Independent Jumps the Shark with Endorsements

Maybe that the Indy did NOT endorse The Arnold can be considered an intellectual victory?

Watch how NOT moderate that Republican will be after the election. The State budget next year and more vetoed bills will be carnage on all the issues and priorities the Indy editorial stance holds so dear. The Arnold, Bob Pohl, and No-el-No-e-el were bad then and are going to be worse now.

During the recall and ensuing special election for govenor, I was in the camp of "the Terminator for California govenor? You have got to be joking!" I was more inclined to vote for porn star Mary Kary than the belacose Arnoold who accused everyone who disagreed with him as being "Girly Men".

After his disasterous defeat in "his" special election I thought good, we may be the laughing stock, but the gubinator is now toast.

However,an interesting thing happened. One that is so rare in politics today; the Govenor accepted defeat with grace and basically said "the people have spoken, I accept I was wrong and now I will do the people's will. He admitted he may have been wrong and forward he went. That got my attention.

Since then, he, in my opinion , has been plaing the middle road. I like that. His recent signing of the bill to take the national,if not world lead in reducing greenhouse gasses, now that really got my attention.

The last time The Independent endorsed a republican I agreed with them (though now I regret voting for Firestone because of his back peddling on the Oak ordinance, among other issues). This time I do again. As a life long dem, I have never voted republican in a statewide or national election; this time I am.

bye-the-bye...please excuse all the typos in the buckyboy posts - I still type with two fingers and have a bad case of lisdexia. Any way to get spell check on this blog?

As my earlier comment was only based on the endorsements text at the web site, at the time I did not see the graphic box on the print edition, where an endorsement by the Indy for the Gropenator Governator indeed was the Indy's recommendation.

My prior comment still applies: The Arnold Administration will turn sharply right after the election and the State budget next year and more vetoed bills will be carnage on all the issues and priorities the Indy editorial stance holds so dear. Buckyboy there has swallowed the spin, because the Governator was acting slightly contrite and moderate for a reason: to fool Dems like him and then get be re-elected.

ARNOLD ENDORSED BY THE INDY???? Are you people that naive----he's an actor being directed by a shrewd GOP machine and if you think the next four years would look like the last year you're fooling only yourselves.

As for Bob Noel--shame on you! Just talk to a few current School Board members to learn how that obstructionist has shut down the genuine discourse on that Board.

What were you guys on for those two endorsementS???? NICK????WHASSUP?????

Street he is not perfect by any meens, but he has shown a willingness to at least work with the dems in the legislator on a number of issues; many of his vetos I definatly disagree with but, Angelides just doesn't do it for me.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...
"...All in all, Republican Schwarzenegger and the Democratic Legislature showed as much bipartisan cooperation -- and attention to big issues -- as Sacramento has seen in many years. Just this week, the governor and Democratic leaders will be barnstorming the state together in support of the infrastructure bond package they approved.

They've had many accomplishments to celebrate. It's regrettable that a few more did not survive on the governor's desk."

Last summer I was shocked when I heard that Mr. Bob Noel was running again for school board. I mean come on - aren't two terms of grandstanding and arrogant behavior arriving at no productive end just about enough? But that feeling of shock was eclipsed by horror on Wednesday night when Randy ruined a fine dinner at Dargans and the Steve Earle concert at Campbell Hall by telling me that the paper had endorsed Noel. What could they possibly be thinking? Didn't they talk to any of the sitting board members or the district staff or any of the school administrators or any of the parents who volunteer tirelessly at our public schools?? Didn't they look at who is endorsing Noel - Rob Lowe, Gary Earle, Tim Mahoney?? The CA Democratic Party admitted to a current board member that they should have talked to someone on the board - but they were "rushed to make endorsements" - tell that to your student whose teachers don't have money for science labs or who have to use flat tennis balls...
I got one e-mail forwarded to me after I sent a letter to 300 of my best friends urging people not to vote for this pompous agrandizing "professor" that said "I m urging you not to voite for Bob Noel...His antics have cost untold dollars and hours of precious time. Noel has impeded and bogged down the efforts of other board members and HAS HAD A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IN SANTA BARBARA."

Please can we really afford another four years of obstruction? ...or as a well know local architect in SB said "an obstacle."

I urge everyone to vote for Suzy Cawthon and Kate Parker. Fortunately the Inde saw fit to endorse Kate and I applaude this. Suzy is an experienced school board member - having served on a school board in Montana. She has an MBA and was a commerical banker - she knows finance and has enthusiastically run the San Marcos PTSA for the last two years. She raised private money to buy an upgraded gym floor at SMHS - and raising money for public schools is an art! But more than all this - she is energetic and committed to the best education for public school students. In a school district like Santa Barbara which serves both elementary and secondary students - the wealthiest and the poorest, the board faces unbelievable challenges. They need to operate as a team - they don't have to agree - they have to work collaboratively and respectfuly together - with each other and with the staff or we will continue to waste time and resources. Please disregard the Inde endorsement and vote for Suzy Cawthon and Kate Parker via absentee ballot or on election day.

Jan Campbell
parent of Nora Campbell - senior SMHS and Emma Campbell - 8th grade La Colina Junior High School

People need to remember:

DON'T VOTE! UNTIL YOU KNOW THE CANDIDATES AND THE FACTS!

Don't follow any reccommendations just because you read something somewhere - Read your Voters Pamphlet. Weigh the differences and vote with your mind rather than your heart.

Dont' follow the roccommendations of the Indy, and God forbid that you vote following the News-Press reccommendations.

Use your mind! - That's what it's there for.

VOTE - and be proud that you can.

Sorry, Indy, you are wrong about Measure D.

Go out to Sabado Tarde where Attias hit the 5 young people, who were walking in the street because there were no sidewalks, and also no traffic control to keep cars from barreling through, even though the streets are filled with walkers.

Still no change. NO sidewalk. No removable bollards for Friday and Saturday night.

Why? Measure D screws IV's funding for roads. About $1 million is moved out of IV each year to subsidize all the projects SBCAG wants. And people die in IV because of it.

You should have endorsed `No' on Measure D.

Measure D opponents are dishonest. They have just put up Anti-D signs that say "Say no to 8 cent sales tax." They are trying to bamboozle the public into believing that Measure D is an 8% sales tax when they know, in reality, that it is only a 3/4% tax and even if it is defeated, we will still have a 7 1/4% tax.

Measure D opponents have no credibility and people should vote for D for the envirionment and our quality of life.

Where are these more-than-dishonest signs and other lies about the alleged 8-cent sales tax?
See also my comment on the letters:
http://www.independent.com/opinion/2006/...

Of course, a total sales tax of 8 PERCENT is different from a mere 8 cents.

I saw these signs along Cathedral Oaks, between Fairview and Storke. I'm sure they are all over by now in a last minute campaign to fool the public.

The other BIG lie is the one told by Armstrong, Caldwell, etc. that Measure D is bad for the environment. All the big Enviro groups and their leaders - EDC, CEC, Sierra Club - have endorsed Measure D. Why do that if it is anti-environmental?

Your endorsements ducked a key race – Sheriff, shame on you. Since the primary, we have learned many things about both candidates. You endorsed Bill Brown then, but no mention this time. Brown has many flaws; the first is his obsession with misrepresenting the views and accomplishments of his competitor. There currently is no “leadership issue” within the Sheriffs Department, if there was why would virtually the entire command staff and the Deputy Sheriffs Association publicly endorse Sheriff Anderson? Brown claims to have the endorsement of the Service Employees International Union, but the membership didn’t take a vote, so he really has the endorsement of a small fraction of the 2,000+ membership – not all the members. The endorsement of the Lompoc Police Officers Association is equally suspect – did they take a vote, or was the issue decoded by a handful of officers in another backroom deal? Browns’ “new direction” appears to have several twists and wrong turns; it has hit several deep pot holes and looks like it’s heading off a cliff. I am voting for Sheriff Anderson, he tells it like it is with no political spin, “just the facts” and no questionable endorsements, just the way a lawman ought to play it.

I think the Indy intends to use these whacky endorsements to win over some of the News-Mess' more conservative readers (i.e. the people who still haven't cancelled their subscriptions), as the Indy continues to capitalize on the News-Mess situation.

So Randy, Marianne, Nick et al -- just how DO you guys make your endorsements? Do you have an editorial board? Who's on it? Do you vote? But the big Q: how does an owner of the paper get the poop end of the stick in this deal?

For those of us who love and trust -- usually -- the Indy, the current crop of endorsements are baffling, even disturbing. Arnold? Noel? What's next? Gonna decide the war's a winner after all?

With the News-Mess, you KNOW Travis is just lip-synching Wendy's tune. Like it or not, it's transparent. Can't say the same for you guys.

I'm not trying to pile on, but when Pam, calling herself a "majority owner," sends an outraged email to half the town (by now) railing against your picks, ya gotta wonder what's going on over there.

No wondering required. Pam and her husband collectively are the "majority owner" but the one who decides on the endorsements is the Editor in Chief, Marianne Partridge. Marianne keeps wishing for the mythical Moderate Republican and apparently hopes that by endorsing some potential moderates they will become one. Wishful thinking indeed.

My name is Jan - not Pam and I never said I was the majority owner.

RG, I've never said anything about Measure D being an 8 per cent tax. I know it is 3/4 of a percent.

I also know that everyone in IV and the UCSB campus pays the tax, and they do share in the regional improvements.

However, IV and UCSB were and are totally overlooked in the *local* portion of Measure D. All the small cities got taken care of in Measure D, but not IV, UCSB, Noleta, Vandenberg Village, Santa Ynez, and Montecito... all the suburban areas in the unincorporated County.

You might argue that the County share should cover those portions, but it *does not*. The County has so many road miles to maintain that all the suburban unincorporated areas get the shaft, big time.

The biggest victim is IV, where there are not even sidewalks for the young families that push prams in the streets (with toddlers wandering around) as giant SUVs headed for the beach barrel by. Measure D does nothing to help make the streets of IV more livable.

So, vote No on it, they'll get it right the next time.

Dear Indy Staff:

Please consider this when making your endorsement for Sheriff.

1) I was appalled and alarmed to have my neighbor show me an "Election Alert" orange post card from the NRA Political Victory Fund, urging their members to vote for Santa Barbara County Sheriff's candidate Bill Brown; Brown received an "A" rating!

2) Bill Brown has neglected to post this endorsement on his website. I feel like he's trying to hide his gun-support from voters.

3) I thought this might be a joke, so I did a web search and found even more information that Bill Brown, via counseling by former sheriff Jim Thomas, has agreed to issue more concealed weapons permits to county residents once elected.

In view of the violence that happened at the Goleta Post Office, and even a homicide in Lompoc last weekend, the last thing we need is someone giving political paybacks in the form of gun permits.

Dian Davis

tsk, tsk Dian.....I'm a "google whiz" and was shocked at your comments about Bill Brown. I know him, know his history, and your comments just didn't fit...lo and behold, it looks like you left out the salient point about Brown in the "web search" you claim you did; here's the full context from the ccw [carry concealed weapons] blog:

"Brown is currently not CCW friendly. He has issued an EXTREMELY limited number of permits in the city of Lompoc. I asked him about CCWs at an election debate and he has stated that unless there is a credible reason, no one should carry a weapon."

Sure, some of the Indy endorsements are suspect, like they forgot Arnold is an actor and of late he has played the role of a moderate. Oh, well, no one's perfect.

Which gets us to Travis Armstrong and the News-Press. He seems to think admitting you endorse people means you've violated all codes of journalism. Come read about his latest silliness.

Jan is correct; she didn't say she was a majority owner. My mistake.

But I'm still waiting to hear: by what process does the Indy make its endorsements? Is it really just Marianne's call? If so, I'm vaguely distressed. One -- okay, me -- would think the Indy was a little less autocratic than that.

Misleading Anderson supporters Watch:

Here's the Google I found and why I found it interesting is that a major Gun Rights Group doesn't give their endorsements without promising something in return. Former Sheriff Thomas is answering a gun rights citizen supporter than he will, in fact, get Brown to issue more permits.

So which is it? Thomas is a major backer and is publicly promising more gun permits. Brown HAS NOT LISTED on his website his NRA support. Is this a case of political double speak or what?

I'm saying, he appears to be dishonest about his leanings.

"14/06/2006 10:27:30
Subject: Advice from Jim Thomas

jonm

Joined: 25/04/2006 20:14:22
Messages: 72
Location: Buellton, Santa Barbara County
Offline
I supported Jim Thomas throughout the campaign. Shortly after the votes were tallied and it was apparent that the runoff would be between Lompoc Police Chief Bill Brown and the incumbent Sheriff, Jim Anderson, I sent Mr. Thomas an email asking him for his opinion of Chief Brown, as far as the issuance of CCWs was concerned. Based on this reply, I am supporting Bill Brown, and I encourage all Santa Barbara County residents to do the same.

Jim Thomas' message to me:

Jon,
There are so many issues. Chief Brown has been just that, a Chief. Chief's are very stingy about issuing permits because they could always kiss it off to the local Sheriff. He will change his attitude on ccw's - I did. We had this conversation last Saturday among many other things and I believe he will take my counsel on that and issue to honest citizens. I urge you to support him for many other reasons, like honesty and integrity and I'll work with him on being a Sheriff.
Take care and thank you for your visible support,
Jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, the government works for us, not the other way around. "

right, Dian---again, good try at the spin but the bottom line is, Brown himself has been "stingy" about permits. No story there.

Keep tryin---I understand the frustration, as it's easier to create fuzzy "maybe" scenarios about Brown based on hearsay twice removed, than the clear-cut actual incompetence demonstrated by Anderson.

No "incompetence" issue. The issue is honesty and "transparency", which I believe is the term Brown is promising to bring to the Sheriff's Department.

The "story" is that Brown has gotten the NRA PAC endorsement and I've personally held that bright orange mailer touting Brown’s “A” rating (meaning pro-gun stance). Brown either embraces the endorsement or runs from it, which is it?

We all know what a political powerhouse that NRA is; AND THEY DO NOT GIVE ENDORSEMENTS TO ANTI-GUN POLITICIANS.

Brown had to seek out the NRA endorsement to get it and now you and his other supporters are running from it and hiding it from the majority of voters. When is it going to be on his website? Or is it?

Bob Noel—are you kidding?

Kudos to Jan Campbell for stepping up and pointing out the Independent’s gaffe endorsing Bob Noel as a school board candidate. Clearly their editor has never seen this contrarian at work. I have and it is not pretty. Noel inserted himself on several occasions during the South Coast Community Aquatic Center’s (SCCAC) successful campaign for new pool at Dos Pueblos High School. Indeed, he tried to destroy the entire campaign.

SCCAC presented the goal of an Olympic sized pool in January 2001. At the initial meeting it looked to me like Bob Noel was sleeping. Over the next four years we returned to the board at least five times updating members on our fundraising for a 50 meter pool. Indeed, we often used visual aids.

In June 2004, after three years of hard campaigning in the midst of an economic drought, we exceeded our board approved goal of $700,000 for an Olympic sized pool by an additional half million dollars. Our campaign generated a total of $1.2 million.

The board voted unanimously to name the new facility the Elings Aquatic Center and sent Dr. Virgil Elings, our major donor, an official letter stating that his contribution would build an Olympic-size pool at DPHS.

End of story? Not according to Bob Noel. Out of nowhere, Noel published a rambling editorial in the News Press where he professed amnesia toward the board’s position on the Dos Pueblos Pool. In a second editorial this contrarian now turned lawyer again used the News Press to espouse the finer points of contracting. Once again he targeted the pool.

Noel’s ill-advised political double talk insulted our constituents and sent a tragic message to hundreds of children who rejoiced at the conclusion of a successful campaign only to find that Bob Noel forgot what he voted for. The Dos Pueblos swimming pool broke a lot of piggy banks and at the same time united a major segment of our community. To children, a vote is a vote. Not to Bob Noel.

Noel’s editorials prompted yet another visit to the School Board meeting. Those of us who waited two hours to address the board were treated to mini Noel seminars replete with rambling reference to his academic career. Primitive distributed game theory from the pre-computer era is not something one expects to hear at a school board meeting. This is particularly awkward when the record skips and the lecturer suddenly starts babbling about windows at Santa Barbara High School.

We reminded Bob Noel of his voting record in person at that board meeting and watched as he madly scribbled down what we had to say. Indeed, the entire display was reminiscent of Reagan and Iran-Contra. Pitiful. I do not think Bob Noel remembers what he and others said at previous board meetings. Perhaps this is why he distrusts fellow board members.

Can you imagine how frustrating this must be for other dedicated members of the school board? Despite his copious notes, Bob Noel had nothing to say in reply to any of us. No pithy little lecture. No news flash from the ivory tower. At the conclusion of the meeting, Noel changed his position for a third time and supported the pool. Evidently the needle found its way back onto the record.

Why waste time researching a small-time academic? Bob Noel cost our community considerable sums of money and tried to destroy a successful fundraising campaign that will change the lives of thousands of children for years to come. Self-absorbed contrarians obliterate any chance of consensus. Lack of consensus leads to delay. Delay cost millions in today’s building environment.

Those who want to know more about “brass knuckles” Bob from an impartial source should peruse the awkward biography that appeared in the News Press on 23 April 2006—after he accused fellow board members of violating the Brown Act. You’ll come away asking “why am I reading this drivel?” But think about it--this is what fellow board members deal with at every meeting.

Noel’s amnesia and inability to work with other board members robbed our community of money for our children. Most recently, Noel’s unfounded Brown Act accusations cost the School District almost $20,000.

Presumably there are those who read Bob Noel’s editorials and get a warm feeling that some bright light is looking out for the cash box. “Tsk tsk, look at those numbers. Bob’s setting ‘em straight again. You go Bob. You show your fellow board members how it’s done. Our man on the board—Bob.”

The “Our man Bob” crowd have never actually BEEN to a board meeting and watched this rube in action. Ask yourself how other dedicated board members feel when faced with unfounded accusations from a blowhard. It is time for this charade to end. Bob needs to start a less expensive career somewhere else.

Peter Neushul