Anaheim Insider here.
Well that didn’t take long. Fresh off our exposé of VOC’s selective coverage of “scandals” in Anaheim (short summary – Tait scandals ignored, Council majority “scandals” covered), the VOC is out with – you guessed it – another hit piece on a member of the Anaheim City Council majority.
First off, is it just me, or has the VOC/Tait hitman dropped any pretense of writing blog posts in a news article format and gone straight to an opinion column? Do you think this opening graf would meet the New York Times style guide?
It’s considered conventional wisdom in Anaheim that City Council majority leader Kris Murray is tight with Disneyland. The hundreds of thousands of dollars the megaresort has funneled to PACs that supported her council candidacy are pretty solid evidence of that.
Then there’s the headline: “Anaheim Councilwoman Criticized for Trip With Disneyland Lobbyist.” Criticized by whom? Shirley Grindle and Cynthia Ward? Will Adam respond with an article every time some activist or gadfly criticizes an Anaheim city council member? Or only when the criticism is directed at someone on the Mayor’s Enemies List?
Regardless, let’s get down to business.
What’s today’s “scandal” – you ask?
Despite Anaheim City Council Member Kris Murray’s consistent, long-standing, dedicated record of voting against new taxes at every opportunity, Adam twists the fact that Murray is friends outside of work with a Disney employee as evidence that Murray’s vote to keep an entertainment tax out of Anaheim is somehow scandal-ridden.
A stretch…that’s for readers to decide. But here are the facts:
- Kris Murray wrote the Anaheim Taxpayers Protection Act to make it harder to raise taxes in Anaheim
- Kris Murray wrote the Anaheim Council’s Resolution defending Prop 13 against attacks
- Murray signed the Orange County GOP pledge opposing tax increases and promising to fight them in every venue. (So did Tait, by the way…)
- Murray stated at the Anaheim City Council Candidates’ Forum that she opposed a gate tax.
Despite a record that would pretty much lead any vote-counter to assume Murray would also support a resolution to take a gate tax off the table, Adam and the VOC decide the reason must be Murray’s friendship and shared vacation as part of a larger “girls’ trip” that must have somehow improperly influenced Murray to vote the way…she always was going to vote.
What’s more, the Disney investment and tax policy was a continuation of a 20-year policy that previously was supported by Tait, had caused unprecedented growth in jobs and tax revenue in Anaheim, cost the city nothing, and was supported by the Orange County Register, OC Tax, OCBC, almost every state and federal official representing Anaheim, dozens of residents and community groups, the building trades, Anaheim Police and Fire, and more. The only voice against the deal was failed Council Candidate and Tait friend, liberal Democrat Jose Moreno, who openly supports a gate tax increase in Anaheim.
Further, keep in mind that the friendship between Murray and Disney employee Carrie Nocella is drawn from the fact that their kids attended school together and were professional colleagues before Murray ever ran for the City Council.
But we wouldn’t want any facts stand in the way of an “Elmahrek special” against the Council majority. Oh no. Clearly instead of voting the way that was totally consistent with her long-stated ideology and policy, and in support the wishes of virtually everyone who spoke or weighed in with the Council, Adam manufactures the hypothesis that the undue influence of a friend is the story here.
As Disney spokesperson Suzi Brown rightly puts it – “ridiculous.”
Adam’s editorializing that Murray’s vote against a gate tax had nothing to do with her anti-tax record and philosophy and everything to do with her friendship with a single individual is completely contrary to the Voice of OC’s claim its reporting is totally uninfluenced by their financiers. The Orange County Employees Association has sustained the VOC with more than $1 million since 2009. Adam was a communications staffer at the county firefighters union before joining the VOC; in his bio, he said “I’d like to work with unions one day in the future.”
Meanwhile, our earlier piece did have one positive aspect. We finally got Mayor Tom Tait to vote against one of the paid clients of his longtime friend and political consultant, John Lewis.
That’s right, once again, selective coverage and selective reporting has the VOC ignoring the real issue in Anaheim in favor of the hatchet job against Murray, Kring, or Brandman.
A casual mention in Elmahrek’s article would have you believe that the Saintly Tom Tait, for whom Adam is a self-confessed great admirer, reads:
Mayor Tom Tait tapped his friend, the lobbyist John Lewis – who appeared at a council meeting recently on behalf of a client — to be his campaign manager. (Tait voted against his friend’s client.)
One is left with the impression from that short passage that Tait regularly withstands the pressure to vote for his friend’s clients, no doubt in stark contrast to the presumably easier to influence Murray.
But a modicum of investigative journalism by your intrepid Insider reveals the truth, for while Murray’s vote against higher taxes in Anaheim is as reliable as clockwork, regardless of friendships, equally reliable, as long as the sun is not shining, is Tait’s vote for a Lewis client.
On the most recent matter exposed in your Insider’s last column, Tait clearly badgered city staff, asked angry questions, and pushed hard using talking points on behalf of Lewis’ client. You don’t need to take our work for it, you can view the Council video yourself.
But after our article shone a light on the Lewis-Tait relationship, Tait quietly and meekly let the matter drop and voted for the staff recommendation.
Score one for the good guys.
We can go back to a number of other matters where Tait cast seemingly bizarre votes against well-reasoned staff reports.
- On the Anaheim City Taxi franchise, Tait voted for the Lewis-represented applicant, despite that applicant having numerous insurance claims and judgements against them, OCTAP investigations against them, that applicant failing to comply with the RFP by not providing audited financials, and not having certified low-emissions vehicles as also required by the RFP. The only redeeming quality, that applicant had, was Lewis’ as their advocate, or so it would seem.
- Tait moved to aggressively position himself as Anaheim’s representative at OCTA (despite Tait’s numerous conflicts as his engineering firm is also an OCTA vendor) so he could lead the fight against the Anaheim Rapid Connect (ARC) system after the owner of the Park Vue Hotel hired Lewis to oppose the route that might require eminent domain of their property.
- As previously reported, Tait twice opposed well-reasoned staff recommendations on low-income housing policies and fair-housing policies at the request of the Lewis-represented Apartment Association.
All of these seemingly odd actions had one common denominator. Lewis was also the paid lobbyist for these efforts and he was able to deliver exactly ONE VOTE – that of his friend and client, Tom Tait.
No doubt the adults at the Voice of OC – Nick…Jennifer…Norberto…anyone – can explain this. Because we sure can’t make sense of what counts for scandal, and what gets ignored, by Adam Elmahrek anymore.
Adam Elmahrek uses the lamest reporters tricks in the book. He calls his opinion “the conventional wisdom” and metastasizes the opinions of two cranks into the appearance of widespread criticism. Only someone who has drank too much Tait Kool-Aid thinks Adam Elmahrek is an unbiased reporter or the Voice of OC anything but a online wrecking ball for the OCEA.
Oh, so Shirley Grindle is a “crank” according to one of this blog’s regulars? Matt, do you agree with that characterization? I don’t. I think that TIN CUP was a good initiative. You disagree?
I don’t think Shirley is a crank. I completely disagree with her belief in campaign contribution limits.
Please expound on why you think that Anaheimster is wrong to call her a “crank.”
Why?
It’s your blog, it’s your crony, it’s your chance to set the record straight.
But if you want to both let the substance of the insult continue unrebutted and “shield” yourself with a pro forma denial, this is the right place for you to try to have it both ways.
What the hell are you talking about? Are you unable to speak in plain, straightforward English?
OK, if you want to assert that you can’t understand it, fine. I’ll reply to Anaheimster’s initial comment, though, so we’re not so squished against the margin. It gets to be hell to read this on a smartphone.
To review:
(1) “Anaheimster” says that Adam Elmahrek “calls his opinion ‘the conventional wisdom’ and metastasizes the opinions of two cranks into the appearance of widespread criticism.” The alleged “two cranks” are Cynthia Ward (who can more than take care of herself here) and OC good-government icon Shirley Grindle.
(2) I disagree that Grindle is a “crank” and say that I appreciate her signature legislation. I ask Matt for his opinion.
(3) Matt says that he disagrees about Grindle being a crank, but doesn’t like campaign contribution limits.
(4A & 4B) I ask Matt to say more about why he doesn’t think that Grindle is a crank. He says “why?”
(5A & 5B) I say “It’s your blog, it’s your crony, it’s your chance to set the record straight. But if you want to both let the substance of the insult continue unrebutted and “shield” yourself with a pro forma denial, this is the right place for you to try to have it both ways.” He says, essentially, “Speak English!”
Here goes:
(1) I presume that you know what “It’s your blog” means. You own and/or operate it.
(2) “Anaheimster” is one of the most frequent anonymous posters here, with whom I can’t recall your ever disagreeing. (Like “Anaheim Insider,” “Anaheim Jack,” and the various snottier-named personae here, so far as I know, it could be you.) Either way, he’s your “crony.”
(3) You now have the political benefit, as an campaign finance reform opponent, of someone who might well be you calling Grindle a crank. But, you also have distanced yourself, under your own name (but giving no reasons), from that sentiment. So right now, you get to “have it both ways” — attack from your blog, but you’re not responsible for it.
(4) I’d like to read your explanation of why you think that Anaheimster is wrong. You apparently don’t think that you should be called upon to do so. I think that if you’re allowing anonymous responses, and someone says “look, you’re allowing them to attack people anonymously, if you think that they’re wrong at least say WHY,” you should be prepared to give an explanation. I generally do so on OJB when I’m challenged to do so.
(5) Your continued refusal to defend Grindle from a charge that she is a “crank” suggests that you are trying to “have it both ways” — gain the benefit from both the insult and the denial — which is, among other things, cowardly. So I’m asking you to step up, if you actually believe what you said, and explain why. I can’t force you say why she’s not a crank; I can just continue to point out your failure to do so.
I hope that this has been clear enough for you.
I’ll second what others have already observed, Greg: you are deluded. I have no obligation to respond to what Anaheimster or any other commenter says, nor to hop to it anytime Greg Diamond makes a demand. It’s as if you fancy yourself the Lord of the OC Blogosphere.
I like Shirley Grindle. Sometimes I agree with her, sometimes I don’t. She and I agreed on support for the Ridgeline and Rio Santiago projects. We disagree on campaign contribution limits. You’re free to waste your time with pointless, self-absorbed bloviating, but no one is under any obligation to waste their time responding to you.
I didn’t say that you were “obliged”; I said that if you didn’t respond to an anonymous commenters attacks on someone with whom you disagree about the topic at hand, you give the impression that you are trying to have it both ways.
Now, after this comment, it looks a little less like that. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
The only one getting that impression was you, Greg. That should tell you something.
I thank you again for finally replying to the best of your ability.
Just giving you the bare minimum, Greg. That’s all you merit. And thank you for once again being the personification of unjustifiable smugness.
What a hypocrite. Diamond tells other commenters who won’t respond to their questions about CATER’s IRS forms because they’re anonymous, but then he obsessively badgers Matt Cunningham to comment on my comment!
Get a life, Greg. You’re such a ridiculous figure.
Your comment was stupid, wrong, and indefensible. I suspected that Matt would at least implicitly agree as to the last point. And he has.
If you want to discuss the topic of alleged sex trips abroad by political figures, do it elsewhere. It’s irrelevant to this blog. The OC blogosphere doesn’t revolve around you, Greg.
Did you mean to post this reply to a different one of my comments? I think that it belongs with the one where one of your thralls said that it was absurd to criticize Kris Murray for what she may have done on a vacation because it was a VACATION, after all — as if having been on a vacation somehow insulates her against charges of wrongdoing.
No, Greg. I replied to the one to which I meant to reply.
You, like everyone else, have opinions. Actually, you have far more opinions than the ordinary citizen, most of them loosely tethered to reality. I would suggest you buy yourself a pair of those Oculus VR glasses that have been in the news, but you don’t need a gizmo to immerse yourself in a virtual reality.
Greg can’t afford them
Evidence of wrongdoing, please.
Greg doesn’t need “evidence” – he just KNOWS!!
I didn’t purport to provide “evidence of wrongdoing.” I said:
“as if having been on a vacation somehow insulates her against charges of wrongdoing”
In other words, I’m attacking the preposterous suggestion made here that if Murray was on vacation with Disney’s Nocella that somehow proves that she did nothing wrong.
If and when I provide actual “evidence of wrongdoing” it will be filed elsewhere than here.
“I’m attacking the preposterous suggestion made here that if Murray was on vacation with Disney’s Nocella that somehow proves that she did nothing wrong.”
Too bad nobody made that “preposterous suggestion,” counselor!
Adam’s new hit piece is right up the with his other investigative tour-de-force about Jose Moreno not getting quoted in an OC Register article.
Really – is it news to ANYONE that Kris Murray and Carrie Nocella are friends? No. This is typical Adam Elmahrek trying to create the appearance of impropriety where none exists.
That certainly was indeed “a modicum of investigative journalism.”
(Synonyms for “modicum” include: small amount, particle, speck, fragment, scrap, crumb, grain, morsel, shred, dash, drop, pinch, soupçon, jot, iota, whit, atom, smattering, scintilla, hint, suggestion, tinge)
Maybe you should have devoted more than a “modicum” of it to the task.
On point 1: What did Tait say was his reasoning behind his vote on the taxi issue? Do you know and chose not to say — or did you not even check?
On point 2: ARC is an especially stupid and wasteful plan that was justified based on a grossly negligent (actually more likely intentional, but the former is easier to prove) failed projection of ridership into ARTIC. Of course Tait wanted to kill it, for reasons entirely apart from the Park Vue Inn.
On point 3: if the recommendations were not “well-reasoned,” then your point evaporates. (And plenty of staff reports in the past few years haven’t been.) One would sort of like to know whether you or your boss had any skin in that battle to get your nose so far out of joint. But, alas, your identity — and thus your motives and such — are unknown to readers.
You’re right, though — Tait was on the losing end of a lot of 4-1 votes before Eastman got ejected from Council, after 1000 of Kris Murray’s “Influence Church” members refused to support her in their early vote-by-mail ballots (presumably to make sure that Eastman didn’t outpace Murray, just in case Vanderbilt came in first.) You did check out the “first count” number from Election Day and see where they were from, right?
I wonder whose idea that surprise tactic was. Murray’s? Pringle’s? Yours?
“after 1000 of Kris Murray’s “Influence Church” members refused to support her in their early vote-by-mail ballots (presumably to make sure that Eastman didn’t outpace Murray, just in case Vanderbilt came in first.) ”
Wow, Greg. It’s amazing that you someone know how 1,000 individual members of Influence Church marked their ballots for Anaheim City Council. Did each of them tell you how they voted? Did you see their ballots? Do you know who each of these voters is? Do your amazing powers know no limits? Or is it there are no limits to your delusion?
Eastman outpolled Murray in Election Day voting. But Murray had an unexpected (based on polling) 1000-vote lead in early-voting. Check out in what areas the discrepancies occurred. Figure out how the word got out to so many people who were organized enough to vote early — but not others — to “bullet vote” for Murray alone. Consider what other explanations for the odd voting pattern are possible. (And, most likely, reject them.)
Go ahead, try. I dare you.
Of course I’d be happy to hear your alternative theories of how and why Eastman lost to her oh-so-supportive stable-mate.
The Amazing Greg Diamond has been able to divine which precincts Influence Church members live in, and that a 1,000 of them are Anaheim voters. Your paranormal mind powers are truly astounding, Greg!
Since you asked, here’s a PLAUSIBLE explanation for Murray outpolling Eastman that observers with a brain accept: the Tait-funded hit piece against Eastman targeting Republican voters (falsely) accusing her of lying about having the OC GOP endorsement.
Don’t be upset now, Greg. We all know it isn’t easy for you to accept that St. Tom the Kind funded lies about his council colleagues.
So why would that hit piece only have affected by-mail voters and not at-poll voters?
Have you considered it didn’t go to election day voters?
Oh, this is going to be great. Tell me, given the timing of the mailer, how they knew that the recipients weren’t going to vote on Election Day. Come on, be a sport and try to answer.
Kris Murray has been a champion of neighborhoods and the first to respond when residents have concerns. These attacks on her character are just wrong. Mostt of the people attacking her don’t even live in Anaheim., which speaks volumes that it’s all politically motivated.
Look at the annual reports the Annual Anaheim Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast Committee files with the IRS. Schedule O, Supplemental Information. Buried in this form is $3,500 for “Event Consultation and Labor.” No information on who that money is paid to. Everyone knows Tait’s council assistant, Mishal Montgomery, runs this event. She holds the committee meetings on the 7th Floor of City Hall. She IS the event consultation and labor. Who else would it go to but her? But she doesn’t report any income on her Form 700.
I love that Greg thinks he has the ability to demand someone respond to his ranting.
Classic.
On another note, I think this seals the discussion that Greg will never ever ever question VOC or anyone else in Tait’s pocket. The “reporting” here is just silly and to pretend it is anything else requires a beyond painful stretch of logic.
Says no one.
Says me. It’s completely accurate you carry a torch for Tait and his conservative allies. If you want a job at Tait & Associates, just apply already.
You almost have to wonder if you are on to something here. Why else is a democrat going to bat for Tait, a name with long history in the OCGOP? If CATER doesn’t pay, maybe he does?
Nope.
I support what the Mayor is doing on The city Council because he is opposing what, in my opinion, amounts to a criminal cabal. (Obviously our District Attorney would never bring charges, and if he did he would certainly fumble the trial, so that will just have to remain solely “my opinion” for now.)
Standing up against the ravishing of Anaheim’s resources for personal and corporate gain is one of the gutsiest things that I have seen in local politics ever, anywhere.
And he has repeatedly been right on the substance of his concerns, while the Council repeatedly presses ahead with blinding speed to get yet another dirty deal done before people know what his hit them.
And he has repeatedly, in the tradition of both parties at their best, been looking out for the little guy, The residence of decades a generation and more in the future, and the needy.
Of course I stand with him when he does that, even while I would disagree with him on a number of state and national and maybe international issues.
Of course the sold-out and the sociopathic (you can divide yourselves into the appropriate categories at your leisure) won’t agree, but that doesn’t matter: the numbers and the documents don’t lie – however much the verbal statements do.
I hope that that clarifies things, “Jack” who won’t use his real name here last he sully his real reputation.
Nothing quite as thrilling as reading the melodramatic swooning of a blogger who’s his own biggest fan.
Coming from you, “Jubal,” that’s quite the statement.
That doesn’t even make any sense.
Of course it makes sense, you looney-tune.
You swooned over yourself using a pseudonym, Jubal, which is pretty darn melodramatic.
Sorry, that is false. I did not engage in the chest-thumping, self-praise and continual assertions of self-importance that have been a hallmark of Orange Juice Blog almost from its beginning.
http://www.ocweekly.com/2006-04-13/news/who-is-jubal/
I guess we can see what your readers think.
Really? You’re relying on a factually-challenged OC Weekly article? The one that appeared under Paul Brennan’s byline – which was changed to Will Swaim a year or two later, because Will said he’s the one who really wrote most of it (and presumably is to blame for its errors)?
Weak. Very weak.
You can read my response to that hatchet job here: http://ocblog.typepad.com/ocblog/2006/04/i_am_jubal.html
And then you should probably stop obsessing about me and get back to work.
Credit where it is due:
You are finally admitting you operate on your own opinion and not the “will of Anaheim” or “will of the voters.” Glad to see that, it’s an important first step.
As for my name, please see Cynthia’s comments on targeting the muzeo. I am not inclined to share any more personal details about myself than I already have.
She’d be taking on funding for the Muzeo itself — which received City seed money and was supposed to be self-sufficient by now. She didn’t talk about going after any particular members of its Board. But credit where it’s due — that’s a high level of terror you’re expressing there.
We believe that you are protecting the interests of Anaheim residents, present and future — why doesn’t anyone respond to that last clause, anyway? — which, unlike their “will” (as expressed in votes), cannot be readily bought with a one-sided injection of 2/3 of a million dollars of corporate money.
People sure seem to be worried about our critique affecting the next election, though. Well, for some knaves, the truth hurts!
Please re-register as a Republican. You’re a disgrace to the Democratic Party
You’re funny, especially when writing on your Republican friend and ally Cunningham’s blog.
What has this council done that Mayor Tait didn’t do during his first three terms of office? I don’t see a distinction. In fact, the last four years have been the most responsive in years so I’m at a loss to understand the attacks on city staff and council.
Have you READ any of CATER members’ critiques of the City Council? You can find various of them on Orange Juice blog, among other places. Please do your homework.
There is only one known member of CATER who opines – Cynthia Ward
I count myself within that group for these purposes. That justifies the use of the plural. (As would anyone who you don’t know is a member of CATER because we don’t divulge it — because you can see what the anonymous character assassins do to my daughter, who has no dealings with CATER, and you can imagine what they would do to more identified members.)
And again I ask – what has the council done that Tait didn’t vote for during his three terms as mayor?
Correction. first three terms as a council member
Also, I’m only interested in comments from members of your group who live in Anaheim.
Are you saying that you only want to hear from Cynthia or Brian (and not me), or that your anonymous self thinks that it has figured out a clever way to get people to out themselves so that they can be abused by anonymous dorks like you?
Anytime you want to hear my list of answers to your question, compiled from my experience of being involved in most of Anaheim’s major fights since 2012, just raise your quavering voice and ask.
I raised my family in Anaheim and care deeply about my city. The fact that the mayor has someone like you calling his constituents names is appalling all by itself. So by your definition there are only three members of your group and only two live in Anaheim. That’s all I needed to know to disregard everything this group has to say. It reflects poorly on Mayor Tait that he is affiliated with people like Mr. Diamond.
I don’t believe a single thing you’re saying, including that you are a constituent, because you make it impossible to check out. It would be like my saying that CATER has 1000 members, but they all go by the name “Longtime Anaheim Resident.” I’m not calling Tait’s “constituents” names, I’m calling fictional characters fictional.
Well we know there is NO such thing as CATER beyond it’s two known members.
The climate change DENIERS the Non-resident attorney (practicing from his home???).
Face it Greg, you guys are a joke. What is the reasoning behind not having a place of business where you don’t sleep?
Gadflies is how we read you…………
“We” know? How “we” read? YOU DON’T EXIST! You’re a fictitious creation, claiming the solidarity of other fictitious creations. (Plus Matt and Dan, who might as well be.)
Your “we” is wrong about CATER being only two people. (Or even three.) But it’s not worth arguing with you, because you can lie, abuse, and defame without risking your own reputation.
It looks like we’re likely to win one of our claims against the City (from back when I was just learning the ropes with these sorts of claims. Once we do, will you admit that we exist?
(As for being “gadflies”: there’s nothing wrong with that. But ideally one wants to be not MERELY that. We’ll be there soon enough, if we aren’t there already.)
Enjoy your ACOC Bingo night on Thursday while we have a national expert on the climate change debate going up against three people who disagree with him. I’d invite you personally, if you existed.
“Who Is CATER” exists, Greg. I don’t know who it is, but he/she definitely exists. And you spend an awful lot of time responding to that person in order to tell her/him you won’t respond.
Can’t wait to see all those CATER members at the climate change fundraiser. I’m bringing my camera for selfies with everyone. How many do you think will show up to raise money to pay their lawyer?