« Total Buzz Gets The Picture On Carol Rudat | Main | County GOP Takes On Coast Community College "Out of Touch" Leadership »

September 18, 2006

Comments

calwatch

And that's a safe position. I expect M to do fine. It won't get to 2/3 by any means, but it will get in the high 50's, which will be pretty good. Tweak the measure a bit to throw out Metrolink to midnight and add a few more arterials to the synchronization list, and/or more money for local street repair, and you have a two thirds majority.

Allan Bartlett

I get the sense people are going to rightly vote down all propositions dealing with new taxes and spending this November. Measure M is just going to be collateral damage.

Powder Blue Report

Isn't Todd's job to beg for crumbs from Sacramento? We didn't send him there to work on his tan or his next job, he is suppose to bring home the pork!

larry gilbert

At tonight's Orange County Central Committee meeting, which I attended, members debated the pro' and con's of this $11.8 billion dollar "new" tax. If that dialogue and vote is any indication of voter intent the 2006 Measure M extension will fail.

If you have time tomorrow evening, and wish to learn more about the flawed Measure M extension, please attend the Measure M debate between Supervisor Bill Campbell and myself being held at the La Habra Community Center at 7 pm. Learn about the $6 billion dollar TCRP from SAC where Orange County, to quote a Sacramento staffer said that we "didn't get squat." It should be an interesting evening preceding a local candidate forum.
Larry Gilbert www.noMtax.org

larry gilbert

Page 2. "The rest of the story." Did you notice in his post how Jeff praises three speakers, each of whom urged the Central Committee to be "neutral" while failing to mention those who spoke in opposition. But then again Jeff is being paid to support the Measure extension while those of us in opposition are trying to protect the taxpayers of OC. Don't expect "fair and balanced reporting" in his remarks.
Tim Whitaker, Marcia Gilchrist and Baron Knight each spoke out in "opposition." The bottom line. None of the six speakers urged a yes vote. Is that not accurate Jeff?
Best regards,
Larry Gilbert, Investigative field reporter, www.cuttingedge-atalkshow.com

Jeff Flint

Larry:

You are a fine guy, but Paul Harvey, you're not. Back when you thought you had the party endorsement for No on M, you spoke of what a great coup that was. Now that you lost that position by an overwhelming vote, it suddenly does not matter?

By the way, I have been going to Central Committee meetings and fighting the good fight for quite a while. I have known Marcia Gilchrist and most of the folks there for a long, long time, so the "Jeff's a mercenary, and we're the tireless band of volunteers fighting the good fight" thing is a bit old.

For the record though, yes, it is generally not considered a good strategy to spend my time repeating the other side's arguments.

As far as the speakers on my side, as a matter of fact, Peter Godfrey has long advocated that the party not focus so much on endorsements. And both Todd Spitzer and Mike Duvall strongly stated that they supported Measure M. Is that not accurate, Larry?

Jeff Flint

One more thing, Larry, since we like to post in two's.

The speakers on your side all agreed that Measure M should be extended, (and thus support a "new" tax by your definition) and praised the existing Measure M, yet argue that we should hold out for a different "New M" that is "better."

Yet the allocations of funding for old M and New M between freeways, roads, and transit is exactly that same.

Perhaps you can "investigate" the inconsistency of that argument and "report" back?

Jeff

larry gilbert

Jeff. I look forward to seeing you at the debate tonight. If you can't attend I'll send you a recap. Larry

This is great

Great

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories