Hannah-Beth Throws Her Hat in the Ring
Perhaps somewhat Fred Thompson-esque, Former Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson (for web info see Speak Out California) seems poised for a later-than-most announcement about her run for the State Senate. Although it was not on letterhead or from an HBJ domain, it seems her campaign sent out a press release this evening saying she will make an announcement tommorrow afternoon at Shoreline Park in Santa Barbara.
She will join Simi Valley resident and former Ventura County Supervisor candidate Jim Dantona in the race for the Democratic Party nomination. Dantona, a Democratic Leadership Council Democrat, was recently seen in Santa Barbara at the party's Labor Day BBQ and a fundraiser for his campaign in Montecito.
Many of you will likely disagree as Hannah-Beth from our viewpoint in Santa Barbara seems like a sure thing to win the primary -- but Dantona is a good fundraiser and a hard worker. Senate District 19 includes portions of Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties. Conservative Democratic pockets could be the micro-trend which make the difference.
Still, my early money would have to go to Hannah-Beth as the victor. What say you?
She will join Simi Valley resident and former Ventura County Supervisor candidate Jim Dantona in the race for the Democratic Party nomination. Dantona, a Democratic Leadership Council Democrat, was recently seen in Santa Barbara at the party's Labor Day BBQ and a fundraiser for his campaign in Montecito.
Many of you will likely disagree as Hannah-Beth from our viewpoint in Santa Barbara seems like a sure thing to win the primary -- but Dantona is a good fundraiser and a hard worker. Senate District 19 includes portions of Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties. Conservative Democratic pockets could be the micro-trend which make the difference.
Still, my early money would have to go to Hannah-Beth as the victor. What say you?
Labels: Hannah-Beth Jackson, Jim Dantona, SD 19
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 10/16/2007 10:06:00 PM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
54 Comments:
Here is Dantona in his own words:
Jim Dantona
Candidate for
Supervisor; County of Ventura; Supervisorial District 4
Biographical Highlights
* Occupation: Independent Small Businessman
* Founder & Chair: Baseballers Against Drugs
* FBI Director's Community Leadership Award
* Chairman's Club: Ronald Reagan Library
* Ventura County Transportation Committee: First Public Appointee
* Chief of Staff: President Pro-Tem California State Senate
* Consultant: Two U.S. Presidents
Top Priorities if Elected
* Smart Growth
* Public Safety
* Illegal Immigration & Secure American Borders
Key Endorsements
* Ventura County Firefighters
* California Organization of Police and Sheriffs
* California State Firefighters Association
Former assemblywoman to seek McClintock's Senate seat
By Timm Herdt
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
related linksSTORY TOOLS
* E-mail story
* Comments
* iPod friendly
* Printer friendly
* Digg!
related linksMore from Local News
* 'Everyone's soldier' buried in Oxnard
* Home sales fall 48.8% countywide, report says
* For fans, October a month of agony
Former Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson will announce today she is running for the state Senate in 2008, setting up a possible Democratic primary battle in a district that could become one of the biggest partisan battlegrounds in California next year.
Jackson, 57, a Santa Barbara attorney who represented portions of Ventura County in the Legislature from 1998 to 2004, becomes the second Democrat to enter the race, joining Simi Valley political consultant Jim Dantona, who narrowly lost his race for county supervisor last year.
The 19th Senate District, now represented by Republican Tom McClintock, includes Camarillo, Moorpark, Ojai, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks and Ventura. It also takes in most of Santa Barbara County and a small slice of the northern San Fernando Valley. Voter registration slightly favors Republicans, who hold a 4.6 percentage-point edge in that category.
But the GOP registration advantage has dropped by a third over the past four years as the number of independent voters has climbed dramatically.
“It’s definitely a winnable seat,” Jackson said. “You have a lot of people who are not affiliated with a party anymore. Party affiliation is not as meaningful as it used to be.”
To date, former Assemblyman Tony Strickland of Moorpark is the only Republican candidate to announce his intent to run.
All three candidates are making plans based on the assumption that a February ballot measure that would extend legislative term limits will fail. If it succeeds, McClintock would be able to seek a third term.
If the district does become open, it could become one of the top legislative battlegrounds in the state.
“We’re watching that district,” said consultant Tony Quinn, a publisher of the Target Book, a political digest that analyzes the competitiveness of California legislative and congressional districts. “It leans to Republicans, but we don’t see it as a safe Republican seat.”
Jackson will make her announcement today at Ventura’s Mound School, site of a pesticide-spraying incident in 2000 that sickened a number of children. That incident led Jackson to successfully push for a law that gives county agricultural commissioners greater authority to regulate spraying near schools.
“We brought all the parties together to solve a problem,” Jackson said. “That’s the theme of the work I did in the Legislature.”
Perata ‘for everybody’
Jackson’s announcement comes a day before Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata is scheduled to attend a fund-raiser in Simi Valley for Dantona, 59.
As the Senate’s top Democrat, Perata will control how millions of dollars in campaign funds are directed in Senate races next year.
Perata spokesman Paul Hefner said the Senate leader has not endorsed either candidate. “We’re generally supportive of any viable Democrat,” Hefner said. “Sen. Perata has met Jim Dantona and likes him a lot, and obviously Hannah-Beth Jackson is a strong candidate. We’re for everybody.”
Ventura County Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gallaher said that while a primary battle could be expensive and potentially divisive, it could also generate enthusiasm and excitement among party activists.
“For so long we’ve struggled to find decent candidates, and now we have two good ones,” Gallaher said. “It shows that the county is coming of age.”
Jackson cites her experience
Jackson said she believes her experience makes her a better candidate than Dantona, who has never held elective office. But if he stays in the race, “The people get to decide. That’s the beauty of democracy.”
Dantona said he will not back down from a primary fight with the former assemblywoman.
“We’re running, and we’re not turning around,” he said.
While saying he has “nothing but good feelings about Hannah-Beth,” Dantona said he has already secured enough support among Democrats in the district and in Sacramento that Jackson may ultimately be forced to change her mind.
“Perata’s unofficially on board,” Dantona said. “He’s put his name on a fund-raiser. He’s trying to send a message.”
What I say is---- I dread the return of the HBJ machine in Santa Barbara.
Hannah Beth "Taxin" Jackson loses...
Hannah-Beth has to do it. She was the one who sold us out in Sacramento to create this impossible district in the first place, so it is her duty undo the damage. Good luck.
One of the worst redistricting changes in the entire state after years of solid, credible coastal Democratic representation: Senators Gary Hart and Jack O'Connell.
And HB leaves us with rightwing nut case Tom McClintok as our Santa Barbara senator, and a white cop lock on the district senate seat.
At least her husband got a nice judgeship out of the deal. I wish her well.
Personally, I would rather have anybody (almost) than Hannah Beth Jackson. She is what we call: "A Poison Player." I mean this quite sincerely. 'Anybody but Hannah Beth' is the sign I will put on my lawn.
Dantona is everything you do not want - but he will beat Jackson and then lose to Strickland.
The entire Democrat leadership in Sacramento will back him over Jackson as they do not like her much at all.
But then when the primary is over - this is a Republican seat and a Republican will win as it is expected - so Dantona will get to be punished longer than Jackson.
Watch for Dr, Dan to annouce soon.
I don't know about Hannah Beth. I one time overheard her at a hair salon we were both "visiting." She was talking with one of those fake blonde, little too taut face type ladies. She was hoping to get "in" with "the Progressives." Her thought on how to do that? Getting in touch with Warren Beatty.
Geez. Gimme a break.
Dr Dan would be a damn good choice. Brilliant.
Nary a fool with a short memory. Sounds like deja vue all over again.
Some will never forget - nor forgive -- HBJ throwing the gay community under a bus her last year in the State Assembly by ducking a crucial legislative vote then fabricating poor excuses for the lapse. Then, as if that were not enough, when pressed for a more credible reason HBJ ran her mouth with the classic language of homophobia - so much so that the Republican Party ran newspaper ads with quotes attributed to HBJ against progressive Democrats running in the north county and in SLO.
For what purpose one may ask? Well HBJ wanted to run for this very Senate seat and it was rumored she thought she should 'position' herself to the right to be 'more acceptable'.
It seems HBJ is all too happy to trade core principles for potential higher power... will she trade us all? Remember Gloria Ochoa?
"I overheard her at a hair salon" -- is that the best you can do to slime her? Get in with the progressives? She is a leading progressive -- Beatty should want to get in with her. HBJ is smart and principled, a lot more than I can say for her detractors. She's got a strong record on protecting the local environment, victims of domestic violence, children, and women's rights.
Jackson is a great choice for the district. The re-destricting scheme and the "throwing the gay community under the bus" is accurate and unfortunately that is politics. I'll be interested in hearing more about Dantona.
Being a progressive in this senetorial district callously created by HBJ is political suicide.
Save your money supporting HBJ - a minority niche candidate expiating her prior political sins creating this district is all you are getting.
Supporting a clear and disliked progressive is putting your vote and your money down a rat hole.
Oh Huey Chapala---- you must not have heard---- an unspoken rule among Santa Barbara "progressives"
is that it is just fine to throw the gays under the bus---as long as you leave enough of them around for when you need them during campaigns......HBJ is the champ of that tactic
Huey,
Wow that is some shocking news, especially considering the "walk on water" persona that HBJ has amongst the "progressive" community.
If I may ask, what was the issue she ducked and what was the quote she gave that became conservative, anti-gay rights fodder?"
In a time when some liberals and progressive walk on egg shells to please everybody, we need someone like HBJ. Yep, she's a pistol, alright but you know where she stands and she fights for what's right.
The smears on her stand on gays is not fair. She has always supported gays and voted in a way that at the time she believed would best serve gays. Reasonable people may differ...unreasonable people smear.
After beating cancer, HBJ could just sit back and leave politics to others, amateurs and ideologues. Instead she is taking on a hard race. And if she wins, she'll take on a little-too-comfortable Democratic establishment in Sacramento. I say, MORE POWER TO HER!
"The re-destricting scheme and the "throwing the gay community under the bus" is accurate"
No, it isn't. For instance, from
http://www.fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/remanual/canews5.htm
Conversely, the 19th Senate District that Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, had been eyeing received more Republican voters in the revised plan. Jackson was one of the plan's most vocal critics."
...
"Without doubt, the coast of California is the environmental conscience of the state," Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) testified at a redistricting hearing last week.
Her own political fate is also tied up in redistricting: The increased GOP voter registration in the new district all but destroys her chances of succeeding O'Connell in the state Senate.
and
http://www.fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/remanual/canews.htm
Assembly members Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, and Beth Rogers, R-Camarillo, say that new boundaries in their districts disenfranchise voters and make it impossible for them to win.
"The (19th) District was carved to create a seat that Sen. McClintock, the right-wing incumbent, could win. Therefore, I will not be running (against him in 2004)," Jackson said in a statement.
and
http://www.caltax.org/member/digest/oct2001/10.2001.Quinn-BipartisanRedistricting.08.htm
Interestingly, Democrats gerrymandered two liberal Assembly members, Fred Keeley of Boulder Creek, near Santa Cruz, and Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara, out of possible Senate districts, and the outlook is for a somewhat more moderate state Senate when all the districts are filled.
HBJ was a victim, not a perp.
P.S. Here's an indication of where this nonsense came from:
http://blogabarbara.blogspot.com/2005/05/editorial-travesty.html
I have to admit, Travesty Factswrong kind of stumped me there for awhile. The notion that Hannah-Beth Jackson would be campaigning for ultra right-wing Tom McClintock for Lt. Governor so she could run for the Senate seat she already decided against -- after much deliberation, according to news reports -- combined with the declaration that somehow Salud Carbajal will be our next Congressman, was just a wee bit too much.
So the same lies told a couple of years ago are being recycled today.
JQB, I've heard enough. I've also heard Jackson speak on many occasions. I'm ready to vote today. For HBJ. I'm glad she's in the race.
anon 9:39-- your comment: "She has always supported gays and voted in a way that at the time she believed would best serve gays."
That is one of the most patronizing, offensive statements you could make about circumstances and facts that many of us remember all too well--next, I'm sure we'll hear that some of her "best friends are gay". Please.
We'll stay silent about the facts. But in turn, please do not patronize those of us who were deeply, profoundly hurt and offended by her abandonment of the gay community on more than one occasion. Not to mention the fact that she will point to these facts to show the "moderates" in Ventura County how she was willing to say no to the gays.
Shows how ineffectual HBJ was in Sacto that she could not even get a safe district.
Even her own Demo colleagues threw her under the bus. She was not well-liked and had a very difficult reputation.
But her husband did get a Ventura judgeshipwhen all was said and done - that should be good for the Simi law and order voters.
Everyone who has ever followed local politics with any degree of intelligence knows that the District was rigged to keep HBJ out of the Senate. Now some will argue that is not her fault however perhaps the Dem leadership wouldn't have screwed us so bad if HBJ hadn't been such a royal pain in the ass to democrats and republicans in sacramento. So we got stuck with McClintock because of HBJ. Sounds like she bears some responsibility in my book. No way that would have happened if Pedro Nava had been our rep at the time!!!!
JGB
Thanks for the correction. At that time I relied on the News Press and editorials written by and approved by Travis. Still I do recall editorials from Gay constituents and I think their statements were valid. Again and unfortunately that is politics.
Republicans do indeed moderate the progressives by making progressives appear dysfunctional. Progressives may be in a narrow window of opportunity to really kick rear and hopefully HBJ can get her message out including not throwing the GLT community under the bus. It would be great to get the marriage issue out of the way so we can move on.
I want my elected politician to be astutely political and that is an art form. I don't want them to be caped crusaders. That is the city council.
That is one of the most patronizing, offensive statements you could make about circumstances and facts that many of us remember all too well
You're remembering lies and misrepresentations. The statement isn't patronizing, it's true. Just because you don't think what she did was best doesn't mean that she didn't think so.
We'll stay silent about the facts.
Sure, why actually document your claims when you can toss innuendo around?
Still I do recall editorials from Gay constituents and I think their statements were valid.
Recollections are notoriously unreliable. Some people got pissed off at HBJ because she couldn't cast her colleague's votes -- as you say, that's politics; people are forced to compromise. But claims of homophobia and throwing people under the bus are ridiculous. And they are contrary to self interest -- do these folks think HBJ's opponents are more liberal than she is? You really have to wonder what is up when one of the most pro- civil rights politicians around is being attacked on her strength.
Everyone who has ever followed local politics with any degree of intelligence knows that the District was rigged to keep HBJ out of the Senate. Now some will argue that is not her fault however perhaps the Dem leadership wouldn't have screwed us so bad if HBJ hadn't been such a royal pain in the ass to democrats and republicans in sacramento.
That "perhaps" is doing a lot of work there. How about "Perhaps all my claims are true and all yours are false"?
It would be great to get the marriage issue out of the way so we can move on.
And what would that take? Here's HBJ on that issue:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/10/173020/369
The Governor will see AB 43, Mark Leno's gay marriage bill back on his desk again this year. For the second time, the Legislature, on a strictly party-line vote, has passed this measure and will likely see the governor veto it again. This is a hard sell, with the Governor having ducked the measure last year, saying the Court should decide. The Supreme Court turned around and said the legislature should decide. Well, they have. Governor?
More on HBJ and gay marriage:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marl5.htm
Bill AB 1967, the "California Marriage License Nondiscrimination Act," was accepted by a vote of 8 to 3 by the California Assembly's Judiciary Committee on 2004-APR-20. This is the first time in the U.S. that a committee of a state legislature has voted in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples on its own without having been ordered to do so by a court. ...
The bill was passed by the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 8 to 3 on 2004-APR-20:
bullet Those in favor: Ellen M. Corbett, Chair (D-18), Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-35), Darrell Steinberg (D-9), John Longville (D-62), Sally J. Lieber (D-22), John Laird (D-27), Lloyd Levine (D-40), Cindy Montañez (D-39).
bullet Those opposed: Tom Harman, Vice Chair (R-67), Todd Spitzer (R-71), Patricia C. Bates (R-73). "5"
The vote strictly followed party lines with all Democratic members of the committee voting in favor and all Republican members opposed.
Here are people who think that Schwarzenegger has thrown them under a bus by "effectively making terms like 'mom' and 'dad' obsolete....Under the new law, schoolchildren as young as kindergarten will be sexually indoctrinated and introduced to homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality, over the protests of parents, teachers and even school districts":
http://www.punditreview.com/2007/10/17/schwarzenegger-caves-to-the-radical-gay-bi-sexuallesbian-transgender-lobby/
But hey, it's HBJ who's the enemy of the gay community, right?
JQB: since you asked....
4/22/03 excerpt from Newspress article entitled:
"Gay Activists Blast Jackson Over [her absention from] Domestic RIghts Vote"
"This would give all domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities of marriage," Ms. Jackson said. "I believe we should target particular areas important to domestic partners and families, and move to those areas."
AB 205 would essentially have "turned domestic partnerships into marriage," she said. "I don't think that's what the Legislature should be doing. That's why I abstained."
Opponents argue that the bill attempts to legitimize gay and lesbian marriages, which California voters rejected three years ago. Supporters, including the California Alliance for Pride and Equality, said the legislation would be a move toward more equity for domestic partners -- including heterosexuals.
"I'm extremely disappointed she abstained," said Geoff Kors, executive director the alliance. "She has a long history of supporting bills we've sponsored. We have yet to hear what it is in this bill she doesn't like. I have yet to hear a principled, legislative reason why she didn't support it."
Ms. Jackson said she received calls and letters from both sides.
"People are passionate," Ms. Jackson said. "You have to do what you think is right and most appropriate. I hate to see people demand 100 percent allegiance for a particular point of view. That's unrealistic."
She didn't vote against the bill outright, because she might support it when it comes to a vote of the full Legislature -- but only if it were "narrowed and focused in some critical areas," such as parental rights parity, she said.
Ms. Jackson did recently vote for a bill that would ban state contracts for companies that don't offer domestic partner benefits.
"I have had a very positive voting record, and supported virtually all efforts to expand opportunities and recognize relationships in the modern world that are so-called non-traditional," Ms. Jackson said. "It's disappointing that a radical fringe of that community has been so virulent."
So, you see, her lack of support for the bill was not for the good of the gays, but to appease the homophobes who voted in Proposition 22. Of course, once the bill was "fixed" to her liking, she supported it.
"We must make sure public education remains the cornerstone of our democracy," Jackson said.
I heard that her kids just went to private schools; never, ever to a public school.
HB Jackson's only concern for public education was to keep the teachers unions money and endorsements.
By all measures, the teacher unions is what is wrong with public education. Jackson is not telling the full story when she claims she supports public education.
She does not. Jackson wears the union label. And that is what you will get - more public employee bloat at taxpayers expense. We can't have this. Which means we never can have HBJ.
I've had my differences over the years with Hannah Beth, for many of the reasons cited above.
However, I am 100% supportive of her candidacy for State Senate. Her defense of the preservation and strengthening of environmental standards is something that this region desperately needs. The pressures from BIG OIL and BIG LNG need to be met by someone with her strength.
She is a valuable voice for the rights of women, and gender equity, in the workplace and in the schools, for women and girls.
She is smart, dedicated, hard-working and posesses the tenacity to do what it takes to get things done in Sacramento.
I'm gay, she disappointed me by her actions and statements years ago, but I believe she learned from that. Her postings on her website make it clear she now supports gay marriage. and her record on civil rights issues in general is stellar.
So, let's move ahead, get behind her and take back the 19th.
So here is a test for HBJ...
From this week's Indy:
"There are currently eight inmates on death row who were prosecuted by Santa Barbara County, according to District Attorney Christie Stanley... There is one pending case — against Jesse James Hollywood — in which capital punishment is being sought."
So in light of what all us "Progressives" know about the Death Penalty being an unenlightened and cruel form of punishment, where does HBJ stand? Is she still in favor of Capital Punishment?
HBJ is a staunch death penalty supporter. at least she was when she served in and campaigned for the Assembly seat.
Thanks, "in her own words", for posting that, which goes strongly in her favor:
"She has a long history of supporting bills we've sponsored".
"Ms. Jackson did recently vote for a bill that would ban state contracts for companies that don't offer domestic partner benefits."
"I have had a very positive voting record, and supported virtually all efforts to expand opportunities and recognize relationships in the modern world that are so-called non-traditional"
So, you see, her lack of support for the bill was not for the good of the gays, but to appease the homophobes who voted in Proposition 22
No, I don't see that at all, and you have failed to support it. In any case, her abstention does not constitute "throwing the gay community under a bus" -- that properly deserves terms like "virulent". But go ahead, oppose HBJ who is far, far more supportive of the gay community than any of her opponents.
HBJ is a staunch death penalty supporter
Even if she is, which you haven't established, she isn't more so than her opponents. Did you vote for Schwartzenegger because Gray Davis was pro-death penalty? This is a favorite strategy of political propagandists -- attack candidates in isolation for common positions that are also taken by their opponents, but never mention the latter. It's all about getting people to make choices that are against their best interests.
Finally, here is Jackie Goldberg on AB 205; note that her comments are introduced by Hannah Beth Jackson, who Jackie certainly doesn't think threw the gay community under the bus:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/08/california_supr.html
When I was in the Assembly, I wrote AB 205 which says that "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties...as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."
My goal was simply to help families that had, for too long, gone without legal protections. But from its conception, I knew this was a flawed exercise. Since 1954, we have known that legally "separate but equal" is always "separate but unequal." I told reporters that AB 205 was the best we could achieve at that time. I never imagined that domestic partnerships might somehow be used as an excuse not to allow same-sex couples to marry! ...
So please stop misrepresenting HBJ, her support for the gay community, which is strong, her support for same sex marriage, which is strong, and her intentions in abstaining on AB 205, which were principled.
Here are some useful references on AB 205 & HBJ:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/LGBT_Caucus/laws/2003/ab0205/fulltextchapteredbill.htm
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/californiaaform.html
From the latter, HBJ gets a B grade on gay issues, same as Jackie Goldberg. Also,
Bill Number: AB 205 Votes: For=41 Against=32
How does an abstention on a bill that easily passed -- an action that changes nothing -- constitute throwing anyone under a bus? Such a charge is indeed virulent, radical, and fringe. And here are some indications of why an abstention (not even opposition) might be warranted:
Registered couples will be responsible for their partner's debts, will have their income factored into their partner's eligibility for public assistance benefits, and will be required to disclose their relationships to avoid nepotism and conflicts of interest.
These are changes in the nature of domestic partnerships that many domestic partners may not have welcomed. The right solution, as Goldberg herself noted, was not to change what a domestic partnership was, but to permit same sex couples to marry -- something that HBJ supports; I quoted her above urging Schwartzenegger to sign Mark Leno's bill.
Her other great crime, apparently, is to have been thrown under the bus by a legislature that cut backroom deals and gerrymandered her district out from under her. Somehow this is her fault -- "perhaps" this simply happened because her fellow legislators didn't like her. And "perhaps" I have a bridge to sell you.
I just have to add that
So, you see, her lack of support for the bill was not for the good of the gays, but to appease the homophobes who voted in Proposition 22. Of course, once the bill was "fixed" to her liking, she supported it.
is totally different from what HBJ actually said in the quoted material, which is that she didn't think the legislature should be turning domestic partnerships -- which include many people who aren't gay -- into marriage. There's nothing there about appeasing homophobes -- and why would she? Such a charge shows no understanding of politics; just because she abstained from voting for something that homophobes opposed doesn't mean that she did so for their reasons, or to please them. That charge is completely and utterly a fabrication of those who just couldn't swallow the fact HBJ didn't vote as they wanted her to. And of course she would vote for it if it were changed to her liking -- that's what every legislator does; sheesh. I'll say it again: HBJ is smart and principled, a lot more than I can say for her detractors.
yep, keep convincing yourself of that, JQB; some of us had a front-row seat.
JQB = a really motivated HBJ fan...lots of posts here....who else likes to post on blogabarbara and other blogs and has a strong relationship with HBJ?.........
hmmm......it really sounds like HBJ has never disappointed HBJ........
I'm glad to have refreshed a very sad episode with HBJ and her relationship with the gay community. It needs to be carefully considered because it goes to the price of core principle under pressure.
Since I've been asked for more information, here are more details. The reprint of the SBNP article was accurate as far as it went.
Those of us who were there were slapped in the face so hard we will likely never forget it.
'Just politics' does not begin to explain the episode nor excuse poor behavior. Some of us expect better of our elected officials.
The worst part of the episode was HBJ's betrayal and her subsequent equivocation over her suddenly changing position and varying explanations.
There was considerable grass roots constituent communication from traditional progressive HBJ supporters supporting AB205 and the usual right wingers opposed. Indeed HBJ had indicated she would support it until, that is, she began exploring a run for the Senate seat.
If HBJ had real reservations and were truly principled she would not have mislead anyone about her position and she would have communicated any objections clearly to her constituents and with enough advance notice for the authors, whom she claims to be close to, to have considered.
But she did neither. She ducked the vote then was caught off guard and surprised by strong progressive reaction and by the fact that anyone would dare question her. But it was her changing responses that revealed the most about her.
Her comment, "It's disappointing that a radical fringe of that community has been so virulent." has been happily reprinted by Family Values and Republican groups in ads all over the state against Democrats and gay issues. Why wouldn't they? It was their well known mantra that HBJ embraced. And it was calculated.
'Radical fringe' and 'virulent' are DISPARAGING TERMS that, to my knowledge, she has never distanced herself from nor apologized for. These are not the words of a progressive who supports a community's struggle for civil rights. They are, however, the language of those very right wing 'family values' types she would have sought to allay in McClintock's district.
If reasonable people merely disagree about minor legislative language, does one adopt the radical right's language and brand the other 'virulent' and 'radical fringe', thereby inflicting damage upon a community she purports to want to 'help'? Not unless one is posturing for political points with the other side, or worse, one really believes it. I'd pass on this kind of help from such a 'friend'.
Some are aware that HBJ actually appeared at an SB gay community event the week she ducked the vote and was pressed to explain herself. She could not. Instead, her explanations became quite rabid. As some may know, that week there were HBJ staff resignations over the matter.
Her subsequent vote FOR AB205 was after she decided against running for the Senate seat and after experiencing extreme reaction of the social progressives who helped elect her and whose support she would need again in the future.
I see claims HBJ supports legislation legalizing gay marriage, but her quote on AB205 directly contradicts that position. In explaining her opposition to SB205, HBJ said, "This would give all domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities of marriage." Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement. If she has now changed her position again, how can we ever be sure?
And it makes one pause about what she really believes when the wind blows.
Tawk amongst yourselves...
Under the Bus said:
Oh Huey Chapala---- you must not have heard---- an unspoken rule among Santa Barbara "progressives"
is that it is just fine to throw the gays under the bus---as long as you leave enough of them around for when you need them during campaigns......HBJ is the champ of that tactic
How do you vote with tire tracks down your back?
"yep, keep convincing yourself of that, JQB; some of us had a front-row seat."
I (and "In Her Own Words") provided the actual quotations -- you can't get more "front-row" than that.
"JQB = a really motivated HBJ fan...lots of posts here....who else likes to post on blogabarbara and other blogs and has a strong relationship with HBJ?........."
I am me and not anyone else. OTOH, how many of these anonymous posters are in the pay of HBJ's opponents? All of them, from the looks of it.
"see claims HBJ supports legislation legalizing gay marriage, but her quote on AB205 directly contradicts that position. In explaining her opposition to SB205, HBJ said, "This would give all domestic partners the same rights and responsibilities of marriage."
You're making no sense at all -- those are two entirely different things. And the quote from Jackie Goldberg confirms that -- people actually used domestic partnerships as an argument against gay marriage. Gays want the right to marry -- not just to obtain the legal rights of marriage.
If reasonable people merely disagree about minor legislative language, does one adopt the radical right's language and brand the other 'virulent' and 'radical fringe', thereby inflicting damage upon a community she purports to want to 'help'?
There's nothing "reasonable" about the charge that HBJ threw gays under the bus, then or now. Saying "merely disagree" is a lie, a virulent one. Dishonest blather about "the radical right's language" doesn't change that, and is hypocritical -- the radical right is an enemy of HBJ, and so are you, so if there's any equation it goes against you.
So since HBJ doesn't have a website yet can JQB or somebody tell us who is endorsing her?
Looks like the Senate leadership wants to work with Dantona....
Who is our progressive State Assemblymember supporting in this race?
my my
it seems jqb likes to throw around alot of conspiracy theories, impugn people and name call about anyone who disagrees.
ironic, it sounds rather like the very heavy handed tactics that people on this board have complained about HBJ
saying everyone else is wrong does not make it so; people can reach their own conclusions.
jqb: "how many of these anonymous posters are in the pay of HBJ's opponents? All of them, from the looks of it."
Ka-ching. You seem pretty good at projecting unsubstantiated suspicions onto everyone else. Sounds like there is one person in someone's pocket and it's not the ones raising legitimate issues...
Ka-ching. You seem pretty good at projecting unsubstantiated suspicions onto everyone else.
I was just borrowing your tactics: "JQB = a really motivated HBJ fan...lots of posts here....who else likes to post on blogabarbara and other blogs and has a strong relationship with HBJ?........." Remember?
Sounds like there is one person in someone's pocket
Repeating the unsubstantiated suspicions. I have no connection to HBJ.
it's not the ones raising legitimate issues...
You haven't raised any legitimate issues, you've simply prevaricated. I've provided legitimate citations and analysis, and I'm confident that honest people can see the truth here. Goodbye to this thread and to you.
Regarding the redistricting and how the Senate seat became Republican: while the conspiracy theories are juicy, I don't believe HBJ was important enough in Sacramento to be factored into the redistricting plan for the Senate District at all.
It had more to do with the horse trading of the redistricting process and who occupied the Senate seat at the time of the redistricting -- or who did not, as it happened.
The Senate seat was, in effect, soon to be vacant and had no one looking out for it. So it got traded to the Republicans in exhange for safe Democratic districts.
Locals may remember the Senate seat was historically Democractic, held for many years by Gary Hart and then succeeded by Jack O'Connell until, that is, Jack O'Connell ran - and currently serves -- as State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The timing overlapped the redistricting process.
The interesting thing to take from it, though, is how little influence HBJ had in Sacramento with her own party to have created such a solid Republican district. This would be consistent with the earlier posted theory that the Democratic leadership in Sacramento sacrificed HBJ and the district due to some animus, except that they kept the Assembly district safe for her and future Democrats once she was termed out.
Post a Comment
<< Home