Political news & views for independent-minded voters 

Facebook Twitter Gplus E-mail RSS
Home 2014 Elections Lucille Kring: Liar, Elitist and No Conservative

Mike Dalati Ad


Lucille Kring: Liar, Elitist and No Conservative

Karina Onofre Banner


I loathe referring to politicians as liars. The accusation is generally not exactly true; even if an elected official is in fact lying, rarely do they do so without the fallback of plausible deniability. Anaheim’s councilwoman Kring has no such luxury. At the OC GOP Central Committee meeting this week, the candidate for Mayor was forced to admit what she is: a liar with nothing but contempt for the voice of the people.

Kring, a purported Republican, is running against Mayor Tom Tait, another Republican in good standing with the party. She along with her sidekick, councilwoman Murray spoke this week at the first OC GOP Central Committee meeting of the year. This is the group of party insiders which will decide who, if anyone, will receive the Republican party nod for mayor of Anaheim.

During Kring’s presentation, her support of a controversial $150 million “give away” (Kring’s words) to a hotelier became the topic of conversation. Party Chairman Scott Baugh, who I wrongly assumed would treat Kring with kid gloves, asked her if she had campaigned for council on the promise that she would vote to put all such “give aways” to a vote of the people. Lying to the Chairman’s face, as well as to the entire committee, she insisted that she did not. The Chairman asked again if she had not promised people that that was how she would vote. Kring then clarified (to laughter) that although no such promises were made in her campaign literature, she did in fact make the promise to voters, including Mayor Tait who endorsed her council candidacy on that basis. Of course, upon her election she opted to support the “give away,” to the same interests that are now supporting her campaign for mayor. Watch the entire exchange here.

Justifying her new position, she argued that taking the matter to the people would be too expensive and too complicated for the average voter. Ms. Kring then, knows better than the voters, and feels that it is more cost efficient to give millions away to her campaign contributors without the hassle of attempting to convince voters.

Likewise, Lucille Kring also maintains that the details of the negotiations surrounding the Angels Stadium land lease should be kept from the public. She argued that if the public knew what the land was worth, it would disrupt and frustrate the negotiations. She voted to lease the land around the stadium to Angels owner, Arte Moreno, for one dollar a year. When Anaheim voters learn that the land is worth around $300 millions, it will indeed disrupt negotiations. But it is the people’s land, and one would think that their outrage is relevant to the ongoing negotiations. Kring maintains, with little too no justification, that such measures are necessary to keep the Angels in Anaheim. Again, her credibility on the matter is nothing but suspect.


Ultimately, Kring feels secure in her position. She is on the record stating that special interests run Anaheim. She thinks that popular opinion is not here nor there, as long as she has the backing of special interests.

Listening to her speak last night, it seems as if she has no clue as to what she is doing in office. She does not seem to appreciate the economic impact of picking winners in a less-than-free-market through hundred million dollar “give aways,” again her words.  Her contempt is not limited to the voters, but encompasses the free-market as well.

Ms. Kring is not a conservative, she is an unsophisticated statist with no credibility. Moreover, as a committee member pointed out, her candidacy risks splitting the Republican vote in the city and handing the mayorship to the Democrat’s candidate.  Indeed, this may be what some of her strongest supporters are hoping for, some of her strongest supporters being Anaheim’s public sector labor unions. Some people have no shame.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
6 Comments  comments 

6 Responses

  1. Ryan Cantor

    Mr Lamb? MR LION!

  2. Great work Daniel. Jason at SaveAnaheim.com

  3. David Zenger

    Good God! This woman knows no shame. But I do. I had her sign in my yard and gave her a hundred bucks in 2012 – all based on our conversation about how Anaheim was being heisted by the Usual Suspects.

    What a sham.

  4. Greg Diamond

    Well done, Daniel! I can’t believe that she repeated the “but it wasn’t in my campaign literature!” defense to a politically sophisticated audience.

    • Ryan Cantor

      Yeah, I’m going to just kick her ass left and right on that one.

      Why did you vote to give away $158 million dollars to a developer who donated funds to your campaign?

      Well, it wasn’t in my campaign literature.

      Why did you vote to give away 155 acres of public land for $1 a year?

      Well, it wasn’t in my campaign literature.

      Why did you support a council who wasted millions of dollars fighting a lawsuit that realistically could never be won?

      Well, it wasn’t in my campaign literature.

      Why didn’t you wash your hands after using the toilet?

      Well . . . it just wasn’t in my campaign literature.

      What else isn’t in Lucille Kring’s campaign literature? Defending your family’s best interests. No on Kring Novemeber 2014.

      • “Yeah, I’m going to just kick her ass left and right on that one”………. Hmmmmmm

        You are lucky Cantor that the above statement is not directed at Tomas Gordon or you would receive visit from SAPD13 homicide detectives like I did in 2006