SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
September 16, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Wilk lands multiple endorsements

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

A virtual who’s who of SCV politics, a Tour de Force of local and even national illiterati come out in favor of Scott Wilk rather than Patricia McKeon, wife of the GodFather* of SCV politics, Buck McKeon:

An impressive list of business, political, and community leaders have announced their support for Santa Clarita Community College Trustee Scott Wilk for the 38th State Assembly seat.  The 38th District is centered around the Santa Clarity Valley and Stevenson Ranch, and includes Castaic, Val Verde, Aqua Dulce, and Simi Valley.

“I am honored and thrilled to endorse Scott’s campaign for the state Assembly,” said Congressman Tom McClintock.  “California needs Scott desperately.”

“I can’t think of a better battle tested conservative candidate than Scott Wilk,” said Senator Tony Strickland.  “That’s why I support Scott Wilk for Assembly.”

Local government leaders including Ventura County Supervisor Peter Foy, Santa Clarita Mayor Marsha McLean, Santa Clarita Mayor Pro Tem Laurie, Santa Clarita City Councilman Bob Kellar, Santa Clarita City Councilwoman Laurene Weste, College of the Canyons Board President Michele Jenkins, College of the Canyons Board Member Joan MacGregor, College of the Canyons Board Member Mike Berger, Hart School Board Member Steve Sturgeon, Hart School Board Member Joe Messina, Newhall School Board Member Phil Ellis, Castaic Union School Board Member Susan Christopher, Castaic Union School Board Member Steve Teeman, Santa Clarita Parks Commissioner Chris Fall, Castaic Lake Water Agency Director Bill Cooper, Castaic Lake Water Agency Director Ed Colley, Newhall County Water District Board President Dan Mortensen, and Newhall County Water District Director Kathy Colley.

Phew! That’s a lot of names. Let’s look at it visually stacked up against Patricia McKeon’s endorsements:

This is a pretty impressive list. Not only did Wilk get endorsed by multiple SCVers, but he pulled in favors from powerhouse GOPers like Tom McLintock and Tony “Hoops” Strickland, and he’s apparently on the radar of of Lou Sheldon, an ardent Theocrat and Dominionist.

Why announce this on a Friday? Not sure, but the Constitution event is tomorrow and lots of Tea-friendly political types plan to attend.

So what’s Wilk have to say about this? Well, if you were a GOP-curious liberal in the SCV, pondering a fun vote against McKeon next spring, his first public statement might give you pause. Yep. Wilk is drinking the Tea:

“California is facing a watershed moment and the decisions we make in the next few years will dramatically impact the future of our state, economically and culturally.  We need to stop the bizarre policies like mandating hotels use fitted sheets and that public schools teach gay history and get back to what we are supposed to be doing – getting government out of the way of small business, educating our children, and balancing the budget.  I am committed to these principles and will be a trusted voice for our community.”

On a side note, both McKeon and Wilk’s opening volleys disappoint me. I don’t think that many parents in the SCV are worried about “gay history” being taught, and if they are, they probably gave up on public schools a long time ago anyway.

They’re probably more worried about the fact that the UC system just announced it will be raising tuition 16% per year for the next four years. Or maybe the fact that California’s unemployment continues to rise. Or maybe they’re concerned about cuts to local schools or the fact that their kids can’t get into COC as easily anymore.

In any event, this promises to be one of the more exciting elections in these parts in many years. I can’t wait for the spring when these two sides challenge each other.

Edit: Just noticed that the phone number attached to the press release resolves to a political firm named Revolvis Consulting, with offices in DC, Sacramento, and San Diego

*The GodFather analogy is especially apt when you considered Scott Wilk used to be one of McKeon’s capos, or perhaps even a close consigliere. The SCV family of Republicans has been torn asunder by this race, the vows of omerta are off, and it looks like most of the capos will soon line up against each other to determine whether the Family McKeon extends its reach.

Comments (29)

  1. MikeSeptember 16, 2011 at 3:54 pm
    This is an impressive opening slate of endorsements. Not only has Wilk stemmed the tide, he even managed to rope in a few surprises. Oddly, I was thinking about Lou Sheldon today, randomly. Never a good endorsement, but all the more perplexing in 2011. He doesn’t have any juice left and the current state of his mental health is akin to Pat Robertson’s. I’m surprised by Kellar’s endorsement, because I had him pegged as contra-Wilk and a Friend of Buck. No Ferry or Weste here, but 3 out of 5 ain’t bad at all. The most unfortunate endorsement here is Ed Colley’s – for reasons most of you know. I’d assume that Wilk worked like mad to land these, and likewise, I’d expect to see most names not listed to go to McKeon. Or maybe this display of support will be persuasive to fence-sitters. Smyth’s endorsement is the one to watch, but we know he (and others) aren’t beyond endorsing more than one candidate in a primary. An important conclusion to draw here is that barring any unforeseen events, there is no space left for a third Republican in this race.
  2. Abe LincolnSeptember 18, 2011 at 8:13 pm
    I have a great idea for a slogan. Scott Wilk: Sufficiently Homophobic Does Scott Wilk really want to play the morality card?
  3. PetzSeptember 16, 2011 at 3:55 pm
    There are a number of parents concerned with the teaching of “gay history” in our public schools-they often vote with their feet…leaving the public schools.
  4. CCSeptember 16, 2011 at 9:26 pm
    I agree. I have heard from many parents, but not for the reasons you would guess. None of them had problems with gay people or their lifestyle. They just think History should be taught regardless of sexual orientation. I agree. What’s next? Vegetarian History?
  5. JeffSeptember 17, 2011 at 12:01 am
    How do you teach about a guy like Harvey Milk or a subject like discrimination without teaching that there are gays in the world and they have contributed to the human story? What do you propose we do, ignore that they are gay and were fighting for gay rights? PS, I learned about Stonewall at Hart. There’s even gay history in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) that I learned about in Catholic school. Learning about these subjects didn’t make me gay. What’s the big deal?
  6. Capt. GeneSeptember 17, 2011 at 6:57 am
    I didn’t realize this was such a problem. I have no recollection of any anti-gay instruction that was given to me or my children while in school. Does anyone have any examples? From what I read it appears that the bulk of the bill is just to include the contributions of the LGBT community in curriculum. That’s no big deal. The big deal to me is this: “A governing board shall not adopt any instructional materials for use in the schools that, in its determination, contains: (a) Any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220” I’m a just little uncomfortable with a “governing board” deciding that telling story of a Jeffrey Dahmer or William Bonin would reflect adversely upon them on the basis of their sexual orientation. The good news is that everything is going so swell in the Golden State that our lawmakers have time for this nonsense.
  7. MikeSeptember 17, 2011 at 8:16 am
    At the outset, let me say that the timing for this bill is bad, and it addresses a problem I’m not sure exists in 2011 in California. But this would ban teaching about Jeffery Dahmer due to his sexual orientation no more than it would ban the teaching about Stalin because he’s Russian.
  8. Capt. GeneSeptember 17, 2011 at 8:43 am
    Yes, of course, because we all know that “governing boards” are always made up of people that have no personal agenda that they bring to the table.
  9. MikeSeptember 17, 2011 at 8:45 am
    Are you against this law, or school boards in general? If it’s the latter, this seems like an odd juncture to wage this battle. Either way, if a board wants to teach or not teach Jeffery Dahmer, they could have done either before or after this bill.
  10. JeffSeptember 17, 2011 at 8:48 am
    “The good news is that everything is going so swell in the Golden State that our lawmakers have time for this nonsense.” +++++
  11. Capt. GeneSeptember 17, 2011 at 9:00 am
    Really? Prior to this law Dahmer was not in a protected class, now he is. A “governing board” that wanted to could make a case that discussing his crimes could reflect adversely upon him on the basis of his sexual orientation.
  12. MikeSeptember 17, 2011 at 9:15 am
    Yes, really. I suppose the only difference is you could have said “Dahmer ate people because he was gay” before, and you can’t now.
  13. Capt. GeneSeptember 17, 2011 at 9:36 am
    Perhaps you aren’t aware that Dahmer also raped his male victims, you know, prior to eating them.
  14. MikeSeptember 17, 2011 at 10:11 am
    Are you aware that Stalin spoke Russian during the Great Purge?
  15. Capt. GeneSeptember 17, 2011 at 11:01 am
    OK, fair enough. It’s not an issue until it’s an issue I guess. It will be interesting to see what the “governing boards” come up with.
  16. Capt. GeneSeptember 17, 2011 at 11:35 am
    http://laschoolboard.org/files/09-13-1OOBpost.pdf Whereas, SB 48, the FAIR Education Act of 2011 mandates that public schools include the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans in its curriculum; Whereas, The District has a responsibility to provide a safe environment for students and staff; and Whereas, This behavior affects and is affected by students and staff; now, therefore be it Resolved, That upon the recommendation of the Los Angeles Unified School District Commission on Human Relations, Diversity, and Equity the Governing Board of the Los Angeles Unified School District require that all schools be proactive in decreasing anti-LGBT language and bullying by: • Promoting positive images of LGBT individuals • Making available age-appropriate LGBT inclusive curriculum for elementary and secondary schools; • Requiring that newly adopted social studies materials include positive representations of LGBT and persons with disabilities • Including LGBT sensitivity in outreach, education, and training for students, parents, and staff • Reminding staff of their duty to ensure that all students are safe and affirmed on campus, and to proactively intervene with acts of bias, harassment or bullying that they see, including, but not limited to LGBT-biased language and bullying. • Implementing for all staff a training specifying legal responsibilities, effective practices, and concerns unique to LGBT individuals, similar to the district’s child abuse module; and, be it finally Resolved, That the Superintendent shall report back to the Board on the status of, and plan for, implementation of each point in the above resolution within 60 days.
  17. MikeSeptember 17, 2011 at 12:03 pm
    G, when things go well, always a pleasure. Have a nice weekend.
  18. Capt. GeneSeptember 17, 2011 at 12:10 pm
    Thanks Mike, you too. Did you read the resolution I posted? I found this interpretation of SB 48 particularly interesting: • Promoting positive images of LGBT individuals • Making available age-appropriate LGBT inclusive curriculum for elementary and secondary schools; • Requiring that newly adopted social studies materials include positive representations of LGBT…” What do you think?
  19. MikeSeptember 17, 2011 at 12:26 pm
    In general, I find the whole exercise to be distracting and silly, particularly if it requires new material to be purchased. This resolution seems “pushy” to me, and I think they are taking it further than the law compels.
  20. Capt. GeneSeptember 17, 2011 at 1:59 pm
    “I think they are taking it further than the law compels” Weird, that’s exactly what I was afraid of.
  21. MikeSeptember 17, 2011 at 2:52 pm
    But here’s the thing: they could have done this anyway, with or without the law. Other districts will do much less. Some may all but ignore it.
  22. Capt. GeneSeptember 17, 2011 at 3:30 pm
    That may be true, but now they have the law to back them up. They knew that needed the law to institute their agenda with less resistance.
  23. NateSeptember 17, 2011 at 11:29 am
    So odd you would want examples… I was asking the same thing from Joe and company and all the “stories” that were being told on The Real Side yesterday about the discrimination of christians in our public school system…
  24. Mr PerezSeptember 17, 2011 at 11:29 am
    While I don’t have an issue if this is addressed in a Health Class, I have a major issue when my child isn’t taught about 9-11 or the Constitution.
  25. PetzSeptember 16, 2011 at 3:57 pm
    Go ahead and list Cameron Smyth on both sides with an asterisk.
  26. CCSeptember 16, 2011 at 9:23 pm
    I endorse anyone that Tom McLintock endorses, but in this case I am additionally happy that it is weighted for Wilk against nepotism!
  27. LindaSeptember 17, 2011 at 4:25 pm
    Ironic that Wilk has garnered the support of the Runners, since Sharon Runner took the post of State senator left by her husband. One would think that Republican women would stick together. Clearly Patricia McKeon hasn’t made the kind of friends she needs…..
  28. Eric HeilbrunSeptember 18, 2011 at 3:45 pm
    Doing some quick math, it would appear that Patricia McKeon is sleeping with half the people that have endorsed her…
  29. Capt. GeneSeptember 18, 2011 at 3:50 pm
    I wouldn’t count on that.

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