Expected endorsements

Interesting that you list Rachel's maiden name. Is she starting to use it too? I would personally feel insulted if I were of Hispanic descent. She must really be feeling the heat if she feels the need to pander to the Hispanic community.

Why would any one be surprised that the Democratic club would do anything other than to support people who would provide more support for the Mayor. Van Johnson is a clone puppet doing the Mayors wishes at all times.Mr. Kelley, is one of only three Council memebers that will stick up for his constituents and ultimately for the City's best interests. why would it surprise anyone that the Party of Cut and Run Quitters would endorse Van Johnson and Tillman? As far as the Mayor's expensive taxpayer funded OP Phoney, this kind of giveaway of hard working taxpayer money is the basic tenet that this "party" follows, or would try to follow if reasonable Council members like Mr. Kelley were not around to look out for the City's best interests. If the Democratic Club is so generous with our "their" money, why not give it to the Mayor? He will find a way to squander it just like he has OUR money so far.

GEEZ!
It occurs to me that all the current council members are serving the residents of their wards well enough to avoid a return to our last decade's recall efforts.
If the majority of the voters selected them, and no segment of any ward is dissatisfied enough to recall any of them, the people have spoken. So be it.
The majority of the people in San Bernardino wanted and voted for Mayor Pat Morris. Nobody has mounted a recall effort to remove him from office. That clearly shows that, despite the vocal minority, he is wanted as mayor.
The same logic applies to all the current council members.
In some's utopia, everyone would bobble-head to your drum's beat. I prefer the diversity that enriches our lives on all levels.
The people of Wendy's ward have repeatedly supported her candidacy. They like the way she does things. The same can be even more emphatically be stated for Esther's seat. Neither would fare well running in the other’s ward, were their residencies swapped.
This year the people will again turn out and place their votes for whomever they feel will best represent their ideals in 3 wards.
The people in three wards will soon decide who will represent them for the next term.
The wishes of one ward are distinct from those of another, so it stands to reason that the preferred candidate of one ward not represent the ideals of another.
It's also salient to note the mayor's popularity, as expressed by his victory at the citywide polls, is reflected in similar, perhaps even quite alike, ideals from the majority of the councilmembers.
After all is said & done, the majority of The People voted for Mayor Morris - and the majority of the wards are represented by people who maintain the ideals of people who voted for Mayor Morris, too.
It is no wonder most councilmembers seem to agree with our current mayor. They represent the people of their respective wards - people who also are in agreement with the mayor - and have said as much with their voting power.
Last decade the situation was dire in San Bernardino. People were truly fed-up with their councilmembers in many wards. I, along with campaign treasurer Robert Rego and many other tireless community volunteers, worked almost around the clock for the recall campaign. I, and many others, stand ready to mount another recall effort, SHOULD IT BECOME NECESSARY, which it is currently NOT.
Rather than bemoan the evidence that:
1. The majority of our city's voters elected Mayor Morris.
2. The majority of our city's voters elected city councilmembers that are politically similar to Mayor Morris, further emphasizing the majority of San Bernardino voters' preference for that particular way of leadership.
Why not try working with your own city councilmember to see that the issues important to you are addressed?
If they are voted down, or disregarded, it is because we live by Majority Rule and The Democratic Process here and you, for now at least, are not wanting what MOST of us want.
I empathize with your frustrating situation, but badmouthing the duly elected leaders of our community is not a productive pursuit.
If the time ever does return when many folks regret their vote, a recall effort will again be mounted. You can rest assured of that. Until then, please embrace the reality that, at least for the time being, you are a member of the minority and therefore must endure bearing witness to the efforts of the majority.
Lastly, it's true in business and politics: Happy People Are Quiet People. There's a reason the same tired voices keep croaking the same bitter sentiments: The rest of the population is too content to bother.

Your Friend & Neighbor Supporting Local Community & Personal Betterment,
Susana Atanasova

Once again the rather verbose Ms. Atanasova seems to have missed the mark. It is not for the minority to endure and bear witness to the wishes of the majority but rather the constitutional right of the minority to hold that majority accountable and be ever vigilant and critical. The freedom to do so is what makes our democracy great. Additionally, I believe you may have confused contentedness with apathy.
Love Tabs.

Thank you for this opportunity to reiterate my well-placed marks, clarify your misconceptions and afford you a new opportunity to learn and grow:
1. I specifically cited Majority Rule for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the term, much less anything more complex, e.g., The Democratic Process; Declaration of Independence; Bill of Rights; or, United States Constitution, which I see you wantonly bandy about quite ~ well, in the interest of maintaining the bar, you bandy the constitution to such a degree that the following is provided for your own introductory education on the topics you have selected to write about as well as to provide clarification for anyone else unfamiliar with these important points. Before going any farther, please note that we are referencing the minority pools of voters in elections here and not pools of minority voters, which is a quite different topic. To be clear, "Majority Rule" is referencing the majority pool of voters in elections here, and minority pool is referencing the remainder - those smaller (minority) pools that did not have enough members to surpass those of the victor (majority). It has nothing to do with race, gender and etcetera.
OK! With that bit of housekeeping out of the way, let us proceed!
The United States of America is not just a democracy, The United States is a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy. What that means is that our government is designed to express not only the will of the majority (democracy), but also to simultaneously protect the unalienable rights of minorities and the powerless (the parlance just refered to race, gender and etcetera as "minorities" - I'm just trying to keep you on the path.). That is an extremely important point because it is the constitutional protections of minorities (Again, the parlance is indicating gender, and etcetera by "minorities" here), and the powerless that add civility, humanity, and decency to what could otherwise be a barbaric nation – democratic or not.
The "federal" part is one of three basic types of organization of power - unitary, confederal, and federal. Most nations are unitary in nature (local government with a powerful national government). There are no confederacies that I know of at this time (the U.S., under the Articles of Confederation was one; Germany and Switzerland have also had confederate systems in the past). Federal systems are common among large nations where several levels of government are needed. Australia, Canada, and Brazil are federal as well. Federations do not always work, such as in the case of the United Arab Republic.
The "republic" implies that we have a strong head of state (the President) and elected officials representing the people.
The "constitutional" part means that we have a constitution, which is pretty obvious.
Finally, the "representative democracy" part means that the people elect representatives to take care of legislative matters. Originally, the only part of the government that fit this description was the House of Representatives. Today, the Senate does, too, and in current practice, so does the Electoral College.
The mere fact that a nation has a constitution, is a federation, or is a republic, does not imply that minorities (Again, "minorities" here refers to gender and etcetera.), are fairly treated. It is the content of that constitution, and the values of that federation and/or republic that protects the rights of minorities (Again, "minorities" referring to gender and etcetera).
Note that a democracy, in the true sense of the word, does not protect the minority because, as I wrote in the earlier post, say it with me now: majority rules.

Please find the time to visit our National Archives and introduce yourself to our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution at:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/charters_of_freedom_1.html

Take all the time you need. View and review. Search and research.
Then, even if only remotely possible as some obscure inference, please cite the precise location that proves your belief that, as you wrote, “…the constitutional right of the minority to hold that majority accountable and be ever vigilant and critical.”
Please know that, as always, my intention is not to humiliate you for your display of ignorance ~ in this latest instance, toward our Charters of Freedom, though this does feel a tad uncomfortable, Tab ~ especially given the recent series of events that decency curtails me from airing at your expense here. Let’s just say it’s wonderful to see San Bernardino has a mayor that trims the inept and incompetent from the payroll, and that it’s equally wonderful to see you are still seeking betterment in your usual and inimitable way.
I wish you the best of success in this task, your newest endeavor, and as always, in your singular quest for betterment on so many levels.
Remember: Perseverance Brings Reward!
I’m always here in San Bernardino, rooting for you to the east and to the west, no matter what county you be in at the moment!
Oh! And your equally erroneous supposition that my appellation of contentedness for the populace is a confusion about the relative silence being a sign of lethargic apathy is also disproved, as recently demonstrated by the throngs at Ray’s Deli ~ and all those folks placing all those signs during Route 66 that caused such a stir in the Penman camp, among many other examples available.
What the world needs now is love, sweet love. So, though we not be neighbors in more than the most extended sense of the word and you’ve consistently indicated your disinterest in accepting by invitations that we try and resolve your issues toward me, I will sign as you did,
Love,
Susana ~ and I mean that in a sort of fraternal, “can’t we all just get along”, “life’s too brief for hating”, tone.

Oh Gods, Susana! Don't you EVER shut up????

Does anyone know what planet she's from?

Dear Anonymous "Keeping Tabs",
[Mr. Van Johnson's signs have been seen posted on SANBAG fencing at the corner of Cajon and University Pkwy/State St as well as atop a previously vandalized city sign post.]
Your observation would be most efficiently effective were you to visit San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters site at
http://www.sbcounty.gov/rov/current_elections/110607/candidatelist/CndFilCst.pdf
Click on San Bernardino Sixth Ward incumbent Rikke Van Johnson’s link to be directed to his website with many endorsements from the State of California level on down the list where the “Contact Us” page shares:
You may contact Councilman Rikke Van Johnson through any of the following mediums...

MAIL
Friends Of Rikke Van Johnson
P.O. Box 7753
San Bernardino, CA
92411

PHONE
(909) 725-1053

E-MAIL
thatsus@rikkevanjohnson.net

Just so you know, this time, in the interest of time, I went ahead and gave him the head’s up on the location’s you indicated.

[Wondering why the owner of this blog seems content to only criticize the Milligan camp?]
I guess it’s all in the perspective. I see it as an endorsement of Jim Morris’ attention to detail and dedication to doing all he can to better our city. From my perspective, the source of the problem was the clerical worker who granted permission to re-post signs where they’ve long been welcome without checking to learn her employer doesn’t own it any longer. From my perspective Jim Morris comes out with a testament to his work ethic and attention to details, and humility ~ not all attorney son’s of current mayors would be out there on their limited time off, I think.
[As for Ms. Atanasova, she seems to have more inside information about political signage than your average Bear, maybe she got her political start here.]
I prefaced my post above yours in this thread with a brief synopsis of my experiences in San Bernardino politics as a means of being transparent to any readers who may not know me personally, yet. Here is further detail:
1991-1992 After winning a federal fair housing complaint I submitted on behalf of 108 other San Bernardino households, I was asked to pull papers and did. I was the only candidate to receive endorsements from ALL the media. I received a generous in-kind donation of red & white rectangular signs. I placed all my own signs – and still recall the fright Frank’s Meats on Waterman put into me early one morning, reducing me to tears by gruffly telling me in the pre-dawn darkness that they don’t allow political signs to be posted on their property – or, they didn’t back then. I had already pulled my political sign permit – as I recall it was free, or at minimal cost – and remember it only requiring a description of the geographic area I would be placing signs, or having them placed. I did not learn about the need to have the permission of the property owner until that morning at Frank’s. I still recall that moment in time every time I take the children there for an occasional Icee-style treat.
I then managed the David Lara campaign against Eddie Negrete – who was later to become one of the infamous San Bernardino Four. It was at that campaign HQ that the out-of-towners arrived with the sniped signs, providing me much insight into the repugnant underbelly of campaigns. It was also while at that campaign HQ that the other unsuccessful candidate for the seat called asking for help against the Highland homeowner victor in the race for their runoff with the explanation that he had called the welfare fraud people and made an allegation of welfare fraud against me toward the end of the campaign so that he could canvass the ward with Sun headshots of my other opponent and myself over disparaging captions in an 11th hour attempt to win by smearing with no time left for rebuttal. As he cackled into the receiver, “I know you aren’t on welfare, but they MUST investigate every allegation they receive, so, you can’t sue me because technically, when I passed out those flyers you WERE under investigation for welfare fraud”. Then, he exclaimed, “That’s politics, Baby!” and proceeded to repeat his enthusiastic plea for me to help him in the run off. While I know I was the very best candidate in that election, by far, and that is why I ran. I also knew the Highland resident victor to be an infamous misanthropic misogynistic egotist, but it was better to let him in than Borich, by any means, so, I didn’t help as asked in that runoff.
[ Not only is she knowledgable of such behavior, but she then seeks to excuse it.]
You’ll never read or hear “excusing behavior” from me ~ there are no excuses, only solutions in my world. What my point is in reference to this post is that the office worker is the one that dropped the ball, not the sign crew members.

[By the way, no candidate in the 6th Ward has garnered even a 1000 votes in the last 3 elections so it would appear there are probably significantly less people involved in placing signs than she thinks.]
What I actually wrote was, “Anyone can place any sign anywhere. It's impossible for one candidate to control where 1,000s of supporters are placing - and replacing - 1,000s of signs. The logistics are astronomical.” At the time I wrote it, it seemed obvious that I was referring to the various camps citywide “placing & replacing” signs. Rereading the sentence, it is poorly constructed and I apologize for that. This sentence better conveys my message: With 1,000s of supporters for the various campaigns placing and replacing 1,000s of signs over a wide geographic area in any given election year, it is impossible to expect the candidate, already swamped with a candidate’s daunting schedule, to further be in control of where each sign for the campaign is at every moment.”
Bottom line: Each candidate takes out a city permit to place signs, each candidate signs a document stating they are aware of the city's ordinance governing their placement, each is accountable.
Tabs.
Accountable? Yes. In control? No. It is not possible for any one person to be in control of a vast number of anything spread over a vast distance. Especially when the additional variable of third parties is thrown into the mix. A sign may be ideally situated by the crew, then, along comes a bored and disrespectful person who unthinkingly acts on impulse to yank up the sign, walk a while with it, then, either toss it aside or plant it who-knows-where. The candidate is accountable. But, the candidate is not in control. Someone has to be held responsible, so the political sign ordinance in San Bernardino says that the candidate benefiting from the signs’ placements is ultimately responsible.