Very interesting.....Harry Sidhu appears to be advancing in this race and Mimi Walter's campaign is feeling the pressure with some sense of fear.......

Thank you, Jubal, for this honest forthright post. Harry Sidhu is clearly a man of integrity who has proven himself as a strong conservative Republican leader and as a businessman in South County. Clearly, he's been out there making a difference for all us throughout the 33rd District. Shame on Mimi Walters and her smear campaign. This shows the Walters campaign for what it is. They've started lying at the start and will more than likely be lying from here on out in every press release or piece of mail. Looks like Sidhu definitely has them running scared with his abilities as a leader and his positive campaign. Sidhu is what Sacramento needs - someone with high integrity who is straightforward in his dealings and looking out for the taxpayers in the 33rd Senate District. Shame on you Mimi. Time for a change in Sacramento and that change has a name - Harry Sidhu for State Senate.

Hmmm... 'Shame on Mimi' sounds like they got the whole talking points thing going on for Harry!

But seriously, what kind of move was this? I mean this was not the sign of a campaign that is (1) well organized; or (2) self assured.

Let's let the well organized thing go for now because its so obvious and boring. But really - and Im sure Im not the only one who got the Walters release - it was shrill and actually counterproductive. The Walters campaign has been running as the incumbent but this release sounded like a "hail mary". I'm going to start watching the race more, I think.

What it was is a typical Dave Gilliard panic driven attempt at misinformation that back fired on him. To have Mimi have to issue an apologetic press release to correct his bonehead stunt makes her entire campaign look like a bunch of fools.

If I were Mimi I would be looking for a new consultant. Someone that isn't going to make such a stupid mistake. She is walking a fine line in the 33rd with a strong opponent and the last thing she needs to do is have these sort of blunders come back to haunt her.

And give kudos to Harry for being gracious to Mimi on the apology. He could have taken her apart, but didn't. That showed a lot of class.

OK let's look at this thing for what it is: a campaign flub up. Not as bad as, say, Walters flying off to a fundraiser in OC and having another Assemblyperson vote for her (just an example of a very bad thing, not to be taken literally), and worse than, say, Walters claiming a local water board example she doesnt have (just an example of a fairly weak bad thing, not to be taken literally).

The real question in my mind (I was one of the fortune few to read the post before it was pulled down) is what the term limits guy thought after winning prop 93, only to be humiliated by this. I mean, really, this gentleman just signs off on really harsh quotes off the cuff without any backup?

This is the second dishonest PR from Mimi's camp this week. If I may say, this is starting to be a disturbing trend. I think Sidhu has her scared. He has been a better fundraiser and clearly has the momentum.

Talk about a weak apology. If you are wrong admitt you are wrong and don't come out with one of those backhanded slaps. It's just cheap, and low. You are better than that Mimi!

Does anyone other than Sidhu's campaign wish to comment on this?

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill!

Mimi's campaign made a mistake. Show me a campaign that hasn't.

She's still going to clean Harry's clock. At least he'll still be able to run for re-election to council in November.

I'm very upset because of what happened. It's too bad that Mimi enter campaign has to lower itself to this level.

For us voters is important to know what you've done for us, and that we can trust you. After all this I'm not sure I can trust Mimi.

Distributing a misleading information about an opponent is not only wrong, but from my point of view is ethically unaccepted.

As far as I know this happened more than once already. It is an obvious sign of her being lost, nervous and uncertain about the outcome of the election.

Residing in Laguna Niguel I discussed the subject with my neighbors friends and most of us agree that there's a good chance that we will feel sorry if we continue support Mimi.

I am more and more leaning away from Mimi towards supporting Mr. Sidhu for the State Senate seat.

AKA Ken Mongomery

P.S. If I was Mimi I would fire her consultants and advisers right away like Hillary did.

This isn't even bleep on the radar. It doesn't mean anything to voters. All it does is give Duane a reason to sit on the OC Blog and throw monkey poo at her.....I guess everyone has to earn a living somehow.

Having met the two of them just a few times each I have some brief observations.

Mimi would make a fine Senator and a consistant conservative vote, but that alone is not reason to support her. Her life experiences just dont compare to Harry's - the defination of a self-made man. When I met Mimi, she was pleasant smiled and said hi, but Harry looked me in the eye and listened, he was genuinely interested.

The political establishment had no choice but to endorse Mimi. The difference is the average voter has no idea about the games we play. Many establishment types like Mimi, endorsed Mimi, but secretly root for Harry. This thing is goign to be a lot closer than many of you think.

These contests make the Party stronger, help develop our ideas, and sharpen our values.

What was even the point of Walters even dropping this ridiculous press release when they did?

Because Harry has kept up with her fundraising and Walters & co are totally panicking? Yes.

Because Team Walters made a stupid mistake and made what was a nonstory with the Mission Viejo endorsements a story (literally, it was covered in Total Buzz)? Yes.

Because Team Walters has been getting totally owned by Team Sidhu and know that public perception is now that this race is a total push? Yes.

The ownership will continue. Sidhu wins.

I agree. Real republicans must voice their opinions loud and clear. I am sure Mimi is a fine candidate but Harry has many superior qualities to serve as our Senator with integrity.

Realist:

An earlier commenter was correct. The Walters campaign made a mistake. It happens in campaigns. I'm sure it will happen in Sidhu's campaign -- at which point I presume you'll be calling for the firing of Harry's consultants?

As for the Mission Viejo story -- how was that a stupid mistake by the Walters campaign? The Sidhu campaign sent out a press release saying a majority of the MV council had endorsed Harry.

Because Walters also has the support of a majority of the MV council, her campaign sent out a press release, as well. If the situation were reversed Coronado Communications would have done the same thing.

Spare us this juvenile spin.

In reading all of this today, looks like Sidhu has the Walters campaign running scared and making silly mistakes that will benefit Sidhu in the end.

Ok everyone calm down. Like a previous commenter noted: every campaign makes mistakes.

With that said, this mistake did not come at a good time for Walters' campaign.

A lot of party insiders are starting to take a second look at this race and this juvenile mistake certainly sparks the perception that Harry is solid and Mimi isn't. Perception is reality.

I still think Mimi has the clear advantage in this race, but the more I hear of Harry's race, the more I tend to think this is going to be the most competitive race in Orange County.

I don't think AD 71 or AD 60 will be as close of a race as this one.

Re: "The political establishment had no choice but to endorse Mimi. The difference is the average voter has no idea about the games we play."

You're absolutely right. My question is: how many checks Mimi and her husband had to write in order for the political establishment to have no choice. Yet, Harry Sidhu is right nose to nose with her.

If Mimi answers this question, we'll know the price of the political establishment endorsement for Mimi.

After I've been watching them both for a number of years, I must admit I do trust Harry Sidhu because he is an honest strong leader, while Mimi Walters looks more like a fake politician, the type most of us dislike.

Spurned pay hike quietly pocketed
Seven lawmakers who initially refused raise later took it.

By Jim Sanders - Sacramento Bee Capitol Bureau

Sunday, November 26, 2006
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A1


Seven of the 19 California lawmakers who rejected a nearly $12,000 pay increase last year quietly changed their mind after the spotlight shifted, state records show.

Termed-out Assemblyman Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, had his salary boosted from $99,000 to $110,880 less than three weeks after losing the June 6 congressional primary to Rep. Bob Filner.

Assemblywoman Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Chino, sought the higher pay shortly after surviving a contentious Democratic primary against fellow Assemblyman Joe Baca Jr., D-Rialto, for an open Senate seat. She ran unopposed in the general election.

Assemblyman Hector De La Torre began receiving the sweeter salary Nov. 9, two days after the Democrat won re-election to his South Gate seat.

Others who turned down the 12 percent raise but later requested it were Assembly members Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel; Todd Spitzer, R-Orange;

(snip)

Ted Costa, executive director of People's Advocate, a political watchdog group that launched the recall drive against former Gov. Gray Davis, said he's not surprised that politicians would try to score points with voters by rejecting a pay increase -- then rescinding their request months later.

"It's par for the course," Costa said. "It makes people skeptical, and it hurts (legislators) when it comes to trust."

But Tim Hodson, executive director of the Center for California Studies at California State University , Sacramento , said legislators deserve their salary of $110,880 per year -- rising by 2 percent next month -- in a state with 36 million people, an incredibly complex economy and "work hours that even a junior member of a law firm would not find acceptable," he said.

"It's certainly a demanding job, and we shouldn't treat legislators like somebody flipping burgers at McDonald's who doesn't expect to stay on the job more than a few weeks," he said.

(snip)

Many state bureaucrats earn far more than legislators: More than 3,700 full-time state employees earned more than $110,880 as of March 2006.

Salaries of legislators and statewide elected officials are set by an independent commission whose members are appointed by the governor.

The 2005 pay hike of nearly $12,000 for legislators took effect last Dec. 1, marking the first boost in seven years.

The salary increase came while the state was fighting a multibillion-dollar budget deficit, the Legislature's approval rating was plummeting and an election year loomed.

All 19 legislators who initially turned down the pay hike were running for re-election or for other state offices this year.

Lawmakers were not entitled to retroactive pay after opting for a smaller salary, said Russell Lopez, spokesman for state Controller Steve Westly.

Twenty Assembly and 19 Senate members were not on this year's ballot -- and all quickly accepted the $1,000-a-month raise.

(Snip)

De La Torre and Spitzer said they initially turned down the raise because it came in midterm. They felt obligated to serve under the pay scale in effect when voters elected them to office, they said.

"My reasoning was quite simple," De La Torre said. "It's a two-year job and you get paid a certain salary for those two years."

De La Torre restored his pay after the Nov. 7 general election, at which he received only token opposition, and Spitzer accepted full salary after the June 6 primary, in which he ran unopposed.

"I made it very clear when I refused (the raise) that I would accept it if I became the Republican nominee," Spitzer said. "I made it very clear what I was going to do. I made a promise and I kept it."

Plescia had his salary increased April 17 and Walters on June 29, records show. Neither returned a call seeking comment.

Sacramento-area Assemblymen Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, and Alan Nakanishi, R-Lodi, were among 12 legislators who balked at the 2005 pay increase and still receive the lower $99,000 salary.

Niello, like De La Torre and Spitzer, said he objected to a mid-term pay hike. He plans to accept the higher pay scale approved by the independent commission now that he has been re-elected, he said.

Nakanishi said he will continue to work at the reduced rate.

"We still have a budget deficit; we still have a health insurance crisis," he said. "My mantra is that government should be more efficient. It would be very difficult for me to accept the money."

Rejection of the 2005 pay increase will become moot Dec. 4. Legislative salaries automatically will rise to $113,097, a 2 percent jump, unless a lawmaker asks to be exempted.

Thus far, only one of the 120 legislators has notified the state that she won't accept the new pay hike: Assemblywoman Nicole Parra, a Hanford Democrat who narrowly won re-election after one of the state's most contentious Assembly races.

Nakanishi said that he, too, plans to reject the salary increase.

RAISING ISSUES

The following is a list of legislators who rejected the 12 percent pay hike, totaling $11,880, that took effect in December 2005. Legislators who later accepted the raise are in bold, with the date of the raise in parenthesis:

ASSEMBLY
(snip)


Todd Spitzer, R-Orange (June 26)

Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel (June 29)


(snip)
Source: State controller's office

The previous article shows Walters will promise one thing and do another.

She is another Cassie DeYoung, a wealthy Laguna Niguel socialite who will try to buy her self a seat and fail.

While mistakes do happen, I find it concerning that Walter's was so quick to politicize it and turn it into an attack without double checking the facts. I’m alarmed by the rush to judgment in what appears more concern about dragging down her opponent than try to talk about she brings to the table.