David Gauny Writes an “Inside Baseball” Column

By Tim Myers

So David Gauny writes a fairly good piece in the Signal today regarding how the entrenched powers of incumbency (minus one) are arranging the chessboard to keep him from a council seat in 2012 (likely) and also overcome the incumbency of Bob Kellar (unlikely).

The first deals with campaign infrastructure that will be perfected on Tuesday night (7-13). For about three minutes after the 2010 election Frank Ferry showed some humility with respect to his close finish, but almost immediately revised history to relate the outcome to his (relative) lack of effort. No more excuses! When the new campaign contribution limits are approved 4-1 on Tuesday the incumbents can easily strongarm the establishment and others with interests before the City to raise $100K plus each and bury any challenger in a sea of glossy mailers with Buck McKeon’s picture combined with happy children.The second relates to tactical matters. Dave Gauny asserts the systematic release of an email to the business community that bounced around some during the campaign with some soft slander against him. (This was done after election day, so can only relate to the 2012 election.) I am familiar with the contents of the email and I can definitely state why it was not used by the incumbents in the campaign: It is goofy. If one were to believe EVERY single allegation in the email as ABSOLUTELY true it would actually make David Gauny a more sympathetic character, struggling like many to make it economically in the Great Recession the best he can and riding a roller coaster of success and failure. Anyone with an OUNCE of superstition or belief in kharma would NEVER talk negatively about this because they could be in an INDENTICAL situation without warning.

Naturally, it is all for naught. The 7% of voters who despise the incumbents already do and the 6% that love them have rationalized or don’t care about the increase. Sadly, the 3% of uninformed swing voters know NOTHING about this and will read NOTHING about it in the glossy mailers met to gather their votes in for the victory.

Comments (44)

IHeartSCVJuly 11, 2010 at 5:28 pm

I am really interested to find out if Gauny is correct about the potential to regulate Citizens for Integrity in Government. He wrote that it’s a Local/City PAC per FPPC rules, and Santa Monica has successfully regulated similar PACs by imposing a limit on contributions to both candidates and PACs (detailed at http://city.davidgauny.com ). According to The Signal, this year Citizens for Integrity in Government got $31,500 from G&L Realty, $5,000 from the Building Industry Association, and $3,000 from the SCV Auto Dealers Association. That’s about $40K to be lavished on incumbents, but it would be slashed to $3K if there were limits imposed on contributions to PACs.

Timothy MyersJuly 11, 2010 at 6:42 pm

IHeart: They have had “successful” regulation because no one has challenged it in court. (None of the limitations would stand up to any serious constitutional scruitny based on recent Supreme Court rulings.) I am currently reading Carl Boyer’s book on the history of Cityhood and one of the primary motivating factors for the City to enact contribution limits (remember the other major elected bodies in the SCV have none) was because several of the first City Council members feared heavily financed campaigns for nonincumbents funded by development interests. Ironic how the worm has turned.

IHeartSCVJuly 11, 2010 at 8:00 pm

I’d be fine with abolishing contribution limits if they’d just enforce a two term limit on council members. It’s so troubling to think that Frank and Laurene has been serving continuously since the Clinton administration. And good point on the constitutionality of limits–I heard that the ACLU is busy preparing a case to fight campaign contribution limits for Kentucky elections. Perhaps this means more vacillating from Carl Newton come Tuesday.

Timothy MyersJuly 11, 2010 at 8:15 pm

IHeart: Term limits don’t work because you just have the heir apparents to the sitting incumbents shuffled in after generating name recognition, probably as a Commissioner, and then collecting the campaign contributions and endorsements that are the sinecure of the incumbent. It has not really changed things on the state level and thinking people agree that it just ensures that bureaucrats and lobbyists run the process of government. Jeff has it right. The real problem is and always will be the general indifference of the electorate on local elections (not just here but everywhere) that does more to fuel the power of incumbency than any other single factor.

IHeartSCVJuly 11, 2010 at 8:58 pm

“Thinking people agree that it just ensures that bureaucrats and lobbyists run the process of government.” I can’t decide if that sentence is more insulting, annoying, or inaccurate. I assure you that “thinking people”–even some who have “thinked” about term limits much more than you–are not in agreement on the merits and consequences of term limits. In the Annual Review of Political Science, two professors from Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies came to the grand conclusion that “because people start from different normative perspectives, findings about term-limit effects can be interpreted in very different ways.” (Another satisfying, definitive finding from political scientists.) And my norms lead me to rather like term limits.

Silence DogoodJuly 12, 2010 at 7:27 am

Thinking people agree that whatever Tim Myers is utterly convinced of is often wrong, and it may be just a matter of time before Tim Myers is utterly convinced of something else, which may well also be utterly wrong. Many thinking people do not agree with Tim Myers on this or other matters. So certain of his arguments, and often so wrong…

Tim MyersJuly 12, 2010 at 7:30 am

Sorry IHeart. I meant that “thoughtful” people (not just partisan hacks seeking to preserve their power) have examined data since term limits and come to a reasonable conclusion that it has not only not had the salutary effect bu several unintended consequences; namely the vesting of whatever power that may reside in the state government in the office of governor, and then only when a celebrity occupies the office. (Did you realize the major TV stations in SoCal did NOT have bureaus in Sacramento until Gov. Arnold was elected?)

Saugus SplasherJuly 12, 2010 at 1:08 pm

While you are correct, Tim, I think you find this article to be of interest. “How facts backfire: Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains” http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

Coffee DrinkerJuly 12, 2010 at 7:08 am

David in his article complains about how people perceive his anti-illegal immigrant stance as racist. Why is it seen that way? In part because a number of people in that camp are clearly racist. There are those like Pat Buchanan who talk about the need to preserve “our culture”. Others in that group talk about America being a “white Christian nation”. Why does illegal immigration generate such vitriol from people like David? It is a complex issue and there are many studies that show that illegal immigrants contribute to our economy. Also lots of people break laws, including David as he has confessed. How many operate in the cash economy and don’t declare all their income? How many report they paid less for a used car than they did? All of these are illegal activities, yet we don’t call the people who commit them “illegals”. Is David an illegal for his DUI? Why does this one act generate such vitriol? You put it all together and you cannot deny that racism is a clear and distinct thread in the anti-illegal immigration “movement”.

gregory molineriJuly 12, 2010 at 10:21 am

I don’t know… the word “vitriol” seems like a real stretch to me. Gauny used the illegal immigration argument as an example of double-speak. Are you claiming that there was vitriol in this article or some other example? Your comment seems way off-point.

Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 10:30 am

Umm…David’s DUI 20 years ago or whenever does not cost the American taxpayers billions a year for one thing!!!!

mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 11:00 am

DUIs, taken separately are more costly and more detrimental than immigration violations, taken separately.

Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 11:07 am

That may or may not be true Mike. However, it was David’s ancient DUI that was referenced not the DUI’s of every resident legal or illegal, which by the way account for a whole lot of DUI’s, within the country. Come on…

mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 11:17 am

I was nearly killed by a drunken driver like Mr. Gauny. He too, was in this country legally.

Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 11:43 am

Mike, my father was killed by an uninsured driver while my papa was vacationing in Mexico. Mexico you see requires insurance of FOREIGNERS driving in Mexico but not of their own citizens. Although the accident was completely the other guy’s fault, he got off scott free and I buried my father after having his body returned to the US. Justice in Mexico for foreigners? No. Drunk drivers are a huge problem and I would work with you on tougher laws, penalties, etc but one problem, drunk drivers, does not change the other, illegal immigration. We will just have to continue to disagree on this one. PS I am glad you survived the accident.

mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 11:53 am

Berta, I’m sorry for your loss. In all sincerity (and my ‘would you rather’ joke aside), I think Gauny’s offense is well in the past and appears to be isolated. But I think it’s useful for putting things into perspective. So many demonize illegal immigrants, sweeping otherwise well-intending people up with those that commit crime and cheat our system maliciously. So in terms of moral seriousness and in terms of public safety, I regard the otherwise law-abiding drunk driver as being worse than the otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrant.

Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 1:18 pm

Sorry people, I had to break away to listen to Joe Messina’s show on KHTS AM 1220. Great show by the way. Okay let me see: Mike thanks for your condolences. I agree that there are different degrees of severity for the crimes mentioned. That is why there are different consequences. Deportation is nowhere the same as serving time in prison. As I said, we will simply have to disagree on this issue. I do not know Bill Reynolds very well but will say when I heard him speak at the rally, he did not say anything I consider racist and I do have some experience with the topic. I did however; take him to task on this very blog regarding the Michelle Obama joke. At best, it was in very poor taste. I do not know whether he is a racist or not. I do know that neither Bob Kellar nor David Gauny is a racist as I have had many conversations with both. As you are well aware, I will get in anyone’s face and not back down. Some people just love to sling those insults at me. Neither gentleman has ever done so. Not in a racist way or otherwise. Ferdman and I will never make peace since I cannot stomach unethical people. We used to be on the same team but that changed long ago. I would call a cab, walk, or hitchhike with Jack the Ripper and beat the crap out of him first before riding with Al. Damageinc: you do not need to get drunk to be an idiot. Mission accomplished long ago. Posting on City time again? IHeart: please see answer above.

RemyStarJuly 12, 2010 at 1:16 pm

It really doesn’t cost the taxpayers that much money – the studies that claim it does are inaccurate because they include the cost of the American citizen children of illegal immigrants. Also, what the studies do not include are the cost savings of “undocumented workers.” Many businesses (and homeowners) save money on cheap labor which is why the US Chamber of Commerce (and groups representing big agribusiness) are mostly silent on the issue of immigration. I’m not a businessperson or homeowner who benefits from cheap illegal labor, but I think it’s important to keep in mind that there are many who benefit economically from such.

Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 1:30 pm

Sorry, but even if I agreed with your premise, which I don’t, then why pray tell should the American taxpayers subsidize the American business owners and cheap skate homeowners?

Saugus SplasherJuly 12, 2010 at 8:42 am

After reading DG’s column I have conclusion his failed campaign for council has left him bruised and bitter. Apparently undereducated narcissists react poorly to rejection.

Bill ReynoldsJuly 12, 2010 at 11:10 am

Saugus Splasher & Ms. Coffee, your comments are way, way off the mark. David is not a “bruised and bitter” man, nor he is a racist in any shape, manner, or form. He is tellin’ it exactly like it is. Have either of you even had a conversation with him? I seriously doubt it…

mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 11:20 am

Getting the non-racist seal of approval from a bigot such as yourself is a kiss of death.

Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 11:31 am

Ok Mike. Am I a racist also because I agree with David Gauny on the immigration issue? I actually would take a tougher stand than David advocates. I have had many conversations with a whole slew of people from different ethnic backgrounds, races, religions etc who happen to agree with my position regarding illegal immigration. Are we all racists because you disagree with us?

mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 11:46 am

“Are we all racists because you disagree with us?” No.

mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 12:00 pm

Mr. Gauny made several appeals to fear about illegal immigrants appearing in public, as though he had some race-neutral way of making a determination of the immigration status of select people in the SCV just by looking at them. I said at the time that in the process of defending Bob Kellar, Gauny was the first person of consequence to actually make racist remarks and campaign on the politics of racial resentment. For what its worth, I don’t consider Bob Kellar a racist. I consider Bill Reynolds to be a racist because he has made disparaging comments about the first lady, comparing her to an ape. He also used to make sport of complaining about a stereotyped “Pedro” riding city transportation. There has also been plenty of race-baiting in his NotAFerryFan videos.

mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 11:19 am

You are at an SCV rubber chicken charity dinner. You don’t have a way home. Bob Kellar and David Gauny both offer to drive you home. Who do you choose?

Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 11:45 am

Easy answer. I drive if anybody has been drinking since I do not!

mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 11:48 am

No changing the rules! I too, am a teetotaler, but in this scenario, you have no other way home. Let’s raise the stakes a bit and assume this dinner is at the Odyssey in Mission Hills, so walking isn’t a real option. It’s late, the busses aren’t running.

Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 11:57 am

Mike, my answer would be the same no matter who the person is if I FEEL they are impaired. I DRIVE for both their benefit and mine. There is virtually no case scenario where I would attend anything if I, due to broken arm or whatever, could not get behind the wheel of a vehicle whether my own or someone else’s and get home. You lose on this one sweetheart.

mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 12:03 pm

OK, so you an Al Ferdman made a temporary peace. As a token of goodwill, he offers to drive you and several others to said function. Since he was driving so many people, he miscounted and accidentally left you behind. Worse still, you’ve lost your phone. What now?

IHeartSCVJuly 12, 2010 at 12:41 pm

It’s like one of those choose-your-own-adventure novels! Berta, please pick one of the two so Mike can write the next chapter of the story.

damageincJuly 12, 2010 at 12:27 pm

I started playing a drink game where I take a shot every-time Berta or Bill Reynolds say something ignorantly smug…. I am well on my way to hammered just from this thread.

Bill ReynoldsJuly 12, 2010 at 2:28 pm

Dame Genie, your an idiot. There’s another shot for you – Ha!

DamageincJuly 12, 2010 at 9:43 pm

That would be 3 shots…

Coffee DrinkerJuly 12, 2010 at 2:40 pm

I didn’t say whether David Gauny is a racist. I don’t know whether he is or not. He said he didn’t understand why race always becomes an issue in this debate. I was trying to show why it did. That there is a racist element in the anti illegal immigration camp.

Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 3:58 pm

There are also many racists in the “I believe in amnesty” camp. Surely, you are not so naive as to believe everyone is genuinely concerned about the “poor immigrant”. I think a whole lot of them are instead protecting their own bottom line or potential voters. There are also racists among the Farrakhan group, Black Panthers, Aztlan, La Raza, etc that direct their hatred towards the Anglo population. Is that ok with you? I do not speak for David but I also wonder why this issue always comes back to the topic of race. Entering the United States illegally has nothing to do with race. People like to change the subject and try to make it that. Do you honestly believe that David Gauny would be ok if a bunch of Canadian (Anglo) drug runners, gangsters, etc entered the country illegally? Or for that matter, otherwise law-abiding Canadians entering illegally that would take jobs in construction or whatever away from legal residents? Illegal immigration is not about race or ethnicity.

Coffee DrinkerJuly 12, 2010 at 5:14 pm

Berta thanks for confirming there is a racist thread feeding the anti illegal immigration crowd. It sounds like you even called out Bill Reynolds for a racist attack on the First Lady. I applaud you for that. I don’t think those that favor a path to citizenship which at one point included Presidential Candidate John McCain are motivated by racism.

Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 5:34 pm

You have misconstrued what I said, perhaps intentionally. I believe the point I was making is that there are racists on both sides of this issue. I also said I do not know if Bill is a racist or not since I do not know what is in his heart. One stupid joke does not a racist make. I am positive I did not say that everyone who favors amnesty is a racist either. It is difficult for me to have a conversation with you if you are going twist and misconstrue everything to validate your point.

Coffee DrinkerJuly 12, 2010 at 5:19 pm

It comes back to the topic of race for the reasons I gave above. There are racists in the anti-illegal immigration camp who argue for a return to “our culture”. Sounds like our own Bill Reynolds is one. Other illegal behaviours don’t seem to merit the same vitriol. Look at David Gauny. He admits to illegal behaviour. Is he an illegal? Should he lose his right to drive for 10 yrs? No it’s okay for him to pay a fine and be done with it. He’s not called an illegal. Why is he treated so differently? Drunk drivers kill tens of thousands of Americans every year. They cost us millions. Why is that kind of law breaking treated differently? The only reason I can come up with for the extreme difference in approach is racism. It’s gasoline on the fire.

Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 5:38 pm

Ok Coffee Drinker. You can prattle on about drunk drivers and call anyone who is against amnesty and securing our borders racists. That does not make it so. You can have your opinion and I will keep mine, thanks.

DamageincJuly 12, 2010 at 9:46 pm

Berta like most Minute men aren’t up on the immigration laws. Otherwise they would be trying to change them…

Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 10:08 pm

Yes to include idiot guys by the name of Nate for immediate deportation to any prison in Méjico.

Coffee DrinkerJuly 12, 2010 at 7:47 pm

Berta I said nothing about amnesty and nothing about not securing our borders. That is what is known as a straw man argument. If you really want to have dialogue on this matter you need to address the arguments being made, not the ones you wish were being made so you could oppose them.

Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 10:10 pm

Coffee Drinker: It would not make any difference. I can see by the tenor of your comments and how you keep trying to misconstrue things and label people as racists that you do not really want a dialogue. Go talk to Nate. Goodnight.

IHeartSCVJuly 11, 2010 at 5:28 pm
I am really interested to find out if Gauny is correct about the potential to regulate Citizens for Integrity in Government. He wrote that it’s a Local/City PAC per FPPC rules, and Santa Monica has successfully regulated similar PACs by imposing a limit on contributions to both candidates and PACs (detailed at http://city.davidgauny.com ). According to The Signal, this year Citizens for Integrity in Government got $31,500 from G&L Realty, $5,000 from the Building Industry Association, and $3,000 from the SCV Auto Dealers Association. That’s about $40K to be lavished on incumbents, but it would be slashed to $3K if there were limits imposed on contributions to PACs.
Timothy MyersJuly 11, 2010 at 6:42 pm
IHeart: They have had “successful” regulation because no one has challenged it in court. (None of the limitations would stand up to any serious constitutional scruitny based on recent Supreme Court rulings.) I am currently reading Carl Boyer’s book on the history of Cityhood and one of the primary motivating factors for the City to enact contribution limits (remember the other major elected bodies in the SCV have none) was because several of the first City Council members feared heavily financed campaigns for nonincumbents funded by development interests. Ironic how the worm has turned.
IHeartSCVJuly 11, 2010 at 8:00 pm
I’d be fine with abolishing contribution limits if they’d just enforce a two term limit on council members. It’s so troubling to think that Frank and Laurene has been serving continuously since the Clinton administration. And good point on the constitutionality of limits–I heard that the ACLU is busy preparing a case to fight campaign contribution limits for Kentucky elections. Perhaps this means more vacillating from Carl Newton come Tuesday.
Timothy MyersJuly 11, 2010 at 8:15 pm
IHeart: Term limits don’t work because you just have the heir apparents to the sitting incumbents shuffled in after generating name recognition, probably as a Commissioner, and then collecting the campaign contributions and endorsements that are the sinecure of the incumbent. It has not really changed things on the state level and thinking people agree that it just ensures that bureaucrats and lobbyists run the process of government. Jeff has it right. The real problem is and always will be the general indifference of the electorate on local elections (not just here but everywhere) that does more to fuel the power of incumbency than any other single factor.
IHeartSCVJuly 11, 2010 at 8:58 pm
“Thinking people agree that it just ensures that bureaucrats and lobbyists run the process of government.” I can’t decide if that sentence is more insulting, annoying, or inaccurate. I assure you that “thinking people”–even some who have “thinked” about term limits much more than you–are not in agreement on the merits and consequences of term limits. In the Annual Review of Political Science, two professors from Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies came to the grand conclusion that “because people start from different normative perspectives, findings about term-limit effects can be interpreted in very different ways.” (Another satisfying, definitive finding from political scientists.) And my norms lead me to rather like term limits.
Silence DogoodJuly 12, 2010 at 7:27 am
Thinking people agree that whatever Tim Myers is utterly convinced of is often wrong, and it may be just a matter of time before Tim Myers is utterly convinced of something else, which may well also be utterly wrong. Many thinking people do not agree with Tim Myers on this or other matters. So certain of his arguments, and often so wrong…
Tim MyersJuly 12, 2010 at 7:30 am
Sorry IHeart. I meant that “thoughtful” people (not just partisan hacks seeking to preserve their power) have examined data since term limits and come to a reasonable conclusion that it has not only not had the salutary effect bu several unintended consequences; namely the vesting of whatever power that may reside in the state government in the office of governor, and then only when a celebrity occupies the office. (Did you realize the major TV stations in SoCal did NOT have bureaus in Sacramento until Gov. Arnold was elected?)
Saugus SplasherJuly 12, 2010 at 1:08 pm
While you are correct, Tim, I think you find this article to be of interest. “How facts backfire: Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains” http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
Coffee DrinkerJuly 12, 2010 at 7:08 am
David in his article complains about how people perceive his anti-illegal immigrant stance as racist. Why is it seen that way? In part because a number of people in that camp are clearly racist. There are those like Pat Buchanan who talk about the need to preserve “our culture”. Others in that group talk about America being a “white Christian nation”. Why does illegal immigration generate such vitriol from people like David? It is a complex issue and there are many studies that show that illegal immigrants contribute to our economy. Also lots of people break laws, including David as he has confessed. How many operate in the cash economy and don’t declare all their income? How many report they paid less for a used car than they did? All of these are illegal activities, yet we don’t call the people who commit them “illegals”. Is David an illegal for his DUI? Why does this one act generate such vitriol? You put it all together and you cannot deny that racism is a clear and distinct thread in the anti-illegal immigration “movement”.
gregory molineriJuly 12, 2010 at 10:21 am
I don’t know… the word “vitriol” seems like a real stretch to me. Gauny used the illegal immigration argument as an example of double-speak. Are you claiming that there was vitriol in this article or some other example? Your comment seems way off-point.
Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 10:30 am
Umm…David’s DUI 20 years ago or whenever does not cost the American taxpayers billions a year for one thing!!!!
mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 11:00 am
DUIs, taken separately are more costly and more detrimental than immigration violations, taken separately.
Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 11:07 am
That may or may not be true Mike. However, it was David’s ancient DUI that was referenced not the DUI’s of every resident legal or illegal, which by the way account for a whole lot of DUI’s, within the country. Come on…
mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 11:17 am
I was nearly killed by a drunken driver like Mr. Gauny. He too, was in this country legally.
Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 11:43 am
Mike, my father was killed by an uninsured driver while my papa was vacationing in Mexico. Mexico you see requires insurance of FOREIGNERS driving in Mexico but not of their own citizens. Although the accident was completely the other guy’s fault, he got off scott free and I buried my father after having his body returned to the US. Justice in Mexico for foreigners? No. Drunk drivers are a huge problem and I would work with you on tougher laws, penalties, etc but one problem, drunk drivers, does not change the other, illegal immigration. We will just have to continue to disagree on this one. PS I am glad you survived the accident.
mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 11:53 am
Berta, I’m sorry for your loss. In all sincerity (and my ‘would you rather’ joke aside), I think Gauny’s offense is well in the past and appears to be isolated. But I think it’s useful for putting things into perspective. So many demonize illegal immigrants, sweeping otherwise well-intending people up with those that commit crime and cheat our system maliciously. So in terms of moral seriousness and in terms of public safety, I regard the otherwise law-abiding drunk driver as being worse than the otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrant.
Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Sorry people, I had to break away to listen to Joe Messina’s show on KHTS AM 1220. Great show by the way. Okay let me see: Mike thanks for your condolences. I agree that there are different degrees of severity for the crimes mentioned. That is why there are different consequences. Deportation is nowhere the same as serving time in prison. As I said, we will simply have to disagree on this issue. I do not know Bill Reynolds very well but will say when I heard him speak at the rally, he did not say anything I consider racist and I do have some experience with the topic. I did however; take him to task on this very blog regarding the Michelle Obama joke. At best, it was in very poor taste. I do not know whether he is a racist or not. I do know that neither Bob Kellar nor David Gauny is a racist as I have had many conversations with both. As you are well aware, I will get in anyone’s face and not back down. Some people just love to sling those insults at me. Neither gentleman has ever done so. Not in a racist way or otherwise. Ferdman and I will never make peace since I cannot stomach unethical people. We used to be on the same team but that changed long ago. I would call a cab, walk, or hitchhike with Jack the Ripper and beat the crap out of him first before riding with Al. Damageinc: you do not need to get drunk to be an idiot. Mission accomplished long ago. Posting on City time again? IHeart: please see answer above.
RemyStarJuly 12, 2010 at 1:16 pm
It really doesn’t cost the taxpayers that much money – the studies that claim it does are inaccurate because they include the cost of the American citizen children of illegal immigrants. Also, what the studies do not include are the cost savings of “undocumented workers.” Many businesses (and homeowners) save money on cheap labor which is why the US Chamber of Commerce (and groups representing big agribusiness) are mostly silent on the issue of immigration. I’m not a businessperson or homeowner who benefits from cheap illegal labor, but I think it’s important to keep in mind that there are many who benefit economically from such.
Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Sorry, but even if I agreed with your premise, which I don’t, then why pray tell should the American taxpayers subsidize the American business owners and cheap skate homeowners?
Saugus SplasherJuly 12, 2010 at 8:42 am
After reading DG’s column I have conclusion his failed campaign for council has left him bruised and bitter. Apparently undereducated narcissists react poorly to rejection.
Bill ReynoldsJuly 12, 2010 at 11:10 am
Saugus Splasher & Ms. Coffee, your comments are way, way off the mark. David is not a “bruised and bitter” man, nor he is a racist in any shape, manner, or form. He is tellin’ it exactly like it is. Have either of you even had a conversation with him? I seriously doubt it…
mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 11:20 am
Getting the non-racist seal of approval from a bigot such as yourself is a kiss of death.
Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 11:31 am
Ok Mike. Am I a racist also because I agree with David Gauny on the immigration issue? I actually would take a tougher stand than David advocates. I have had many conversations with a whole slew of people from different ethnic backgrounds, races, religions etc who happen to agree with my position regarding illegal immigration. Are we all racists because you disagree with us?
mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 11:46 am
“Are we all racists because you disagree with us?” No.
mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Mr. Gauny made several appeals to fear about illegal immigrants appearing in public, as though he had some race-neutral way of making a determination of the immigration status of select people in the SCV just by looking at them. I said at the time that in the process of defending Bob Kellar, Gauny was the first person of consequence to actually make racist remarks and campaign on the politics of racial resentment. For what its worth, I don’t consider Bob Kellar a racist. I consider Bill Reynolds to be a racist because he has made disparaging comments about the first lady, comparing her to an ape. He also used to make sport of complaining about a stereotyped “Pedro” riding city transportation. There has also been plenty of race-baiting in his NotAFerryFan videos.
mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 11:19 am
You are at an SCV rubber chicken charity dinner. You don’t have a way home. Bob Kellar and David Gauny both offer to drive you home. Who do you choose?
Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 11:45 am
Easy answer. I drive if anybody has been drinking since I do not!
mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 11:48 am
No changing the rules! I too, am a teetotaler, but in this scenario, you have no other way home. Let’s raise the stakes a bit and assume this dinner is at the Odyssey in Mission Hills, so walking isn’t a real option. It’s late, the busses aren’t running.
Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 11:57 am
Mike, my answer would be the same no matter who the person is if I FEEL they are impaired. I DRIVE for both their benefit and mine. There is virtually no case scenario where I would attend anything if I, due to broken arm or whatever, could not get behind the wheel of a vehicle whether my own or someone else’s and get home. You lose on this one sweetheart.
mikeJuly 12, 2010 at 12:03 pm
OK, so you an Al Ferdman made a temporary peace. As a token of goodwill, he offers to drive you and several others to said function. Since he was driving so many people, he miscounted and accidentally left you behind. Worse still, you’ve lost your phone. What now?
IHeartSCVJuly 12, 2010 at 12:41 pm
It’s like one of those choose-your-own-adventure novels! Berta, please pick one of the two so Mike can write the next chapter of the story.
damageincJuly 12, 2010 at 12:27 pm
I started playing a drink game where I take a shot every-time Berta or Bill Reynolds say something ignorantly smug…. I am well on my way to hammered just from this thread.
Bill ReynoldsJuly 12, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Dame Genie, your an idiot. There’s another shot for you – Ha!
DamageincJuly 12, 2010 at 9:43 pm
That would be 3 shots…
Coffee DrinkerJuly 12, 2010 at 2:40 pm
I didn’t say whether David Gauny is a racist. I don’t know whether he is or not. He said he didn’t understand why race always becomes an issue in this debate. I was trying to show why it did. That there is a racist element in the anti illegal immigration camp.
Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 3:58 pm
There are also many racists in the “I believe in amnesty” camp. Surely, you are not so naive as to believe everyone is genuinely concerned about the “poor immigrant”. I think a whole lot of them are instead protecting their own bottom line or potential voters. There are also racists among the Farrakhan group, Black Panthers, Aztlan, La Raza, etc that direct their hatred towards the Anglo population. Is that ok with you? I do not speak for David but I also wonder why this issue always comes back to the topic of race. Entering the United States illegally has nothing to do with race. People like to change the subject and try to make it that. Do you honestly believe that David Gauny would be ok if a bunch of Canadian (Anglo) drug runners, gangsters, etc entered the country illegally? Or for that matter, otherwise law-abiding Canadians entering illegally that would take jobs in construction or whatever away from legal residents? Illegal immigration is not about race or ethnicity.
Coffee DrinkerJuly 12, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Berta thanks for confirming there is a racist thread feeding the anti illegal immigration crowd. It sounds like you even called out Bill Reynolds for a racist attack on the First Lady. I applaud you for that. I don’t think those that favor a path to citizenship which at one point included Presidential Candidate John McCain are motivated by racism.
Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 5:34 pm
You have misconstrued what I said, perhaps intentionally. I believe the point I was making is that there are racists on both sides of this issue. I also said I do not know if Bill is a racist or not since I do not know what is in his heart. One stupid joke does not a racist make. I am positive I did not say that everyone who favors amnesty is a racist either. It is difficult for me to have a conversation with you if you are going twist and misconstrue everything to validate your point.
Coffee DrinkerJuly 12, 2010 at 5:19 pm
It comes back to the topic of race for the reasons I gave above. There are racists in the anti-illegal immigration camp who argue for a return to “our culture”. Sounds like our own Bill Reynolds is one. Other illegal behaviours don’t seem to merit the same vitriol. Look at David Gauny. He admits to illegal behaviour. Is he an illegal? Should he lose his right to drive for 10 yrs? No it’s okay for him to pay a fine and be done with it. He’s not called an illegal. Why is he treated so differently? Drunk drivers kill tens of thousands of Americans every year. They cost us millions. Why is that kind of law breaking treated differently? The only reason I can come up with for the extreme difference in approach is racism. It’s gasoline on the fire.
Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Ok Coffee Drinker. You can prattle on about drunk drivers and call anyone who is against amnesty and securing our borders racists. That does not make it so. You can have your opinion and I will keep mine, thanks.
DamageincJuly 12, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Berta like most Minute men aren’t up on the immigration laws. Otherwise they would be trying to change them…
Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Yes to include idiot guys by the name of Nate for immediate deportation to any prison in Méjico.
Coffee DrinkerJuly 12, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Berta I said nothing about amnesty and nothing about not securing our borders. That is what is known as a straw man argument. If you really want to have dialogue on this matter you need to address the arguments being made, not the ones you wish were being made so you could oppose them.
Berta González-HarperJuly 12, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Coffee Drinker: It would not make any difference. I can see by the tenor of your comments and how you keep trying to misconstrue things and label people as racists that you do not really want a dialogue. Go talk to Nate. Goodnight.