« OC Blog News Roundup -- October 27, 2005 | Main | Sanchez, Umberg and Dunn: Infallible Hypocrites »

October 27, 2005



Hey Jubal.

Thank you for making the point that fire never received Prop 172 funds when that is what the people who voted upon it in 1993 were led to believe.

We appreciate your support.

Keep up the good work.


Predictably, you miss the point.

Really? The fact that it uses the word restore that's all you've got?

Ok, how about this, it "restores" what was "promised" to the voters in 172.

That is almost as impotent an argument as mental power houses Wayne Quint and Chris Norby offering that the "biggest lies" being told by the Yes on D campaign were:
a) that Yes on D has signs in Garden Grove who has their own fire department, and
b) the Yes on D "paid for signatures" to get the measure on the ballot.

So the best attacks the "No" side has on the campaign so far are -
a) promoting a countywide ballot measure throughout the county
b) following common political practices
c) pointing out how promises to the voters were never kept.

Honestly, this set of arguments are almost as bad as the clear deception as to why not to vote for Measure D that the Sheriffs are spewing.

Perhaps if the no side gets just one single item worth considering... people might actually believe them.

Yes on D

Bruce Matthias

I hope that there are enough firemen not obsessed with this Measure D thing left to put out fires. Most of these guys seem to be venting on your blog. But with so few fires any more, maybe I have nothing to be concerned about.

It is nice to see how sensitive they are; nothing more attractive to the ladies than a fireman in touch with his feminine side. That brings me to their most potent, and as yet unused, tactic for winning this fight. The firemen need to start appearing in their ads with their shirts off. Hey, it sells those calendars so it might work for Measure D.


Really? The fact that it uses the word restore that's all you've got?

The entire premise of the Yes On Measure D is that words have meaning, i.e. firemen should get a portion of 172 funds because TV ads promised they would.

But when it comes to the Yes On Measure D campaign, it's OK to air misleading ads? That's funny coming from someone who wants to conform funding formulas to a 13 year-old TV ad.

This isn't Alice in Wonderland. Either words have meaning or they don't. You can't pick and choose.

Jeff Flint


Let's dispense with the "it's an opinion blog, if you don't like mine, start your own blog" defense from the start.

You've made it quite clear you oppose Measure D. Fine. Your reasons, while I disagree with them, are at least more rational than most of the opposition.

But you cannot for one second compare the supposed "misleading" Yes on D campaign to the utter BS spewing from the No campaign.

Their TV ads are on their website. Why don't you post those ads here with some "penetrating insights" into those ads?

For example, the woman whose 9-1-1 call goes unanswered because Measure D passed. Or the 210 deputies fired, which no one, not even the opponents of Measure D, actually believe, AND THEY ADMIT IT!

It was exposed for the nth time by Norberto Santana today in the Register.

How about their "independent analysis?" It was prepared by someone they employ.

How about the $30 million cut? Someone of your philosophy, with which I agree as you know, should be fuming about a campaign that faces a very slight reduction in the rate of growth of their funding, and calls it a massive cut. As I have said before, if you accept that logic, then you msut accept the logic from the CTA that they wanted a $ 6 billion increase in public school fundiung this year, Arnold only gave them a $3 billion increase, therefore their funding was "cut" by $3 billion.

Pension obligations? Unions? The pension obligations of the public employee unions on the No side of Measure D dwarf those of the OCFA. No even the same order of magnitude. There are ~25,000 public employee union memberrs on the No side of Measure D, and 750 on the Yes side.

As far as the Yes on D ad, the only thing you could find "misleading" is to take one word, out of about 75 words, take that word out of context, and then label it.

"Restore" in the conext of the whole ad clear refers to restoring the distribution of Prop 172 funds to the manner in which voters were promised. As in restoring a promise of the voters.

The Yes campaign has done the readers of this blog a service in sending you all our press releases, digital versions of our ads, because we have nothing to hide. The No campaign hopes that no analysis of their statements is forthcoming, because they can't pass the laugh test.

Unfortunately for them, the Register's news section has slapped them up one side and down another again today.


You know what Jubal, I will agree with you, the words do have meaning. And the meaning of the ad therefore is...

Measure D "restores" the "promises" to the voters to give prop 172 money to firefighters.

And it wasn't just TV ads, it was ballot arguments, stump speeches, and agreements that led to the passage of 172.

You are right. Words have meaning, promises mean even more, and honesty with the electorate is the most meaningful dialogue. Somewhere in all of this the No on D side is going to have to come out and admit that they made this agreement with the firefighters, they have decieved the voters with their claims, and that they need to be honest with the electorate.

So far they have not, and the long term consequences of that will be far more damaging to their credibility than whether or not Measure D passes, which incidentally it will.

Bruce... I think OCFA can arrange to get you a free calendar if that is what you are looking for...

You talk about "restoring" promises? And I constantly hear the word "intent of the voters" as if you are in a position of benevolence. As if your only purpose in pushing measure D is to look out for the voters/taxpayers...what a joke!

The grandeur of your TajMahal didn't cause anyone to stop and think: "Hey maybe we should look out for those voters" You spend like drunken sailors and look for another well to fund your excess!

I used to think that people like Steven Greenhut and his version of public safety employee unions was nothing more than a stereotype or caricature to further his political vision....but you've not only proved him right, you've become the sterotype!

It's okay though..because your ads aren't as misleading as law enforcement's...if that's the best you can do to fleece the voters/taxpayers then shame on them if they buy that.

I've always known politicians to be friends of firefighters. Nothing pleases them more than to stand arm in arm with you guys next to your shiny trucks.

It has to make even the average joe wonder about your master plan to suck up more tax dollars when it becomes so disgusting that even most OC politicians are abandoning your cause....

I guess it's true what they say about rats fleeing a sinking ship!


Hey Jubal. You blast the Yes on D commercial for one word.

How about taking a look at the latest No on D commercial and try to convince anyone on this board or anywhere else for that matter that the passage of Measure D will cause another County bankruptcy.

This is what's known in show biz as a laff riot.


Ah - the "Well, it's not just me! They're doing it too!" defense.


Misleading is the 1993 commercial that made 172 pass! Remember the one with all the fire and very little cop stuff. The one that said money will go to police and fire. So now you want to twist the truth even more. The people of Orange County and the OCFA are tired of your games and your lies.


Is it Jubal or Jerbal?


What you're really saying is that you make an accusation of misleading based upon one word from one side, but overlook the complete canards and prevarications from the other and tacitly say it is okay.


Maybe if the OCFA didn't raise it's spending by 5.8% in one year, or if they were honest with the people and told that they have raised General Fund spending by over $11 million...the General Fund pays for the things that the Fire Authority is whining about not being able to pay for, like salaries, pensions, and safety eqiuipment. Also, why has it taken 12 years to react to "not being given what you were promised"?


Is it Jubal or Jerbal?

Ha! Hahahahah! Ha! You slay me!


What you're really saying is that you make an accusation of misleading based upon one word from one side, but overlook the complete canards and prevarications from the other and tacitly say it is okay.

Nice try. You're more than welcome to begin using fact, logic and reason at any time.


The people of Orange County and the OCFA are tired of your games and your lies.

Take a deep breath, Firedude.

OC Fire Storm

>>>Is it Jubal or Jerbal?

>>>Ha! Hahahahah! Ha! You slay me!

Well, gotta admit it was good for a quick chuckle, albeit at your expense.

When's this silliness over, anyway???


What part of the argument isn't factual? You mention one word not to your liking.

It's what's called pedantic.

How about you address the other sides claim that Measure D's passage will be a harbinger of a second bankruptcy. What is the basis for that?

I've got some Greenhut math for you as it relates to deputies being laid off.

210 sheriffs laid off and $77 million surplus. That means the average salary of a sheriff is more than $366,666 a year.

Prove me wrong.



Regarding my post:

I wasn’t comparing the two campaigns. What I did was point out that your side has regularly accused the No on D side of waging a misleading campaign, and now you’ve aired an ad that is misleading.

I haven’t posted any of the No sides ads because I didn’t know they were on their website, which I haven’t visited in a while.

I took nothing out of context. The ad doesn’t say, “Measure D restores the distribution of Prop 172 funds to the manner in which voters were promised,” nor does it say “Measure D restore a promise to the voters.” It says “Measure D restores funding for fire protection and paramedics.”

Any voter hearing that will be misled into concluding fire services have been cut, and Measure D will restore that cut. I’m taking nothing out of context – it’s the ad that is misleading because it lacks context and gives the word “restore” a meaning it doesn’t have.

Critics of my critique accuse is me of focusing on “one word.” My response is that word is central to the argument advanced by that ad. It’s not as if I’m blasting the ad because it used “a” instead of “an.”

And again, since the Yes On Measure D campaign is based on the premise that words have meaning, accusing me of quibbling about “one word” is an odd criticism.

As for the broader question of Measure D:

I don’t work for the No On Measure D campaign. My opposition to Measure D has nothing to do with whether or not the county’s law enforcement budget will be cut or its growth rate slowed.

I believe that domestically, one of the conservative movement’s top goals must be to reduce the power of public employee unions. Government employee unions work to expand their membership – meaning adding people to the government payroll – and to use their political muscle to increase the pay, benefits and pensions of their members. This is done at the expense – in terms of money and liberty – of taxpayers. The political power of government employee unions is the closest we come to European politics here in America.

Measure D gives more money to the OCFA to, as your mail states, hire more firefighters. That means a bigger and more powerful firefighters union, which will continue to use its considerable political muscle to push for ever-more generous pay, benefits and pensions.

I’m opposed to hiring more firemen, because it means a bigger firemen’s union, and that is against the interests of taxpayers.

Maybe I’ve missed it, but there isn’t any crisis in the OCFA’s ability to put out fires, provide emergency medical services, respond to hazmat calls, or attract qualified candidates. Essentially, the firefighters want more tax money because…they want more tax money. It’s the nature of government employee unions. This “will of the people” business is propaganda. The firefighters union would be attempting this grab even if Orange County voters had rejected Prop. 172 back in 1993.

Like most people in Orange County, I have friends or relatives who are firemen. But Measure D isn’t about whether I or anyone else likes firefighters as people. I want to see the power of all government employee unions reduced – but the choice I have in November is between the status quo, or giving more money, members and political power to the firefighters union. I’ll opt for the status quo.



You've been commenting here long enough to know the rules:

1) No personal attacks

2) No foul language.

Argue your point all day long -- just watch the language. If you can't control yourself, you'll be banned.


It's what's called pedantic.

As in your obsessive repeating of that one number "210"?


I didn't manufacture 210 out of thin air. Carona put out a letter with his signature, and it is now a standard on the No on D campaign material. And the latest article in the OC Register confirms that number to be an outright fabrication.

I apologize for the expletive. Next time I will say, "picking the fly scatology out of the pepper".

How's that?


I didn't manufacture 210 out of thin air.

When did I say you did?

The comments to this entry are closed.