Monday, December 22, 2014
street news, views and stories of justice and injustice
Follow me on Twitter

Search WitnessLA:

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Meta


Cooley Concedes: It’s Kamala

November 24th, 2010 by Celeste Fremon


As fond as I am of Cooley personally
(aside from my objections to one or five professional issues with him), allow me to say:

Woooo-hoooo! Go Kamala!!

(And California voters, you rock.)

Here are some of the reports:

LA Times……SF Chron.SJ Mercury News.

During and prior to the campaign, Harris has said that prosecutors and lawmakers should attack the underlying social problems that lead to crime as well as the criminal. California needs a top cop, but it also needs a top cop who can look at the larger picture if this state is to be healed, fiscally and socially.

With any luck at all, she will be the right woman for the moment.


Photo prior to my Photoshop interference by Luke Thomas

Posted in Uncategorized | 22 Comments »

22 Responses

  1. jim hitchcock Says:

    NOT a cute wolf-dog pup shot:

    http://col.stb.s-msn.com/i/e1/845b6b4a5bb853198a1bffdf5e041.jpg

  2. Sure Fire/Nikki Says:

    Hope she doesn’t do as much damage to the state as she did to the people in S.F.

  3. Joe Rios Says:

    Great news!

  4. Jack Says:

    Celeste, we differ on many issues, but I think we agreed that Steve Cooley would have made a great Attorney General. As for Kamala Harris, what worries me is not so much that she rightly identifies flaws in our legal system, principally the ‘revolving door’ syndrome of our criminal justice system, but that the solution she’ll sign off on will be disastrous for public safety.

    Opening the floodgates of felons by releasing “non-violent” prisoners into “programs” will be fiscally and progressively justified. Spending $10k a year for a “program” makes more financial sense than “$32k a year to warehouse a career criminal who cannot be civilized until he or she is too old to present a threat to anyone unfortunate enough to stand in the way of their selfish needs.

    But when the reality of just how feckless those “programs” are hits home with a sudden spike in crime, and more innocent souls like Lily Burke are sacrificed in the name of progressiveness, maybe we’ll rue the day that we did not elect Steve Cooley.

    There is something very troubling in the fact that if Cooley could have run as a Democrat, we wouldn’t be debating the impending disaster that’s about to strike. Let’s hope that Kamala wakes up to reality in Sacramento, and puts the brakes on short cuts.

    Prop 8 was a big issue in the AG race, with Cooley taking the view that the duty of the AG is to defend the law of the land, and Harris vowing not to defend it. Ultimately, it matters little which way the AG weighs in on Prop 8 or other unconstitutional propositions – The US Supreme Court, even with its current traditionalist majority will strike it down no matter how much it is defended. Cooley might have picked up a few more votes if he had stated that view; it’s not as if the tea party would have voted for anyone else anyway. However, at the end of the day, I still think Cooley would not have survived the flood of blue votes that were aimed at Whitman and Fiorina.

  5. Celeste Fremon Says:

    Jack, I like Cooley too, as you said, and have repeatedly voted for him. This election, I settled on Harris after much thought. I think either would have been good in the office, but they have different strengths. By the way, I don’t think being a Republican did it for Cooley. He was defeated, when all was said and done, by LA County, which has repeatedly elected him. But he’s done and said some stuff that caused a very close race to ultimate go against him. (Although you do have a point about the anti Whitman/Fiorina votes harming him. That could have been a significant a factor.)

    BTW, the AG has no way of materially affecting parole policy. That’s the legislature and the CDCR. However, we are in desperate need wise reform, and maybe she can use a bully pulpit to help that come about. (We need, for example, more discerning parole supervision.)

    Harris was supported by every law enforcement figure who has worked with her, although Cooley got all the big organizations.

    There’s nothing that suggests she is “soft on crime.” Being against the death penalty (which she’ll enforce, just as Brown did), does not constitute being soft on crime. (The death penalty is a deeply philosophical, moral and religious issue, which I genuinely think it is unwise to argue, just like abortion.)

    The Lily Burke argument will have to wait for another day, as I’ve got a turkey to get in. So have a great Thanksgiving and thanks for weighing in. It’s always appreciated.

  6. Joe Rios Says:

    Jack Says:
    November 25th, 2010 at 5:30 am

    There is something very troubling in the fact that if Cooley could have run as a Democrat,

    …………

    All the more reason for the Republican party to distance itself from the extreme tea party and minutemen types and start doing more to address the issues important to people of all races. Maybe there’s enough people to buy into their platform across America to get control of the congress, but evidently in California, it aint gonna fly. Don’t blame others. Blame the Republican party in California for refusing to make itself accessible to all people of all walks of life, as opposed to just their wealthy handlers and the working class, right wing extremists that their platform appeals to.

  7. Sure Fire/Nikki Says:

    The answer to parole reform is easy, eliminate it. As for you voting for Harris, the conviction rate she ended up with was reason enough not to vote for her, we want the best possible and she wasn’t close. The voters in California don’t vote with their heads os as a state we’re doomed.

  8. Sure Fire/Nikki Says:

    “so”

  9. Joe Rios Says:

    You could be right, Sure Fire. What a position the Republican Party is in to take over the state with the Democrats having done such a horrible job. But unfortunately the Republican party is just not interested in addressing the needs of anyone other than big businesses and working class extremists. If they could just find a way to court the rest of the state. Arnold did. But for some reason Republicans just don’t want to go to his playbook. Crippled by ideology.

  10. Sure Fire/Nikki Says:

    Yeah, you hit it on the nose. It has nothing to do with the pandering by the Dems to the unions and the gay vote that goes to libs, a large block in this state. California has the dumbest voters in the country, bunch of lemmings.

  11. Joe Rios Says:

    How did Arnold win, Sure Fire? Surely the Republican party can do more to court people outside of their comfort zone, which seems to only consist of a cross between the wealthy, and working class, right wing extremists. Arnold went out and found enough people outside of these two demographics who were willing to vote Republican because they are fed up with the way Democrats do things. Steve Cooley did not. It’s his own fault. Blaming others is for failures.

  12. Joe Rios Says:

    I also don’t know what you mean by pandering to the unions. Are unions not allowed to endorse candidates? Labor unions are groups of people. Of course candidates will pander to them, if they’re wise. They’re voters! Maybe you want to reform campaign finance, make it to where candidates wouldn’t be allowed to take so much money from organizations like unions? Would you be willing to expand this concept to include corporations? Or do you just want unions to be muzzled? Also, you’re a police office, in a labor union, if I’m not mistaken. If you don’t like unions so much, why are you a member of one? And don’t I recall you saying that you’re active in your union? Aren’t you a steward or representative, or something? LOL. That would be awfully strange if someone hated unions while not only being a member of one (and of course taking advantage of the wages and benefits afforded through their union), but being a union leader, at that. But I’ve seen stranger things.

  13. Joe Rios Says:

    And lol @ “the gay vote”. You have to be joking. Just how many gay voters do you think there are? Do you even remember prop 8? How could that have passed if the gay vote in California was so powerful? You couldn’t have been serious with that. You’re just being funny.

  14. Sure Fire/Nikki Says:

    Commenting back to a person who is here only to play games isn’t worth my time or effort.

  15. Joe Rios Says:

    That’s unfortunate. Because I was looking forward to your explanation as to just how the gay vote could sway any statewide election in California. The gay vote is about the tiniest demographic in the state. Prop 8 went like clockwork in 2008 because the gay vote is so powerful in California?

    Also wanted to hear your explanation as to how Arnold could have won, as a Republican, if Republicans can’t win in California on the statewide playing field.

    I was also looking forward to your explanation as to why you don’t believe unions should play an active role in politics. The deafening irony in this is that you, as far as I know, are an active member of a union! And if I’m not mistaken, a union leader, at that. I recall you saying once you were involved in negotiations. You believe it’s ok for YOUR union to take an active role in politics, I’m sure. Just not others? That’s hypocritical.

    Anyhow, if you don’t want to explain that’s fine. If you feel I’m only here to play games, why did you respond to me in the first place and make these puzzling statements? To each his own. Good day.

  16. sbl Says:

    Glad she won – her stalwart stance on the death penalty, knowing it hurt her with the big law enforcement org’s like LAPPL which skew Republican (the whole Novey influence, the Weber clique, made Cooley a foregone conclusion for them anyway) showed integrity. You could say the same with Cooley and his stance on Prop 8 and war on medical pot shops, no matter what the citizens vote, or whatever the City Council determines. BUT not his disregard for legislative bodies, including the L A City Council – “They’re so irrelevant it’s not even funny,” he stated about them, and had his puppet Trutanich give them “advice” which led to the current mess. (His throwing his weight around getting the under-qualified, temperamentally ill-suited Trutanich elected to take his place hurt him in certain quarters, including among those conservative HOA groups which lobbied for him and are now very disappointed with them both.)

    The Council MAY well be a “clowncil” as they’re called, the Assembly may be just as bad, but I get uncomfortable when DA’s and CA’s (or AG’s) elected to enforce the law set themselves up as policy-makers openly ignoring those who have been elected to do that job, for better or worse.
    I think Kamala knows her place better in that regard.

    AND I have to agree with “Jack,” that Harris got a HUGE pull-up from the Brown-vs.-Whitman defeat (somewhat lesser by Boxer-vs.-Fiorina): a lot of Democrats went out to vote DOWN those two women, especially e-Meg, and the whole Republican ticket. And MAYBE, intuitively, I sense that since voters were voting OUT the two Republican women, having at least one woman win a “big” job worked in her favor.

    Cooley gambled wrong that the Republican ticket would be stronger: he should’ve done what his puppet did, switch to “Decline to State” after a lifelong history of being Republican. Being a phony works better than using the “wrong” words on a ballot. I think fewer voters even KNEW the fine points between the candidates than voted AGAINST the party of the two women with NO history of public service, trying to buy their way into office.

    Happy Thanksgiving weekend, everyone~

  17. Sure Fire/Nikki Says:

    So in other words SBL, her job performance which is tied to the rate her office wins cases simply doesn’t matter to you. Her tenure as a DA was anything but something to be proud of. That being said with the racial garbage thrown at Whitman which carried over to the senate race is it any surprise Harris won?

    At least it wasn’t one of those pasty old white guys that won.

    http://www.sfweekly.com/2010-05-05/news/a-lack-of-conviction/

  18. Joe Rios Says:

    WHAT?!?

    What racial garbage thrown at Whitman?

    First it was the gay vote.

    Then it was the fact that Cooley couldn’t win because he’s a Republican.

    Then it was union corruption (note: Sure Fire is a union leader. I know. You figure it out)

    Now, it’s race.

    Whitman couldn’t win because reverse racist blacks and Mexicans refused to vote for her.

    You are pathetic.

    I’m sorry, Celeste, but this is just insane. Sure Fire is going to blame everyone except for Cooley and his short sighted campaign. He’s blamed gays. He’s blamed unions. He’s blamed basically all of California for being Democratic leaning, even though Arnold found a way to win on the statewide field. Now, he’s blaming minorities. It’s just old. Cooley, Whitman, and their supporters are pathetic. The sorest losers ever. Pick yourselves up by the boot straps. Learn to address the needs of the people as opposed to the needs of a wealthy few. Blaming others is for losers.

  19. Joe Rios Says:

    I’m a Democrat and I blame DEMOCRATS, nobody else, for their losses in the last election. Howard Dean steered the party right into power, and they threw him out. There’s no way he resigned. That man has never resigned from any cause in his life. Yet as soon as Dems control everything, he’s out. Just like that. They used him. And now they’re paying for it because they’re no longer even using his playbook. I don’t blame any conservative voting groups. I don’t blame hunters. I don’t blame Christian fundies. I don’t blame minutemen. I don’t blame tea partiers. Because frankly, I don’t think their numbers are as large as they want us to believe. I think the Democrats just failed at addressing voters in so called republican districts, which is what Dean did in ’06 and ’08 with his “50 State Plan”. I’m not going to blame others. I’m going to blame my party. Take notes, Sure One.

  20. Sure Fire/Nikki Says:

    Glad she won – her stalwart stance on the death penalty, knowing it hurt her with the big law enforcement org’s like LAPPL which skew Republican (the whole Novey influence, the Weber clique, made Cooley a foregone conclusion for them anyway) showed integrity.

    Too bad her actual words showed so little integrity regarding the death penalty.

  21. Sure Fire/Nikki Says:

    Pretty amazing how Cooley destroys anyone who faces him in DA races but looses LA County big time to Harris. I think you’re pretty much on target as to why SBL, but if anyone thinks the pro-legalization weed crowd, gays and Hispanics didn’t pull in lots of votes for Haris they can’t read.

  22. Joe Rios Says:

    Funny how Arnold didn’t complain about pot smokers, gays, and hispanics in 2003. He just went out and campaigned to them, and won big, as a Republican. Excuses are for the weak.

Leave a Comment





Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.