Free Republic 2nd Qtr 2020 Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $83,176
94%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $4.9k to go!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by The Hollywood Conservative

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • GunGrabbing Orange County sheriff, Sandra Hutchens' long history of financial irresponsibility.

    04/05/2010 9:23:03 AM PDT · 14 of 15
    The Hollywood Conservative to orangeyouhappy

    Its a fairly well known secret that shortly after taking office, Hutchens went to the Orange County Register and asked them to stop covering her in a negative light....And they acquiesced.

    http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-10-22/news/the-voice-of-oc-norberto-santana-nick-berardino-joe-dunn

    “He did have a hot story he was following: That of newly appointed Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens’ stand-off with the Board of Supervisors. Santana’s stories about Hutchens aired the concerns of gun owners who had had their concealed-weapons permits taken away and pointed out instances in which Hutchens misspoke during hearings before the board.

    Earlier this year, he heard that Hutchens and Orange County Sheriff’s Department spokesman John McDonald were going to sit down with Register staffers. They were unhappy with the way they were being covered.

    “Stay calm,” Santana recalls one editor telling him.

    He knew something similar had happened a few years earlier with Mike Carona, the disgraced ex-sheriff. Reporter Aldrin Brown had shed light on the sheriff’s department’s prisoner abuse, excessive use of helicopters for personal business and misplaced crime reports. Carona complained in 2004 and was granted a meeting with the paper’s editors—Brown wasn’t invited—and, Brown says, the Register ended up running a clarification of one of his articles. Brown, now at the San Bernardino County Sun, told the Weekly he thinks the paper treated Carona, who faced federal corruption charges and was convicted of felony witness tampering earlier this year, “with kid gloves.”

    Santana says he was happy to meet with Hutchens about his articles. But the sit-down was scheduled for the same week Santana was set to go on furlough (mandatory, unpaid vacation). While on furlough, Register staffers were told they weren’t allowed to check e-mails, listen to voice mail, or do anything work-related from home. They were, for that week, not staffers.

    Santana asked if they could please move the meeting with the sheriff. He says his request went unanswered. When his furlough week came, he went Jeep-riding with his wife and son in the high desert. But Santana says that while he was away, Hutchens and McDonald had lunch with Register editor Ken Brusic, Knap and at least one other reporter. Neither McDonald nor Knap would discuss that meeting. But, Knap says, public figures regularly complain about coverage. “I always defend the reporter,” Knap says. “I always tell the public figure that if they want better PR, they need to return the reporter’s phone calls.”

    In an e-mail to the Weekly, Brusic says that the idea for a sit-down came up while he was having coffee with the sheriff. He asked if she thought the paper had been fair; she said that some of her staffers had concerns. “The meeting was a general clearing of the air—an attempt to keep communication open,” he wrote. “They had some concerns; so did we.”

    According to Brusic, Santana’s reporting was not the focus of the “wide-ranging” discussion, though coverage of the concealed-weapons issue did come up. Santana says he was told that former Register reporter McDonald had called his articles “too aggressive” and “unfair” without offering any concrete examples. When he returned from furlough, Santana says, he was told to “be fair” when covering the sheriff.

    “I’m not sure what Chris Knap told Norberto after the meeting, but an editor reminding a reporter to make sure all sides get fair treatment in our stories is pretty common advice around here,” Brusic says.

    But Santana bristled. To him, “be fair” was code for “back off.”

    “I’m sitting there, looking at an editor, going, ‘Have we ever not been fair?’” Santana recalls. “That, to me, was a death knell to my time at the Register. They have every right to run that paper however they see fit. But then I have to decide whether I want to work there.””

  • GunGrabbing Orange County sheriff, Sandra Hutchens' long history of financial irresponsibility.

    04/02/2010 9:01:33 PM PDT · 4 of 15
    The Hollywood Conservative to NathanR

    She is running against 2 PRO 2nd amendment, PRO CCW candidates, Anaheim Deputy Chief Craig Hunter and former Orange County Sheriff Lt. Bill Hunt.

    It is a non-partison runoff election. If NONE of them get 50%+1 of the vote on June 8, the top two vote getters will face each other in November.

  • GunGrabbing Orange County sheriff, Sandra Hutchens' long history of financial irresponsibility.

    04/02/2010 8:37:55 PM PDT · 1 of 15
    The Hollywood Conservative
    Election is June 8
  • A step backward for new sheriff (Sandra Hutchens of Orange County)

    07/24/2008 7:22:36 PM PDT · 34 of 34
    The Hollywood Conservative to EveningStar

    Hi Guys.... Its been a while since Ive posted here, and although Im still TheHollywoodConservative, I no longer live in Hollywood.... I live in Orange County.... One of the reasons I moved there was precisely because of the CCW policy down here.... And when I got here I found I wasn’t alone... Which is why the new Sheriff’s policies are so troublesome.

    Anyways. We are organizing together to keep Orange County FREE, and PRO CCW, and not “Los Angeles South”, and we could use all the help we can get.

    We have formed a political action committee to fight this, and in the wake of the Heller decision we think we’ve got a chance at winning with enough support...

  • Cheney may go, opening field for 2008

    11/12/2006 10:20:54 PM PST · 33 of 84
    The Hollywood Conservative to DuncanWaring

    If the Democrats go forward with the impeachment nonsense I think Bush should call their bluff. Have Cheney resign and nominate George Allan to replace him. He would have to get through the Senate, but I think he would... He cant be touched by an impeachment probe (he hasn't been part of the Administration), and he would END the proceedings before they began, because Hilary's entire strategy depends on running against an open seat.

  • Chris Cox for President.

    11/12/2006 9:15:01 PM PST · 5 of 12
    The Hollywood Conservative to watsonfellow

    Wont win his home State.

  • Dems pledge to sever ties to lobbyists

    11/10/2006 1:26:04 PM PST · 19 of 57
    The Hollywood Conservative to cripplecreek

    "Honest Leadership and Open Government"

    This has George Soros written ALL OVER IT.

  • Rush Limbaugh Has It Wrong

    11/10/2006 8:37:23 AM PST · 231 of 294
    The Hollywood Conservative to NCLaw441
    [quote]
    I agree with your statements above. The question then becomes, should conservatives/republicans modify their positions so as to enhance their chances of being elected, or should they maintain their conservative philosophy and values, arguing for same and hoping for a return to sanity of the citizenry?

    I support the latter course. What I disliked most about the democrat campaign was the absolute refusal to take principled positions on any issues, choosing instead to run on a "change" platform, without advising the electorate as to what kind of "change" was planned. (I think we know what change was planned, but voters don't seem to ask this question.) I hope that republicans don't modify their positions solely to get elected, but then, they are politicians, who see their job as doing what is necessary to get elected. If there is any reason for despair, that is it.

    [/quote]

    I say its the former... And you're not abandoning your principles. You're waking up to the reality that politics is a two way game. Constituents seek to mold their representatives to their way of thinking (this is after all a REPRESENTATIVE form of government) and representatives seek to convince their constituents of the rightness of their policies (this is called leadership). In the end, a successful politician finds a balance between the two. In the end though, you don't get to engage in either exercise unless you WIN ELECTIONS.

    EVERYBODY has to be willing to be flexible to a degree... As voters, we have to be flexible enough to realize that NO OTHER PERSON, not our parents, our children, our spouses or OUR REPRESENTATIVES are EVER going to feel EXACTLY the same way about EVERY topic that we do. We have to pick our battles. We have to know which issues we can give a little on, and which issues to fight on. And we have to know when SIMPLY SURVIVING TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY is a victory. For me, the biggest issue is general CONTROL of all three branches of government by Republicans, because otherwise we get ZERO of what we want, and worse, we get what we don't want crammed down our throats.
  • Rush Limbaugh Has It Wrong

    11/10/2006 7:58:04 AM PST · 214 of 294
    The Hollywood Conservative to Echo Talon

    [quote] The only person I can think of with Reagan's "likability" is Rudy(HE isn't a "Conservative" but he has "it") IF he can position himself correctly with States rights issues and such, smooth sailin'
    [/quote]

    Romney loses in a LANDSLIDE... He wont even win his home state against Hilary.

    McCain loses by a few more States than Kerry and Gore lost by. Namely because Hillary will likely win several states in the South (Arkansas and maybe Florida and Republicans CAN NOT WIN without sweeping the South.)

    Rudy WINS. And he KICKS HER &%$ ALL across America...

    MOST IMPORTANTLY, he wins New York... NO DEMOCRAT WINS without winning NEW YORK... It would be an early evening if Rudy is the nominee.

    Rudy is a native son of New York. Hilary is a carpetbagger. He will win the entire state EXCEPT MAYBE for Manhattan where he makes it real close if not a win... He wins the rest of the Burroughs, and all of Upstate. And doesn't get his teeth knocked in ANYWHERE in the state, which is enough for a win.

    Plus he forces her to BLEED money IN NEW YORK, which leaves less money for the states that have been "Battlegrounds" for the last two elections. Rudy wins Pennsylvania & PROBABLY OHIO. Rudy wins much of the Northeast except for Mass & Vermont. Rudy wins most of the Midwest except for Illinois & maybe Minnesota. Rudy wins most of the traditional central "red states". Hilary MAY pick up a couple of these, New Mexico & Colorado. But after losing New York, it doesn't matter... By the time those polls close, nobody is watching.

    Reagan won as a CONSERVATIVE because he was running against a FAILED LIBERAL. That is not going to be the case. Its an open seat... To win you have to move DRASTICALY to the center. 2008 is NOT the year to make a last stand on principles...

  • Rush Limbaugh Has It Wrong

    11/09/2006 11:11:55 PM PST · 108 of 294
    The Hollywood Conservative to Echo Talon
    Take a good look at that map...

    Thats EXACTLY what its going to look like on election night 2008 if we pick the wrong candidate...
  • Rush Limbaugh Has It Wrong

    11/09/2006 10:33:51 PM PST · 87 of 294
    The Hollywood Conservative to MaineVoter2002
    [quote]I hope he gets it. JD Hayworth is one of my top 5 republicans. Maybe top 3...maybe even higher than that![/quote]

    I'm not holding out ANY hope for this... On a night like that, where everything breaks against you, you cant expect to win the close ones... It wasn't a "we win some, we lose some" night.... It was a "If we CAN lose it, we WILL Lose it" night.
  • Rush Limbaugh Has It Wrong

    11/09/2006 10:27:00 PM PST · 73 of 294
    The Hollywood Conservative to ExTexasRedhead
    [quote]

    Voter fraud had a lot to do with close races. Until voter fraud is investigated and prosecuted, this will keep happening.

    [/quote]

    Im sorry... But there really isnt any evidence of this... And there just WERENT that many close races.

    Voter fraud has been going on for 200 years in this country. We held Congress for the last 12 DESPITE IT.

    This election isnt a SURPRISE... People from both parties have seen Tuesdays results coming for MONTHS... We lost close to 30 seats in Congress... Many by 5+ points or MORE... You dont lose in those numbers, by those margins because of voter fraud... We got our hats handed to us, and concentrating on self-deluding excuses like these makes us no better off for the next election.
  • Rush Limbaugh Has It Wrong

    11/09/2006 10:12:20 PM PST · 52 of 294
    The Hollywood Conservative to bybybill

    [i]We lost because the experts in selling stuff, the MSM lied about the war since the day it began.
    [/i]

    That's ALWAYS been the case, and that is always going to be the case... If we want to win, we can't complain about it... We just need to overcome it through a more effective articulation of the policies we support and the truth of the facts on the ground.

    Unfortunately, THAT'S what this administration has lacked for 6 years.

    In the end, when the people understand WHAT the goal is, they will support it... "Stay The Course" worked for the 2004 election... You don't get to use something that squishy twice. We won in 2004 despite it, which gave us 2 years to come up with a BETTER message or strategy that resounded with the people. We didn't. We lost.

    I understood why the President and the Republicans were defensive in his first term... The election of 2000 clearly didn't give him a mandate for ANYTHING... BUT, almost exactly 2 years ago, President Bush after winning re-election said "I now have political capital, an I intend to spend it."

    Well... Can anybody tell me what he spent it on??? Because that aggressiveness seemed to leave him after his second inaugural.




  • Rush Limbaugh Has It Wrong

    11/09/2006 9:44:41 PM PST · 6 of 294
    The Hollywood Conservative to Logic Times
    I agree 100%...

    One cant look at Santorum and Hayworth and Allan and say "They just weren't conservative enough to energize the base".

    They were the same, but the constituencies they represent changed, and they didn't change with them, so they lost. We are not going to be able to replace those seats with MORE conservative candidates. That will merely intrench the Democrats who won.
  • CA: McNerney, enviros take down Richard Pombo

    11/09/2006 9:21:36 PM PST · 6 of 15
    The Hollywood Conservative to SierraWasp
    I began my early career with Richard as an Intern in his Stockton office... Sad to see this happen.
  • Two Italians in European Parliament campaign for Israel to enter EU

    11/09/2006 9:19:47 PM PST · 3 of 20
    The Hollywood Conservative to Esther Ruth
    They'd be the only EU member with a sustainable birthrate.
  • Walls Are for Losers

    11/09/2006 9:04:23 PM PST · 65 of 67
    The Hollywood Conservative to Brad's Gramma

    I understand... I suspect I know the radio people you heard this from...

    Some radio is more relaible than others...

  • Walls Are for Losers

    11/09/2006 8:46:24 PM PST · 63 of 67
    The Hollywood Conservative to Brad's Gramma

    [quote]I respectfully disagree. Did you know that Santa Ana, CA, a city with a MAJORITY of illegals living in it, now has EVERY SINGLE CITY SEAT filled with a Mexican?

    Now I realize illegals aren't supposed to vote. But hey.
    [/quote]


    That is absolutely ridiculous.

    Lisa Bist- Mayor Pro Tem. Born in Hammond Indiana.

    Carlos Bustamonte- Councilman. Born in Santa Ana.

    Alberta Christy- Councilwoman. African American.

    Mike Garcia- Councilman. Born in Santa Ana.

    Joseph W. Fletcher- City Attorney- WHITE GUY.

    These people are AMERICAN.

    Many of them have Hispanic surnames... So do the majority of their LEGAL constituents.

    Are there a lot of illegals in Santa Ana? Yes...

    DO THEY NEED OUTNUMBER THE LEGAL HISPANICS IN SANTA ANA? No.

    Do the illegals need to vote to win a city council seat for a Hispanic? NO.

    I suggest you check out the biographies of these city council people... Some of them are a LOT more impressive than the biographies of the Republican Congresspeople who lost on Tuesday. No illegals needed to vote to destroy the Republicans Tuesday night... We did it to ourselves, and unless we learn the hard lessons, we will KEEP living in denial like the Democrats did for 12 years and we will end up out of power for at least that long.

  • Walls Are for Losers

    11/08/2006 6:33:33 PM PST · 5 of 67
    The Hollywood Conservative to cripplecreek
    Yesterday had nothing to do with Illegals voting...

    It had to do with us not getting our house in order a year or more ago.
  • Joe Lieberman for Secretary of Defense?

    11/07/2006 10:06:10 PM PST · 12 of 42
    The Hollywood Conservative to SevenofNine

    Remember... Lieberman won as an Independant... If he left the Senate, it wouldnt effect the balance at all.