SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
February 13, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Dave Gauny’s February 27 Speech?

By Timothy Myers SR. — Tim Myers

In the Signal recently David Gauny, candidate for City council, revealed that his speech on February 27h at a rally organized by Save Our State (“SOS”), the sponsors of the now controversial rally involving Bob Kellar earlier this year,  would be a “surprise.”  Well, early this morning I found under my welcome mat the following typewritten document that purports to be a draft of this “surprise” speech.  (I don’t know who left it but I thought I glimpsed an extremely buff young man darting into the paseo.  Was that you Johnny Pride?)  Here is what was written on the papers.

Greetings on this fine day to all of my fellow citizens of the SCV.  Well, at least to Berta Gonzalez Harper who seems to be edging towards Magic Mountain Parkway and getting ready to make a break for it, and George Runner who is making a list of the staffers he is going to fire because they told him this was an anti-tax rally.  But a hearty shout out to all our friends from Fillmore, the AV, Hesperia and other spots used as locations in that most excellent and under rated film “The Book of Eli.”  (That Mila Kunis is HOTTTT!!!!!!)

When I began this campaign for City Council I based my strategy on a three legged stool.  Hospital-Bad.  Frank Ferry-Bad.  My Hair-EXCELLENT.  But now I realize that I can build a piece of furniture with many legs, something that occurs when you lose the instructions for that thing you bought from IKEA that looked good in the store.

In addition to ignoring the terrible problem that we speak about today, Tim Myers lent me his most recent copy of the Economist and I am shocked and outraged at the other profound problems our current City Council ignores and that I will seek to address once I ascend to that rarefied place on Valencia Boulevard, to wit:

  1. The Greek sovereign debt crisis;
  2. The actions of the Sinhalese majority against the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka;
  3. The disputed presidential election in Ukraine; and
  4. The succession of Vice President “Goodluck Jonathan” to the presidency of Nigeria.  (I’m not sure that even I believe that is an issue we should address but I really wanted to say that name.)

And Mr. Myers assures me that once I take my exalted place he will continue to lend me his Economist to be used as a roadmap for future City Council business.

But right now  as the dinner hour approaches I would like to offer our friends from the desert a small repast before they return home.  I have brought five loaves and two fishes.  That should be plenty.

Comments (39)

  1. David GaunyFebruary 13, 2010 at 10:14 am
    Egads! Scooped again by the indefatigable efforts of Tim Myers to spoil my surprise. It’s not just the time and effort to compose a new speech, but how to convince my Ornery California Catholic Bride to spend such a beautiful weekend scribing new tablets? Fishes and loaves are so last millenium, I was thinking California rolls?
  2. mikeFebruary 13, 2010 at 10:19 am
    Dave, I don’t think this crowd will be much for fusion cuisine.
  3. David GaunyFebruary 13, 2010 at 10:52 am
    On a side note, I found another speech from that radical Bob Kellar… this one from 2008 when he was speaking on behalf of a bunch of other extremists… people who were allegedly trying to wreck trauma care for these same crazies in the AV, Fillmore, all the way up to Gorman, and even here in our city – well worth the few minutes to watch the entire video: http://bdyoutube.com/video/cwvVN2Qhwlg/Henry-Mayo-Hospital-Expansion-Mayor-Kellar-s-Speech.html Back in those days, people who spoke like Kellar were attacked as “NIMBYs” (akin to “racist” in some peoples’ minds). Heck, Myers even tied me to the global economic crisis for presenting these facts to our council in his hard-hitting (albeit irrelevant) column: http://www.the-signal.com/news/archive/3490/ Who knows, maybe a little noise from so-called extremists isn’t such a bad thing for better government. In 1776, it started the best one on the planet and today it usually just moves the needle a little closer to where it needs to be. I’ve never supported hate or intolerance but small groups of extremists have often been the kernel of needed reform. As was the case in 2008, we ignore them at our peril.
  4. mikeFebruary 13, 2010 at 11:22 am
    So-called extremists that advocate terror and assassination. Pat yourself on the back for making scapegoats out of the poorest people in our society. Teach your children well. Stay classy, Dave Gauny.
  5. David GaunyFebruary 13, 2010 at 11:32 am
    Mike: I’ve never been clear on how speaking to a group endorses the viewpoint of every extreme view in it. As was asked here a few days ago, Reverend Wright wants God to damn America… should I not speak to churches? One could say that your view extreme. You are stretching to make this a battle of race or rich/poor class warfare. The issue is simply one of legal vs. illegal – your twist of the issue is off-topic. Millions of people have followed the path to legal citizenship and many of those who have also do not want to compete with those seeking a free ride. Here’s an example: http://dontspeakforme.org/principles.html I agree with values and priniples as this group, many of whom are legal immigrants… are they making scapegoats of poor people? Get real.
  6. David GaunyFebruary 13, 2010 at 11:34 am
    edit: last para should read “I agree with the SAME values…”
  7. mikeFebruary 13, 2010 at 2:26 pm
    Dave, You’ve certainly had the opportunity to read up on the organizers of this event. I’ll assume that you’ve even been in contact with some of them. I would further assume, since you seem light a bright guy, that you realize that their ideology and single-mindedness places them on the far right wing of American politics. Minutemen groups around the country have even teamed up with the Council of Conservative Citizens for events. By speaking at this event, you are giving legitimacy to them You are encouraging more far-right, and in response, far-left extremists to make our town the focal point of a nasty debate over an issue that effects our city very little and about which we can do even less. Your comparisons are a mess. Never in my life have I heard someone compare NIMBYists to racists. The worst thing you can accuse a NIMBYist of is excessive self-interest. A racist is a person who baseless hate for another person. These are very different things. You’ve heard the passing motorist get berated by the crowd in the last event, haven’t you? Epithets, threats and insults based on his perceived ethnicity? The speaker proclaiming him to be an illegal immigrant with no basis in fact? These are the people you are embracing. This is a world apart from people who think a hospital expansion should contain more hospital beds. Opposition to G&L’s proposed master plan was never considered an extremist position. Among people who follow these things closely, I’ve found that most, of all political persuasions, came to the conclusion loosely shared by yourself, Bob Kellar and TimBen Boydston. You had the odds (and the money) stacked against you, but if not for that, I wouldn’t know your name, nor would most others here. Also, this isn’t a “Don’t Speak for Me” rally, it’s a Minutemen/Save Our State rally, put together by an aspiring terrorist. Jeff ought to put a conflation counter for every time you compare this gathering to something benign. Lastly, the American Revolution, nor any important period of progress in our nation’s history, wasn’t sprouted from a kernel of hate or ethnic intolerance. Sadly, we have a long list of unfortunate happenings in our history when such groups get together, grab power or find sizable public support. Mr. Gauny, the best thing you can do right now, to take a stand for decency and public order, is to withdraw from this event. Get back to actual issues, on the main stage. This sideshow business is beneath you.
  8. IHeartSCVFebruary 13, 2010 at 2:43 pm
    After reading this piece, I am saddened by a small, lingering suspicion that Tim was trying to be funny.
  9. David GaunyFebruary 13, 2010 at 4:44 pm
    Mike says: “By speaking at this event, you are giving legitimacy to them You are encouraging more far-right, and in response, far-left extremists to make our town the focal point of a nasty debate over an issue that effects our city very little and about which we can do even less. I will not refuse to speak to this group simply because there are some people with extreme views in the crowd and I will only endorse “nasty debate” as far as my remarks allow. Why don’t you hear what I have to say before you charge me with fault here? My point with the “racist” vs “NIMBY” argument is that people choose to use such words in order to neutralize a group of people that often have valid views. It neuters the entire group wholesale and that’s unfair. My belief is that the “NIMBYs” in the G&L case had real arguments that were never heard by the public as a result of this marginalizing word being applied to the entire group. Similarly, my goal is to sift only the rational working arguments out from the people you’ve called “racists”. By the way, it’s worth reminding that the “racist” name was thrown at Kellar for quoting Roosevelt. It has no relevance in the discussion here or my view so stop tainting the issue. You seem determined to continue this irrelevant “racism” argument when you conclude: ”Lastly, the American Revolution, nor any important period of progress in our nation’s history, wasn’t sprouted from a kernel of hate or ethnic intolerance.” Follow the bouncing ball, Mike: it is legal vs. illegal, not “hate, ethnicity, or intolerance.” Like those you’re bashing, your extremist approach to the issue is not helpful to healthy discussion or solution. I honestly don’t understand how you can’t see that but continuing to argue on this level is beneath both of us.
  10. David GaunyFebruary 13, 2010 at 4:49 pm
    ND: If Reverend Wright had a church in Santa Clarita and asked me to speak there, I would – at least once. I would hear the concerns of the members and it would and my responses would define my position, not my presence. It would be careless to reject the group as a whole because of one man’s views. How do you ever change minds if you never engage? In my mind, the problem with our two-party political system is a refusal to engage with opposing viewpoints. 535 people in Congress and only two ideas. We categorize and dismiss a lot of good discussion with two simple words: Left or Right. Not good for process or solutions and it has dumbed down our public to the point that we most have no understanding of the issues. It’s FOX News or MSNBC. We are all worse off when we fail to even make the attempt.
  11. mikeFebruary 13, 2010 at 5:08 pm
    Few things: The racist label was thrown at Bob Kellar years ago by a nameless person or persons. I wasn’t one of those people. I should mention that we don’t have a record, as far as I know, of Kellars remarks that led to the charge, only his recollection. Next, I’m not just referring to people in the crowd, but to the organizers and the speakers. You are supposing that me and others are using nasty labels to taint people with otherwise valid viewpoints, but I’m certainly not conceding the latter. The Minutemen are fueled by intolerance and violent extremism. The examples of this are plentiful. You’ve dodged this point over a dozen times now, but you are the headlining speaker at an event ORGANIZED AND HOSTING by a man who has advocates terrorism and assassination. Not 30 years ago, but currently. Why haven’t you addressed this? Your remarks up to this point suggest that you sympathize with the Minutemen, which has been a disappointment. You complain about the extremism and polarization in our society, yet you are playing right into it. I hope that your speech is rebuke to this radicalism. Forgive my for suspecting it won’t be. My mind can be changed. After all, a few weeks ago, I supported you. Lastly, and I’m 100% sincere, I respect that you have defended yourself here. You’ve done so openly and without proxies.
  12. CCFebruary 13, 2010 at 5:44 pm
    Thanks David, once again the voice of reason.
  13. David GaunyFebruary 13, 2010 at 5:47 pm
    Mike: I also have no record on the Kellar recollection but it is his telling of the event that has continued the use of the word in this conversation. Also, I did not see any formal statement from a leader of this event that said they supported terrorism or assassination. What I did find were opinions from others who say so and that’s not enough for me. If you can show me otherwise, please do. (and if I eat crow here, I will acknowledge it publicly.) I do not sympathize with the MM but I have talked to a couple that have some fair-minded ideas about how to deal with a problem that (in my opinion) our country cannot continue to support with our present approach. That’s all. You might be “surprised” that I do intend to be very clear about what I do and don’t support. Just as I do here, my call is to attack process not people. It’s the extremism on every side that makes news but then buries the issue. Finally, thanks for at least acknowledging my effort to be forthcoming here. The real reason I have a dog in the council race is I am tired of broken process and leaders who are unwilling to deal with real problems. This is never an issue I chose. But in my mind, if I duck out and fail to even engage, I’ve failed my first test. Even this problem has an answer and people do deserve a hearing.
  14. PetzFebruary 13, 2010 at 6:41 pm
    Give Mike the directions to the offices of answerla.org and take his message of moderation to them. On second thought he is probably on the payroll.
  15. mikeFebruary 13, 2010 at 10:51 pm
    Dave, it rally seems like you may be in the dark about the folks who are putting this rally together. This underscores my concern about Kellar’s appearance in the first place – it’s not what he said but they way in which he legitimized this group. I hope that you will take a few minutes to look through the video from the event where Bob spoke. You can watch up until the time when Bob speaks and you’ll get a very good idea of what this group is about. It will also be very clear that the host and chief organizer/facilitator is Frank Jorge. Please watch the video of Mr. Jorge linked here: http://scvtalk.com/2010/01/26/who-is-frank-jorge/ to hear the comments in question. I suppose you could call this a “formal statement”. After watching those clips, I would implore you to do the right thing and denounce these comments in advance, and formally with at least as much pomp as accompanied your defense of Mr. Kellar. Petz, to quote myself: “You are encouraging more far-right, and in response, far-left extremists to make our town the focal point of a nasty debate over an issue that effects our city very little and about which we can do even less.” I’m in agreement with NickelDime. Gettsyburg didn’t ask for Gettysburg. These will be out of town factions fighting one another on our turf. When I see AnswerLA screaming and making fools of themselves, I don’t say an amen, I cringe. I imagine you have a similar reaction when some of the MM types take the podium as well.
  16. GangFangFebruary 13, 2010 at 11:33 pm
    Dave seems like a real a-hole.
  17. PetzFebruary 14, 2010 at 4:38 am
    Mike is welcome to counter demonstrate on one of the other corners at Valencia and McBean. Maybe CC can join him since it is within walking distance. The real tragedy of this immigration kerfluffle its that is that it allows the politicos to jump on the bandwagon of a highly visble “issue” and escape scrutiny on those things that the actually have the ability to do something about. A lot of stuff went under the radar at the last meeting. Tax exempt funding for private business? Where is the conservative candidate willing to stand up and say “HELL NO !” I’ll tell you where, blogging on this forum at 4:37 in the morning on Valentines Day. Shame on the mayor for allowing extended discussion among the council members during the public comment time for the meeting. This is something that is worthy of comment by the candidates.
  18. PetzFebruary 14, 2010 at 5:32 am
    Petz is madder than hell after walking out to get his Signal to find that city hall is being used as collateral using a lease revenue bond to pay off a lawsuit. Oh please let’s discuss illegal immigation just a bit longer-until after April 13 at least.How about a citizens committee to discuss leveraging city hall. If the citizens ever wake up in the SCV to what is happening to our community they will be down on Valencia with torches and pitch forks.
  19. John AdamsFebruary 14, 2010 at 5:59 am
    Mike the biggest mistake in your argument is assuming people that HATE illegals are racist. That is nothing more than a bad assumption on your part. Am I a racist? I hate illegals and want every single one of the LAW BREAKERS sent back to their country of origin. By saying that does it mean I hate the hispanic race? Come on give me your best Indyesque answer Or are you saying you are only a racist if you are white (not hispanic) and Hate illegals? Please just tell me what makes a person that wants all law breaking aliens to abide by the same rules we do, a RACIST?
  20. GangFangFebruary 14, 2010 at 8:06 am
    John, I have a good friend who has been living in this country for a good 5 years. She is from Canada. She is here illegally. She is white. She is blond. She is pretty. She drives an SUV with one of those ultra lame “So Cal” stickers on it. She shops at Target, and watches season finales of lame TV shows with vigor. She drinks white wine. She has a yappy lap dog. Do you hate her?
  21. John AdamsFebruary 14, 2010 at 8:42 am
    I hate all criminals and Law breakers. I do not choose to be friends with them either. I guess I feel all laws should respected??? You don’t? or do you just pick and choose witch laws should be followed or not? What if some people felt that the law against breaking and entering we wrong? What if they were from canada white, and drank wine? Should it be OK for them to break that law? Could you please list all the current federal laws that you are OK with being broken?
  22. RockyFebruary 14, 2010 at 8:48 am
    Petz, welcome to Ken Pulskamp’s world.
  23. PetzFebruary 14, 2010 at 8:51 am
    Petz grabbed his pitch fork and refueled his torch. An open invitation to CC for a cup of tea at the Corner Bakery before the party.
  24. David GaunyFebruary 14, 2010 at 8:51 am
    Petz – I am in agreement with you over the “hide the football” play with the issues. There are plenty of vulnerabilities with the incumbents in this election and I would LOVE to focus more energy on their local failures. I was equally SHOCKED to find the article in The Signal regarding the mortgage of City Hall! I have known about this but have been unable to find any details on the actual case. I am also surprised at the excellent and honest coverage this received… it is the best expose of the city I’ve seen in the paper – probably ever! I missed the portion of the CC meeting the other night where the council talked outside of public purview – your post was the first I’d heard about this. Wow.
  25. David GaunyFebruary 14, 2010 at 8:54 am
    I do believe incentive programs are important to attract and retain businesses –and jobs- in Santa Clarita… we must remain competitive with other cities and states that are doing the same. I don’t like it but shortsightedness here will kill us. But here’s some perspective: City budget for Santa Clarita EDC: $200,000 City budget for our local Senior Center: $400,000 City budget for bad dealing in this lawsuit: $20,000,000 (incl attorney fees) Our city is BLEEDING money in all the WRONG places – this lawsuit is just one of many that have cost millions more. Process is the problem at City Hall and it is absolutely ridiculous that this arrangement of funds was not made transparent. This is the same crap pulled when G&L’s intersection mitigations were paid for out of a public funds district: it was placed on a consent calendar and voted on with 200 other intersections with nary a mention that this very contentious intersection was being included with a $2MM pricetag. This won’t begin to cover actual costs, by the way – taxpayers will eat more if they build it! This was done one month before the hearing and removed the project’s biggest obstacle to approval. Oh, it may be legal but SHAME on our City Council for letting this deception continue. FIRE THE INCUMBENTS!
  26. mikeFebruary 14, 2010 at 9:10 am
    John, you must be arguing with someone else, because I didn’t say that. I’m speaking specifically to the Minutemen movement, which contains some people that are motivated by racism.
  27. GangFangFebruary 14, 2010 at 9:16 am
    John: Sorry to shatter that bubble you’re living in, but I guarantee you that you have friends who have broken laws that are “on the books” as I type this. Better have a hate party and let em know you can’t be around them anymore, as you have a strict moral code to adhere to. Nice attempt at a smoke screen though. Next time try smoke that doesn’t smell like David Duke’s cologne. And for the record, if I’m sitting at a red light at 3am and no one is around, I run the light. That’s right, a LAW BREAKER. So bummed we can’t be seen together, John.
  28. John AdamsFebruary 14, 2010 at 9:18 am
    Some people? Why? Isn’t that like me saying “some democrats love abortion”? How about sticking to stuff that can be proven? You know, stuff like: “The stimulus has saved or produced 10 billion jobs”
  29. David GaunyFebruary 14, 2010 at 9:21 am
    ND: You’ll note that I gave the immigration issue only about 20 seconds of my speech at the last meeting. I am definitely moving on from here. As I mentioned on this site a week or so ago, at the CA Republican Assembly endorsement meeting, the only questions the canddiate were asked dealt with illegal immigration. I understood then that this might intentionally be used as a distraction to the many other failures we should be hammering in this election.
  30. John AdamsFebruary 14, 2010 at 9:21 am
    Hey Gang! Nice backpedal. How about you answer one (just one gang) of the questions I asked? Pullleeeessseee
  31. John AdamsFebruary 14, 2010 at 9:34 am
    By the way I looked for traffic infractions under federal law? Did not find them? Could you send me a link? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_69.html
  32. PetzFebruary 14, 2010 at 12:11 pm
    @ David Gauny Did you get my phone call about Thursday evening discussion group?
  33. RockyFebruary 14, 2010 at 12:49 pm
    Good for you David Gauny for going after the corruption at City Hall! Maybe TMS is start acting more like a community newspaper than as a newsletter for the City. The expose about this wasteful and expensive lawsuit charge of $20 million taxpayer dollars was excellent. I liked these two paragraphs (written one after the other) in today’s article: “The City is paying off the bond for 27 more years and expects to pay $820,000 toward it in 2010, [Santa Clarita deputy city manager Darren] Hernandez said. “Meanwhile, City Manager Ken Pulskamp earlier this month announced an $817,000 budget deficit for next year.” The City Manager and the City Planning Department, along with the City Attorney, should have taken their time, been more careful, and saved the City a TON of money in this lawsuit. But no. This is not the last of the mismanagement stories involving the City. And all three incumbents running for re-election were either asleep at the wheel while this was going on, or intimately involved.
  34. RockyFebruary 14, 2010 at 1:02 pm
    Does anyone want to make any bets as to whether this $20 million waste of money on getting the cross town connector built will be mentioned at the City’s celebration of the bridge opening that is happening right before the election? How convenient for the incumbents! How about the other lawsuits connected with the Connector? What? Haven’t heard about them yet? Hold onto y
  35. RockyFebruary 14, 2010 at 1:02 pm
    Hold onto your keyboards!
  36. Berta González-HarperFebruary 14, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    For those of you who insist that those of us in favor of enforcing our laws regarding illegal immigration are racists, I will repeat again most people have no problem with legal immigrants of whatever race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Most of us are descended from legal immigrants and proud of it too. The issue is ILLEGAL immigration. If you want to advocate for those here illegally, I suggest you contact Immigration and sponsor as many illegals as your financial situation allows. You will only be responsible for the first five years they are here instead of making me and every other taxpayer responsible for LIFE. Thanks! http://dontspeakforme.org/principles.html
  37. Linda BrownFebruary 14, 2010 at 5:27 pm
    A major real estate developer owned the piece of land that the City took and paid for. To me, shame on the real estate developer for making the City pay $20 million. And in turn making everyone pay. Just corporations trying to screw everyone. Not the City.
  38. Linda BrownFebruary 14, 2010 at 5:38 pm
    In the end, does it really matter who is on the City Council? All of the incumbents before they became council members ran the same campaign: I’ll change City Hall for the better! In the end, it is all the same. They soon realize that they have no real power and most City business is much more complicated than expected, funds are restricted to certain uses, etc..
  39. mikeFebruary 16, 2010 at 12:24 pm
    Dave, following up on this: “Also, I did not see any formal statement from a leader of this event that said they supported terrorism or assassination. What I did find were opinions from others who say so and that’s not enough for me. If you can show me otherwise, please do. (and if I eat crow here, I will acknowledge it publicly.)” Did you watch Jorge’s video yet?

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support