Picture Courtesy of Deborah Pauly
John Moorlach has just been endorsed in his bid for the 37th State Senate seat 26-6 over his opponent, Don Wagner, in the first round of balloting, by the California Republican Assembly, according to Deborah Pauly’s Facebook page.
President Ronald Reagan called the California Republican Assembly, “the conscience of the Republican Party.” Chartered in 1934, the CRA is the state’s oldest and largest Republican volunteer organization. CRA has been working to elect Republican candidates who stand unwaveringly for Republican principles.
We recently explored Wagner’s bills and voting history and found him to be generally useless – except to the Special Interests that are funding his campaign.
As a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Financial Planner, John Moorlach began his career in public service 20 years ago when he warned that then Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector Robert Citron’s risky investment strategies would lead to bankruptcy. Moorlach’s warnings proved true when Orange County filed for bankruptcy protection in December of 1994, becoming the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history.
In the aftermath, the Board of Supervisors appointed John Moorlach to serve out the term of County Treasurer-Tax Collector, where he took immediate steps to reorganize county finances, cut losses, lessen risk, and create efficiencies within government.
Moorlach became well known nationally for his bold and effective steps in recovering the county’s financial outlook, as well as for his drive for greater transparency in government financial operations.
John Moorlach was twice re-elected to County Treasurer-Tax Collector. In 2006, voters elected John to serve in his first of two terms on the Board of Supervisors, where he continued his focus on reforming the county’s budget practices and sounding the alarm on the county’s growing unfunded liabilities.
Yessir. Already posted about it… I still reserve the right to write as an individual.
Sorry chap you are out of touch with your own organization! When you pimp for Pringle stooges you betray the people!
Hey, Aaron. May I ask why you care about this one way or another? Personally, I wouldn’t vote for either one of them.
Dave the answer to that is Aaron Park gets paid to blog by campaigns. He doesn’t want his cash flow to be cut off. Of course he would be incahoots with the candidate supported by the crony capitalists:
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/23/true-stories-of-bloggers-who-secretly-feed-on-partisan-cash/
I heard he’s sore because Moorlach didn’t appoint a friend of his to some stupid commission. So lame to support a Pringle hack instead!
Don’t forget that that on the link you provided where you explore Wagner’s bill history, that you only included half of Wagner’s bills (even after I showed you where the other half was)!
And also don’t forget that when you explored Wagner’s voting history, that on every bill you listed literally every single Republican voted for!
You can continue to spout your hysterical half-truths, but it doesn’t mean anyone will believe you. There’s these things called facts – and they are pretty important to have during arguments.
I’m a Libertarian so I really don’t care how the Republicans vote.
Then why do you care who the California REPUBLICAN Assembly endorses?
You can’t have it both ways.
As long as they don’t support the Pringle cabal I am happy at the outcome.
I see, so your endorsement of Moorlach and hatred of Wagner is purely due to guilt by association with one person…
I’ll be sure to take anything you say in the future that doesn’t start and end with “Pringle” with a grain of salt then.
Pringle is one of many OC Republicans who pretends to be a conservative then proceeds to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on highly questionable public projects such as the ridiculous ARTIC train station in Anaheim. So yes I do not generally support anyone affiliated with Pringle and neither should you.
I think the difference is here that Wagner is actually a conservative who does not waste taxpayer dollars at all.
Your arguments against Wagner are so weak fiscally that you have to resort to guilt by association.
It’s really rather funny, considering you turn a blind eye to how bad Moorlach is on the issue.
Are you kidding? Pringle wouldn’t support Wagner unless the fix was in. Wagner will vote how his master Pringle tells him to.
You need to put down the kool-aid
It would appear that you have been imbibing Pringle’s Kool Aid.
“There is no policy debate more important to the future of California and America than passing comprehensive immigration reform. By providing legal clarity to the status of millions of people in California we can spur an economic renaissance, SOLIDIFY FAMLIES, and create an entirely new population of full taxpayers,many of whom have strong entreprenurial and work ethics”.
http://www.wga.com/sites/wga.com/files/Rep_Immigration_Letter.pdf
Wagner, along with a horde of other Sacramento RINOS, signed this and sent it to the Ca Congressional Delegation. Basically, it called for amnesty. Nowhere in the letter does it state that the taxpayers will be on the hook for millions of these illegals for their medical care, food, housing, education, etc…. Yet these elected brainstems can’t understand why California’s poverty rate is the highest in the nation and continues to climb. 30% of our prison beds are occupied by illegals @$50,000 per head per year. Republicans are supposed to stand for rule of law. When they start celebrating criminal foreigners by rewarding them for committing crimes I refuse to vote for them.
For this reason Wagner should be voted out of office.
Where do you think Moorlach stands on amnesty? He has made public comments stating he supports amnesty plans as recently as two years ago.
In your words, “basically, it called for amnesty.” Did you actually read the letter you posted? You sure are cherry-picking your arguments. And not one time is the word “amnesty” mentioned in the entire letter. Here’s a couple paragraphs you decided to overlook.
“Components should include thoughtful and strong border security, employer sanctions, and opportunity for undocumented residents to earn their way to full citizenship, but only behind those who have applied to become citizens through the current citizenship process.”
This is right there in the second paragraph of the letter. The very first thing in the paragraph is about strong border security. It advocates that anyone who has applied for citizenship legally comes first. That sounds like common sense to me.
“We strongly urge House Republicans to demand a vote. While some members in Congress may not support the legislation, every member deserves the opportunity to vote. We understand that members have divergent views on reform, but this is the time to address the many serious issues immigrants and their employers face every day.”
It does not advocate for amnesty one way or the other, but rather it asks Congress to act on the issue and vote. If they decide to vote against immigration reform, and leave things the way they are, so be it. But it allows for meaningful dialogue on, and a chance to fix, the immigration issue. An issue that isn’t going away any time soon.