by Jack Lee
PROPOSITION ENDORSEMENTS BY THE STATE GOP
Prop 30 – NO
Prop 31 – YES (better take a close look at this one, I say vote NO)
Prop 32 – YES
Prop 33 – YES
Prop 34 – NO
Prop 35 – YES
Prop 36 – NO
Prop 37 – NO
Prop 38 – NO
Prop 39 – NO
Prop 40 – YES
United States Senate Endorsement – Elizabeth Emken
Congressional Endorsements – District Candidate CD 1 Doug LaMalfa
Assembly District 3 – Dan Logue
Jack, Is Logue now running for the Senate only, or is he running for both the Assembly and Senate. Please clarify.
I understand that LaMalfa and Nielsen have given up their respective seats on the Senate and Assembly saving us a costly special election later, but hadn’t heard about Logue doing the same.
Thanks.
What about Measure E?
Where do the local Rs stand on that?
I agree with Harold.
We need an accounting of what happened to the $50 million from the last bond measure.
And that should be measure EY!
Instead CUSD sends out a fancy, glossy propaganda piece on what a wonderful job they are doing and demanding more money. And who knows how much they spent on that.
NO ON E, YES ON EY!
Jack, More confusion.
Logue’s website says, “…Dan Logue for Assembly 2012,” but when I opened the link it says, “Dan Logue for State Senate.”
Again, which one is he running for, or is he running for both?
Here is his website copied from Google search.
Dan Logue
Make checks payable to: Friends of Dan Logue for Assembly 2012. Send to: Dan Logue for Assembly . P.O. Box 1504. Chico, CA 95927. FPPC ID# 1335498
danlogue.net/www.danlogue.net/Donate.html – Cached
Prop 31 is a NO, and it will end up being a quagmire of loopholes that provide future politicians of any party the ability to avoid voter approval. Anytime a law is enacted that deprives voters a voice in the process of law making and how tax money is spent is just plain BAD LAW. There is no common sense or logic to Prop 31 that benefits voters. but it is goldmine for politicians to circumvent voter oversight of their actions. PROP 31 is poorly conceived based on a theoretical idea that has no place in Government, and only promises to eliminate voter approval of future legislation. PROP 31 only chips away at our ability to maintain what little control we have of politicians and the process of law making. PROP 31 will be nothing more than bad law to bypass voters of their essential guidance within the process of Government.
NO on PROP 31, it must be rejected by voters
Peggy,
Dan Logue is running for both seats. It is now too late to pull out of the assembly race as we already held the primary on that in June, so he will be running for Assembly in this general election while also running in the primary race for Senate with 4 other candidates.
This is not unprecedented. Ted Gaines ran for two seats several years ago due to special election for Senate as well. Still, with redistricting and all that has happened recently, this can be confusing for voters so I’m glad you asked.
Steve,
So, he’s running against Jim Nielsen for the Senate seat, splitting the vote and leaving the door open for the democrat to win. Great! Who are the other four candidates?
Logue should have made up his mind to run when there was still time to pull his name from the Assembly race, just like LaMalfa and Nielsen did. If LaMalfa and Nielsen loose we’ve lost them since they have no “fall-back” seat to hold. We also don’t need to go paying for a special election to fill Logue’s Assembly seat if he does win the Senate.
Look Steve, we all know you work for Logue and are the head of the Central Committee and the GOP. And that’s why Nielsen didn’t get the “GOP” recommendation. I think everyone should realize what a vote for Logue may cost us in lost seats and funds.
Who’s running against Logue for his Assembly seat?
Actually Peggy, Logue and Nielsen facing each other in Nov. will only trigger a runoff election. It won’t split the vote. Whoever gets the most republican votes in Nov. will then go against Democrat Mickey Herrington in a special election. The special election will be very costly because it is a stand alone election and it could have been avoided if only one of the two republicans was in the running for the Nov. ballot. Herrington is expected to lose to whoever the republican finalist is.
Steve, has the BCRP made their endorsements yet? Thanks, Jack
Thanks Jack, but special election or runoff election it still comes out the same. We’ll be paying for it to come up with ONE candidate to go against Herrington.
Peggy,
A special election was triggered when Doug LaMalfa decided to leave Senate and run for Congress, but I do not recall anyone telling him to stay in the Senate.
Dan Logue won the Butte County Republican Party endorsement the same way he won in Yuba, Nevada, and Placer: with a two-thirds vote. In Butte the vote was 18-2, held by the full membership of a committee actually voted into their positions. Both candidates were given a chance to speak equally at the meeting. Can you say the same for the endorsement made by the CRC?
Peggy, I served overseas twice in defense of our right to have elections and FAIRLY vote for who will represent us in office. The Senate seat belongs to the people, it is not there to be handed over in a chicago-styled coronation as has been attempted.
There are five total candidates in this race and it is an open primary, meaning the top two go to the next round. This is due to Prop 14, which Jim Nielsen himself voted to put on the state ballot. Prop 14 was Abel Maldonado and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s way of stopping conservatives and electing more moderates. I will be fighting to make sure that in this race they don’t succeed.
Interestingly, aside from Logue, every candidate who stepped into this race mentioned LaMalfa’s surprise resignation (giving Nielsen an unfair head start) as the reason they jumped into the race.
Peggy, you should know that before you came along, some of your friends in the CRC tried to endorse Doug Ose, a liberal RINO republican. Now they’ve endorsed Jim Nielsen. I don’t expect you to believe me, but you might want to check these gentlemen’s records rather and see for yourself. If you really believe yourself a conservative then Dan Logue deserves your vote as well.
Peggy that is true, it’s going to cost us and it could have been avoided. When Doug was asked by Wally to run for his old seat I think it was right for Doug to accept. And since he (Doug) and Jim Neilsen have become friends and worked together in the legislature I think it was okay to ask Neilsen to run for his vacant senate seat. But, for Dan to make a run for that same seat after Jim was already declared, well, what’s in it for us? We get no more representation with Jim or Dan, but we do get billed for a special election and in that sense i wished Dan had left it alone or at the very least got with Neilsen and flipped a coin or something…anything to avoid the costs of a special election. But, it’s a free country, he can do what he wants, doesn’t mean we must agree with him.
Steve,
Yes, I’ve heard all about Ose’s endorsement which he received prior to the other candidate announcing he was running too.
The couple you speak of wanted to pull their endorsement, but didn’t because they had given their word to him already and felt they had to keep it.
They are just as conservative if not more than you and I and bringing up Ose every time to make them look bad only reflects on you, so drop it.
I hope you are not suggesting LaMalfa and Nielsen are not conservatives. Please do not go there!
My initial post was to clarify what seat Logue was running for. Logue running for both the Assembly AND the Senate seat is very confusing. He could have done the same as LaMalfa and Nielsen, and announced his Senate run when they did and not run for both like Nielsen and LaMalfa.
It’s to late to check Nielsen voting record tonight on Prop 14. I’ll look tomorrow.
Agree. You and I are on the same page.
Of course Logue has the right to run for the Senate. I only wish he had recided which seat to run for instead of running for both. Just like Steve my dad who served in active duty from WWII to Vietnam and my husband who also served his 3.5 year time during Vietnam with deployments over there served to guarantee all of us this privilege.
On the list of recommendations you provided Logue’s name is listed for Assembly, and there is no name provided for the Senate. Why? I think it would appear strange and confusing to have Logue’s name listed twice, and also looks like Nielsen didn’t get the GOP support at all. Doesn’t the Calif. GOP have a recommendation for the Senate? If they do, which one? There are at least two possible candidates, one should be worthy of their endorsement.
Peggy, if the voters are paying attention I think they’re going to resent getting the bill for a special election when we’re trying to stretch our tax dollars. The GOP is about doing what is right for the people, not doing what is right for the candidate and there is the bottom line. Is Dan Logue doing what is best for the people or is trying to reach a new level of personal achievement? We know why Neilsen is running…he was asked to fill LaMalfa’s seat because they are friends and farmers and Doug felt he would be leaving his Senate seat to a trusted man who mirrored his politics and understood farmers needs, especially about water rights.
Jack, Peggy,
CRP did not have enough time to really weigh in on the special senate race. They’re in the middle of trying to elect Romney, Emken, etc. and did not expect to have a primary during a general election. With two big republican names like Logue and Nielsen in the race you likely will not see CRP weighing in anyway.
I will not argue with you that Doug LaMalfa has a conservative voting record. I will argue that Nielsen does not. Go back a few years and look at the CRA voting scorecards, Nielsen was scoring in the 70’s while Logue and LaMalfa were in the 90’s.
Nielsen has also not been a defender of north state water. He voted for the peripheral canal under Deukmejian. He voted for Schwarzenegger’s water bond which includes funding for dam removal in the north.
I was at CRP convention when Nielsen and staff tried to take God out of the party platform. The man who funded that effort, Charles Munger, is now funding Nielsen’s TV commercials.
Nielsen is not a conservative.
Steve: Nielsen has also not been a defender of north state water.
Really, are you serious? I find that hard to believe since hes a farmer who lives just north of Chico. According to the below article hes been fighting for No. Cal water and farmers. Cant be a farmer with out water.
In 2010, Assemblyman Nielsen sponsored a measure to save the Williamson Act, which enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of protecting agricultural uses such as farming and ranching.
In the first two years of his State Assembly service, Nielsen was part of the Water Conference Committee and worked to produce a water plan for California that protects water rights for Northern California. (See below)
Jim Nielsen Biography
Assemblyman Jim Nielsen was first elected in November 2008 as representative of the Second Assembly District, which includes Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Modoc, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama and Yolo counties.
Currently, Nielsen is serving as the Vice Chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, and as a member of the Appropriations, Veterans Affairs, and Rules Committees. In his capacity as Vice Chairman he has led the effort to cut tens of billions of dollars of waste from the state budget, and prevent more taxes from being raised on Californians.
One of Nielsen’s highest priorities is eliminating the excessive, out of control agency and government regulations. He believes that the state would be best governed if let to govern itself, and he is committed to cut on the burdens that limit business operation in California.
Last year Nielsen has led the fight against the Public Safety Realignment, as the authority on this issue within the Legislature. His role at the Board of Prison Terms (1991-2000) where he became a chairman has provided him with a vast expertise on public safety issues, as well as a unique understanding of the inner workings of California’s prison system.
In 2010, Assemblyman Nielsen sponsored a measure to save the Williamson Act, which enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of protecting agricultural uses such as farming and ranching.
In the first two years of his State Assembly service, Nielsen was part of the Water Conference Committee and worked to produce a water plan for California that protects water rights for Northern California.
http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/2/?p=bio
Newsletter from Dist 2 CA Assemblyman Jim Nielsen
4/16/2012 | Press Release
Nielsen Flood Protection Bill Passes Natural Resources Committee With Strong Support
Alice Alecu (916) 319-2562
SACRAMENTO (April 16, 2012) Assemblyman Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber) today announced that Assembly Bill (AB) 2509 was passed with strong support in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. This bill allows for an exemption in the State Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), specifically allowing for the excavation or grading of lands affected by a flood or natural disaster.
I feel very strongly that hard-working farmers and ranchers should be allowed to remove and possibly sell the excess material deposited on their lands to offset costs associated with removing it from their crop-lands, said Nielsen. There shouldnt be any limits on the amount of material a property owner can remove from their property through excavation or grading for the purposes of farming and/or flood control. The value of removal affects all who live in and around flood-prone areas.
Nielsen said that under the existing law, only a one-time exemption is allowed for certain surface mining operations and it does not provide enough flexibility for landowners to remove materials that have been deposited on their lands. AB 2509 clarifies the law, to allow landowners to remove the unwanted materials and sell them without being considered a mining operation. Nielsen says that lands filled with debris, especially in high flood risk areas like Sutter and Yuba Counties, need to be restored as quickly as possible, so as not to further endanger lives and property.
http://pienpolitics.com/?p=9714
Steve: Nielsen is not a conservative.
Again, really? He receives an A rating from the Howard Jarvis Association and you deem him a liberal. Just because you support another candidate doesnt seem grounds to say a man is not who he says he is. If Jarvis says he meets their standards for an A rating he sure meets mine for being a conservative. (See below)
12/1/2011 | Press Release
Nielsen Receives An ‘A’ Rating From The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Alice Alecu (916) 319-2562
SACRAMENTO (November 17, 2011) – Assemblyman Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber) announced today that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has granted him an ‘A’ grade because of his pro-taxpayer voting record on 22 different bills tracked by the organization this year.
“I am honored to report this ‘A’ grade from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association,” said Nielsen. “This year we waged a strong battle against tax increases and we were very successful. I will continue to represent the hard-working taxpayers in our state by fighting the efforts of liberal politicians to take more money out of their pocketbooks to continue their profligate spending.”
http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/2/?p=article&sid=208&id=250004
Steve: I was at CRP convention when Nielsen and staff tried to take God out of the party platform. The man who funded that effort, Charles Munger, is now funding Nielsen’s TV commercials.
OMG, I cant believe you would think I wouldnt check this out. Guess what I found? Mr. Nielsen was also at the CRP conference with Mr. Logue and he voted AGAINST the platform proposal too. Were you really there? I sure hope you didnt intend to mislead us.
A Recap Of the CRP Platform Committee Activity At the Convention
Posted by Jon Fleischman at 12:09 am on Sep 20, 2011
It is significant to note that amongst the ranks the conservatives at the Platform Committee were a good number of Republican officeholders. Specifically Board of Equalization Members Michelle Steel and George Runner, State Senators Sharon Runner and Joel Anderson, and Assembly members Tim Donnelly, Brian Jones, Allan Mansoor, Mike Morrell, Jim Nielsen, Don Wagner and Dan Logue (who ran the meeting but voted with conservatives on the roll call, as did CRP Chairman Tom Del Beccaro). It should be noted that one legislator, Senator Sam Blakeslee, was there voting for the Munger platform proposal.
http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2011/09/20/a-recap-of-the-crp-platform-committee-activity-at-the-convention/
End of discussion. I know who Im voting for.
Recent praise for saving Norcal water…
“February 18, 2011 common sense agriculture
Honorable Senator Doug La Malfa
Honorable Assemblyman Jim Nielsen
February 17, 2011
I would like to personally thank both of you for your involvement in the matter of the California Department of Fish and Game Incidental Take Permit and the citizens of the Scott and Shasta Valley.
For more than 30 years the farmers and ranchers of the two valleys have been voluntarily improving water efficiency, installing fish screens, replacing push up dams with permanent, fish friendly structures and incorporating bypass flows into their diversion structure designs. All of these actions were done proactively to address potential impacts to salmonids. In addition, landowners along the two rivers have installed fencing to better manage grazing in riparian areas and have voluntarily stabilized banks and planted native vegetation to improve the habitat.
In the 80s, the Department wanted us to put in fish screens they designed and we did. Then they wanted us to replace our push up dams with permanent rock weirs and we did. They then requested a bypass flow at the point of diversion and we obliged. Then they wanted assurance we were diverting our adjudicated water right and we are water mastered. Now they want me to pay $200 a year for a 1600 permit and $10,000 to $15,000 for a 158 page permit that says I am diverting with approved mitigations and the Department can take my water when they want to? I say hell no!
The recent re-interpretation of the Fish and Game code 1600 is merely another attempt by the State to assume more control over small business, ignore private property rights and follow the beck and call of a few elitist activist groups whose desire is to see our two valleys depopulated and returned to a natural state. If the Department is successful in implementing the 158 page permit in combination with requiring a 1600 permit simply to exercise a water right, the repercussions throughout the state will have a devastating impact….”
One more thing.
According to California Watch Mr. Munger has contributed hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to the Calif. GOP. Since youre a member of the CRP and chair of the Central Committee havent those organizations you belong to Steve also received some of that money? Why would you throw Mr. Nielsen under the bus for doing the same thing? If hes such a bad man why didnt the GOP refuse his financial support?
Rhetorical question. No need to answer.
CALIFORNIA WATCH:
Total contributions: $14,093,488
60 donations: 25 to candidates, 25 to ballot measures and 10 to parties
http://rainmaker.apps.cironline.org/donors/charles-t-munger-jr/
Peggy I appreciate you actually trying to research this before you replied. You are correct that Nielsen voted against the Munger proposal in the final vote. What they won’t tell you is that he is the one who made the motion for the Munger proposal at the first meeting of the platform committee. This is in the actual minutes from the first platform committee meeting. Charles Munger is now spending $133,000 in TV commercials for Nielsen. $133,000 is a lot of money from a bay area liberal and he must have got something for that money.
Peggy I have nothing against moderates, even though I disagree with them. If you support Nielsen because he’s a moderate that’s your call. But please don’t be fooled by these guys. Anyone can say “conservative” on their signs but it doesn’t make it true. Read up on these guys and look at both their records. I for one would love to see a real debate hosted by the Chico TEA party on this race. Let’s not take what politicians say at face value, let’s really put them up to a spotlight and work to find the truth.
This really is my last comment on this subject. I have other things I need to be doing.
Steve, Since Mr. Munger’s contributions were accepted by the GOP, didn’t Mr. Logue also benefit from those funds? Where does the money for office rent, travel and staff salaries come from? What about the various bills Mr. Logue endorsed? Did any of them receive Munger funds, or did millions of it just go into a general fund and get shuffled out?
You have not convinces me Mr. Nielsen in a moderate any more than you have convinced me the whole Calif. GOP, etc. is a moderate organization for accepting over $14 million dollars from Mr. Munger.
Have a good day.
Congress approved a law in 2009 and provided funds to help streamline military voting, and now projections are coming out that military voting may be down by 90%.
Being an army brat this is completely unacceptable and hope you all agree with me. Contact your state and federal reps if you do.
========
Pentagon fails to comply with law to help overseas soldiers vote, watchdog says:
The military services haven’t created offices on all overseas bases to help soldiers cast their ballots, citing money shortages.
The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act was passed by Congress in 2009 and signed into law by President Barack Obama and was supposed to make it easier for service people deployed overseas and U.S. citizens living abroad to cast ballots back in their home states.
One of the key provisions required each military branch to create an installation voting assistance office (IVAO) for every military base outside an immediate combat zone.
But the Pentagons inspector general, the militarys internal watchdog, reported Tuesday it got a disappointing result when it tried to locate such voting assistance offices on each installation earlier this year.
Full story here:
http://www.washingtonguardian.com/ballot-buck-passing
Group warns of ‘bleak’ military voter participation despite Pentagon efforts:
They fight for our freedom on the front lines, but members of our military could have less of an impact at the ballot box this year.
Estimates say that the number of troops who will end up voting in the November could be down by more than a third.
“We could see an election where turnout is down 25 or 35 percent,” predicts Eric Eversole, executive director of the Military Voter Protection Project, which brands this years predicted military voter participation levels as “bleak.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/06/group-warns-bleak-military-voter-participation-despite-pentagon-efforts/#ixzz285xKyMCZ
Federal Voting Assistance Program for Military:
http://www.fvap.gov/
Just received an email from Butte County GOP NOW endorsing Logue for the Senate instead of the Assembly. So, we now know they found the time.
Steve: “CRP did not have enough time to really weigh in on the special senate race. They’re in the middle of trying to elect Romney, Emken, etc. and did not expect to have a primary during a general election. With two big republican names like Logue and Nielsen in the race you likely will not see CRP weighing in anyway.”
==========
(Copied from email)
Ballot help: Here are Butte Republican Party endorsements:
Need help deciding who to vote for? We’ve done the research on these candidates and given them our Republican seal of approval:
1st Congressional District: Doug La Malfa
4th Senate District: Dan Logue
Supervisor, 5th District (Paradise): Joe DiDuca
Chico City Council (4 seats open): Andrew Coolidge, Dave Donnan, Bob Evans, Sean Morgan, Toby Schindelbeck
Chico School Board: Erik Lyon
Oroville City Council: David Pittman, J.R. Simpson, Thil Chan Wilcox
Paradise City Council (3 seats open): Greg Bolin, John Rawlings
Paradise School Board: Donna Nichols, Rachelle Zuccolillo
Peggy thanks for the free plug!
You seem confused though about the difference between CRP (California Republican Party) and the BCRP (Butte County Republican Party).
Just to be clear, CRP has not endorsed in the Senate race. The CRP chairman Tom Delbeccarro did endorse Dan Logue but CRP as an organization has not.
BCRP did endorse. As an organization they have the right to endorse or not endorse in primary races, and they have endorsed Dan Logue for the State Senate. Other counties can vote on this issue as well, and can make legal endorsements so long as they follow the guidelines of noticing and inviting both candidates to their hearing. Yuba, for example, endorsed Dan Logue, while Glenn County cast no endorsement.
One thing that no county party is allowed to do is endorse against the official republican candidate in the general election. Now that we are in an open primary though, (thanks in part to Jim Nielsen) we could find ourselves without a republican candidate in future races, and possibly find the need to endorse non republican candidates.
I hope that clears it up for you.
You’re very welcome. Glad I could help.
Like I said in my first posts this election has been confusing. Almost like watching the Abbott and Costello skit, “Who’s on first….”
I sincerely hope everyone wins a seat and the republicans in No. Calif. don’t end up losing.