By Matt Coker
By R. Scott Moxley
By Charles Lam
By Nick Schou
By Gustavo Arellano
By Gustavo Arellano
By Steve Lowery
By R. Scott Moxley
Attendees of the state convention of the California GOP were shocked upon [sic] to learn that operatives of candidate John Campbell threatened supporters of Congressional candidate Jim Gilchrist who "supports, advocates, or assists in any way" the Gilchrist campaign with "expulsion from the California Republican Party."
SIDENOTE: Aren't Republican foes of campaign finance reform always yammering on about how it would infringe on their right to free speech? But if you exercise your rights to free speech in helping a candidate, you've gotta be tossed from the party? Sheesh.
Carry on, Mr. Faxman:
Gilchrist responded, "My candidacy clearly scares them because the Republican Party has become increasingly hostile to those of us who see illegal immigration as a serious problem. The party is more concerned with keeping out conservatives concerned with illegal immigration than keeping out illegal aliens themselves, and that is a recipe for electoral disaster."
SIDENOTE: Aren't Republicans always yammering about how illegal immigration is the kind of wedge issue that they could use to help Arnie/take back some sorely needed legislative seats? So now their hand-picked congressional candidate is risking inflamming that base, choosing to shoo Gilchrist supporters away rather than wooing them in. Why, that could turn off just enough of the electorate that they could lose the seat to -- MOTHER OF ALL GULPS!!! -- a Democrat? In Newport Beach? The very idea gives Clockwork skidmarks.
Posted Sept. 19, 2:15 p.m.
CHECK THAT: HE'S GONNA WIN!
In Clockwork's last thrilling episode, we wrote that Richard Lara is bright, handsome, makes a lot of sense and therefore does not stand a chance of winning the 67th state Assembly District seat. Lara writes back to counter--not about the bright, handsome, makes-a-lot-of-sense part, but the he'll-lose part--that stranger things have happened . . . in Torrance! Be advised that Clockwork is posting this under protest, as the following letter violates our longtime rule against publicizing reactions to things we've written that are funnier than the things we've written. (Grrrr!). Take it away, Dick:
Thank you for your email, for mentioning part of my speech on your blog and for your comments on my campaign. Regarding the later two points, I've two comments.
First, the presentation time of my speech is 28 minutes, which is two minutes less than the time I was asked to fill -- I suppose I should have mentioned this in my email.
Second, don't you read the newspapers? Please see the LA Times article and ask yourself whether your blog was perhaps not overly pessimistic. The facts suggest that you have misrepresented, however unwittingly, my campaign's chances of success. No apology is necessary, but you will surely want to print a story in theOC Weekly, in order to assuage your searing compunction, that 1) allows me and my supporters to explain what we are doing differently than past democratic candidates for the 67th AD seat, and that 2) takes the facts into account when evaluating the prospects of our success. Because the thought of you wallowing under the burden of such crushing guilt is unbearable to me and my supporters, we will cooperate fully with your efforts to set the record straight. Until then, stay strong, and don't be too hard on yourself. We are pulling for you.
All kidding aside, thanks for the exposure. Given the way things have gone in this district for years, I understand your sentiments. Nevertheless, I hope you reflect on the implications of Ted Lieu's easy victory in the 53rd AD and on the low voter turnout amongst republican voters in that district, and consider doing a story in the OC Weekly that casts our campaign in a more fact based light.
"Crazy Diamond" -- that has a nice ring to it anyway.
All the best,
CLOCKWORK INSTA-SNARKY REACTION TO THAT REACTION
1) Don't you read the newspapers?
2) Please see theLA Times article, and ask yourself whether your blog was perhaps not overly pessimistic.
Clockwork? Pessimistic. Yeah, that'll be the day--THE DAY THE WORLD ENDS!!!
3) The facts suggest that you have misrepresented, however unwittingly, my campaign's chances of success.
Oh, no, there was nothing unwitting about it, which is strange because, 95 percent of time, we're operating in total unwitting mode. But for this item: witting was burning on all cylinders, baby!
4) No apology is necessary, but you will surely want to print a story in theOC Weekly, in order to assuage your searing compunction.
First of all, we're Clockwork to "print" "a story" "in the OC Weekly," that would require more work--actual work like calling people up, asking them a bunch of lame questions, transcribing the notes, stringing those boring quotes (boring quotes from some not as eloquent as Mr. Lara, we're sure) together with witty transitions, turning in a story, answering questions from wet-behind-the-ears factcheckers (really, we've checked. Quite strange.), answering questions from crusty old editors (checked for crust, too!), rewriting the story, having the editor kill the story because it's too boring, having the 53rd Gustavo story fall out of the paper at the last moment because he made something up again, having our story resurrected at the last minute to fill space--but now also having to come up with a photo to go with the story (another looong process, too complicated to explain), answering questions from a methed-up proofreader--a methed-up proofreader who bogarts his/her meth, the fuck!--having the story get printed, answering phone calls from all the people who say we made stuff up, which we dutifully blame on Gustavo, and then we have to write a correction, turn that in, answer questions from .. well, you get the idea.