Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

WPC Dinner Candidate Faux Pas

This weekend's Women's Political Committee dinner was described quite well by David Pritchett for EdHat but several readers wondered whether he caught the candidate faux pas from both Margaret Connell and Cynthia's not really related to Pritchett's subject matter but it's interesting nonetheless....

Even though the WPC did not endorse fellow incumbent Jack Hawxhurst -- Margaret Connell and Cynthia Brock continued to use their stump speech about keeping together "the team" with Roger Aceves (fellow WPC endorsee and candidate for council) right there on stage. While jaws dropped and heads scratched at why they would challenge a WPC endorsement on stage at their own dinner -- Aceves apparently took it in stride by making a joke to lighten the tension the two incumbents had created. Hawxhurst who shows intolerance any chance he can get -- "Chamber of Concrete", "Sacramento is Moscow" -- unless he is on TV, knows he must ride on Margaret's coat tails. He's very lucky to have her cooperation and should praise her dearly if he is re-elected.

Why they insist on keeping together "The Team" when Hawxhurst fails to act like a team member only lowers their chances of winning....the Goleta race is worth watching. It may be the big story of the election unless Measure D wins by something crazy 75%.


Anonymous I was there said...

Sara---I was there, and I'm not a Goleta resident, but my jaw dropped when Margaret and Cynthia so rudely and blatantly invoked the one candidate the WPC did NOT endorse-Hawxhurst. Can I just say......tacky? classless? Worse than that Margaret and Cynthia chose to subvert the theme of the dinner by stating "it's NOT time for a change" RUDE

WPC endorsed Connell, Brock, and Aceves---- Aceves embodies almost every one of the principles WPC stands for. Hawxhurst---well, not so much.

So, shame on Margaret and Cynthia for being unable to be gracious for just one moment---and instead revealing their desperation at the thought that just perhaps the voters might want a "change" digging their heels in with Jack, they may have lost perspective and end up losing more than one seat....

....I'm just sayin...

10/24/2006 7:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wasn't there. But I admire Cynthia's and Margaret's loyalty in not just dumping Jack in front of that audience.

Though it makes endorsements, the WPC does not expect its members to vote in lock step with its endorsements.

Let's not forget that Jack led the successful fight to prevent McDonalds from adding a drive thru to the already jammed Costco entrance at Storke. There were 3 other fast food drive thrus within a mile or so radius so one more at Costco was the last thing Goleta needed.

Margaret and Cynthia would still form a majority with Wallis if re-elected. So their continued support of Jack is born more of their respect for the diversity he brings the council than out of any disrespect for the WPC.

Just my opinion, of course and I'm sure there will be others.

10/24/2006 9:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, kudos to Connell and Brock for keeping a consistent message, and not altering their statements for each audience.

We saw plenty of that in the 2nd district sup primary. Notice how Janet Wolf says nothing about housing and growth in her campaign materials. Yet, in smaller venues she's been making promises. Should we trust her? Why would we? We discovered that we could not trust Rose, who represented Towbes better than any other single resident in her own district. Das was the worst in changing his tune for his audience. I hope he will learn from steadfast people like by Brock, Connell and Guzzardi.

And before you all call me a Dan man, let me say that I'm not so sure about him either.

Vote for Brock and Connell if you can. We need more honest people in government.

10/24/2006 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember Jack Hawxhurst himself is a developer... he subdivided and developed a tract near Mission Canyon.... it was OK for him to make some bucks on development, but now, of course, he has seen the light and makes political hay from his opposition to development.

He is entertaining, however.

10/24/2006 11:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think anon 1059 really gives himself away-- he's obviously spinning for Dan--- I've heard of NO promises made by Wolf other than to listen to the community, stand up for the right of the public to have a voice and fight for the preservation of Gaviota....but it makes sense that you're putting Brock and Guzzardi in the same category. I wouldn't say that about Margaret Connell though; she is her own person.

10/24/2006 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think anon 1115 really gives herself away-- she's obviously spinning for Janet

10/24/2006 11:33 AM  
Anonymous Being there said...

Anon 9:11--you're right, you weren't there. If you were, you would realize that Margaret and Cynthia did more than show loyalty in their pathetic plea for "no change"--by not-so--slyly denigrating the other WPC-endorsed Goleta City Council candidate seated just steps away from them, they insulted the WPC and its painstaking endorsement process. It was not lost on many of us. If their own individual candidacies are so strong---then they didn't even need to mention a third candidate at all. But they did. and it didn't help them. It made them sound desperate and helpless if their whole "team" is not reelected. Sad.

10/24/2006 11:36 AM  
Anonymous 10:59 here said...

I've nothing to hide. I'm a Joe man debating whether to vote for Secord or Wolf. You have not heard Janet's promises because she hasn't advertised them on the large scale. That is the point of my earlier posting -- these politicians show different colors in front of different audiences.

But not Brock. Not Guzzardi. Not Connell.

10/24/2006 2:16 PM  
Anonymous David Pritchett said...

While I appreciate the link to EDHAT, this string of comments and the initial premise are a bit sad and conspicuously partisan towards Aceves.

My news note was intended to be about the awards, especially the Lemon Award to News-supress McCaw, an award by WPC that has not been justified for 10 years until now.

The same venting and spinning comments here about Secord, Wolf, and Hawxhurst are quite tired and should be over at Goleta Valley Observer.

Womens's Political Committee endorses the best FEMINIST candidates, who for this year included Aceves in the judgment of the endorsement committee. I detected little or no reaction in the crowd about Brock and Connell plugging for Hawxhurst during their remarks of less than a minute each.

Several men also were endorsed for other local offices. See the list here

10/24/2006 5:36 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

David -- no disrespect was meant to you personally and I thought your piece on the lemon award to be very good.

I just received a few emails on the Connell/Brock comment and thought it was an interesting aside. My thought during the day, however, was how does everything turn out to be all about the second district even if it isn't mentioned in the post?

Thanks for all you do.

10/24/2006 6:08 PM  
Anonymous genderwatch said...

It is sexist to pick on Cynthia and Margaret while defending Roger.

10/24/2006 11:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's talk tacky, how about Pedro's attempt at "humor" while he was playing auctioneer?!

10/25/2006 9:28 AM  
Blogger Bill Carson said...

So...according to political guru Dave Pritchett, the WPC "supports the best feminist candidates"?

Why is this O.K.?

Federal, State and local employment laws forbid basing hiring decisions on gender, yet this group promotes a clear form of gender bias when selecting political candidates. Where's the logic in that!?

We ALL should be selecting the best and brightest candidates, and NEVER base our decisions on gender or something like a "feminist" ageda.

It's no wonder we end up with so many ineffective elected officials.

10/25/2006 9:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The best and brightest don't run, that's how we end up with so many impotent elected officials.

10/25/2006 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Valerio said...

Bill Carson:

So instead of feminist candidates, should they endorse sexist candidates instead?

Okay if you are sexist yourself and do not know the difference between feminist and feminine, but at least do not try to lecture everyone here by pretending you do.

And why would not the "best and brightest" candidates also be the best feminist candidates, if that is how the private organization that makes the endorsement wants to determine who is the best and brightest?

The best feminist candidate is not always the female candidate. I know you cannot fathom that, but it can be true. Just look at the current list of candidates they endorsed, but I doubt you did.

I know these are difficult concepts to understand. When you do, we then can take up the idea of legally married lesbians who get pregnant and raise happy and healthy children, and deserve the same salaries as men for the same job. I know that may just seem impossible to understand, but it happens often, just like the best feminist political candidates are not always the feminine ones.

10/25/2006 9:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I normally agree with 3:21 above me.. but in this case I know Dan is the best and brightest and also so much of an idealist that he still believes in the people of this town. I can't believe he has the energy to tackle all the BS they sling at him. Go Dr. Dan!

10/25/2006 9:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What Brock and Connell did had nothing to do with being "feminists", or standing up for Jack, or showing loyalty, "I was there" had it right when he/she said it was tacky and classless. If Aceves was not a better feminist than Jack, Brock and Connell could have strong armed their way to his endorsement. Just like in City Council Meetings, they care only about their clique. Come on, guys...are we in high school? Can we please be open minded and give credit where it is deserved (to Roger)? This close-minded, stick with the status quo nonsense is why the city is in the situation it's in now. While I, a "good feminist", originally supported Brock and Connell, I will NOT be supporting them in this election. They have not put the city first, are going to bury us in lawsuits, and have not given the city any additonal benefits we should have received when we reached citihood. That's why I am voting for Bennett, Onnen and Aceves.

10/31/2006 6:50 PM  
Anonymous Huey Chapala said...

Feminists come is all genders.

Writing about an 'indignant reaction' usually is a diversion. It is part of the Bush Republican play book to use it to avoid engaging a substantive discussion and bully dissent into silence.

Anyone can react to anything but reasonable people can honestly disagree about an issue.

Curious how the 2nd District comes up in this forum with some bashing when this race has already been settled and it is not on the ballot. Very curious indeed...

10/23/2007 11:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home