Chris Bunyan Drops Out!
BUNYAN DROPS OUT
Just received a note from Chri
stopher Bunyan informing me that he's not going to run for a city council seat this time around. That leaves only one "Chris" left - Chris McEvoy. Bunyan will be missed in this race - his mature, reasoned viewpoints have enhanced the debate in the past. And, Banning Ranch loses a champion.SIX CANDIDATES REMAIN - MAYBE
As it stands right now, to the best of my knowledge, the remaining candidates for the two seats being contested are incumbent Wendy Leece; Planning Commission Chairman and municipal carpetbagger Jim Righeimer; Chris McEvoy; newcomer to Costa Mesa Susan Lester; Jeffrey Chapman and someone named Chad Petschl, who apparently just pulled papers today!
DEADLINE IS TOMORROW
The deadline for turning in the completed packages is tomorrow, August 6th, so this roster may change if we have others change their minds.
Labels: Chris Bunyan, City Council Race
posted by The Pot Stirrer at 8/05/2010 03:21:00 PM
6 Comments:
So Righeimer is a carpetbagger despite having lived here for a few years and being heavily involved in city government, but Lester is a "newcomer."
Lazy Anonymous, I bent my "no anonymous posts" rule for you... is it too much to expect you to come up with a pen name? Geez!
Yes, that is correct! Susan Lester is a woman who professes to have a business in Costa Mesa and recently moved here - perhaps to run for council.
Riggy, on the other hand, moved here four years ago in the midst of Mansoor's campaign and was appointed to the Planning Commission although he got his paperwork in after the deadline. He is Rohrabacher's right hand guy - his campaign manager last time around and they helped Mansoor in his 2006 campaign. Yes, he's a carpetbagger... satisfied? Don't really care if you're not!
Apparently, it has not occurred to you that some people may want to send you a private message and so they post it anonymously. Either you have your rule or you don't.
Lazy Anonymous (I assume you are the same person who wrote the first comment, which is precisely why I don't want to have you use "anonymous") I was about to really rip you for not following the rules because I provide an email address if you wish to send me a non-published note. Then I checked my profile page and found that somehow, sometime, that feature got dropped! Arrgghhh!
So, I fixed it - there's an email address available to you now for non-published comments. All you have to do is go to my Profile and click on the link and fire away.
If you still choose NOT to use the email link and still want to send me a note that I won't publish, you can try to do that by just telling me you don't want it published - I'll consider it.
In this particular instance, I don't know why you didn't want your comment published.. you had an opinion and I published it - and answered it. That's the way it works.
No, that's not the way it works. My original comment was purposely sent as "Anonymous" because I did not want it published. This is one is being sent that way for the same reason. Not only did you publish my comment, you published my reply as well. The next time you get a message from another Anonymous that you are too weak to resist publishing, you'll publish it. You don't have an "Anonymous" rule, it's arbitrary, so stop stating that you do.
And so, your point is that I shouldn't publish anonymous comments... that's my plan under normal circumstances. In my last message I informed you that I thought you had an option - the email address on my profile page - which turned out to have disappeared over the past couple years - I never check for it but do get emails to the address, so assumed it was working just fine. It wasn't.
And here you are again, still "anonymous", yapping at me because I bent the rules in your favor - several times. I provided a way for you to communicate separately and you ignored it! Apparently you're somehow worried about getting the last word in. Well, it's my blog - I get the last word...
Post a Comment
<< Home