Archive for March 8th, 2012
The Bad New Bears Star
and Moorpark City Councilman has decided not to file tomorrow for a Congressional race.
“I am writing to let you know that I have suspended my campaign for Congress,” Pollock said in prepared statement emailed to supporters. “This was one of the most difficult decisions I have ever had to make, and I want to assure you that my campaign team and consultants considered every possible path forward.
“Because of the way the candidate field formed, there was a strong possibility of an unfavorable outcome not only for me but the other Democrats in the race. From the beginning, this race was not about me; it was about bringing real change to our representation in Ventura County and a voice of reason to Congress.”
Obviously, Democratic Party leaders have prevailed on Pollock to get out of the race. This is to give Democratic California Assemblywoman Julia Brownley a chance at winning a top two spot in the June primary election against two better known Ventura County politicians, Tony Strickland and Linda Parks.
I doubt the other two remaining Democrats will withdraw since they have already stated they are in for good.
But, you never know what the Democratic Party will offer to clear a field.
Tomorrow night at 5 PM, the filing deadline we will be able to examine the field of candidates.
So far, this is what we have:
- Republican California State Senator Tony Strickland
- Independent/No Party Preference Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks
- Democrat California Assemblywoman Julia Brownley
- Democrat Oxnard Harbor Commissioner Jess Herrera
- Democrat Westlake Village businessman David Cruz Thayne
- Libertarian/Republican Akiva Werbalowsky
, David Pollock
, Julia Brownley
, Linda Parks
, Tony Strickland
Comments Off on CA-26: Democrat David Pollock Will NOT Run for Congress
You know, I like Fred Davis and his infamous, cutting edge political ads.
Who can forget Carly Fiorina’s Demon Sheep and Christine O’Donnell’s I am not a Witch?
I think he has some good ideas in the above embedded video on Mitt Romney and how to beat President Obama in the general election.
Tags: Fred Davis
, President 2012
1 Comment »
Well, I said it would be an issue
and some of the Democrats in this congressional race cannot help themselves
from piling on Democratic California Assemblywoman Julia Brownley.
Democrats David Pollock, David Cruz Thayne, Jess Herrera and Assemblywoman Julia Brownley are all vying for the democratic vote after county supervisor and front-runner Steve Bennett backed out of the race on the verge of receiving an endorsement at the party’s state convention on Feb. 11.
Here is the action:
“This is about stating the facts,” said Alex Thompson, campaign manager for Thayne. “The matter is, Brownley has said she represents 50,000 people in Ventura County. The matter is, she represents them but doesn’t have an office here. She is trying to hide the fact she is from Santa Monica.” Thompson said there is “absolutely not a chance” for Thayne to pull out of the race.
Candidate and Oxnard Harbor District Commissioner Herrera said the district needs somebody who was born and raised in the area to rightly understand its constituents. The fact that Brownley recently moved here from Santa Monica doesn’t sit well with Herrera.
“When have you seen someone from Oxnard or Camarillo represent L.A. County or Santa Barbara?” asked Herrera, who said he also has no intention of backing out of the race.
In the meantime, Republican State Senator Tony Strickland and independent Ventura county Supervisor Linda Parks will sit back and let the numerous Democrats divide up the vote and portray the one Democrat who could possible beat them as a carpetbagger.
The filing deadline is tomorrow at 5 PM.
Wonder if any of these candidates will be persuaded by the Democratic Party to withdraw.
We will see.
, David Cruz Thayne
, David Pollock
, Jess Herrera
, Julia Brownley
, Linda Parks
, Tony Strickland
1 Comment »
According to the latest Gallup Poll.
U.S. unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 9.1% in February from 8.6% in January and 8.5% in December.
The 0.5-percentage-point increase in February compared with January is the largest such month-to-month change Gallup has recorded in its not-seasonally adjusted measure since December 2010, when the rate rose 0.8 points to 9.6% from 8.8% in November. A year ago, Gallup recorded a February increase of 0.4 percentage points, to 10.3% from 9.9% in January 2011.
And, the Underemployment Rate has increased:
Gallup’s U.S. underemployment measure, which combines the percentage of workers who are unemployed and the percentage working part time but wanting full-time work, increased to 19.1% in February from 18.7% in January.
Here is the chart:
Remember the pundit-accepted unemployment rate threshold required for re-election of the current President of 8%.
The one exception was when Ronald Reagan was President and the economy was demonstrably improving.
Today, the US. Unemployment rate continues above 8 per cent and it not improving = warning signs to the White House.
All of this in advance of tomorrow’s U.S. government’s release of its unemployment rate numbers. Let’s see if they show the same trend, as some have surmised that the Obama Administration Labor Department is massaging the numbers.
The February unemployment rate the U.S. government reports on Friday morning will be based largely on mid-month conditions. In mid-February, Gallup reported that its U.S. unemployment rate had increased to 9.0% from 8.3% in mid-January. The mid-month reading normally provides a relatively good estimate of the government’s unadjusted unemployment rate for the month.
Assuming the government’s unadjusted rate increases — from its 8.8% in January — to at least match Gallup’s mid-month measurement for February, then the government should also report an increase in the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for February. If the government’s unadjusted unemployment rate increases to the degree that Gallup’s has from mid-month to mid-month, then the government’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate could show an even larger increase.
However, the extent of the seasonal adjustment also makes a difference. Last February, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics applied a seasonal adjustment factor of 0.5 points to its unadjusted unemployment rate for the month. If that same seasonal adjustment is applied to Gallup’s mid-month unemployment rate of 9.0%, it would produce a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 8.5%. Alternatively, if it was applied to Gallup’s full-month unemployment rate of 9.1%, it would produce a seasonally adjusted rate of 8.6%. Gallup therefore forecasts an increase in the unemployment rate.
Regardless of what the government reports, Gallup’s unemployment and underemployment measures show a substantial deterioration since mid-January. In this context, the increase in unemployment as measured by Gallup may, at least partly, reflect growth in the workforce, as more Americans who had given up looking for work become slightly more optimistic and start looking for work again. So while there may be positive signs, the reality Gallup finds is that more Americans are looking for work now than were doing so just six weeks ago.
, Unemployment Rate
1 Comment »
I suppose Rep Buck McKeon will discuss his Afghanistan Surge proposal
at this speech.
With some calling for a rush to the exits in Afghanistan after two weeks of heightened violence, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is looking to add troops into the mix. The bill, should it gain traction, could force the U.S. to change its current drawdown plans.
California’s Rep. Buck McKeon introduced a new bill that calls for U.S. military to guard U.S. entities, replacing the thousands of private security guards and Afghan nationals that are currently being used.
In calling for the bill, McKeon notes increasing incidents of Afghan military attacking U.S. and NATO troops. Afghan soldiers and government workers have murdered six American troops since the news that U.S. troops accidentally burned some Qurans and religious material. In the last five years Afghan forces have attacked NATO troops nearly 200 times, killing at least 70 coalition troops and wounding more than 100. An Army report declassified last year found that American troops think Afghan forces are dangerous and unstable. And many Afghan soldiers and police “demonstrated a general loathing of US soldiers.”
The bill does not specify the number of troops needed but a congressional aide told Security Clearance that the expectation would be that it would not need to be a one-for-one swap of U.S. troops for Afghanistan and private security guards because “American forces would be far more capable and efficient.”
The legislation does allow that if the President does not want to add troops, he would have to certify that using Afghan nationals and private security contractors would provide a level of security equal to what would be provided by U.S. troops.
The President will never allow Congressman McKeon to dictate to him on the Afghanistan issue. Nor, would Democrat Senate majority leader ever allow this bill come up for a vote in the U.S. Senate, even if it passed the House.
So, what is the real reason for this bill?
I will have a post up later on this military father, Dante ACosta, who will be running against Buck McKeon in the June primary election.
Tags: Buck McKeon
1 Comment »