Friday, October 31, 2014

OC Register Shifts Position On Measure O?


In one of the most contentious election seasons I can recall, where friends are pitted against friends, family members against each other and vitriol has reached new heights - or lows, depending on your viewpoint - today there was another twist.


Earlier this month the Orange County Register Editorial Board opted to support Costa Mesa's Measure O, the bastard child of Jim Righeimer's soundly defeated Measure V from two years ago.


We here at A Bubbling Cauldron have been unwavering in our rejection of this bogus document, and have cited our reasons many, many times.  We've followed the creation of that document, attending almost every meeting and watching the interaction of the Baker's Dozen of residents - the stacked deck - who crafted it.

When the document was finally blessed by the City Council I was disappointed, but not unhappy, because within it are some fatal flaws that should make EVERY voter pause before marking their ballots.  Sections 104 and 806 provide an open door for mischief at the very least and flat-out corruption if carried to an extreme.  They potentially lay waste to citizen's rights without the nasty old protections currently provided to us as a General Law City.


Today, in print, the Orange County Register listed it's endorsements and among them they recommend a NO vote on Measure O.  I have gone online and have reproduced the entire list of endorsements so you'll have the proper context below.
Measure O is a dangerous and unnecessary document and should, once again, be soundly rejected by the voters of this city.

Labels: , ,


Blogger Joe said...

Regarding the Register- Even a broken clock is right twice a day..

10/31/2014 07:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Terry Koken said...

Delenda est Karthago!

10/31/2014 07:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Terry Koken said...

And while you're at it, vote similarly on arithmetically-challenged Jimmy (a tool for forced entry) Righeimer!

10/31/2014 07:43:00 PM  
Anonymous CM Resident said...

Obviously a misprint. If you went online, as you allege, you'd see that the Register's position is YES on O:

Will you correct your post?

10/31/2014 11:05:00 PM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

Nothing to correct. I provided you with the latest information with the most date stamp on it. The print version today said "No". This online version says "No". An earlier version said "Yes". Besides, it's irrelevant. The only thing that counts is what the voters of this city say when they cast their ballots.

10/31/2014 11:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Casual Viewer said...

The Saturday edition of the Register (print version) also has No on O. Take that, CM Resident! Why should this blog be changed if the Register is still printing No on O?

11/01/2014 07:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Arthur Nern said...

Maybe the OCR is just trying to be a liar like Riggy- say one thing today, then the opposite tomorrow.

11/01/2014 08:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Atlas Shrunk said...

Confirmed that the printed edition recommended Righeimer, Ramos, and NO on O.

11/01/2014 01:00:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home