An Overview of Local Endorsements…

…or…Part DCMLVI of an ongoing series illustrating that you have two choices each election day a) right and b) left.





Legend:  R = Republican endorsed or endorsee, D = Democrat endorsed or endorsee, L = Fred Mangels endorsed (our local and outspokentypen? Libertarian).  Links:  GOP, HCDCC, HRWF , Fred, Richard, Eric.  If you know of others, or have endorsments yourself – please leave a comment.

Some notes.  I don’t think you can go wrong voting the all D ticket.  Of course I am most passionate about Natalie, R, and Kim this election season.  I believe we can begin to change the staid vision that business must rule both private and public spheres this election – continuing the work Chris Kerrigan and Linda Atkins have pioneered (at least in recent years).

Not on the chart, but of note:

Matthew Owen and the Times Standard have weighed in against R – telling us more about both of them than the measure.

Also, I finally found Chet Albin’s site and there seems to be some news on it.  Neither Melinda Ciarabellini nor Marian Brady are on it for some reason.  Hmmm.

What is clear though, there was more behind Supervisor Bass’ resignation than what she wrote in her resignation letter from the HCDCC.  Virginia has put her support behind Chet, proving (again) that Matthew and Virginia’s “D” is really simply a means to an end.  Just like Chet’s.

I think that the lines are so clearly drawn give this election a certain legitimacy previous elections have not had.  So there is that.

Now that the lines are clear, lets get out the vote – and – if you are not happy with the two choices you have in June or November, please come volunteer with one of the two organizations that have the infrastructure to change our government – The Democrats or even the Republicans.

BTW, here is the list of Chet’s endorsers…


Chet Albin's Endorsers


10 thoughts on “An Overview of Local Endorsements…

  1. jtimmons88 says:

    I had endorsed and was an early supporter of Kim Bergel. I continue to support Arroyo but not Bergel. Who is so tone-deaf or so arrogant that they think a two-year old bankruptcy wouldn’t disqualify her from serious consideration.? At least Newman waited a decent interval before running for office. Bergel’s credibility is in the toilet.

    1. thanks Julie – coming from you, this means a lot to me as I respect you so. We just disagree on this one. I have to agree with Mary Ella. Also – if we judge people on economics – we are going to get a politics dominated by solely economic principles. Economics is a part of the picture – not the whole part.

      Thank you for your comment Julie.

  2. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    Regarding Bergel, a health care crisis is a common cause of bankruptcy that has nothing to do with the integrity of the individual having the health care crisis but everything to do with our dysfunctional health care system.

    As for the endorsements, what’s striking about the list is the “good ol’ boy” nature of it. It is heavily waited to “important” people who hold another office or represents a segment of the business community. It’s telling us a lot that the endorsement of ordinary voters doesn’t count, just the endorsement of wealthy voters who can make substantial contributions to the campaign of the individual with the tacit understanding that the candidate will act to serve the interests of the endorsee.

    1. exactly – but I’m afraid in Eureka many ordinary working class voters also buy into the good ole boy network as those who can supply the jobs they want. At least that’s the story they are selling – and people believe it whether it’s true or not.

  3. Hey Jon! It’s unfortunate that the local Dems are not supporting 46. I suppose this is because it makes doctors pee in a cup, which is an unfortunate poison pill to this ballot measure (pardon the pun). Nader came out a few days ago in support, Gov. Brown has previously spoken out against the cap (even though he signed it originally), alot of pro-consumer organizations back it, Sen. Boxer supports it… it’s a good common sense bill that (other than drug testing) supports rational policy. Caps on medical damages have been shown in studies to do nothing to insurance rates or the number of medical malpractice claims. In fact, these caps disproportionately affect women who often have more “non-economic” damages in these cases due to medical errors in procedures related to pregnancy, fertility, or sexual assault. This is really a bill that, other than the drug testing, pushes for progressive and democratic principals of protecting regular people and providing them with a better opportunity to fight for their rights.

  4. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    You’re right about 46. CARA, the California Alliance of Retired Americans, a very active group of retired union members, also supports 46 to help control costs for older patients.

    1. Fixed! I do the exact same thing all the time. Funny. I wonder if it’s genetic.

      This is a serious forum about politics Rams – we can’t allow inner 12 y/o humor!

      Thanks for the thoughtful comment – you are right about the poison pill as that is exactly what many of the influential Dems mentioned.

      As I have just trolled Richard Marks for not mentioning he is paid by Weed inc., to be fair, I should mention that you are a big time lawyer doing the Lord’s work in The Big City. Go Giants?

      1. Did the picture of me in a suit talking about suing people give it away? Dang, need to work on my astroturf game. No but in all seriousness, while I am an attorney I cringe at the “big time” label. I don’t practice in the medical malpractice or personal injury world (and not that that would make me big time anyway), but the Prop 46 battle hits close to home for me. As you know (but your readers do not) I represent primarily lower income wage earners against businesses who would love to take away their employees’ keys to the courthouse in a similar fashion. Businesses know that changing favorable employment laws or consumer-friendly insurance laws are unpopular, so instead of changing the law they make it impossible for workers and consumers to enforce the law. That’s what Prop 46 changes for victims of medical negligence. I am actively participating in this campaign because I see a straight line from a defeat on this proposition to further attacks on access to justice for regular people.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s