« 5th SD Mailbox: Bates Mailer On Cassie DeSybil's Views Of Bates | Main | Mail In The 34th SD & 69th AD »

June 02, 2006


Mr. Umberg appears to lack familiarity with concepts called truth and honesty.
What about his (and Robin's) RESIDENCY? I have a tough time believing they're squeezed into a tiny Santa Ana condo when they own a much larger home over in Villa Park.
But the problem is that their VP house is in Republican territory well outside of SD 34 and AD 69.


Of course you don't want the personal lives of politicians to be a factor in this election, otherwise you'd have a huge problem with Sheriff Carona.

Regardless of whatever Tom Umberg has done, it pales in comparison to the ongoing misdeeds - both personal and professional - of Sheriff Carona.

Someone who tries hard to keep his personal life unsullied is someone who will govern the same way. Someone who only pretends to be good when everyone is watching, is not fit for public service. You can't bee "good" some of the time and be trusted.


Darn it -- you caught me! Am I that obvious? Or are you just that perceptive?

Because you know, at the secret ceremony where we drink the blood of a goat and swear unquestioning loyalty -- on pain of death -- to Dark Lord Mike Carona, we specifically pledge to advocate for keeping the private lives of politicians out of campaigns.

But somehow...somehow...you knew that, didn't you? You knew.

Chris Prevatt


You missed the point of my post on The Liberal OC blog and Robin Umberg's as well.

Lou Correa's supporting cast of IE's has used what Robin said, in a moment of anger, to the woman who had an affair with her husband, twisted it to look like a statement to the Register, and then used it as a reason why voters should not support her husband Tom Umberg.

This is about as low as a political hit piece can go. To use a candidates family in such a way is unacceptable. Attacking on issues and positions, that's fair game.

Bringing a candidates family into the mix is simply disgusting.

The reason the Republican corporate special interests are backing Lou Correa in the Democratic Primary is that they want the one true Republican to win the general election. In their eyes, that Republican is Lou Correa, not Daucher.


Here, here.

Honesty is an important factor in a candidate.

I believe that Umberg's wife would know best if her husband is a compulsive liar or not.

I believe Umberg's wife? She sounds like a nice lady. It unfortunate that Chris Prevatt discounts Mrs. Umberg's previous commnets.



I understand your point, but I think Robin Umberg's responds to the IE's misleading twist with a misleading twsit of her own. I have heard about but not seen the mailer in question. In Robin Umberg's letter, she leads the reader to believe she never said her husband is a compulsive liar, when in fact she did.

The Umberg campaign would have been better off putting it as you did -- something she said in a moment of anger.

This is one of those areas where the candidate's character is unavoidably drawn into the campaign, and it's ultimately Umberg's fault. But it ain't pretty, that's for sure. And it wouldn't be a campaign issuse except for the OCR stories.

I disagree with your assessment of why business interests are backing Correa. I don't think it has anything to do with thinking Correa, not Daucher, is the real Republican. You give them too much credit for calculation and fealty to party or principle.

Business interests aren't profiles in courage when it comes to campaign contributions. They're more like battered wives. In this case, my view is they're afraid of Don Perata, so their giving to Perata's choice in the 34th. If they were guided by self-interest, they'd be giving to Umberg, who has a better record on taxes.

I'm impressed with your continued loyalty to Mr. Umberg. Is a an alternate seat on the Democratic Central Committee so very valuable to you?
Which candidate has the most difficulty in telling the truth?
I'm a social progressive. Lou has always been completely honest with me when discussing issues on which we disagree. On social issues like abortion rights, civil rights for LGBT people, I disagree with Lou, but he will ALWAYS be honest with me and say that he can't vote the way I want him to vote. So I spend my time and energy trying to convince another member.
As for Tom. Although I agree with him on more issues (especially social issues), he has been less than honest with me. I believe it really is a personality defect in that Tom has gotten away with so many lies in his life that he does not see the need to be truthful.
Maybe the IE's are investing in Lou because they've found that although they don't always agree with his position, he is always honest with them. And based on my personal experiences, maybe these PACs don't trust Umberg.
TRUST is an important issue.

Chris Prevatt


Robin did not distort anything, read her letter again. She says that she never told the Register that her husband was a compulsive liar. You know, as well as I do where the statement came from and the context in which it was made.

The hit piece on Tom Umberg attributes her statement as being made to the Register. That is misleading.

Robin's letter accurately points out that she never made the statement to the Register as indicated by the mailer.

Regarding you view of the business interests, you could be right. It is clear that Don Perata's fingerprints are all over the IE's in this race and the 69th.

I hate it when people from outside Orange County come and crap in our sand box and then leave the mess for us to clean up.

Chris Prevatt

Re: Christopher-
I'm impressed with your continued loyalty to Mr. Umberg. Is a an alternate seat on the Democratic Central Committee so very valuable to you?...

Oh my, you caught my bias. I have been bribed into supporting Tom Umberg with an uncompensated position as Tom's alternate on the Democratic Party Central Committee.

God, I'm a cheap date.

On the matter of truth and honesty, short of his affair, I am hard pressed to substantiate the so called lies Tom Umberg is accused of committing.

Regarding his military service, Tom Umberg was indeed called to active duty to support both Iraq wars.

To assert that Tom Umberg lied about his military service because he sent a postcard that clearly indicated he was at Ft. Irwin in San Bernardino that mentioned he was in the desert is beyond ignorant.

There is no lie here, and no story or scandal either.

To assert that Tom Umberg lied about his military service in 2004, is equally ignorant of the facts. Tom Umberg was activated as an attorney in the Army Reserves. He was assigned to assist in the prosecution of suspected terrorists being held in military custody in Cuba. His duties had him working in many locations including Cuba.

There is no lie here, and no story or scandal either.

I had a roommate during the first Gulf War who was activated from the Air Force Reserves. I recall that he had no choice but to report for duty when and where he was told. I remember this because I had to move and find a new roommate at the time.

I know a dishonest man when I see one. His name is Lou Correa.

You indicated that in your conversations with Lou, he has always been honest with you and told you when he could not vote the way you wanted him to. That hasn’t been my experience.

In 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002 Lou kept telling the Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club, and other LGBT community leaders, that he supported LGBT civil rights, but not marriage equality. We never expected him to support marriage equality, we also did not expect that commitment out of Tom Umberg or any other Democrat seeking our support.

The problem with Lou is that when a tough vote came up, he either ran to the lounge, or voted directly against LGBT civil rights. In his last year in the Assembly, Lou Correa only supported LGBT civil rights issues 60% of the time. Lou holds distinction as one of the worst Democrats in supporting LGBT civil rights issues.

The only notable supportive vote to his credit was, when after he had abstained from voting on AB 205 the Domestic Partnership legislation, Assembly leaders needed him to cast the 41st vote to pass the final version of the bill out of the Assembly when it returned from the Senate.

Lou did not do this out of conviction, or principle. He voted for AB 205 to secure support from the Speaker and Latino Caucus for his protégé Claudia Alvarez in her campaign for the State Assembly in 2004.

In 2004, Lou Correa ran for the Orange County Board of Supervisors. At that time he promised his supporters, including all major labor organizations, that he was committed to staying in the Supervisor seat because he wanted to spend more time with his family.

He was asked directly if he would run for Senator Dunn’s seat in 2006. Lou committed to all of them that he would not run for the Senate in 2006, that if elected he intended to stay on the Board of Supervisors for his full term. Because of that commitment he received strong labor support and was elected.

I count now two specific commitments that Lou has failed to keep. I see no integrity or honesty here. I only see a liar who will say anything to get elected.

In Tom Umberg, I see a human being who has made some mistakes in his life. I also see an honorable man, who has served his county in the military, served the people of his district in the Assembly, and stepped up to the plate to oppose discrimination against lesbian and gay Californians who simply want the right to commit to a long term relationship with their spouse in a legal fashion.

I see no deception here. I see no dishonesty.

I see bravery.

I see a man who recognizes the wisdom of Martin Luther King, Jr. who said;

“The time is always right, to do what is right.”

Thomas Gordon

Some people running for Assembly in the 69th have no problem yelling discrimination at the top of her lungs, but has admitted she would vote against a gay marriage bill.

What kind of Dem is that?

I guess it's only discrimination if it happens to you.

I'm a Republican and think what people do is there own damn business.


Yes, one of those log cabin Republican.



I have that passage a few times already. It's very artfully phrased so that the reader will think she is denying having said Tom Umberg is a compulsive liar, when that is not what she is saying at all. Voters like you and me who are accustomed to reading this kind of stuff with a more jaundiced eye pick out what she is saying, but the average voter who is perusing her letter will take it to mean Roibin Umberg is denying having said her husband is a compulsive liar.

Was the "pathological" quote not printed in the OC Register? If it was, what's wrong with quoting it in the mailer and attributing it to the OC Register?
As for Tom's vote on the gay marriage bill, why are so many in the LGBT community so quick to ignore/forget Umberg's FIRST VOTE - remember that abstention you defended so very vehemently. I think that's the vote that very clearly told voters where Tom stood.
To those, like Prevatt, who claim Umberg is a great friend of the LGBT community, I ask where he was the first time around. He refused to vote for eaual treatment until he was pushed, prodded and cornered. I won't ever forget that first vote, and I have reminded many others of his shameful position.

I hardly believe you have any real knowledge about what motivated Lou Correa to vote for AB 205. I don't think it was a deal with the Speaker to support Claudia, but that's just my own opinion. And why are you indebted to Umberg for life for the crumbs he gave your community, but when Lou voted pro-LGBT he must have had an ulterior motive.
As for the 2004 interview with the CLC, I think you might be confused. As I recall, Chris, you were not in that room. I was. And Correa made his point clearly. He would not commit to serving out his entire term as supervisor. Anyone who remembers differently simply wasn't listening or has some sort of axe to grind.


Jubal---You're half-right about the resaon for all the corporate contributions to support Correa and bash Umberg---they do bend to pressure from Perata who is playing the role of Atlas for the Correa campaign. However, the business community is smarter then you give them credit for. They are playing heavily in Democratic primaries....Republicans in the legislature can only block budgets at the end of the day. If businesses want something, or really, really don't want something bad, they need some Dem votes. And thats why they're really playing in the primaries. Unions tried it a bit on the GOP side(Maddox comes to mind) with no success but business community think they have a few wins. They think of it as insurance---if its Correa or Daucher they can't lose. Daucher probably a bit better on business issues then Correa(as per Chuck Devore) and they could care less about the social stuff but that general election race is one they could sit out and not suffer. Umberg is a much better friend of the taxpayer then either Daucher or Correa but as you know, other then not wanting to do a split roll, the business community care more about business breaks then taxpayer breaks, cares more about fending off trial lawyers then helping retain middle income tax cuts and cares more about keeping lax environmental controls then trying to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. The California Chamber of Commerce couldn't have picked a better couple of candidates to represent their interests then COrrea and Daucher.

Chris Prevatt

To those who have posted without identifying themselves about Tom Umberg and his support for LGBT issues and the comments regarding Correa's promises not to run for Senate, let me respond.

On Tom's abstention on AB 19, the first Marriage bill you are right; many in the LGBT community were disappointed in Tom's failure to take a position at that time. But Tom did not betray us on AB19. In fact, Tom voted exactly the way he told us he would. Lucky for us, Tom had the opportunity to do the right thing on AB 849.

The vote of Lou's that I will never forget is the one where he voted against an Assembly Resolution to oppose the adoption of a Federal Marriage Constitutional Amendment. In this case Lou did not do what he committed to do which was to oppose discrimination against the LGBT community. He could have abstained; instead, he had to single himself out as the ONLY DEMOCRAT TO OPPOSE THE RESOLUTION.

Lou Correa is by far not a friend of the LGBT community. Tom Umberg's record of support for LGBT civil rights is far beyond what could ever be hoped for from Lou Correa. Lou is the one dishing out the crumbs here, and very tiny ones at that.

On the matter of what Lou may or may not have said to the CLC, you're right I wasn't in the room. What I do know is what the AOCSD, OCEA, SEIU, CSEA, and Firefighters have told me. Maybe, someone from those groups will respond.

Lou voted against a SYMBOLIC RESOLUTION and that's your big issue?!?! WEIRD.
As I recall the CLC endorsement meeting in 2004, he was asked that question directly by Marti Schrank. And his reply was that it was not a commitment that he could make. Perhaps there were different meetings with OCEA, AOCSD, SEIU, CSEA, and Firefighters.


It's so funny how before you mentioned that the gay marriage issue was not a top five issue for you yet that's all you write about.

The comments to this entry are closed.