family encountered. A signatory of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, she has stated she will oppose all new taxes and tax increases, and when adjudicating tax appeals, will always presume that a taxpayer is innocent until proven guilty.[1]  In 2011, she was elected Vice Chair of the Board of Equalization.”

John also served as press secretary for Assemblyman Chuck DeVore and was a Publius Fellow at the Claremont Institute.  So John was clearly not coming from an independent viewpoint.

Still I made quite an embarrassing mix up all things considered and sincere apologies to Michelle Rhee and John Hrabe.

The written (or typed) word can be a humbling experience.

Update:  This post was blog-rolled at LoCO shortly after I posted it on the 10th and John Hrabe makes a comment below.  Thanks John, and apologies again.


5 thoughts on “Correction with Apologies to Michelle Rhee and John Hrabe

    1. Thanks John! Sorry again. This post garnered a great deal of attention locally.

      The best thing was one of my local political foes e-mailed your original post to me, after I had posted it. Clearly his source must have been this blog, but he has yet to admit that to me.

      I saw those posts John. Still. STEVE BARIC! THE CONSERVATIVE TOUGH ENOUGH TO CLEAN UP SACRAMENTO! Common! Nothing wrong with that, it’s just you are right of center. But I will concede you don’t seem to be in the Rush Limbaugh camp of the right-of-centers.

      But I do agree that the optics are bad on your original post. I will work to make it transparent, at least to our members in our public meetings. No promises as I am low on the totem pole. There are some problems that have to be addressed though if campaign finance reform is going to be fair. For example, for every one Union, there are tens or hundreds of private entities with just as much money. This little scheme may be one way to work against real flaws in the system.

      We’ll see, I’m sure we will be discussing this a bunch going forward.

      1. To be clear, I have not endorsed nor do I have any association with Steve Baric. As for the original post, we as a public should be concerned with campaign financing and the tricks used to hide the true sources of funds. This is true regardless of party. If you look at the totality of my writings, you’ll find that I hold both parties accountable. Just ask any of the fine folks at Common Cause.

  1. John – There are structural problems with money if it is going to be regarded as free speech. This is why I think the Democrats and Labor need to do what they are doing, maybe. For example for every one service union, there might be 60 retail stores with similar limits. This is not my idea, but I’m not sure the person who told me this wants publicity. I don’t know enough about this issue to comment further, but I appreciate your input and as I become more informed I hope the conversation can continue. You will be glad that I will be advocating for publishing all contributions and outlays in our member’s monthly report. Good or bad politically, we need to be transparent. At least IMHO. (And now I’m Treasurer of the HCDCC, so my opinion should count a little more – mu ha ha *twists mustache*.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s