Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

CD 2- The Aftermath : The "Blame Game" begins...

Last night was a stunning rout for the "Big 2" carpetbaggers in the Los Angeles City Council special election for District 2. Burbank Assemblyman Paul Krekorian and former Paramount Pictures movie executive Christine Essel are headed for a dramatic runoff in December. The night was filled with laughter for some, but it was also filled with tears and self-doubt for others. As usual, it didn't take long before angry supporters of the defeated candidates started to play the "blame game"as to why the District will now be subjected to a runoff between two candidates that many neighborhood activists despised. Why did things happen this way? Let's review....

Paul Krekorian - Paul ran the best race. He was organized and his forces worked effectively for him. He made sure to get out the vote... both the mail-in and the polling place votes. However, he had to be disappointed with finishing with less than 40% of the vote. As an Assemblyman, he was the only big name politician in this race and would have preferred winning outright. Now he has to face a dangerous Chris Essel...who may be so overjoyed to have made the runoff that she might go raise a million bucks to take Paul down in December. Paul can blame repeated attacks from the other candidates for lowering his numbers, although, as a serial "Runaway Politician", Krekorian has his own behavior to blame for some of it.

Chris Essel - Many of the other candidates can point the finger of blame at Chris Essel. Although Essel stumbled badly at the forums and debates, most voters never saw those performances. They did, however, see the bright, shiny and happy mailers that arrived in their mailboxes week after week. TV commercials, robocalls from Wendy Gruel...Chris Essel showed that ...yes...quite often elections do come down to money. She had it. She spent it. She got the votes. However, she did get shockingly low results from her cash outlays. Chris Essel spent over 320K on this election...and got 4,104 votes. That works out mathematically to an eye-popping, mind-boggling total of about $80 per vote!! This has to be some type of world record. At least an American political record. If Chris is committed to spending this type of money to win a City Council seat...maybe she should just walk around CD 2 handing out $100 bills. She would definitely get a bigger turnout for that....that's for sure.

Tamar Galatzan - I got a terse email from Tamar Galatzan last night. She wasn't happy. That is easy to understand. She doesn't like to lose. Although I started out as vocal critic of Tamar, I eventually grew to like her and respect her as a candidate. She is tough, she is a fighter and she really wanted to win this election. She kicked some butt at the forums and debates and showed real leadership ability. However, she finished in third and won't be the new CD 2 Council Member. Not for now, at least. Politics is a cyclical game and Tamar has to understand that a defeat isn't the end of the world. I'm sure she'll win an election for something else in the future. Tamar can blame the other candidates for their aggressive attacks and criticisms of her as a runaway politician, but the biggest culprit in her defeat last night was that gigantic pile of Chris Essels money.

Mary Benson - Mary Benson did very well in the election, coming in fourth place. Not bad for a woman who didn't raise or spend a lot of money on her campaign. Mary can point the finger of blame at several things -- some of it just plain bad luck. The Station Fire, which preoccupied a lot of her supporters in the heart of the campaign, cost Mary a lot of time and energy. Mary got an endorsement from Kevin James, but it came very late in the campaign. Walter Moore tried to help her also...but it was a case of too little, too late from Walter.

Joe Essavi - Michael McCue - Pete Sanchez - David Saltsburg - Frank Sheftel - Augusto Bisani

I am lumping these candidates all together because none of them had a decent showing in this election. Pete got about 700 votes, but all the rest got under 500. It took them 500 signatures from District 2 voters just to get them on the ballot. If you can't get 500 votes in the election, then your support actually dropped during the campaign. Voter apathy was terrible. The 14, 525 votes cast was only 11.74 % turnout. Horrific.

Fans and supporters of the 8 who didn't win - There has already been a lot of finger-pointing and acrimony over the results. More people voted AGAINST Krekorian and Essel than voted for them. Unfortunately the vote was too scattered. Fans and supporters of Mary Benson and Tamar Galatzan have been heated on the blogs...saying how all the other candidates should have dropped out and supported one of them. It is an interesting idea. The combined votes of the 8 who didn't win would have totaled 5,422 if added together. Enough to claim first place and a spot in the runoff. Instead, we have 8 upset candidates watching from the sidelines in December as the two most-disliked candidates have a runoff election.

Many have suggested they should have brokered a deal before the election. Unfortunately, politics doesn't work like that. There are egos and emotions involved. The time for discussing that type of grand strategy -- and believe me, it happens -- was the first few days of the campaign. Maybe the candidates should have talked soon after they found out who was going to run from the City Clerk. It is often difficult to get candidates to agree to this type of thing. The last few days of the campaign was not the time to be discussing this, though. The big winner here was Louis Pugliese, who made it on the ballot, but dropped out immediately because he didn't see a way for him to win the election.

Eric Hacopian/John Shallman - The "Black Ops" consultants for each candidate. Hacopian can blame Shallman and Shallman can point the finger back at Hacopian.

Republican Party of Los Angeles County (RPLAC) - Yes, I hate to say it, but my own party shares some of the blame for this outcome. My God... it only would have taken 4,200 votes to get Joe Essavi or Mary Benson into a runoff election for a City Council seat in a District with 123,000 registered voters. RPLAC did send out an email asking people to support both candidates, but if RPLAC had a team of 200 volunteers show up and walk precincts and phone bank ... ohhh. It really hurts to think about it. Especially in this City where we are so outnumbered.

Voters of Council District 2 - Faced with the ballot choices between two horrible carpetbaggers and eight community members, 88% of the voters in CD 2 did not bother to vote for their new City Council Member ... a person that will probably influence their lives for years to come.

Sometimes in politics, you get the government you deserve. (And that's not always a good thing.)


Anonymous Anonymous said:

Milking the same story for ideas that you've already beaten to death?

September 23, 2009 11:51 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

It's all Joe B's fault.

September 23, 2009 11:57 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Phil, you "got a terse email from Tamar Galatzan last night." You were not the only one to get a tongue lashing from Tamar. Like her mentor, Jack Weiss, Tamar has no time for failures. She blames her campaign workers for not working hard enough, her supporters for not raising enough money, and the stupid Young Dems for once again not getting out of bed on election day. Oh, she also blames the lard butt supporters at the City Attorney's office for not doing enough to support her. She blames you for not moderating comments like this. She blames Kevin James for not endorsing her. She blames anyone and everyone for everything, and she takes no responsibility for her own FAILURE. She's burnt her bridges with the Mayor who won't waste another $2M on her next run for political gain, so she's headed back to LAUSD life, which she's already proven she doesn't give a damn about.
Best part about Tamar LOOSING is that it's yet another nail in the coffin of Jack Weiss's political career.

September 23, 2009 11:57 PM  

Blogger Michael Higby said:

And Tamar will face a well organized challenge in 2011 from a candidate who's willing to campaign and build an organization. Quit yer whining!

September 24, 2009 12:20 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Tamar and Paul have a deal: She endorses him for City Council with the promise that he runs for City Attorney in 2013 against Trutanich and he endorses her for the Council seat. This is real.

September 24, 2009 12:46 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


"Most disliked candidates"?????

Since when does getting the most votes make you "The most disliked candidates"?

Once again, you have proven that you know little, make that nothing whatsoever, about politics or elections.

For most of us, the "most disliked" title goes to your friend and compadre, another "wanna be and never was", the former Zuma Dogg, now again, a resident of Malibu, California.

September 24, 2009 1:19 AM  

Blogger bill eats at sizzler said:

Is someone upset? They should try the steak combo!

September 24, 2009 5:42 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Phil, YOU are the most disliked candidate to run for office in LA, since you got fewer votes for Mayor than any other candidate.

Check the records at City Hall. YOU hold that record. Maybe you can put that on your Congress Campaign website next to the place where you say you enjoy golf and poker.

September 24, 2009 6:53 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I would be upset too. It seems absolutely impossible to me that Chris Essel could get both more votes by mail than Tamar could total. I can't explain any way that could happen. It just seems impossible.

September 24, 2009 8:29 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

in 2 parts

Part 1

The analysis below is based on the polls released by the campaigns and independently as well as the actual election results.

As observers will note, there were three polls released prior to election day. The first, by Krekorian, showing him with a significant lead:

PK: 19%
Galatzan 13%
Essel 3%.

(The following excerpt is pulled directly from August 2nd memo released by Krekorian's pollster Goodwin/Simon/Victoria Research)

"What makes these poll results so encouraging for Krekorian is not just his initial lead, but rather how well he does after voters learn more about him and his opponents.

We read respondents a strong positive paragraph for each candidate (drawn directly from their current campaign literature available on-line) and asked a second vote question. Below we see the results: Krekorian’s vote nearly doubles to 33%, far outstripping Galatzan at 16% and Essel at 17%."

After negative information is read about each candidate, Krekorian opens up a huge lead with Essel's support "collapsing":

Pk: 38%
TG: 14%
CE: 8%

32% remained undecided in Krekorian's final push.

This accounts for the Krekorian campaign's belief that they would eventually win the election outright with 50% by obtaining 38% of the undecideds pushing them just barely over the top.

Election night obviously did not play out that way.

A second poll was released independently by Tulchin Research a few weeks later showing Krekorian with 23% of the vote to Galatzan's 16% and Essel now with 13%. This poll came out a few days after some of the Krekorian, Essel, Galatzan mail began to hit homes.

Each of the candidates seemed to grow slightly with Essel making the biggest leap.

The Essel poll released several week later and the one closest to election day showed a virtual dead heat between Krekorian and Essel with Galatzan a few points behind--all candidates in the low to mid teens with a very high undecided.

When absentees were released, Krekorian began the night in first place, but not as high as his poll predicted. Most surprisingly, was Essel who seemed to be making a late surge as she performed well with 29% of the vote. For Galatzan and the other candidates the night was over.

Most interestingly, was Krekorian's failed prediction by his pollster that he would break away from the pack and Essel would "collapse".

The Election Day vote showed the opposite. It was Krekorian who was collapsing. His vote went down from 38% with early voters down to 28% with poll voters. Essel also received 28% with poll voters--a tie--precisely what the Essel poll showed.

Galatzan finished with 15% of the vote among those who voted on Election Day.

No matter how Krekorian spins, this result runs contrary to their earlier spin and research data promoting their likelihood of a primary victory based on the notion of an Essel collapse that did not happen.

There are two possible reasons for this:

1. The poll is bad.

This is possible, but not likely. Even though Goodwin/Simon/Victoria missed the mark badly on behalf of Jack Weiss in the City Attorney's race, they are still a well known and reputable pollster.

2. Bad Messaging and Media

This seems more likely. The positive and negative scenarios described to poll respondents by the pollster was simply not executed well by his own campaign.

You see, polls are theoretical. They require a campaign media team to deliver these messages in believable and compelling ways.

September 24, 2009 8:55 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Analysis, Part 2

Krekorian's vote total on Election day was virtually the same as the Tulchin poll had him back in August. While he did perform well with absentees do to a concerted effort to turnout Armenians, his performance on election day showed his campaign was flatlining and not delivering an effective message.

The Essel campaign, which started at 3% according to Krekorian's own poll, grew substantially and did not collapse as Krekorian predicted.

Quite the opposite, the Essel campaign clearly won the media battle. Better message, better endorsements and better mail. Nothing else would really explain the Election day growth from earlier polling.

Krekorian might argue resources, but it appears (according to the Ethics website) he outmailed Essel almost 2-1. Krekorian was on television and had a substantial field campaign as well as being the beneficiary of Democratic party spending and a 2-week tv ad campaign by Felipe Fuentes.

All of the above is not good news for Krekorian. He began with a 16% point lead over Essel that has been erased and the leading female candidates are now gone.

Essel's trajectory is steep and the most predictable.

September 24, 2009 8:55 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Let me know when Phil posts his analysis of each candidate's fiber intake, their cholesterol, and other irrelevant things.

It's irrelevant what Joe Essavi and the other also rans think now. They're toast. This is just filler. Focus on something that is CURRENT.

September 24, 2009 9:40 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

It's real folks. Zuma Dogg is talking trade for his endorsement for another job he is unqualified for. Chief of Staff.

It's an amusing thought, IF Zuma hadn't chided every Antonio appointment for doing the same thing.

Meanwhile, he hasn't disappeared, and is blogging about a call he got from Essel. But a birdie told me that he is playing both side of the fence, seeing what he can get for his endorsement. So whoever he endorses, vote the other way. Would you trust any candidate who would have Zuma Dogg as their chief of staff?

September 24, 2009 9:44 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Essel staff are up early today, I am impressed.

One small point, what about Essel's own poll from a month before the election.

Essel 16
Krekorian 15

so lets see, Essel went up 10 points and Krekorian by 20, even though she outspent Krekorian 2 to 1.

September 24, 2009 9:50 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Just what we need, more handi=capping from Phil and the peanut gallery. I'm just glad it's over, dread my own race for Smith's seat, but to read the Daily News Editorial on election day, they said "judging from the mailbox and media, you'd think there are only two candidates in this race."

September 24, 2009 10:18 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Krekorian will win the next round, not by much but he will win.

Essel had to finish first with all her support (Wendy-AV-Big donors etc.), most of the outside folks will go to Krekorian in the next round.

September 24, 2009 10:34 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Apparently, the Krekorian spinners want to throw their pollster overboard.

--remember the one that showed Krekorian opening up a 38%-8% lead over Essel.

September 24, 2009 10:50 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Your probably right.

Essel was telling people at her CCA fundraiser that she is expecting to win the race in the primary.

September 24, 2009 10:55 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:



You represent the most fascinating aspect of political theater...the " I read it on the internet so it must be true" crowd.

I got a sizzler steak dinner for you if Zuma becomes COS for either office.

Seriously, he is unemployable...

Lets move on

September 24, 2009 10:55 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Krekorian staff spin spin spinning away on MS after their boss put up a pathetic 34% number in round 1 (less than jack!)

September 24, 2009 11:00 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Speaking of the Weiss/Krekorian pollster (Goodwin), it looks a lot like Krekorian is the Jack Weiss of this race. Weiss actually did better in the City Attorney primary against the other candidates than Krekorian did for City Council.

Weiss beat Trutanich by 20% with absentee voters and then finished with 36% to Trutanich's 27%.

Final score on May 19:

Trutanich 56%
Weiss 44%

That's about what I predict in this one:

Essel 57%
Krekorian 43%

Remember the last special election in CD 2 between an incumbent state assemblymember and entertainment executive....

Cardenas beat Greuel in the primary only to lose in the runoff.

History repeating itself.

September 24, 2009 11:02 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Paul will get all the anti-Villar voters, Paul wins in a landslide. Especially if Tamar endorses him. Even some of Mary's supporters say they'll work for him over Essel. Lucky Essel, she's got Phil Jendergoof. With Phil calling him a socialist and working for Essel, it will be a record landslide for Paul.

September 24, 2009 11:37 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The only relatively independent poll before the election that none of the campaigns paid for showed Paul at 23% and Essel at 13%.

Essel finished +16%
Paul finished +11%

Though, 8:55 is right about the election day vote. They were dead even on election day meaning Essel was closing fast toward the end.

Essel +15%
Krekorian +5%

September 24, 2009 11:38 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Essel was all but written off by bloggers. She ignored the Kevin James show and didn't particularly fair well at debates.

So, Phil is exactly right, it's not her performance at forums that mattered, it was her mail and phone campaign.

In that regard, the Essel campaign was near perfect. How else can you explain her fast finish? Sure she had money, but she started way below Paul and Tamar.

I think she's going to walk away with this.

September 24, 2009 11:54 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


I guess the Essel staffers are not good in math.

Paul finished at 35% which means Paul was up 12% (and not 5%) since the poll you where referring to Essel's 15%.

The bottom line is all the anti city hall vote now will unite against the only candidate who is not backed by city hall.

Lying about the numbers is not going to do your candidate any good.

September 24, 2009 12:15 PM  

Blogger Zuma Dogg said:

I am not playing both sides of the fence and any one who says, "Chief of Staff" is introducing the term for the first time to me. NO, I don't expect to be anyone's Chief of Staff. But it's interesting to watch you make something up COMPLETELY. I am NOT playing both sides, NO candidate would be able to get me to do anything that I do not want to do, no matter what is offered -- and you are just making stuff up out of no where.

The only thing you got right is that Chris called me, as she did all the other candidates and some other people in the community.

So from that...it's Chief of Staff. LOL! But I spoke with Chris on the phone, like I said, and although the statement I am about to make has NOTHING to do with my feelings toward her as a Councilmember, I sure am a lot more impressed with her as a person and executive than anything that came out in the forums.

So at least I admire her for her career as a business leader...WHICH I HAVE TO SAY SHE IS as a female executive at Paramount who was promoted up the competitive Hollywood ladder in the 80's when it was VERY noteworthy to be a woman in those executive functions. (She was the only female in the pack at the time among all the men.)

AND, as a business executive at that level in the highly competitive Hollywood business world (which is a lot more serious business than council clowns who don't care cause it's only public money), I feel she's probably a lot more on the ball in many areas than any of the clown-losers who just destroyed everything.

BUT, again...I have a lot of vetting to see how I feel it will translate as councilmember.

There's clearly a lot of baggage there, but I like her a lot more as a person, at least, after simply speaking on the phone than anything that came out during the fourms or in fliers.

September 24, 2009 12:53 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

LMAO! Which candidate is not backed by City Hall?

You mean the #2 Democratic State Legislator, Paul Krekorian is not backed by City Hall? The same City Hall that is full of former State Legislators (Villaraigosa, Wesson, Cardenas, Alarcon and Koretz).

Look, feel free to support your candidate, but stop with the blatant lies. He's backed by SEIU and a large part of labor.

Yeah, you're probably right the current liberal State Assemblymember backed by the big LA unions, whose campaign is run by the Mayor's campaign people, has no ties to City Hall. Right.

September 24, 2009 12:55 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 24, 2009 12:59 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

keep lying zuma!

September 24, 2009 1:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This race will be and always was about who's "least tainted" by city hall and Antonio.

Ironically because Shallman got his Times lackeys to claim that Essel is "the most independent of city hall," while doing a character assassination on Tamar and the hit piece about her mailing and Krekorian's ties to unions - but going soft on Essel's residency issue and her lame "I always knew I'd move back to the Valley" - people believed it. A lot of people only know that paper, the tv ads and flashy mailers.

This next round will be about them trying to tie the other to city hall and Antonio, whose sitings around both of them will stay scarcer than a Dodo bird.

September 24, 2009 1:51 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Only if Shallman isn't indicted by then. Follow the money.

September 24, 2009 2:47 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Watch how Zuma is now slathering on the compliments to Chris after ripping into her day after day.

Yes or No Zuma: have you discussed your getting ANY position on her staff?

You ripped into people day after day in city hall about their getting jobs in trade for endorsements. You said it over and over again.


We know you kept hidden the job you were alleged to have received from Nuch. You eventually had to admit it once you were told you weren't getting that job.

This is KARMA BABY! You are now in a position to get a job in exchange for your endorsement. State the facts: are you doing the same thing that you ripped into others for doing?

And stop the B.S. about how you NOW admire Chris. We all read your vicious posts about her and the others. No way to get around it NOW that it might put money in your pockets.

God, I hope that anyone who offers to give you a job in exchange for your endorsement loses. But if they win, like Nuch did, I hope that they screw you over like Nuch did.

September 24, 2009 3:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Jim Newton leaving right after the Essel endorsement raised eyebrows is no coincidence.

Nor is the fact that Tamar and somewhat less Paul were slammed in terms almost identical to Jack Weiss, to make the Shallman client's fabricated resume and credentials based on "hope" look good by comparison. Followed by hit pieces on the others, giving Shallman the 'good soundbite." Follow the money indeed.

September 24, 2009 3:18 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

It is clear to see that Mr. Zuma Dogg needs to clearly state that he did not discuss job offers with either or both of the candidates.

Mr. Dogg, if you can't deny it here, then people will conclude that you did discuss this.

It was me who told you not to sabotage your campaign by threatening to quit and I was right. Now I am telling you that if you can't give a straight answer, it will only come back to bite Chris and you on the ass and you will be proven to be a hypocrite.

September 24, 2009 3:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Zuma Dogg (and Mayor Sam), you should have a sort of "victory breakfast." In fact, we should do a silent auction on this blog for "A breakfast with Zuma Dogg anywhere in CD2." For this, the winning bidder pays the winning bid amount to a charity named by Mayor Sam. The winning bidder also pays for breakfast for two (Zuma and winner anywhere in CD2) and gets to discuss CD2 issues with Zuma Dogg. I would open the bidding at $20.00.

September 24, 2009 3:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Excerpts from a letter to DA Steve Cooley from Carl Williams

September 22, 2009

Hon. Steve Cooley
District Attorney
Via electronic mail: scooley@da.lacounty.gov

Re: Ethnic Preferences in D.A.’s Public Integrity Division

Dear District Attorney Cooley:

This letter to you, Mister Cooley, which I am also copying to my
esteemed friends in the media and members of the community, poses
serious questions about the manner in which your “Public Integrity” division chooses its cases.

Specifically, this letter asks why the head of your Public Integrity
division, Mister David Demerjian, ignores certain claims – including
very serious allegations of outright voter fraud – when the
perpetrators are members of his community / ethnic group. This
letter also asks why, in contrast, Mister Demerjian comes down so hard
on members of other communities, for much more petty infractions.

Demerjian has engaged in ethnic favoritism. At a minimum, this letter will raise serious
questions Mister Demerjian’s pattern of protecting his friends (and friends of friends), actions that have no place in your “Public
Integrity” division. I think you would agree that such a division
should be beyond suspicion.

It is widely acknowledged in political circles that the Krekorian/Hacopian machine plays fast and loose with the public trust. Specifically:

• As far back as 2002, multiple complaints were filed in a City of Santa Monica race stating that Mister Hacopian had forged signatures on absentee ballots.

• In 2006, no fewer than one-hundred six (106) voters complained about forged signatures on absentee ballots by Hacopian in a hotly contested assembly race, on behalf of Mister Krekorian. If 106 voters came forward, how many such instances went unreported?

• In 2008, after multiple voters in the City of Glendale again complained against voting irregularities and improper ballot
collection techniques by Mister Hacopian, the City of Glendale had to pass a law prohibiting campaign staff like Mister Hacopian from
touching any absentee ballots in municipal races. (Mister Krekorian promptly introduced a bill in the State Legislature trying to take away from cities the power to pass laws like this).

• Most recently, in the race for Los Angeles City Council district 2, Los Angeles city officials reported a ridiculously large, unbelievable, incredible (should be immediately suspicious) increase in absentee ballots cast by voters of one ethnic bloc. (We’re not talking a 40% increase, but somewhere around a 2000% increase.)

• Again in the Council case, it has emerged that Mister Krekorian was skirting Los Angeles city ethics laws and contribution limits by paying Mister Hacopian (it appears for his work on the City Council campaign) from Krekorian’s State Assembly account, another blatant disregard of ethical rules and another blatant legal violation.

These are felonies. That cut to the very heart of our trust in our electoral system...."

September 24, 2009 3:45 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

342, what makes you think that Mayor Sam's blog is a charity?

It's not. And it's not a not-for-profit, unless Higby has a 501(c)(3) corporation, which I highly doubt.

You can raise the money and just give it to Zuma Dogg if you like. But you can't take it off of your taxes as a donation, since the IRS cross-references donations.

September 24, 2009 3:49 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Why would you want to have breakfast with Zuma Dogg?

That'd be like having breakfast with Walter Mondale. Someone who got their ass beaten badly in an election. Mondale lost to one opponent. Zuma Dogg lost to SIX opponents.

Instead of a charade, why not just slip the man the money? He will be glad to chat with you over breakfast. That's for sure. He is an unabashed food moocher anyway.

September 24, 2009 3:51 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This was the same kind of shrill and desperate blogging that Weissholes perpetrated against Trutanich.

Where's Jack Weiss now?

The fact is Krekorian's campaign is in turmoil. He can't raise any money and has burned through multiple fundraising consultants.

Now they are lashing out to spin their losing cause. Krekorian and Weiss are two peas in a pod. If you liked Jack Weiss as your councilmember, you'll love Paul Krekorian. Another arrogant elitist lawyer who wants to run for City Attorney in 2013.

That would be his 6th run for office.

September 24, 2009 3:53 PM  

Blogger Red Spot in CD 14 said:

3:18 PM

Its all about that mystical wall of separation between the Editorial and News section at the "Old Gray Westside Hag On Spring Street".

September 24, 2009 4:02 PM  

Blogger Red Spot in CD 14 said:

Numbers to note from "Californians for Krekorian, 2010.


September 24, 2009 4:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Paul Krekorian and Antonio Villaraigosa share something in common: Eric Hacopian

Source: LA Ethics Commission

Date: 10/01/08*
Payee: EDH and Associates
Santa Monica, CA 90404-2790

From: Antonio Villaraigosa
1305101 - Antonio R. Villaraigosa for Mayor 2009

E - Payment
(CNS - Campaign Consultant)
[Period: 10/01/08-12/31/08]

Amount: $5,570.00

Who's the downtown machine candidate?

September 24, 2009 4:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Red Spot @3:18, that "mystical wall of separation" between Editorial and news is somewhat mythical, too; all comes down from the publisher who is NOT directly involved, but as in the case of Newton (who also went off "to write a book" a little over a year ago under a different publisher then was brought back now he's out) when they go TOO far...

It's true that Maeve Reston tries to be less blatant and more professional than editorial, but if you look at some her her stuff in the past 18 mos., falls short. However, even that little bit of attempt at balance has earned her the scorn of certain members in Editorial (like Greene) who have hitherto been absolutely shameless.

So if she or others in news dare expose the Emperor's lack of clothes even a little bit, they face backlash and ridicule which has a certain effect for those concerned about their future.

Speaking of a future: with the axe falling so fast and furious, certain news and editorial writers are known to be looking for their next job, toward those they're supposed to cover. That doesn't do too much to foster integrity; there are certain specific credible "rumors" involving current staff.

September 24, 2009 4:28 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Your an idiot.

Krekorian has one of the best put together political operations around.

I have worked with and against Hacopian and crew on multiple campaigns.

These are not people you want to face in some fox hold fight in CD2.

Only fools will bet against Krekorian winning in December.

September 24, 2009 4:45 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

About Newton's revolving door: the LAST time just last year he was off "to write a book" was also due to a disagreement over endorsements with the publisher at THAT time, Parks vs. Ridley-Thomas, Parks being the candidate of certain "downtown interests."

September 24, 2009 5:29 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

4:45 is delusional. All of Paul's fundraisers have quit--Renee Hatchwell and Rix and Bradford. Check out his report. Oh and what ever happened to Juliette Martinez--another fundraiser?

One thing is certain, there won't be any fundraisers in that "CD 2 foxhole".

I predict some creative fundraising and spending. Oh, by creative, I mean illegal.

September 24, 2009 6:31 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Phil You are a bleeping idiot. Republicans are dinosaurs in the Valley so whatmakes you think they would be factor in the District 2 race. And you are no judge of character. Tamar suffers from the same arrogance ans sense of entitlement that politicians like Mike Feuer and Jack Weiss suffered from. Mike got human after his defeat for City attorney in 2001. Mike underwent a transformation from the arrogant days onhe city council 95-01 and the blistering defeat in the CA race. After the transformation he was more palatable and easily own election to the assembly and re-election last year and is in ascendacny again. Jack;s another story camre fromnowhere, spent the most money (a la Essel) and won the CD5 race. Was arrogan throughout his tenure. Got smacked down in his attempt to move up to City Attorney. W'll see if he has a transformation. FYI its the end of s eptember and he still lists the city council as his work address on the state bar website. I thouhgt Paul Koretz occupied that seat circa July 1.

Tamar yet another story. An unmitigated bitch. Whether at the Anti Defamation League, the City Attorney's office or the School Board. It doesn't matter if you have the smarts; if you can't relate to people without a scowl and a sense of superiority you are destined to the wasteland of defeated politicians. They don;t teach charisma and humanity in law school or college. Its something you either have or you don't. You can't even acquie it from your spouse. We'll see if she has a transformation A little too soon to tell.

September 24, 2009 8:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Essel staffer.

September 24, 2009 8:15 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Since Paul is the endorsed candidate of the Democratic Party, its the death knell of Tamar's political future as a Democrat if she doens't endorse Paul and do so publicly (press conference) and enthusiatically (letter toher supporters) Let's hope she gets over her tantrum about losing for Paul;s sake and hers.

September 24, 2009 8:15 PM  

Blogger Red Spot in CD 14 said:


Are we talking this "Bradford"??



and this "Bradford"??


All this from "California for Krekorian in 2010".

Just wondering.....

September 24, 2009 9:12 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


"Creative", is that Shallmanese for not stealing from your client?

September 24, 2009 10:37 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

HA!!! Paul ran the best campaign? That's the best one I've heard all day Higby! Really? Are you kidding me? That is just your Krekorian loyalties pooring out and you must have gotten a commission to type that one. So by rallying up his Armenian community and pissing everyone else off, he ran the best race.... Or spending from his extra pile of Assembly $$$,....wait, what about his special interest money and his horrible interface with community members and his elite ego....oh, yeah, "GREAT RACE!" more like cheating scummy candidate!

-Support the Grassroots Candidates and not Paul who cheats, cheats, cheats!

September 24, 2009 10:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

HA!!! Paul ran the best campaign? That's the best one I've heard all day Higby! Really? Are you kidding me? That is just your Krekorian loyalties pooring out and you must have gotten a commission to type that one. So by rallying up his Armenian community and pissing everyone else off, he ran the best race.... Or spending from his extra pile of Assembly $$$,....wait, what about his special interest money and his horrible interface with community members and his elite ego....oh, yeah, "GREAT RACE!" more like cheating scummy candidate!

-Support the Grassroots Candidates and not Paul who cheats, cheats, cheats!

September 24, 2009 10:47 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Sheftel had an office for 9 months, a staff, some money and got 441 votes? And Bisani, what was his real intention, PR for some future undertaking? 160 votes? Why did so many keep slogging away taking time and votes away from those who might win, ego? They cancelled each other out and helped make it about money.

September 24, 2009 11:12 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

10:42 and 10:47

Apparently Shallman is up late, and it appears he is drunk.

September 24, 2009 11:31 PM  

Blogger Zuma Dogg said:

September 24, 2009 3:24 PM

You are insane. What kind of liar are you trying to be.

I have not discussed any job with any candidate. Anything I have said and done has been out of my own interest. If that changes, I will let everyone know.

I'm not reading every comment on this blog, so I can't be expected to see or respond to everything, but I happened to catch your crybaby stuff. If you have a question that requires a response email it to me.

AND YES, you knew that I was retiring, because I posted it on my blog and now you are trying to make it sound like you predicted something, which you only read on my blog, then completely took out of context and turned into a lie.

That's what you do, you flat out lie.

SO TO CLARIFY: Yes or No Zuma: have you discussed your getting ANY position on her staff?: NO

You ripped into people day after day in city hall about their getting jobs in trade for endorsements. You said it over and over again. (No, I rip into the process of using commission appointments as political paybacks and leverage as Villar does. As in pressuring someone to drop out of an election campaign in exchange for a position. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE? I'm not sure you will be able to.


September 26, 2009 12:27 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home