Gregory Diaz has responded to my voluntary questions posed of the local political candidates. The previous responses (from Sue Horne, Rolf Kleinhans and Keith Royal) are here and here.
Do you agree that our supposedly nonpartisan elections have become partisan? Why?
Gregory Diaz responds:
“I do believe that elections for nonpartisan positions have become much more political.
“One reason for this is that some see the office of Clerk-Recorder as a stepping stone to higher office. Across the country, many highly political and partisan organizations — are running candidates for minor office — county functions, school boards, fire districts, public utility districts — to groom these folks for higher office — State Assembly and Senate and Congress.
“My opponent is a leader with a highly partisan organization and has assumed the role of campaign chairperson in Nevada County of a highly partisan ballot initiative – two roles that are in direct conflict with the responsibilities of a Clerk-Recorder to be a ‘neutral arbiter’ of elections and that would dramatically undermine the Clerk-Recorder’s most sacred duty – to protect your vote.
“It is disturbing that my opponent has engaged in such a harsh, personal and negative campaign for this position. These tactics are inappropriate for any political campaign, but for the campaign for Clerk-Recorder particularly, they suggest a fundamental lack of understanding of the role of a Clerk-Recorder, which requires neutrality and collaboration.
“In the end, it comes down to this: Do the voters of Nevada County want a blatantly political operative to have control over their ballot and be charged with ensuring an accurate and fair elections process?
“I am decidedly non-partisan and, consistent with one of the primary duties of the office to be a neutral facilitator of elections, am registered as Decline-to-State. I believe it is essential for one who conducts elections to be strictly nonpartisan, administering and counting the vote without even a hint or shading of bias toward one side or another.
“Professionalism over politics and fair elections over blatant partisanship are the values and attributes a Clerk-Recorder must possess. There must be public trust in the Registrar’s ability to administrate the office impartially, as this is the very basis for our democracy.”
Filed under: Uncategorized
On the simple and common-sense Vote Safe Initiative, it’s humorous to watch Greg shift from “I have to be neutral” to “we don’t need it” (the quote from the debate) and now apparently back to “I have to be neutral”.
Greg and his spin doctors can spin this one however they want to, but he is opposed to these common sense reforms:
1. Requiring photo ID to vote (and making photo ID absolutely free so there’s zero discrimination against the poor).
2. Giving our heroes in uniform the chance for their ballots to be counted.
3. Securing our absentee ballots from fraud by requiring a driver’s license number and signature for verification.
Tell me, what is so highly partisan about these common sense reforms? What is it that Greg’s left-wing political base has to fear from these reforms?
It beats me.
Aaron, please provide supporting facts to your three statements. I’d like to discuss based on facts.
Why do you think Greg has a left wing political base?
I don’t know what a left wing partisan would have to fear from the Vote Safe initiative. It woiuld help if you provided supporting facts of why (fill in the blank) they oppose and why there is nothing to fear.
Also, I didn’t realize that your support of your candidate extended to providing a response to Greg Diaz’s response to Jeff Pelline’s request. I noticed that some of the other candidates who have been asked to respond have done so. I assume Mr. Pruett will respond in time.
Greg Diaz also stated in his response the following:
“My opponent is a leader with a highly partisan organization and has assumed the role of campaign chairperson in Nevada County of a highly partisan ballot initiative – two roles that are in direct conflict with the responsibilities of a Clerk-Recorder to be a ‘neutral arbiter’ of elections and that would dramatically undermine the Clerk-Recorder’s most sacred duty – to protect your vote…”.
I was surprised to learn that Mr. Pruett is politically involved as a campaign chairperson. It does seem like a conflict but I am sure you have a suitable answer. Of course, Mr. Pruett might like to respond but then again he may prefer a surrogate.
Aaron,
I know this is “inside baseball” for a “nonpartisan” Sierra College trustee who is endorsing a “nonpartisan” clerk recorder in a neighboring county (LOL), but did you know that the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials takes a neutral position on the Vote Safe Now initiative? Also, could you please sign your full name? Thanks.
Aaron, on the Vote Safe initiative, I am really surprised that unlike your Tea Party (oh yes, we know of your support for Pruett, sponsored by this group) colleague Tom Tancredo, who at the Tea Party convention in Nashville, TN, suggested it, you did not add a literacy test. But then, unlike Tancredo, you possibly are a bit more up on the facts and know that this requirement, used to keep black voters in the South from the polls, was ruled unconstitutional. Whatever, the intent behind this initiative is the same. As for the election for Nevada County Clerk-Recorder, we need to keep that office non-partisan, and the way to do that is to keep our professional non-partisan incumbent, Greg Diaz in that office, and we do not need or want advice on this election from residents of Placer County, so please butt out.
I don’t find the requirements of the “Vote Safe” issue to be particularly onerous. So what you have to show a photo i.d.? If that adds to the legitimacy of the election, I am willing to go along with it. But I fear that this is only a false sense of security.
The problem with the “Vote Safe” initiative is that it addresses a non-problem. There is little if any evidence that fake i.d. is used to vote frequently if at all. The bigger problems are with the use and selection of voting technology–thus the “hanging chad” problem in Florida in 2000. Or, in having the graveyard come out to vote.
Graveyards vote when a partisan is allowed to staff polling stations and the people who check the signatures on the absentees. Rather than a red herring like “Vote Safe,” I would like the two candidates to address how they will make sure that the election of 2012 is conducted in a transparent fashion which we can all trust. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of different technology? What measures will they take to ensure that our vote counters are transparent and honest?
So where do all these partisan folks running for office come from, all the while claiming they are “non-partisan?
“It’s because of the theories and writings of Rushdoony, and the speeches and activism of his son-in-law Gary North along with Christian educator and “Left Behind” co-author Tim LaHaye that the separation of church and state is so in peril today. They were telling their people in the 1970′s and 80′s that Evangelical Fundamentalists Christians should run for every office in the US, after which they could run everything and turn the country into a Fundamentalist Theocracy. They also want to destroy all public schooling, which frowns on their proselytizing, first by pulling out all of their children to “home school” them THEIR way, and now by pushing Voucher programs to bleed public school funds. Once public schools collapse, left with only the most problem children, they can step in and offer to take over public education, but without the tolerance, diversity and humanist requirements (science, etc.) of secular bureaucrats. ”
See:
http://www.americanfundamentalists.com
for more information
“Hire Safe,” requiring employers to face jail and stiff fines for hiring illegals, doesn’t seem to get much support from the Repubbies. They want their illegal workers, but they don’t want them voting. They just want them to bust unions and keep the wages down.
By putting laws on the books with real teeth in them, teeth that sink into the thick hides of Repubbies getting rich off of hiring illegals, you would invent a whole new vetting industry, which would, for a fee, protect employers by providing biometric ID’s. Job Creation!
“2. Giving our heroes in uniform the chance for their ballots to be counted.
3. Securing our absentee ballots from fraud by requiring a driver’s license number and signature for verification.
Tell me, what is so highly partisan about these common sense reforms? What is it that Greg’s left-wing political base has to fear from these reforms?”
On #2, if all issues and candidates have passed by more than the total number of service person votes available to be counted, you will be unable to change an election, and in the past, not opening them was considered a cost saving measure. You wish to spend the money and count?
#3. A signature is already required. The eye can quickly spot a problem. Again, you want to pay for drivers licence check, and require EVERYONE who votes to submit their drivers licenses to yet another “I lost the laptop” agency?
My guess is folks even with walkers, canes and crutches, will go door to door to make certain the clerk/recorders office shall remain non-partisian.
Aaron – I am disturbed by your capacity to misquote and malign in such a fashion. What is up with that strategy? You seem to hold low regard for saying something — anything ! — that is truthful, and when you’re caught, you simply move on. It’s amazing. Your friends must hold you in such high regard!
I notice that you did finally change Pruett’s profession on your website, you must have been embarrassed to find out that he never worked for Apple Computer in the capacity you suggested. However, Barry is still using that claim on his literature. It’ll be interesting to see when Apple Computer corrects the issue publicly for you.
Thanks for bringing your brand of politics so vocally to our county. I wonder if Barry understands how much your active participation has cost him.
Mr. Aaron Klein,
You say, “It’s humorous to watch Greg shift from “I have to be neutral” to “we don’t need it” (the quote from the debate) and now apparently back to “I have to be neutral”.
You are mistaken. The quote from the debate, in response to the question “If you could change the system by which people vote…”, was not “we don’t need it” as you say, but, and now I quote from the debate, “I would not change the method by which people vote. I’m not a legislator. I’m here to carry out the laws of the state of California.” Here is that portion of the debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sXDvQN9j20
You, and Mr. Pruett, would have the election for Clerk/Recorder turn into a partisan debate over the Vote Safe initiative. That is not the issue. The issue is one of integrity and competence in carrying out the duties of the office. You have shown your lack of integrity in misquoting Mr. Diaz, and Mr. Pruett has chosen to evade the issue of competence through this distraction over this potential ballot initiative.
If there is an issue, vis-a-vis the Vote Safe initiative, is not whether it is needed or not. It is whether it is proper for the Clerk/Recorder to even take a position on an initiative that may come before the voters. Do those voters with Nevada County values, or even Placer County values, want an elections officer whose campaign for that office was dedicated to the passage of that initiative? Or do Nevada County voters want someone with the integrity needed to count the ballots without bias?
I might be willing to support the Vote Safe initiative myself if I could be sure that voters would be limited to less than a dozen photo IDs. I might be willing to support the Vote Safe initiative myself if I could be sure that voters would be limited to less than a photo IDs. No call to be gluttonous about ballot stuffing.
Jim Hurley
Jim,
I’m responding to your comment only because it’s important to me that I not misquote anyone. I heard from three different people that Greg had said at the debate “we don’t need it” but if that’s not what he said, then I stand corrected.
(I can’t verify that with your YouTube link – it says “private video” when I click on it.)
I still think it’s appalling that anyone involved in running elections wouldn’t support these three common sense reforms, but that’s just my opinion and I respect the right of others to disagree with me!
Correcting my error (assuming the video you posted says what you say it does) was important enough to respond here. Most of the others are either vitriol or just other points of view.
Frankly, I sort of regret posting my comment in the first place. I have to remind myself that this is the personal web site of Greg Diaz’s largest cash contributor, rather than an unbiased news site.
(Greg’s second largest donor, by the way, has contributed over $127K to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee…which is perfectly appropriate for that contributor to do, but sort of explains the humor with which most of us find Greg’s protestations of nonpartisanship.)
Best regards, everyone.
Aaron
Aaron,
Thanks for copping to your error, albeit on big white stallion (AKA high horse). This blog post (“Greg Diaz is the latest to respond to my local candidate’s questions”) is merely one of the candidates responding to a question that was posed last week – nothing more than that. Your friend Sue Horne also answered her question, as did Rolf Kleinhans and Keith Royal (also both conservatives). Many people appreciate this forum to learn more about the candidates. The very first comment was yours, with disparaging terms such as “spin doctors” and a “left-wing base” for Diaz. Is county Supervisor Nate Beason “left wing”? Hardly. Yet he has heartily endorsed Greg Diaz.
I noticed that when other candidates commented on Jeff’s questions several people who might be identified as politically unaligned with the candidates applauded them for their answers and participation.
Greg Diaz responds and he (and his supporters) get critiqued with no mention of thanks to him for agreeing to use this new forum as a communications tool.
“I heard from three different people…”
Yes that carries a lot of credibility. You’re unbelievable.
As for the rest of your log rolling and straw men…”I still think it’s appalling that anyone involved in running elections wouldn’t support these three common sense reforms…” etc.
I think it’s “appalling” that you have even a shred of credibility given your ongoing pre-digested bs, starting with the Sierra College farce, up through and including your post today.
And try not to be as big a douche as Jeff A. and sign your full name as you’ve been requested. That way, with our small minds here, it will help us to connect who you are with what you say. Which I’m sure you would appreciate. I know I would.
One more thing, people here are not likely to swallow dishonesty and manipulation of facts without calling you on it like they would at the Tea Party Gazette, so when you site some inequity or “politics”, instead of vague, broad sweeps of opinion and playing VERY loose with the facts, give the first hand specifics and facts and we’ll decide what’s true. And when you’re dishonest, like with your above quote, we’ll make sure everyone know that too.
Your first foray here shows your usual dishonesty and manhandling of the truth, and your justification…”"I heard from three different people…” shows that you’re not to be trusted, at the least, and should never hold a public office, at best. I realize that “you’re constituents” will swallow any pablum they’re fed, as long as it’s been pre-chewed for them by the party politic, but your “stuff” is so transparent here that if you had any sense or conscience you’d be ashamed.
Warning to posters: Though the issues can get emotional, please keep the conversation civil and respectful. Otherwise, it can undermine what you’re trying to say. Thanks.
Aaron, if you want to listen to what was said at the campaign event you can via the KNCO website.
Would have been best if you reviewed what was really said before you claimed to know what was said.
You need to check your sources and consider them suspect if they have provided you wrong information.
Will,
Thanks. Could you also address Jim Hurley’s comments in this thread? Jim provides a fuller context of quotes (“I’m not a legislator”) and also links to the video, which worked fine for me. Bruce Levy also raises a good point in his comments about “spin” to make your point. Could you address that? Last, nobody from Aaron’s “camp” is addressing Shawn Garvey’s comments about Barry’s Apple “relationship.” This was the original question for Barry in the questions for candidates that Greg Diaz, Keith Royal, Sue Horne and Rolf Kleinhans answered. We’re a little more rigorous here than in the local media. As you notice, all names are signed. No word yet what “Dirtmover” or “Redneck Farmer” thinks. Tks.
Will Cunningham, where did Diaz say “we don’t need the Vote Safe Initiative”?
Please provide that information because what you posted doesn’t say that. Is there some other quote from that evening that does say that?
Mr. Cunningham:
In referring to Mr. Diaz’s statement “right now it works,” you say “This was NOT a neutral statement.”
On the contrary, it was exactly a neutral statement. Mr. Diaz did not say that doesn’t work. He did not say that it could work better. He said “right now it works.”
Your conclusion, “Greg Diaz did say that we don’t need the Vote Safe Initiative” is what you would put in his mouth.
Once again, the statement that most clearly defines Greg’s position is this: “I would not change the method by which people vote. I’m not a legislator. I’m here to carry out the laws of the state of California.”
“That was NOT a neutral statement. Aaron Klein was right – Greg Diaz did say that we don’t need the Vote Safe Initiative”
Oh let’s just keep playing with words, shall we?
Vote Safe Initiative implies that the current voting system is UNSAFE. By titling the initiative with this, we instantly accuse anyone who doesn’t seem feel the initiative is needed as favoring unsafe voting. This is much like the classic,”and when did you stop beating your wife,” attack. The implication is that you ARE or WERE beating your wife, when in fact that may be very untrue.
I have asked already for the names of voters who are dead who have voted in the Morgan Ranch area that Pruett supposedly walked. I have also asked for the number of households that he visited. So far the stuff is much like proving global warming by the fact that it was 92 in New York a couple of days back. No real scientific investigation has been done. No names and numbers are available. The whole thing at best is simply a way for Repubbys to keep their union busting illegal workers from voting.
Instead of “let them eat cake,” the Repubbys want to eat their cake and have it too.
A friend has kept sending me bits from your site and with this one I have (finally) become a fan. I thank you most heartily for your policy of asking for names. I thank you for the fact that, I believe because of the integrity that ddemands, you have some very intelligent folks blogging – and are noticeably short on idiots. I loved seeing this particular idiot held to accountability, and I’m grateful to all the people who took the time to settle the matter.
I’m about to become a “tonstant weader”, ala Dorothy Parker.