Suja Lowenthal has only one interest in mind: Suja Lowenthal. Now that she has lost the Lowenthal political machine, she will attach herself to anyone that can move her political ambitions forward. Currently, it appears to be Mr. Garcia. Her current state of political desperation and rapidly fading popularity, coupled with her clear inability to do any heavy lifting when it comes to the affairs of this city, makes her particularly problematic. To what degree Robert Garcia is able to recognize it?

Pat B: I must respectfully disagree, at least in part.

We can readily extrapolate from current and past public policy challenges, what we are most likely to be facing in the coming four years, most especially in the area of fiscal, public safety and public health policy.

I think those three are and will remain the biggest challenges we will face for the next four years and, indeed, beyond.

If we can draw those reasonable conclusions, our candidates for public office should be able to do so as well and then describe what they feel some of our responses to those challenges should be.

Your point is well-taken that candidates should also be able to communicate overall challenge response and mitigation approaches and strategies. With good strategies tend to come good responses, regardless of the challenge.

While we can ask Mr. Garcia (and the other candidates) where they stand on specific issues, the reality is that no one knows what the issues will be over the next four years.

It is important that we elect someone who appears to have a well thought out decision making process, not just that we happen to agree on the 3 issues we asked him about.

How about everyone (anonymites and real namers alike) just getting back to the primary topic: Robert Garcia's candidacy.

Dave: Thanks for the iteration. I clearly understand each of your points.

Good Govt: Wow, that’s quite a treatise!

Were “Professional Ethics, various Codes of Professional responsibility and the Constitutional Law protections” more closely adhered to, especially among some of our elected and appointed officials, we would all have a lot less to talk about and far fewer public policy challenges in our society.

Some in the law enforcement community jokingly refer to crime as “job security”. If we ever created a “Professional Ethics and Codes of Professional Responsibility Police Force” I feel certain they would never…ever…have any lack of work to do.

Likewise if there were prisons for only those sorts of violators; we would never be able to build enough of them to house all of the convicts.

I think we can hold our elected and appointed officials’ feet to the fire without resorting to videotaping candidates making specific promises and assurances (and good luck getting then to agree to that in any case). They’re already very much on the record each time they speak publicly and they know that very well. Attentive citizens and responsible media representatives like DW are very good at pointing out the occasions when candidates fall short of their various assurances to us.

What’s lacking is not “accountability” so much as fair and reasonable “consequences” for failure. Our officials are very much “accountable”, that is, they are required to give an accounting of what happened and why and they usually do so. But that’s pretty much where it ends. We, the electorate, do not follow through and visit appropriate “consequences” on our officials for their failures or oversights or poor judgment or fiscal irresponsibility, etc, etc, etc.

Thus the failing, ultimately, is our own, for not voting intelligently in the first place and then, later, in not applying consequences for public policy failures when they occur. If we own a corporation and a manager of one of the divisions fails to meet his or her job requirements, we fire that person and hire another who will do so. We do not do that with our elected and appointed officials, but we should.

To put this in the simplest terms: We, the electorate, are the owners of a municipal corporation called “The City of Long Beach”. Our elected and appointed officials are, in essence, the Board Members and Managers we permit to represent us in running our corporation.

In a Representative Republic (which we are), we, the owners, **never** relinquish any of our responsibility to set public policy priorities and goals for our corporation. We simply delegate to others that we freely elect (Mayor, Council, Auditor, Clerk, Prosecutor, School Board, RDA Board and, through them, appointed Department Managers and various others) some of the authority for assuring that our priorities are followed and our goals are achieved.

When we, the owners, fail in our various responsibilities of self-government (to set clear and reasonable corporate priorities and pragmatic and achievable corporate goals; to communicate our directions clearly and often; to carefully monitor our Board and Managers for full compliance and to impose reasonable consequences upon them when they fail or perform poorly), those who we elect and appoint to represent us will happily carry on, on their own, without our direction.

When this occurs and when we fail to correct that behavior, the perception builds (both within them and within ourselves) that the ultimate responsibility for running our corporation is truly theirs and no longer ours. Left unchecked, this misperception of “who is ultimately in charge” of our corporation becomes both systemic and extremely difficult to reverse.

We can see the symptoms of these attitudes and circumstances all around us: In increased voter apathy; in less public participation in policy debates; in the less-than-stellar performance of some of our Board Members and Managers; in the clear and increasing lack of responsiveness from some of those we elect and appoint to represent us.

Look at the City of Long Beach Organizational flowchart. We, the electorate, can be found at the top, precisely where we should be. Some of the authority for running our corporation is delegated downward to elected officials (Board Members) and, through them, to the other officials they appoint on our behalf (Managers).

This delegation of “authority” is necessary to orderly day-to-day corporate operations.

But the “responsibility” for directing and running our corporation cannot be delegated. It is ours and we must never abdicate it to others.

This responsibility can, indeed, sometimes be extremely difficult and complex to live up to and a very heavy burden to sometimes bear. But it’s within that responsibility that our power and authority as a free and consensually governed people truly resides.

It is a responsibility, an authority and a power that so very many others around the world hunger for and strive toward and risk their very lives to get here to share in.

It is a responsibility, an authority and a power that we, the people, must therefore cherish and never…ever…squander.

We must: vote responsibly; set clear and reasonable public policy priorities and pragmatic and achievable goals; communicate our directions clearly and often; carefully monitor our elected and appointed officials for full compliance, reward successes and impose reasonable consequences upon those officials when they fail or perform poorly.

We must do *all* of these things, ladies and gentlemen, and we must do *all* of them *all* of the time. These tasks are not always “easy”. But they are, at the end of the day, crucial to our “corporate” well being.

Let's talk real politics: I feel like I don't have a sense of Garcia on issues that impact LB residents in District 1, such as improvement in some of the more impoverished neighborhoods in the district, his thoughts on downtown development, and what he feels about the rights of workers in the downtown hotels. If he is anything like Suja, which I think he is, I predict that he certainly will be all talk and no action.

Hey JohnB... The point sI'm trying to make are these. 1. Posting anonymously is fine, but in my opinion not as effective as posting under one's real name; 2. For someone to compare the signed essays on this website to bathroom graffitti while posting anonymously doesn't make sense; 3. We demand that our stories and essays be signed, as you know from the time we printed yours. That is all.

Gentlemen,

We need to view many of these issues in the context of Professional Ethics, various Codes of Professional responsibility and the Constitutional Law protections concerning Privileged communications, or, the contracts of employment many of us have or are a Party to, and the rights and privileges of our sources..

Being able to give a Reporter important information on background is a time tested means of helping provide better government and better functioning Democracy.

How many of us vividly recall living through the day to day events of President Nixon's watergate scandal and National disgrace?. If you weren't there, it was educational. How many books were written, over the decades, because Woodward and Bernstein did the Ethical thing by fiercely protecting the anonymity of their sources? Better yet, how many good reporters have kept their promise of confidentiality, in the face of a State or Federal Subpoena, and thus served a few months to make a point about their Journalistic integrity?. Why shouldn't the same ethical standards apply here ?

If you are not willing to accept information given to investigate a story, or which is being leaked in the interest of justice, I guess somebody needs to make an Editorial decision not to print every comment until the facts are vetted or some credibility judgement is made? Several of us thought that many of the posts here were inside dope that they, or their clients and associates , or others, wanted out in the debate, to cause further inquiry or consideration by the readership.. Also, I know for a fact that many posts here have been made in furtherance of a few pending investigations or during the process of proposed or pending litigation or charges. Of course, most of this should proceed in the Public Interest, with respect to every persons rights, in the interest of better governance, and of course fairness..

Next is the issue of Organizational opinion. I would encourage any and all to speak for the consensus among any group, cause, organization or entity which they work with or for as best they can. Doing so fosters free and fair debate and is in the interest of full and fair disclosure, which is a Fundamental Right. Also, it seems productive to reveal the facts, files and findings culled from public records here. Many do that. It is hard work, but enlightening.

Also, several of us are well aware of the fact that sources from Government, City Hall and elsewhere float or break stories here. This seems like a wonderful means to get to the truth. Some of the juiciest stories seem to spring from beneath the veil here? That is fun when it is going on too.

Some of the best content here seems to come from people posting facts which are easily confirmed with a little further investigation, or opinion which is readily ascertainable by following up with the parties or sources. Also there is the issue of some people runnng the risk of losing a job, or a position, and the risk of harming a business, clients, friends or sources. Sadly this town often has truly fine people who will tell you what is really going on as they beg you not to 'out' them because they are certain that they will lose their job, or never a raise or a promotion.

It takes bravery and dogged determination to fight many of the fights that we hear about here, but a wise man must often be discreet as to when and where certain people step to the mike, if ever. Part of this is often the professional judgement of experts trying not to try too much of a case or cause in the media prematurely. Many teams work ths way.

Often the goal is not to hand ammunition to an adversary, but of course, some people have been known to donate some rope for the bad guys to consider hanging themselves with? Or to help them shoot themselves in the foot. Joking of course. Nothing Malum In Se here, nor Prohibitum.

Clearly this town also has a long history of a connected minority trying to spin and spin their narrow agenda, against the majority. A key component, is secrecy. Halftruths. False facts. Damnable assumptions or biased or skewed statistics. The Animus is often greed or power, and of course, ego.

Quite common with some of the Old Guard here and there, seems to be this old game of running the bad guys ball in the dark, to the detriment of the majority, or the masses, or common sense , good government , ethics and the law.. It is shameful when we see anybody merely offering 'some' process, by obfuscating true Notice and Oportunity to Respond, rather than true Due Process. I know that many folks here understand this . This is good. Certain Officials, thank God, seem to get caught trying this again and again downtown. A big problem is this new practice of 'Secret Counsel Committees' and sequestered Department Heads. Review the Amerigas fiasco, where Councilpersons were left in the dark about matters in their own District, until the latest possible moment. And Staff had to grudingly admit that they had quietly worked on certain deals for 18 months without letting their colleges or constituents in on it? Politicians have lost there job for one such stunt, let alone many.

Let's hope that this fine paper can maintain it's best sources, so that we all, can gain knowledge of the true facts, as we investigate over time, or so that we can better glean the weight of any minority and majority opinion or consensus. Hopefully proceed with our eyes open, and with a little more well deserved transparency? Thankfully, there are many fine Officials and Staff who 'get' this, and are helpful.

Of course, with the net , and at times elsewhere, we seem to live in a world of ever diminishing expectations of privacy. But, everybody holds a range of personal privileges in America and nobody we work with has ever had a problem with that.

Many also use this paper, and other sources, as a basis to request or demand full and fair disclosure, and, to encourage all others to do the same.

Often, some of these opinions here derive from the tenants or group sentiment of many Associations, Groups, or teams. Often, it is too time consuming to get a bunch of people to review, edit, and sign a memo or opinion piece, but anyone doing just a little checking, can readily confirm the unanimity, or consensus behind many postings, or a well known mission statement's goal, or philosophy..

Finally, it is really easy for many of us to respond to a request to confirm or deny a fact, or to help direct you to a file, or person, or group or source. if it is confidential, or if we are not the holder of the privilege, it is easy to use the Editor to arrange to meet off line. Some of us let our range of Lawfirms also help us here. If anyone wants their name or group or clients or friends protected, I hope that this will be respected. If not, a lot of good sources will dry up, or go elsewhere in all probability.

Given the above, we all can better vet or get to know the District 1 Candidates here if known and unknown voices participate. Several of us will be asking questions for entities and organizations, and could use this resource to do a better job during upcoming interviews. Also, party Officials have been known to use this site, anonymously. It helps frame the debate.

Here's what some think might be wise. One of our best team paralegals worked on huge cases in New York, with the leading firms and the Mayors, Congresspersons, and all. Their team got tired of cameleon Politicians saying what they needed to to get elected. They began getting candidates to make specific promises in writing and on videotape. If they got elected and started wiggling and waffling, and boy Long Beach has WAY too much of that, they would use the documents in the media and elsewhere to vivisect the liar, and play'' Kill The King''. a cagey way to see that ''He rules no more''. Just a suggestion.

If these guys are bonafide 'Progressive', maybe we should draft a few documents and insodoing elicit a few assurances and promises?

Also, please tell everyone that you know, who becomes frustrated trying to get better, less biased, or balanced coverage, or at times, at least some semblance of a fair shake, to never hesitate to call the LA Times .. Over the years they have seemed all too happy to question or find error in certain Policies or practices which occasionally transpire in this City , or the Editorial slant of it's main paper. Simply get to know a few reporters over time. Most people we know downtown are great, but in the past, the Times has helped quell a witch hunt or two, or expose a wrongdoing or two.

The DW is a wonderful counterweight and venue. It might be wise to firmly establish an official confidentiality policy so that anyone can better protect their friends, clients, businesses, positions, sources , livelihood, and their name , reputation or likeliness

Finally, many are assembling probing, tough questions for all of the candidates as we speak. Time to get back to that. Feel free to help by posting as many questions as you have, or send them to a double fine dude, Dave W. Ain't he great?

Also, Kudos for the fine work by Mr McCabe and Mr Ruehle, and John B. Hey John, stay anonymous, you're just fine as you are.

Hello GG4,

I agree anonymity is protection for people to provide information that otherwise would never have been made public. However, that same protection is unfortunately used by other people who chose to state lies and insults about others without providing facts. Calling someone names such as childish, asinine or a Flintstone under cover of anonymity is cowardly. If a person feels so strongly to make such statements, they should stand behind it by providing their real name.

Hey John B. I think I have posted under an alias, but I don't think it's been more than once or twice. In fact, the only time I can remember semi-clearly is something I wrote in response to one of your comments. But I dont even remember when that was. If you know, let me know. Personally, I would prefer if everyone posted under their real names, but apparently that preference just shows my age. However, I don't really get offended by it except in situations where I believe it is irresponsible or contradictory. For example, in a string of comments about the Long Beach animal shelter, some anonymous person encouraged people who "hated" an animal control employee to get on line and hurl insults. I found that cowardly and malicious. In this situation, some anonymous person takes issue with the perspective of Jim McCabe---who did not post anonymously---and compares his essay to graffitti written on "the chalk room of the boys bathroom." I'm not saying this person doesn't have the right to post anonymously; I'm just pointing out the difference between what he or she did and what McCabe did ... and offering the opportunity to be featured more prominently, along with a signed and real name.

Dave: Thanks for the response. According to Disqus, you appear to have used several aliases while posting…but please don't misunderstand me. I have no problem, whatsoever, that you have done so.

It’s entirely your prerogative, just as it is (supposedly) the prerogative of others to do so, at least as DW is currently set up. My issue is that *you* take issue with others for doing so, having apparently done so yourself. I don’t believe it’s particularly even-handed of one to take others to task for actions they, themselves, have engaged in, whatever their motivations might have been.

I'm not much of a fan of the double-standard. Nor, I notice, have you expressed a willingness to cease employing aliases as I invited you, in my last posting, to do.

It’s entirely your choice to employ aliases, Dave, just as it should be the choice of others…and just as you should be able to do so without being judged for it, so also should they.

As for me, I think I’ll cease the use of this moniker (the only one I’ve ever used for posting here) and start using my true name. Like you, my preference is that all folks do so but I can’t very well ask others to do what I’m not willing to do myself.

Having been the target of personal insults from time to time by unanimous individuals too cowardly to post their names, I fully agree with Dave’s position. A person posting their real name tends to maintain a greater level of respectful discourse. Anonymity, though necessary in some cases, also allows cowards to post ugly insults that do little to add to the opinion threads. Anyone who wishes to not remain respectful should be called out to reveal themselves rather than hide behind a false name. People who post and stand behind their names carry more respect in my book.

Mike: Having been the target of personal insults from anonymous sources myself, both here and elsewhere, I completely understand your sentiments.

But the cold hard reality is there are cowards in the world. There always have been and there always will be.

Private citizens have a right to remain...well...private...if they choose and as we've seen, people are sometimes willing to say things anonymously, here and elsewhere, that they likely would never say if they were required to reveal their true identities.

Despite that in that circumstance we would all likely - and blessedly - be spared a lot of abject nonsense from some of those who post here anonymously; I feel certain that we would also lose a good deal of pertinent information and competent and knowledgeable opinion from many legitimate sources as well.

Personally I’m more than willing to suffer the former among us to be assured better access to the latter.

I suspect this, in fact, is why DW is set up the way that it is. So they (and we) can, as best as possible, capture the sum total of available sentiment and information on a given topic and allow the readers to lend whatever weight to all of it that they care to.

Besides, this approach (anonymous submissions) tends to be far more interesting and entertaining. “Interesting and entertaining” garners readers who, in turn, hopefully see, read and provide custom to the various businesses that pay to place ads both here and in the printed publication.

DW’s a news, information entertainment and opinion forum, certainly. But it’s also, at the end of the day, a business.

So don’t fret the cowards overmuch, Mike. They will always exist and their anonymous comments, here and elsewhere, reveal their ignorance and ultimate insignificance far better than a requirement to reveal their true names ever could.

Hello "A." First of all, thanks for the "click" on our website. Second of all, "the chalkboard in the boys' bathroom"? Not sure I'm familiar with that particular accoutrement. Third, if you ever reach the point where you can compose a literate and reasoned essay that adds to the discussion of political issues in Long Beach---and sign your real name to it---The District will print yours, too. As we just did with Robert Garcia.

Dave: Again you seem to take exception with a commentor's choice to post anonymously.

I fully understand (and support) the hopeful prerequisite that poster's comments be "literate and reasoned" but don't you feel it's more than a little disingenuous for you to repeatedly call people on their choice to not "sign (their) real name to" a post when you, yourself, appear to have failed to do so on occasion?

I readily acknowledge (at least in my case) that employing a pseudonym could lead some to question the level of my commitment to the various positions I take. To date I have felt that I have some very good reasons for preferring relative anonymity.

Perhaps others feel they have good reasons to remain anonymous as well?

That said, I am considering shucking the moniker and posting exclusively with my true first and last name from now on.

Tell you what; if you will likewise commit to doing so from now on, then I will agree to do so as well.

Whatta ya say, Dave? Are you wiling to dispose of your own aliases once and for all?

dave should also quit deleting people's posts

When did this "magazine" become like the chalk board in the boys bathroom? You guys will print ANYTHING to drive up the number of clicks to your Web site! I doubt Suja would ever tell anyone she was a Republican - not now, not ever. But I'm sure my saying this will get someone on here to say that I said she hates Republicans. Go on, you know someone wants to.

Get a life people. Focus on the current candidates and the real issues at hand.

It's interesting that DeLong, Lerch and Suja Lowenthal are referred to as a "conservative coalition". What exactly is the conservative agenda that they are driving? They look more like the "common sense coalition" to me.

What I like about them, particularly DeLong and Lerch, is that they DON'T appear to have a political or social agenda. They are trying to represent the guy (and gal) down the street who don't come to Council meetings and don't represent a special interest group looking for city funds for their pet agendas.

I hope Robert Garcia brings more of the same. Fix what's wrong with the 1st District (reduce homelessness, improve the business climate so better retailers will move in), and join DeLong, Lerch and Suja Lowenthal (and usually O'Donnell) in moving our City forward.

A Reply to Robert Garcia:

Robert: Thank you for your long post. I appreciate your invitation to talk. I will e-mail you shortly.

Please understand my point of view. I believe the larger Long Beach community should, and more than a few do, feel "snake bit" by Suja's promise of progressiveness. She now votes as a block with the most conservative members of the City Council. It is all too easy to loudly support your opposition to Prop. 8 at a largely gay gathering. But her involvement in the sexual predator "zoning" statute was NOT progressive. Her tacit refusal to carve out an exception for long ago consensual (not "predatory") sex was conservative at its hard edged worst. Her "too bad" comment to the Press Telegram was callous.

Both realistic candidates for the 1st District council seat identify as "progressive." Your background, which you articulately explain, does raise eyebrows in this regard. I just don't want the community to be "snake bitten" again.

Again, thank you for your comments. Jim

Wow. Your issue with Suja is that she doesn't want convicts grouped together in residential areas? If anything the watered down version of that ordinance we ended up with wasn't strong enough.

No. The issue is that Suja used the controversy for her own political gain. If Suja is opposed to these people residing her district, why didn't she know about them prior? She snapped into action only after it was reported in the media. Otherwise, she would've conveniently ignored them because she has proved herself unresponsive to residents' concerns.

You've precisely hit a couple of nails squarely on their heads Mr. McCabe: It is just so easy for Suja (and Garcia) to preach publicly to the gay choir her NO on 8 support (purely for political capital) while keeping her other potentially controversial stances quiet until council-vote time. Until he can satisfactorily explain otherwise, I can see the same political qualities in Garcia.

Same thing with the unenforcable sexual offender zoning statute. Her "too bad" brush-off was a too easy PR band-aid aimed at placating the residents who complained and exploiting for political public relations a group of people who are socially stigmatized and perceived as powerless.

After your meeting Mr. McCabe, many people will be very interested to hear what you've gleaned from Robert Garcia; whether or not he is publicly "liberally progressive" on the residents' side while privately "conservative", siding with moneyed land developer/business interests in the vein of Suja Lowenthal.

Keep us posted. Thanks Jim.

Long Beach voters should be realistic. If your current, and past, elected bretheren were so effective, the city in which you reside, would be a pillar of an example for other cities to follow. Well, is it? Whether Robert Garcia turns out to be another Suja Lowenthal, is irrelevant. Throw out all the disclaimers. The policies of the past city councils, which have been continued by the present city council, have failed the city. How so? Just look at the city's fiscal deficit, crumbling infrastructure and lack of retail on the main downtown corridor, etc. By examining those issues, one can surmise that the appropriate question is, "What will Robert Garcia do to fix these problems?"

An Open Letter To Jim McCabe

Hello Mr. McCabe: I don't think we've ever met, but I hope that we get an opportunity to meet sometime in the future. First, thank you for your service to the City and to the gay community. This is an important time in our history in the struggle for civil equality and we need as many people to come together on the issue as possible.

In your opinion letter to the District Weekly you make some assumptions and ask some questions that I would like to respond too. Let me begin by saying, that this council seat is non-partisan. Partisan politics should not dictate the decisions that those in office make on behalf of their communities.

However, I understand that you have some concern over the fact that I was once a registered Republican. I would like to share why. In 1982, at age 5, I immigrated to the United States from Peru. My family moved here to seek the American Dream and a life away from poverty and government corruption. I was raised by a single mother who worked two jobs and cleaned homes on the weekend to get by.

It was our family goal to become US Citizens. So we pursued citizenship, often times waking up at 3am to get in lines that circled the block at Immigration Services. We were fast-tracked to citizenship when Ronald Reagan signed the landmark Amnesty Bill in 1986. When I became a citizen, I registered Republican, and so did my whole family. So did almost all of our neighbors who also became citizens. We didn't know much about politics, but we knew that we loved President Reagan.

But things change. And so has my party registration. Am I a different person today than I was 5 or even 3 years ago? Yes. I'm 31, and my political perspective has changed as I have become more comfortable with who I am. You note in your letter that I went from Conservative to Progressive. That is incorrect. I have never been a Conservative. Quite the opposite. When I was affiliated in GOP politics, I spent most of my time arguing and debating why the party was not more progressive and focused more on civil rights and the environment. So what made me switch? There were many policy differences, but most importantly was that I was not going to be a member of a party that would not support my basic civil rights as a gay American. I was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, then of Barack Obama's, have campaigned and donated money to numerous democrats and have worked tirelessly fighting Proposition 8. That is no Conservative.

Yet, I get frustrated when people engage in Republican bashing, not that you were doing that. Long Beach is home to people of all political ideologies and perspectives. Many of whom evolve as they gain life experience. I intend to represent everyone - regardless of their political point of view.

You ask what I believe in? Here are a few things. I think that we have failed our city coastline, I think that we need to aggressively study the re-configuration of the breakwater, I think we need to be tough on gangs and graffiti, I think we need to discourage the over proliferation of 99 cent, check cashing and liquor stores, I think we need to make our public spaces wireless, and I think we need to look at every department of government, including council offices for efficiencies and savings.

As for the comments about Councilmember Suja Lowenthal. She has been a strong advocate for our community. Every time we have asked her to participate or lead on the Proposition 8 issue - she has been there. And I expect she will continue to stand up for GLBT rights.

I understand that I will have to earn your trust and your support. In this campaign, I intend to give as much information about me and my point of view as possible.

If you would like to get together and discuss this or any other concerns you have, please email me at robert@robertgarcia.com. Again, I thank you for your service and I look forward to working with you in the future.

Go Long Beach,
Robert