I have so much to learn. Here I am, thinking that the best way to criticize a politician with whom you either disagree, or who you simply do not like, is to explain why her policies or even personality bother you and why. How wrong can one person be?
The California Republican party recently held its annual convention. On display at the convention were anti-Hillary buttons. Fair enough, right? Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. So it is entirely predictable, even rational, that the members of the Grand Old Party would take aim at the presumptive front-runner for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential election.
One can argue that it is not only rational, but in fact it is the job of one major political party to point out the differences that they have with the other major political party. These criticisms and discussions help to elucidate important distinctions between the parties and allow voters to make informed decisions at the ballot box. Voters need to know what the major political parties, and the politicians affiliated with those parties, stand for and believe in.
The pool of Los Angeles City Council candidates expanded today to include Council President Herb Wesson Jr., who filed fundraising papers for the 2015 election with the city Ethics Commission.
Wesson can now raise money for a bid to keep his 10th Council District seat for a third and last term. He represents Mid-City, Koreatown, and South Los Angeles communities and is serving a second yearlong term as council president.
Other incumbents seeking re-election are 14th district City Councilman Jose Huizar and 6th district City Councilwoman Nury Martinez. Huizar's Eastside district includes part of downtown, Boyle Heights and northeast Los Angeles communities of El Sereno and Glassell Park. Martinez filled the San Fernando Valley-based 6th district seat vacated earlier this year by Tony Cardenas.
Here is another entry for the "politicians exercising questionable judgment" file cabinet, which, unfortunately, continues to fill up on a daily basis.
California State Senator Ronald Calderon is the subject of a federal corruption investigation. Let that sentence linger for a moment, shall we? Calderon is a public servant; by definition he should be serving the public, in this case his constituents. His first responsibility is to represent those in his state senate district. But there is now some question as to whether he is doing that, or whether he used his office for personal gain.
In this situation it would behoove any representative to be particularly thoughtful and careful, to attempt to make decisions which give no fodder to an already-distrustful public. Unfortunately, Calderon appears not to have done that.
In my book, the majority of people who pass certain eligibility requirements and wish to serve as poll workers should be welcomed and thanked, not excluded and turned away. Working at the polls is important, often tedious and monotonous job. Election day is virtually guaranteed to be a long day for anyone serving at the polls.
There is now a bill headed to Gov. Jerry Brown that would let some legal immigrants to serve as poll workers. Which legal immigrants you may ask? Well, legal permanent residents who would be eligible to vote if they were citizens.
San Fernando Valley residents who have gone without a voice on the Los Angeles City Council for six months will choose between a school board member and a former assemblywoman in a special runoff election today.
Nury Martinez and Cindy Montanez are vying to replace Tony Cardenas, the former Sixth District councilman elected to the House of Representatives last November.
Montanez and Martinez were the top two vote-getters in the May 21 primary election, but neither obtained the more than 50 percent needed to win the seat outright, setting the stage for today's contest.
Some of you may have gotten whiplash following the latest kerfuffle over California's Public Records Act (CPRA).
First, as part of the budget deal it looked like there would be limited access to government documents. Why? Because the deal provided that the CPRA would be suspended, instead of paid for from state coffers. Specifically, the state is required to reimburse local agencies for the cost of compliance. The anticipated cost of the CPRA totals in the tens of millions of dollars.