READERS NOTE: THE HOME OFFICE IS UPGRADING RED COUNTY SAN DIEGO. ONE OF THE SIDE EFFECTS OF THE UPGRADE IS THAT, FOR THE NEXT FEW DAYS, THE NUMBER OF COMMENTS UNDER EACH BLOG ARTICLE WILL NOT BE LISTED. THE COMMENTS WILL BE THERE, IF YOU SIMPLY CLICK THE ARTICLE TITLE, BUT THE RAW NUMBER OF THEM WILL NOT BE LISTED.

MIGHTY THOR

The election results in Encinitas were not entirely unanticipated by those who were close political observers. The fact of the matter is that Encinitas is a well-run, well-managed, and well-led city. And as we read daily about various cities, the state, and our nation being swamped by deficits, we in Encinitas are in pretty good shape as a result of prudent policy and decision making, along with some good fortune. In fact, Encinitas has more money in our "rainy day" funds than ever before in our city's history.  We have a balanced budget, and we're getting important projects completed.

A wise coffee vendor in Cardiff summed it up best for me when she said that she liked our current council, and wanted it to stay the same. She said she feels that way because while we have a common-sense majority basically having the final word, there's the "other approach" represented as well. And although she doesn't want the alternative voice to go away, she doesn't want it to be in the majority either.

She pointed out that the City of Encinitas is an eclectic city with an attitudinal composition ranging from CEO's and professionals to aging hippies and baby-boom surfers sharing the waves with tomorrow's generation of leaders. If we're not California's per capita leader in yoga studios, she couldn't imagine who is!

I think that line of reasoning may help explain why the voters rejected all of the challengers--even in this year of change--and, instead returned the proven leaders of a reasoned and balanced council which has served our city so well these past six years.  

I look forward to helping our city and our region navigate the waters as we make our way through these financially troubled times, and am truly honored to have been given this vote of confidence by the citizens of our wonderful city.

Jerome Stocks

Mayor, City of Ecinitas; 2nd Vice-Chair, SANDAG; President, NorthComm Fire Dispatch JPA; Board Member, NCTD. 

Republican candidates in the City of Chula Vista suffered the same fate as Republicans elsewhere in the county, leaving the city with 3 Democrats on the council to 2 Republicans (and two Republicans who don't always get along). So now it looks like Councilman Steve Castandeda is the defacto Mayor - inheriting a massive budget deficit. So what now?

I was listening to the radio Wednesday and there were a number of political consultants or pollsters of both political parties discussing the 'Obama Surge'. I was driving, but I took some notes because I thought what the guests to the program said was worth noting.

First, the 'surge' really happened well before Election Day. Why? In a Presidential year where everyone is pretty much going to vote the 'surge' is actually not low level Democrat voters going to the polls, because most of them would anyway, but new Democrat voters in the fold who are able to vote, and do. This struck home with the news in the Union-Tribune that tens of thousands of new Democrats were registered in San Diego in the month up to the elections.

Second, turnout of voters this election was pretty much maximum. The guests estimated even the best of the voter lists at the Registrar are 6-10% 'no longer there' - dead, moved, in prison, whatever. Right now according to the Secretary of State overall turnout of voters is around 82% in San Diego. That means turnout of REAL voters is closer to 91% which is what the guests said maximum turnout of voters was.

Third, the guests said 'surge' was really the wrong word to use. What they said actually happened was that basically everyone voted, which meant Republicans lost the 3-6 point turnout advantage they usually have, and MUCH larger %s of Independents went to the polls.

From the Business Journal....

North County Times Cuts Staff

The North County Times said Nov. 18 that it laid off 34 employees: 25 in the newsroom, which represented 20 percent of the editorial staff, and nine in various departments, including circulation and advertising. Overall, the layoffs amounted to 10 percent of the newspaper's total staff count.

Publisher Peter York cited declining advertising in a soured economy as the reason.

In September, the newspaper, owned by Lee Enterprises of Davenport, Iowa, laid off 10 employees.

A Way Out of the Wilderness
We've been walloped in consecutive elections, but we can't just dwell on the past. The future is already here.
 
By Karl Rove
 
November 24, 2008
 
Yes, we lost the election. But in a year when all currents were running against Republicans and our campaign was lackluster and erratic, Barack Obama received only 3.1 points more than Al Gore in 2000 and only 4.6 points more than John Kerry in 2004. The Democratic victory becomes durable only if Republicans make it so with the wrong moves. Losing the election has led to a debate about whether the GOP should return to its Reaganite tradition or embark on a new reform course. This pundit-driven shoutfest presents a sterile, unnecessary choice. The party should embrace both tradition and reform; grass-roots Republicans want to apply timeless conservative principles to the new circumstances facing America.In the coming year, we will be defined more by what we oppose than what we are for; the president-elect and the Democrats in Congress will control the agenda. We must pick fights carefully and center them around principle. The goal is to have the sharp differences that emerge make the GOP look like the more reasonable, hopeful and inviting party--which is easier said than done. A road map:

1. Avoid mindless opposition. We should support President Obama when he is right (Afghanistan), persuade him when his mind appears open (trade) and oppose him when he is wrong (taxes). It is the Republican Party's job to hold him accountable on the merits only.

2. Be as comfortable talking about health care and education as national security and taxes. Republican health-care proposals are strong; they can trump the Democrats' big-government ideas, but only if we advocate them with clarity, passion and conviction.We must stress that the GOP wants families to be able to save, tax-free, for out-of-pocket medical expenses. People should be able to take their insurance from job to job. Small businesses should be able to pool risk to get the same discounts that big companies get. You can buy auto insurance from anywhere in America, even from a lizard, so why not health insurance? A national market would mean that health coverage for a 25-year-old New Yorker wouldn't cost four times what it does in Pennsylvania. Individuals and families, not just companies, should get a tax break for buying health insurance. And we must stop junk lawsuits that drive up everybody's health-care bills.

3. Winning the war on terror is a matter of national survival. Republicans must be President Obama's best allies in waging unrelenting war against terrorists, and prod him sharply if he weakens or wavers.

4.Republicans must regain ground among critical voting groups. Voters ages 18-29 voted Democratic by a 2-to-1 margin. A market-oriented "green" agenda that's true to our principles would help win them back. Hispanics dropped from 44 percent Republican in 2004 to 31 percent in 2008. The GOP won't be a majority party if it cedes the young or Hispanics to Democrats. Republicans must find a way to support secure borders, a guest-worker program and comprehensive immigration reform that strengthens citizenship, grows our economy and keeps America a welcoming nation. An anti-Hispanic attitude is suicidal. As the party of Lincoln, Republicans have a moral obligation to make our case to Hispanics, blacks and Asian-Americans who share our values. Whether we see gains in 2010 depends on it. Winning requires addition, not subtraction. While the GOP's strength is in the suburbs, exurbs and small towns, it cannot surrender urban America, especially if it wants to win states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio and regain strength in New England.

5. For now, our party ' s face is our congressional leadership. In the coming year, their response to the Democratic agenda will largely determine the speed of the party's recovery. Senate and House Republicans will be seen more than any party chair or 2012 aspirant. Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner must put on center stage their most persuasive, compelling members: Richard Burr and Jon Kyl in the Senate, and Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, Cathy McMorris, Peter Roskam and Kevin McCarthy in the House, for example. They should make our case as Congress and the administration wrangle on the economy, spending, taxes, health care, energy, education, values and defense.

6.Good candidates are essential. The GOP's return can start as early as 2010. In the first midterm, since World War II, the "out party" has gained, on average, two seats in the Senate; since 1966, it's gained an average of 6 governorships, 63 state Senate seats and 262 state House seats. The GOP can have a better-than-average 2010, but only if it recruits strong candidates. Their cultivation starts now. States remain our best source of presidential contenders and new ideas, so elect more governors.There's another reason why governors' races and state legislative seats must be a priority in 2010: redistricting and reapportionment in 2011. Seven electoral votes (and congressional seats) are projected to move from mostly blue to mostly red states, and every House district will be redrawn.

Gaylord is no longer planning to redevelop the Chula Vista bayfront.

Also posted yesterday at FlashReport....

Many of you have pestered ... uhh ... I mean encouraged me over the last several days to get with it and tally the San Diego General Election Prediction Contest results and announce a winner. As I've said before, what do you want for free? In good time, nothing's gonna change ... well, except perhaps for the winner in Chula Vista (which, fortunately, wasn't a question included in our little contest).

If you missed this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity (okay, twice per cycle, except when there's a special election), here's the prior post.

Just as in the primary, we had about 40 respondents. Before the e-roll, a recap of the questions, the correct answers and a brief analysis of the responses on each:

Question #1: A Taxing Question - Does Prop A, the Countywide Parcel Tax for Fire Protection, win or lose?

Correct Answer - LOSE. A solid 75 percent got this one right, even some of the folks in support of the darned thing. Good start.

Question #2: San Diego City Attorney - Will Jan Goldsmith garner more or less than 55 percent of the vote?

Correct Answer - MORE. Another three out of four nailed this one. Since Jan reached 59 percent, it would have been more interesting to ask whether he'd get more or less than 60. I'll keep that in mind the next time Aguirre is on the ballot.

Question #3: 78th Assembly - Block or McCann?

Correct Answer - MARTY BLOCK. A good number of folks apparently saw the wall writing on this one, with exactly two-thirds saying it would be Block.

Question #4: Oceanside - Will Esther Sanchez retain her City Council seat, yes or no?

Correct Answer - YES. Again, 75 percent guessed it correctly.

Question #5: Chula Vista - Will Steve Castaneda retain his City Council seat, yes or no?

Correct Answer - YES. Close to half thought Councilman Castaneda would live to see another day. This question wasn't a contest winner-killer, but the wheat was starting to un-chaff for a few contestants.

Question #6: 50th Congressional - Will Brian Bilbray garner more or less than 60 percent of the vote?

Correct Answer - LESS. A full 83 percent correctly guessed that Brian would come in at less than sixty points.

So, when tallying the scores, at this point I'm seeing quite a few people get the first five or six right, and I'm thinking, wow, this could be close! But, after that, everything went to the outhouse for most of the entrants.

Question #7: 52nd Congressional - Will Duncan D. Hunter garner more or less than 60 percent of the vote?

Correct Answer - LESS. The predictions came in exactly reverse of Bilbray, with 83 percent picking wrong, obviously thinking East County and the Hunter name would make it even more of walk-a-way than it ended up.

Question #8: District 1 SD City Council - Lightner or Thalheimer?

Correct Answer - SHERRI LIGHTNER. A whopping 75 percent missed this one, thinking Phil would pull it out.

Question #9: District 3 SD City Council - Gloria or Whitburn?

Correct Answer - TODD GLORIA. About 75 percent correctly predicted it. I guess this was one of too many yawner questions this go-round.

Question #10: District 7 SD City Council - Boling or Emerald?

Correct Answer - MARTI EMERALD. A complete deal-killer for most of the entrants, with only 14 percent correctly guessing Emerald.

Tie-Breaker A (Only if needed): State Assembly - Not counting the 78th AD, which nominee for State Assembly will receive the highest percentage of the vote in his/her respective district, Diane Harkey (all of 73rd AD, not just San Diego County portion), Martin Garrick, Nathan Fletcher, Lori Saldana, Joel Anderson, or Mary Salas? - Name the individual, not the percentage. (Sorry, Kevin Jeffries, the 66th AD is not enough in SD County ... nothing personal.)

Correct Answer - MARY SALAS. She received more than 69 percent of the vote. An amazing 37 percent of the guessers said it would be Anderson, followed by Salas and Harkey getting 18 percent respectively. The entrants were not disproportionately from East County, so it appears that many weren't favoring Joel out of anything other than translating his significant press coverage over the last couple of years into an expected high percentage among peers. On the other hand, Salas' district is significantly Democratic, and there was one unique thing she had going that none of the other nominees did - only one opponent, no third party AIP or L to suck a few points away.

Tie-Breaker B (Only if needed): San Diego City Attorney - What will be the difference in percentage (the spread) between Jan Goldsmith and Mike Aguirre? (If this tie-breaker is needed, the winner will be the person closest to the exact final percentage.)

Correct Answer - 19.38 percent, presently. The guesses on this ranged from 2.8 to 32 percent, with the average prediction being nearly 14 percent. The entrants weren't required to indicate whether their guessed margins placed Goldsmith or Aguirre on top ... ok, now I'm just being snarky.

Winners: That was it on the questions...ten points possible...two tie-breakers if needed. Only one amazing soul picked a nearly perfect nine out of ten correctly, so the tie breakers weren't even needed to decide first place. I'll get to him in a minute.

A lot of people scored four, five or six points. The average number of correct answers was 5.53. Of those with six correct, an honorable mention goes to John Nienstedt of Competitive Edge Research & Communication. Although the tie-breaking questions didn't come into play here, John did get both of them nearly spot on, not only picking Salas, but also the Goldsmith/Aguirre margin at 19 percent (again, 19.38 right now, with 45,000 votes left to tally countywide). No one else in the contest came that close, meaning that in the future, I may have to designate a separate category for pollsters (or at least for those conducting tracking polls on tie-breaking questions).

Those with seven points: Scott Barnett, San Diego Councilmember Jim Madaffer, Janelle Riella, and John Wainio. A noble effort!

Those amassing eight points: La Mesa-Spring Valley Schools Trustee Bill Baber, Andy Berg, Erik Bruvold and Santee Councilmember Jack Dale. Only one nailed the Salas tie-breaker, however - Bill Baber takes second place in the contest overall!

For the sake of naming a third place winner, then, Andy Berg selected 24 percent on the Goldsmith/Aguirre tie-breaker, but Jack Dale came in at 16 percent. With the actual margin presently hovering just above 19 percent, third place may be too close to call. Andy, if you want to concede before the final city attorney votes are counted, please let us know, Jack is waiting.

That leaves the winner. The amazing Geoff Patnoe of Public Policy Strategies was alone in picking nine of ten right answers! He only missed the Boling/Emerald question, but so did nearly everyone else.

By the way, some consultants were a tad hesitant about me "outing" them on their answers - something about clients and relationships - but Geoff graciously said to go ahead and let the e-world know his picks.

Congrats Geoff!!! Lunch is on me. Here's what he had to say last night, upon hearing the news that he won such a prestigious and solemn recognition among political hacks:

Is there a trophy? Do I get to make a speech? This is almost as good as saving 20 percent on my car insurance by switching to Geico. I actually would have preferred to lose this contest as that would have meant the outcome of some of the local races would have been different, however considering what our taxes are going to be like in the future I could certainly use the free meal.

IT IS CLEAR THAT SOME ADDITIONAL RULES ARE NEEDED ON RED COUNTY. I WILL ALSO BE INCREASING ENFORCEMENT.

FIRST, THE NATURE OF THE INTERNET MEANS THAT ANONYMOUS DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND KEY POLITICAL PERSONS WILL BE CONDUCTED ANONYMOUSLY, AS WILL ATTACKS ON INDIVIDUALS. THERE IS A TIME AND PLACE FOR ANONYMOUS DISCUSSION OF POLICY AND OF KEY POLITICAL PERSONS ON THIS BLOG. THERE IS NOT A PLACE FOR ANONYMOUS ATTACKS. IN THE FUTURE THIS BLOG WILL DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ANONYMOUS "ATTACKS" AND "LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION" ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, AND WILL BAN ATTACKS, OR EDIT THEM.

SECOND, AND THIS IS RELATED TO THE FIRST, THE GENERAL RUDE AND CRASS TONE OF POSTS WILL END. WHEN RED COUNTY STARTED MIGHTY THOR CLEARLY STATED THAT THIS WAS A FORUM FOR DISCUSSION, AND THAT MIGHTY THOR WOULD HOLD THE CENTER RIGHT TO A HIGHER STANDARD. THIS STANDARD GOT OUT OF HAND DURING THE ELECTION, BUT IT WILL BE STRICTLY UPHELD AS OF TODAY. THIS MORNING MIGHTY THOR SET THE TONE BY DELETING SEVERAL RUDE COMMENTS.

THIRD, MIGHTY THOR HAS ALLOWED MULTIPLE COMMENTS BY THE SAME INDIVIDUAL USING DIFFERENT NAMES AND IT IS OUT OF HAND, PARTICULARLY "ATTACK" POSTS. THE NEW RULE IS THAT IF INDIVIDUAL MAKES MULTIPLE COMMENTS, PARTICULARLY ATTACK COMMENTS, UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES, THEIR COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED, AND THE COMPUTER IN QUESTION MAY BE BANNED. THIS MORNING I SET THE TONE BY DELETING SEVERAL ATTACK COMMENTS BY A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL AND BANNING THE COMPUTER.

FOURTH, THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ON RED COUNTY THAT THERE ARE CENTER RIGHT VIEWPOINTS THAT DO NOT HAVE AN OUTLET FOR WHATEVER REASON. IF THERE ARE READERS WHO BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE NO MEANS OF SHARING IDEAS WITH THE LOCAL CENTER RIGHT LEADERSHIP, MOST OF WHOM PRESUMABLY READ THIS BLOG, THEY MAY SUBMIT COMMENTS IN THE FORM OF OPINION EDITORIALS, UNDER THEIR OWN NAMES OR PSUEDONAMES, AND I WILL CONSIDER THEM FOR PUBLICATION BASED ON QUALITY OF WRITING, NOT QUALITY OF IDEAS.

AS AN ACT OF GOODWILL UNDER THESE NEW RULES I HAVE UNDONE THE BANISHMENT OF 37 COMPUTERS.

MIGHTY THOR

Anyone who reads Red County regularly knows that I have been critical of the insiders who run the local GOP. I've always believed that the GOP should be more inclusive, with more voices and opinions rather than less. I think that the Republicans who feel left out of the decision making have squandered a major chance to change the GOP to one more like what they want. What do I mean?

The GOP at every level in our nation, state, and local elections was routed the Tuesday before last. Effective or ineffective local GOPs, effective or ineffective consultants, effective or ineffective candidates were mowed down everywhere. But even before the election there was an obvious desire among many inside Republicans for real changes in the GOP. Their feelers were pretty clear even on Red County.

The re-action by "outsiders" to the election was counterproductive. Instead of sitting down and offering solutions, ideas, and support they crowed, threatened, and jeered. To me, and I'm not paying attention to this every day, their tone and all around nastiness turned me off in a big way. I didn't hear alternate plans or reasonable calls for compromise within the GOP I heard nasty personal insults, legal and ethical threats, anonymous over the top emails, and simple rudeness that - and again I disagree with the way the insiders run things - I've never heard from any of them. Side note: I do understand a fair number of comments on this particular blogs are from Democrats, not Republicans. Buts its not just this blog.

These are not the signs of a political movement or political leaders who have the temperment or foresight to run anything. You don't win the hearts and minds of your fellow central committee members with this type of behavior, you drive them away. You don't usually win a seat at the table, if you don't have the numbers, by threatening the majority. That just makes them work harder to get rid of you. You win a seat with new, good ideas that can't be ignored.

I'd love to see more of those ideas - how the Republican Party as a whole can register more voters, how we can attract more different groups of people, what our policies should be.

Tomorrow (Friday) morning, Congressman Brian Bilbray will be on the following national news programs to discuss the importance of oversight and transparency regarding funds used from programs established from the financial bailout:

1. CNBQ Squawkbox - 6:40 a.m. (EST)
2. Bloomberg News - 7:30 a.m. (EST)
3. Fox Business Network - 7:40 a.m. (EST)
4. C-SPAN - 8:45 a.m. (EST)
5. Fox News - 1:00 p.m. (EST)
6. Fox Business Network - 1:20 p.m. (EST)

Great Op-Ed from David Brooks at the New York Times.

To read the article at the NYT website, click HERE

It's only been a week since the defeat, but the battle lines have already been drawn in the fight over the future of conservatism.

In one camp, there are the Traditionalists, the people who believe that conservatives have lost elections because they have strayed from the true creed. George W. Bush was a big-government type who betrayed conservatism. John McCain was a Republican moderate, and his defeat discredits the moderate wing.

To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are the most prominent voices in the Traditionalist camp, but there is also the alliance of Old Guard institutions. For example, a group of Traditionalists met in Virginia last weekend to plot strategy, including Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. According to reports, the attendees were pleased that the election wiped out some of the party's remaining moderates. "There's a sense that the Republicans on Capitol Hill are freer of wobbly-kneed Republicans than they were before the election," the writer R. Emmett Tyrrell told a reporter.

The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.

RE: This morning's "Draft George Plescia Movement" for SD GOP Chairman...

Rumor is rumor and anonymous emails are just that. It may not be as fun as the alternative, but sometimes it's best to operate on substance. So, I had a unique thought: Ask him. The resulting response from the retiring Assemblyman:

I am flattered that some might think of me being chairman as a good thing, however I am not running. I am looking forward to seeking paid employment since I believe in taking personal responsibility for my mortgage and other bills, not having "spreading the wealth" take care of it.

Ok, let's move on to the next rumor.

Page B3 of today's UT contains an article titled "Budget analyst suggests pay cut for city execs."  May be a good idea; maybe not.  But when I get down to the very end of the article I read that one of her suggestions is to:  "Institute a one-week, mandatory furlough for city employees, excluding firefighters, police officers, trash collectors and other essential personnel."  That would save $2 million.  So, she's saying, give a week off without pay to non-essential city personnel.  What I'm wondering is, if they're non-essential and if we're really in a huge financial pickle, why not give them 21.5 weeks off (it doesn't have to be all at the same time in one fell swoop) and close the entire $43 million gap?  Impractical?  Short-sighted? If we're really in dire straits, "non-essential" has got to go.