BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Marking Territory in the Supe Race

The Guzz's comments about Barry Berkus "urinating" all over town has now found support in our favorite News-Press editor Travis Armstrong. Won't call him FactsWrong here -- Guzzardi said what he said.

Making uncivil comments in public is refeshing? Thank goodness? If this is what a candidate needs to do to to set themselves apart -- we've got problems. Feigned shock? No -- candidates that expect to work with other supervisors need to get along with each other. Comments like that don't facilitate cooperation.

Opposition to the State Street Lofts can stand on its' own merit -- Guzzardi didn't need to say what he said. Travis needs to remember what he said about Blum, Williams and even Nava in past elections...what makes this comment better?

47 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

amen.

3/01/2006 9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Travis and Joe are two peas in a pod. Travis repeating those crude comments that he would have crucified Gail or Susan for making just dilutes the credibility of Joes candidacy,and Travis's support of it. Go Travis!

3/01/2006 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love how factswrong uses the La Mesa forum to say janet, das and dan had nothing new to say, yet joe didn't even show up.

3/01/2006 9:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh Travis has sure earned his FactsWrong nickname here--it's true Guzz wasn't even at La Mesa forum. What a sham to have such a spinmeister editorializing. Very convenient to have the local news paper outline & reiterate your campaign rhetoric each week. So does FactsWrong need to fill out an independent expenditure for his/NP contribution to Guzz campaign? You know he'll blast Williams & Wolf for any expenditures by PACs like labor, Lois Capps, etc. but NP needs to be accountable for their political bias. NP doesn't even interview candidates anymore. What a shame.

3/01/2006 12:12 PM  
Blogger john san roque said...

It's not that I care what other bloggers say, but I have received a lot of criticism for complaining in past blogs about the unfairness of the NP editorial page. Today's editorial illustrates my point.

The issue I have raised is the unfairness of the editorial comments, and I got lectured in a patronizing way by several "anonymouses" who said that I didn't understand the difference between an editorial column and a news article. The question is not whether the editorials have the right to express opinions and preferences. Of course the do. The question is whether it's appropriate for the NP to treat individuals unfairly. My opinion and that of most of the people I know is that the NP editorials (and the skewing of letters to the editor) are so unbalanced that there's little credibility. Today's editorial is just a more obvious illustration of that unfairness.

The community deserves better.

3/01/2006 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i'm so glad this blog has gotten back to its original purpose - Travis. Traffic must have gone down in the last week without him. No wonder this types of postings are back. He's the draw here. Without him, this blog is nothing.

3/01/2006 9:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3/01/2006 9:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

True. Travis should get a royalty from Blogabarbara, because, without his intellectual lead, there are no ratings here.

Here's a test for those posting: Anytime he's called "FactsWrong," see if you can actually in the same sentence point out a fact that is wrong. Haven't been able to see it yet.

3/01/2006 9:51 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Took out a post as it tried to identify a previous commenter -- one of our guidelines, please don't do that.

Anon 9:51 -- read some of the posts above you. Armstrong discussed the Mesa forum but failed to mention that The Guzz wasn't there. Maybe it should be Facts-Left-Out instead?

Royalties? Several of us started this blog because of him -- he doesn't give you all the facts -- someone needed to offer an alternative. Defend him as you will -- he does not have a sense of fairness.

Other posts in recent weeks actually haven't shown a loss in readership, but show that there are certainly many things to talk about here.

3/01/2006 10:50 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

It looks like I made a mistake above in deleting the post as I forgot that John San Roque had written something above -- what I delete are posts that refer to people that don't self-identify....here's the text from anon 9:45:

John, buddy, you're still singing out of tune...

Come on, who's the editorial treating "unfairly"? Joe G? The pr rep? Barry B?

Remember, from last time, editorials don't have to be "balanced." News does; opinions don't.

If it's too much for you, skip the pag

3/01/2006 11:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3/02/2006 12:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ok valerio, let's see if you delete the above 12:40am comment; check out the last paragraph.

3/02/2006 7:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what eaxactly has travis said abut blum, das and pedro - the exact quotes, please. These people just like acting like victims. but why not look at the real record of what was said, rather than repeat their campaign managers gloss?
Das seems to get more praise from the editorials than anything else.

3/02/2006 8:53 AM  
Blogger john san roque said...

Dear Anonymous 9:45,

For a smart person, you seem to conveniently miss the point when it suits your arguments, so here it is at its most basic: What’s unfair is that the editorial page uses different standards to criticize or compliment individuals—depending upon whether it supports or does not support those individuals.

Yesterday’s example: the editorial complimented Guzzardi on his outspokenness (while not commenting on his actual position on the issue). Mayor Blum is one of the most outspoken local politicians I’ve seen in quite a while, but the editorial page criticizes her for her outspokenness (loose cannon, etc.).

You say that editorials need not be balanced. Do you also agree that they should use different criteria to evaluate people they like and don’t like? Is it your position that editorials have the right to be inherently unfair or “unbalanced” in how they evaluate people—like skewing the balance of letters to the editor? If you agree that’s the way it works for the News-Press, I guess we have no argument—just disagreement on what we think a newspaper should do.

3/02/2006 9:07 AM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

Yes, the "editorial complimented Guzzardi on his outspokenness". His position on the project was to oppose the massive Lofts Project (have you been paying attention?). The editorial also recognized that Guzzardi, Allied, CPA, LWV, and other city protectors HAVE BEEN FIGHTING CITY HALL FOR YEARS to get them to stop over-densifying Santa Barbara. This victory is the first in a LONG,LONG TIME.

On the other hand, Mayor Blum has been beat up in the editorial pages due to her keen ability to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. She has earned it. For instance, when a disabled child died at Los Banos, Marty defended her city staff by rationalizing that "she could have died on the sidewalk." (Now there's some sensitivity!) This is but ONE example of MANY hiccups during the Blum era.

The News-Press editorial page's standards are not inconsistent. John San Roque needs to understand that there's a big difference between Guzzardi's outspoken honesty and Mayor Blum's many inappropriate missteps.

3/02/2006 9:36 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Valerio El Cacique isn't actually a partner in this blog....just an avid reader and commenter.

I probably wil delete the previous post based on decency...moderating this blog is like a full time job.

3/02/2006 10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Suppose Guzz wins,,what's he gonna call any fellow supervisor he disagrees with...witchhead? weaselface? It could be very entertaining, which is what politics is nowadays.

3/03/2006 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Politics may be entertainment, but governing nearly a billion dollar budget takes a damn serious person.

And Joe and Das are not serious and could give a damn about teh budget.

The budget is our money. But it is more than that. It is mental health. It is healthcare for those without means. It is park and rec for kids and seniors. It is police and fire for us.

The reason Joe will compete for Das' votes as Joe is as immature and as self focused. The difference is that Das in sane and Joe is - - - well keep watching.

Joe prove us wrong - tell us why attacking someone in a manner that leaves you open to suit makes any sense -

The county faces nearly 10 million dollars in law suits over former actions - with Joe or Das that will grow to 100 million.

Not what we need - go Wolfe - well not really go - just go get elected or Joe will talk about you - you know - all over town.

3/03/2006 9:11 PM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

9:11 sounds like a spin-post from the JW campaign. No matter how hard you try to pretend, the Rose-pick just doesn't have the experience.

3/03/2006 10:27 PM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

And, oh yeah, leave it to a pro-school-board-candidate post to claim that a $660 million budget is "nearly a billion". Typical school board mentality...a million here, a billion there, what's the dif?

3/03/2006 10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill,

What do you have against Janet Wolf? Do you know her at all? You seem to be a very angry person. I hope you get help.

3/03/2006 11:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay Bill - think seriously and be honest.

You have to leave your families money - oversight of your home and children with someone for a year - or maybe four - who do you pick?

Joe - who has proven time and time again that he cannot get along with others in manner and has an anger problem.

Das - who is a child himself.

Janet - a mother and person with self control and some thought process before jumping.

Dan - a self made man from an orphanage who put himself through medical school and knows at the end of the day most of government comes down to money managment.

Bill, says Joe.

3/03/2006 11:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the Newspress seems to be bipolar when it comes to development. Back when the County was forming the Toro Canyon Plan, they were all about property rights and against the plan...now, Berkus wants to build some condos, which would allow some workers a modest home, and they side with some of the whiny neighbors. Folks need to see the difference between good and bad development:
GOOD: the Laguna highway condos
BAD: the mega-mansions and castles littering the Summerland hills

3/04/2006 6:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Odd post at 11:53 pm. Yet an interesting way of looking at the supervisors. To get someone to say no to everything which I am not sure is good (good to say no to some, not to all) Joe is your man.

If you want someone who will do the right thing - it is Dan and Janet - no doubt.

If you want someone to stop in for a moment on the fast track to higher office it is Das.

Das is like meeting someone who is always looking over your shoulder looking for someone more important or better looking. Never willing to really focus on you but looking for something better for him. Sorry Das love ya but do not want to keep ya.

3/04/2006 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill -

You state that Janet does not have the experience but Joe does. I do not understand that. Joe has been rejected for publlic office soundly three times (he is sort of the younger Bruce Rittenhouse) but has never held office.

If working in some sub-department of public safety qualifies him over Janet who has overseen a budget and made tough choices in very difficult times - maybe I am just not getting your definition of "experience."

3/04/2006 12:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some of you cannot understand that it will take one as crude, outspoken and tough as Joe to get what we need in Noleta - who cares about the rest of the second - hope ranch needs nothing, goleta has the council and the city of santa barbara has its own council. The territory that needs to be marked is noleta and Joe and only Joe can do it.

3/04/2006 3:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe can do it - make a total mess of our community. I work with him and he is selfish and as others have said a little bit off. He can go crazy over the smallest things and has no self control. So the urinate statements surprise no one where Joe works. He has and will say worse. I will vote for Joe just to get rid of him at work, my gain the county loses.

3/04/2006 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks, 3:41-----pay attention, people; this is how much credibility Joe would get from County Departments=ZERO. This makes a big difference, you CSP zealots. Joe may make you feel good today, but you would be left with him only. He brings nothing with him but disrespect, rolling eyes and shut doors. if that's worth it to you, go for it.

3/04/2006 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe

+

Board of Supervisors

=

Rolling eyes

+

Disrespect

Meaning we in Noleta have no, absolutely No representation.

And then we will be embrassed.

Janet.

=

Respect

3/04/2006 4:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe

+

Board of Supervisors

=

Rolling eyes

+

Disrespect

Meaning we in Noleta have no, absolutely No representation.

And then we will be embrassed.

Janet.

=

Respect

3/04/2006 4:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Realators recently did a survey that shows Dan Secord might not come in first and that there is a possiblity it doesnt make the runnoff. Pour it on man, we can put this rep. away in June.

007.

3/04/2006 5:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Das will be the greatest thing that has ever happened to our county. His potential is limitless.Please, lets unite to elect him. Joe, drop out. Janet step aside for a fast mover. Let Das go head to head with Dan Secord. It will be a campaign for the ages.

3/04/2006 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 549; some in the second district care more about the issues than a "fast mover" with a fan club and ego. Please find another playground for "the greatest thing". He hasn't been "the greatest thing" for the City of Santa Barbara. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that the candidate who has held elected office for 3 consecutive terms, has the early endorsement of veteran democratic elected representatives and who has built a solid career, community ties and perspective to "step aside".

3/04/2006 6:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes it will be a campaign for the ages when Das has to defend his work for the living wage movement, the campaign against Goleta cityhood, his interest in getting back to Sacramento as an assemblymember the second that Pedro moves on,and his extreme liberal politics. Dan Secord will eat him alive.

So yes, go Das go! You are Dan Secords salvation!

3/04/2006 6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

many are beginning to wonder if Dan and Das have some sort of understanding-Das helps Dan win by doing more damage to the liberals who were once aligned and then Dan clears the way for Das in some future camp.

3/04/2006 7:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glad to see Das is living up to promise of a clean campaign. Let the factotums spill the blood. How is the devils bargain paying off for his City Council alllies?

3/04/2006 11:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe Guzzardi used a metaphor to illustrate how builders push in projects
with certain criteria to set a precedent that will help that criteria be
more acceptable in later projects. You should keep the context
of the remark in mind, and as Bill noted, please understand that
residents have been fighting such projects for years. Joe gets it,
and he's not afraid to be honest.

Janet Wolf is simply not strong enough in terms of knowledge or guts
to take on the development battle that is currently in full force in
Santa Barbara. She's working on that, I know. And whether she
is genuine or not, she is backed by the famously two-faced Susan Rose
who has been politely robbing her constituents of proper representation
for years. Not a good endorsement.

Das Williams is a charmer, but seems more interested in his own gain than doing
what's best for 2nd district. He has said that Joe would represent the people
well, but Das is running anyway, and is prepared to abandon his duties
at the City Council. Why?

Dan Secord 's record is supposedly not good for those who do not want to
see Santa Barbara overdeveloped. And he is simply not as involved
as the other candidates.

I'm voting for the honest, straightforward guy that sees it the way I do. That would be Joe.

3/05/2006 8:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

__________________________________________________________________________________

"I'm voting for the honest, straightforward guy that sees it the way I do. That would be Joe."


_____________________________________________________________________________________


Oh make me ill -

Honest - taking a lot of money from the man who killed our beachfront in Santa Barbara, Fess Parker. The same man who wants to sell to the tribe to bypas local government.

Straightforward - as opposed to ?

Joe is a disaster for all - he will sell out to the wrong guy and anger every department in the county - all he cares about is two parcels in noleta

3/05/2006 2:02 PM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

Just met a high-ranking public safety "chief" who told me that The Guzz has been working with fire and law departments for the last several years. Contrary to the 2:02pm post, this guy tells me that The Guzz has been a dedicated county rep who has brought many departments together. Sounds like the negative comments are nothing but nasty spin from the other camps.

3/05/2006 4:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3/05/2006 7:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 7:18pm commenter --

I am not Bill and I am not Joe. I am one of those people who live in the "Noleta" area. I have been keeping closer tabs than most as to what's happening with the development machine and our local government. I am not just reading the papers, but going to the meetings, talking directly with candidates and our present supervisor Ms. Rose.

My only agenda is to see this area keep its current charm and not become ruined by the development machine. I can tell you from firsthand experience that Travis is telling it like it is, and that Joe Guzzardi is the best choice for 2nd district supervisor. It would nice if the best candidate was also backed with the most cash or the biggest endorsements. But, in this case, he is who he is: a great down-to-earth, knowledgable, well-spoken person who is firm in his positions. (Yes, I did say "well-spoken" -- and if you take the chance to speak with him or listen to him in person, not just picking up one line out of the newspaper, you will find this to be true.)

So much of what you are saying is really angry. I'm wondering why a person would be so offended by those of us who cherish the natural beauty and livability of this coastal land? Maybe you don't know the details of what is going on behind the scenes. Most people don't. It's nearly impossible to keep up and keep a fulltime job going. And that is precisely why good representation is so important.

3/07/2006 8:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If this were a just society then Das wouldnt even have to run. He is the most qualified "potential" in the race!

3/07/2006 12:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Das is the only candidate conducting himself in an "adult" manner. joe seems like a nut case.

3/07/2006 1:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is John Davies doing Secords campaign?

3/07/2006 2:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Davies, Davies, Davies!!!! Boogah, Boogah, Boogah!!!

3/09/2006 7:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need some balance on this blog. Das is under represented. I fear this blog has been taken over by Davies and is no longer representative of our community.

3/09/2006 3:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

keep dreamin', 3:46.......

3/09/2006 7:15 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home