Home > Uncategorized > Here come the candidates

Here come the candidates

The California primary election is Tuesday, June 8th. Absentee ballots are mailed out in early May.

We’ve picked four local races to focus on: District II and District IV supervisor races, the Republican Assembly race, and county sheriff. Here’s when the individual candidates will be appearing:

Monday, April 26, 5 p.m. — Marshall Ochylski, District II supervisor

Tuesday, April 27, 5:30 p.m.– Mike Zimmerman, District IV supervisor

Thursday, April 29, 5:30 p.m. — Jim Guthrie, District IV supervisor

Friday, April 30, 5 p.m. — Mark Adams, county sheriff

Monday, May 3, 5 p.m. — Michael Teixiera, county sheriff

Tuesday, May 4, 5:30 p.m. — Etta Waterfield, Republican assembly

Wednesday, May 5, 5 p.m. — Bruce Gibson, District II supervisor

Thursday, May 6, 5 p.m. — Joe Cortez, county sheriff

Friday, May 7, 5:30 p.m. — Katcho Achadjian, Republican Assembly

Monday, May 10, 5 p.m. — Ian Parkinson, county sheriff

Tuesday, May 11, 5:30 p.m. — Paul Teixiera, District IV supervisor

Wednesday, May 12, 5:30 p.m. — Matt Kokkonen, Republican assembly

Thursday, May 13, 5:30 p.m. — Fred Strong, Republican Assembly

Friday, May 14, 5 p.m. — Jerry Lenthall, county sheriff

Thursday, May 20, 5 p.m. — Ben Hall, county sheriff

Tune in. Call in. VOTE!

  1. rob
    April 22, 2010 at 3:53 am

    matt k, running again, seriously? Maybe he should revisit that epic "matt coca-cola whaaaa?" radio-spot he did. I gotta admit, he's got stones to even try. I guess he got tired of trying to find 'phony' weather data

  2. April 22, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    Wow, quite a motley crew. Between the cronies, crooks, and flat-out idiots, it's depressing to see this murderer's row of mediocrity. Ok, I will be fair. Only a third of of them are known crooks: Katcho, Lenthal, Zimmerman, and Ochylski.Etta! seems! nuts! But! looks! good!Kokkonen has already been certifed as a nutjob.Who are these sheriff wannabe's? Is it possible just to vote against Lenthall 6 times over?Gibson is arrogant, but at least he's not a crook. I think.Guthrie….yawn. But at least he's not Mike "Heart Attack" Zimmerman.2 Texieras! One lost his job, the other forced to retire. No thanks.Wow, Dave, you are really doing your public duty by having all these stiffs on. I salute you. Maybe I will be educated, maybe I will fall in love with Little Man Cortez or Pretty Boy Parkinson. Maybe I will develop a mad crush on Marshall "Bag Man" Ochylski. Maybe Katcho will tell us the salacious secrets about Gail "At Will!" Wilcox.Congalton for sheriff/supervisor/assembly!

  3. April 25, 2010 at 6:17 am

    Looks like you have alot on your plate with elections hope you take time to do a segment on what is happening in Arizona it's crazy

  4. April 25, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    All of the candidates deserve our recognition for putting themselves and their families through the effort and expense of running for public office. We would be in miserable shape in this country without citizens who are prepared take on the responsibilities of public office.They certainly are not in it for the money! The salary for public officials is not much compared to even modest positions in private business, especially when you consider the amount of time public office requires. Very little remains for family, friends etc.On top of the inherent sacrifice in assuming public office in this country, there is especially the fact that sticking one's neck out as a candidate invariably makes a person a target for personal smears and snide remarks, as the comments from Rob and Jim pointedly demonstrate. Rob and Jim (and any others out there who think being a candidate is a joke): Let's see you demonstrate some civil courage and run for public office. You will then earn the respect owed to every one of these candidates.

  5. April 25, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    so Jim, instead of just 'bagging' on the candidates, please explain with some clarity why the 4 are 'crooks' as you indicate they are. Your comments, without any context or supporting rationale, are basically juvenile. They are indicative of lazyiness on your part and would seem, without any other substance to back them up, to indicate you actually know very little about any of the candidates other than your 3rd grade impressions.

  6. rob
    April 25, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    ChrisFirst of all, you know nothing about me, and whether I've ever run for public office. Second, I was only repeating things that Mr K has said himself, about himself.I will admit that many people who run for public office do so for completely altruistic reasons. I will also say that many who run do so for much more selfish reasons – power, influence money. I don't know where on that sliding morality scale a person resides until I've had time to observe and evaluate their decisions. Only then are they worthy of my respect or my disrespect. Just running for office is not an act that, for me, demands respect. Worthy deeds are.When you say – 'They certainly are not in it for the money!' that's a very misleading and obfuscating statement. Of course they're not in it for the salary. But honestly, can you say that all politicians are running or serving completely for the good of their fellow citizens? That they have no personal gain motives?Finally – your statement 'Rob and Jim (and any others out there who think being a candidate is a joke' is again not a valid argument. I in no way implied that being a candidate is anything but a very serious matter. I simply ask that eligible candidates hold themselves to the standard that you have accused me of not having.

  7. April 26, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Yeah, right Chris. And if Adolph Hitler were running, I expect you would say he deserves our "recognition."No Chris, there are plenty of people who run for office fueled by motivations and ideologies I do not respect, whose candidacies threaten the well-being of our community. We have a few of those type of candidates running locally. I see no sense in "recognizing" them.They are not all in it for the money? Oh yeah, well running for the sake of accumulating personal power and ego gratification and using the platform to promote ill-conceived policies isn't any more noble in my book.Maybe if more of those types did NOT run for office, our political system would be better and a higher caliber of candidates would emerge.Sorry Chris, I'm not going to give every candidate an "A for effort."..

  8. April 26, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Katcho, takes money from developers then approves their projects no matter how wrong those projects are, and even if he sits on a bank board with the developer and the bank helps finance such development. Crook.Lenthall: crook his whole career as a cop (took gratuities all the time, paid Alex Madonna's bribes, did homebuilding work on city time) and then spent his term as a Sup as a total crony for campaign cash. Crook.Zimmerman, sleazy attorney, looking for special tax exemptions from his pal the assessor, also swindling clients. Crook.Ochylski, served as the conduit for developers to pass money to county Sups (Lenthall, Katcho, Ovitt). Crook.There you have it, anonymous.There you have it local republican wannabe Chris Arend.Looking forward to the radio!

  9. April 26, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    sorry Targon, with the exception of your Katcho info, you provided nothing specific other than 'feeling' based innuendo/guesswork. If you are going to accuse, you need to be a little more specific on your accusations, otherwise, well you're not much better than a ….'crook'?!

  10. April 27, 2010 at 2:45 am

    There Wrong Guy goes again with the Hitler remark. Bringing up Hitler is totally uncalled for, beneath contempt and is in no way productive towards a civil discourse and discussion of the issues.If Chris thinks that "Hitler would deserve 'recognition', then Wrong Guy must think that Marx, Lenin and Stalin "had valid points to consider'.Wrong Guy: Wrong debate techniques, Wrong for America

  11. April 30, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    I wonder if Matt Kookinan will take the rest of his Tea-baggers and go to Louisiana and protest our Socialist government getting involved with that oil spill. Tea-bagger Matt has consistantly stressed that government is to "intrusive" and that private industry can police themselves and should be free of federal regulations. Now is the the time for Dumb-ass Matt and the rest his mind-less, conservative Tea-baggers to take their dogma to its logical conclusion. Tea-bagger Matt needs to come out loud and strong against the government "interference" on BP's spill response. Tea-bagger Matt needs to encourage Re-pubic-an Governors Bobby Jindal and Haley Barber to reject any help or money from the federal government. Come-on Tea-baggers and town-hollers, be consistent, get out your Obama-as-Hitler signs and hit the shores of Louisiana and Mississippi and protest a "big-government take over of private industry". Now is the time for Tea-bagger Matt to really show his utter distain for our government.

  12. May 1, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Again, liberal hatemongers mistake the purpose and the point the "teabaggers" make about government interferance.Let me restate the point: there is a difference between social service and socialism. Social services are things that a government does for the collective good because one person, or even a group of private citizens, can't do it alone.So too is the oil spill in the Gulf the perfect example of this. The Gulf of Mexico waters out to 20 miles is US territorial waters. These waters are the responsibility to manage, that is why we have a Coast Guard. The states of Lousiana, Mississippi and Alabama, individually as states, do not have the resources to manage this crisis alone. This is where the federal government has a role to perform a service for the collective good that the individual states, or even two or three acting together, cannot manage. Contrast this with ObamaCare. Ever state manages the insurance industries within their states. Some states are better than others with managing the insurance needs within their state. Liberal states like New Jersey, California, New York, have huge deficits and millions of people without insurance. Other states, more fiscally responsible states, don't have that problem of millions without insurance. But what does the liberal Democrat establishment do? They lump all 50 states together, ignore the fact that there are 50 separate markets for insurance in the US, and then talk about the 12, 15, 20 or 30 million (whichever number your local liberal wishes to use) uninsured in America as the reason behind nationalizing medical insurance for ALL Americans. They also ignore the fact that even if 30 million are uninsured, nearly half are voluntarily uninsured (young adults between the ages fo 25 and 35), nearly half are illegal aliens, the rest are a small minority of Americans that genuinely can't afford health insurance (the bleeding heart stories liberals like to point to show why the ENTIRE system needed to be nationalized).The point is missed by the liberals when they say stupid things like teabaggers should be protesting against "government interference" in the gulf. (btw, the "re-pubic-an" comment was just MORONIC from Elvis, but typical of his low brow, low intellect self).The point is that this is EXACTLY the kind of work the federal government SHOULD be doing. Forcing millions of Americans into the waiting arms of Democrat-donating medical insurance companies is EXACTLYthe kind of things the federal government should NOT be doing. Of course Elvis, Bob, Winston and Wrong Guy will utterly and completely miss this point.

  13. May 1, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Well, Big Tent, I'll give you credit for being correct on one thing: Yes, I do completely miss your point. Nothing unusual there. If you actually do have some worthwhile point to make, would it be possible for you to express it in just a sentence or two?As it is now, I find most of your postings to be just a big pile of ravings and rantings aimed primarily at claiming you are "Right" about everything and that anyone who can't find the logic in your opinions is "Wrong." My point? That's simple: Big Tent rarely has any logical "point" worth trying to "get." Maybe if Big Tent wasn't so obsessed with telling people how "Wrong" they are, he could do more introspection and contribute something positive and productive to the discussion rather than resorting to so many insults and piling up irrelevant facts to smother logic with.

  14. May 3, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    I get your point BTR, allow me to summarize for you. "When private industry causes a huge disaster that will negatively impact innocent U.S. citizens, it is the Federal Government's responsibility to step in and do everything it can to protect those citizens". I get your point BTW, next time some Tea-bagger starts shooting their ignorant mouth off about Bank and auto industry bailouts, you need to step up and explain to them our Government has a reponsibility to protect us when Private industry fails. We finally agree on something BTR.p.s.- as long as Conservatives use the singular "Democrat", when the plural form, "Democratic", is grammatically correct, I will continue to use the same juvenile name calling as they engage in.

  15. May 4, 2010 at 3:07 am

    This is more about educating the reader, not arguing with Wrong Guy and all the other liberals. That is why my posts get a little long.There, happy? Two sentences.

  16. May 4, 2010 at 6:52 am

    I listened to both candidates for Sheriff so far on Dave's show; both men were very impressive, Mark Adams and Michael Teixiera. I liked what both of them said about issues facing our county, and it is interesting to see the difference in what is poised as the hot button issue. I was troubled however by Mr. Teixiera's comments about his intention to issue as many concealed weapons permits as he could, with his opinion stated that he felt more weapons would make our population safer. I am very uncomfortable with someone who thinks like that as being our top law enforcement officer here in SLO County; I appreciate that both Ed Williams and Pat Hedges have been very stingy in issuing concealed weapons permits. Hopefully not too many people who apply for the permits will have had training done by the police chief in Paso Robles.

  17. May 4, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Bob, despite your feelings about the Second Amendment, Americans have the right to protect themselves against the 30-40 million illegal aliens and other criminals.Arizona just passes a law making it legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. California should follow this example of constitutional rights adherence.It's a matter of stare decisis Bob. It's about our rights and liberties. It's about the constitution.

  18. May 4, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    I also liked most of what I heard from Teixiera, except his troubling interest in encouraging more people in our community to carry concealed weapons. I believe this would lead to more violence in our community, not less and will put compromise the safety of law enforcement officers. It seems Mr. Teixiera, who seems to be a generally reasonable, honest and straightforward person, has gone overboard on this particular issue, to the point where he seems to be campaigning not only for gun tolerance, but for gun proliferation in our community. Too bad.Granting concealed weapon permits is one thing, but campaigning for their proliferation seems to be counter-productive and extreme. As such, I don't think I can vote for him as I don't like to see more people killed in our community or have to worry that in these troubled times, as anger seems to escalate, that minor disagreements are more likely to turn into gun battles, AND, as is common, as guns proliferate, there will be more accidental shootings, frequently involving children.Does this mean I'm "anti-gun"? No. I'm for common sense and on this issue I can't see the sense in Teixiera's position. Tolerating gun use is one thing; encouraging it in an increasingly demented society is quite another..

  19. May 4, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    "30-40 million illegal aliens…" Mr. Facts? Most educated estimates I've read, usually put that number around 12 million, maybe you should change your name to Mr. Fantasy?

  20. May 4, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    Mr. Facts: What is my position on the Second Amendment? Did I say anything here recently that led you to believe that you "know" how I feel about the amendment? I think you are having a "reaction" to any mention about firearms in general without real evidence to back up your assertion. How or what I feel about the Second Amendment has nothing to do with what I think of any candidate for our county sheriff. Firearms are not going to go away here in America, no matter what the right will scream and shout about "the government wants to take your guns", but like Wise Guy stated, more guns isn't going to make us "safer" no matter what statistics the NRA will spew out. I just think it is safer for our county sheriff to issue conceal carry permits only for those with a real need, not because they have some fantasy of intervening in a robbery and getting to "save the day". Let's remember that the gentleman who stopped the knife wielding woman in the K-mart store was an off duty sheriff deputy, not a private citizen.

  21. May 5, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    There's a LOT of good reasons to NOT vote for Mike Zimmerman, including his questionable dealings with the very questionable tax assessor Tom Bordonaro.Here's more reasons many of us would NEVER vote for Mike Zimmerman:http://calcoastnews.com/2010/05/estate-attorney’s-actions-called-into-question/

  22. May 5, 2010 at 8:48 pm

    Etta Waterfield on Dave's show on Tuesday only wanted an hour instead of the hour and a half that Dave has offered all of the candidates; in listening to her, I understand why now. The more she talked, the worse she sounded. It was bad enough that she wanted to maker herself more to the right than Matt K., but to spout that Reaganomics is what California needs to pull out of our economic mess is sadly uninformed at the least, and willfully ignorant at worst. She then took her crazy train off the tracks when she started up with her "Palinisms", like, you have to stand up for your freedoms or some other incoherent ramblings. She certainly gives you Republicans all the information you need to vote for someone else if you want your candidate to have any chance of winning the seat in November.

  23. May 7, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Joe Cortez on Dave's show tonight; well, like Dave said, I wouldn't lose sleep with him as sheriff, and I am a little more comfortable with his pledge to background check those applying for conceal carry permits than Michael Teixiera's pledge to issue as many carry permits as he can. I did appreciate Joe's answer about the SLO PD officers currently in question, and Dave is correct, many people are very upset about the whole situation. I agree wholeheartedly that all law enforcement should be subjected to random drug testing, and the very first test should be unannounced using hair samples for long term testing. I am looking forward to hearing Ian Parkinson's answers about the current SLO PD situation on Monday.

  24. May 7, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    I didn't know much about Joe Cortez until I heard him on Dave's show. I was very impressed. He came across as strong, honest, wise and no-nonsense with a firm and direct management style. I like the fact that he has served as a Chief of Police, something the other candidates have not. He truly seemed to be the kind of manager that all the types of people who post here could feel comfortable supporting. .The Sheriff's Department is currently a mess and I got the strong impression that Mr. Cortez is in the best position and has the best experience and talents to straighten things out. I believe Mr. Cortez is non-partisan and is running for Sheriff for all the right reasons, something I definitely cannot say about some of the other candidates. .

  25. May 11, 2010 at 3:46 am

    In listening to Ian Parkinson on Dave's show tonight (5/10/10), once again, I would say that I would not loose any sleep with Parkinson as Sheriff. I liked his answers about needing cause for issuing conceal carry permits, medical marijuana, drug testing LEOs, and the last question Dave asked about the possibility of a Citizens Oversight or review board. I, like almost everyone else is very upset with the two officers on the payroll at SLO PD; Ian seemed to indicate that his department was given short shrift by ICE with very little information. I am still hoping that Chief LInden will address this issue along with a termination of both officers. Parkinson seems like a very strong candidate.

  26. May 11, 2010 at 6:04 am

    Ian Parkinson is master of the short cut he never goes the distance No police department in the state will hire him as chief without a degree of at least batchelors his college units are those that EVERY cop with as many years and specialties as Ian has each training class and certification a cop gets has college units attached through POST (peace officers standards and training)His closest friends know he has no high school diploma and may have a ged but no one can confirm.it is also legend that he never attended a police academy. He is the only commander in the state without a college degree all departments require one.WHY WOULD I IN THE SHERIFFS DEPT WITH TWO DEGREES AND AS MANY YEARS SERVICE DO ANYTHING THIS MAN SAYS HE PROFESSES TO BE A BUDGET GUY??????? DAVE LOOK AT HIS WATCH HIS ROLEX AND ASK HIM WHY 7 TAX LIENS IN TEN YEARS BY THE COUNTY??????????????????????? IF HE WAFFLES AND BLAMES IT ON ANYONE ELSE OR SAYS ITS HIS BOAT ASK HIM IF ITS THE BOAT HE BOUGHT FROM LISA SOLOMON WHEN SHE WAS GOING THROUGH BANKRUPTCY THEREBY HELPING HER HIDE ASSETS FROM THE COURT AND HER CREDITORS???

  27. May 12, 2010 at 4:42 am

    a question was asked of Ian on your show in reference to his being capable of budget responsibility, the caller pointed out a concern that the county public records showed 7 tax liens filed against him in the past 10 years he said on the air "no" not him he always pays his taxes. I have attached a county print out of 7 past tax liens on Ian and his wife, granted they have been paid , they were not paid in a timely enough manner that a lien was filed. His answer, much like his explanatiion for his lack of a degree, is a way of telling the truth while hiding the truth. I was impressed with the interviews and appreciate your mediation, now I ask that you take offense to a man running for office telling lie to your listeners and to your face, he carefully worded his answere by saying he "has no liens" yes, true they are He said he pays his taxes, he never said, on time. its his way of playing the game of cop semantics. I personally would like an "on air" explanation by him and it could be by phone call, but he must make ammends for this lie. Debtor Name – IAN PARKINSONDebtor Address – 4618 POINSETTIA ST, SN LUIS OBISP CA 93401-7691 Debtor Name – AMY PARKINSONLink ID – 1919302330SSN – 555-61-xxxxDebtor Address – 4618 POINSETTIA ST, SN LUIS OBISP CA 93401-7691Amount – $1,546 Original Filing Date – 7/28/2006 Creditors – COUNTY OF MONTEREY Filing Numbers – 2007071072, 2006066372 Filing Location – MONTEREY COUNTY COURT (RD), CA Filing Type – COUNTY TAX LIEN RELEASE Debtor Name – IAN S PARKINSONDebtor Address – 4618 POINSETTIA ST, SN LUIS OBISP CA 93401-7691Amount – $187 Original Filing Date – 10/5/2005 Creditors – COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Filing Numbers – 2005091276 Filing Location – SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY COURT (RD), CA Filing Type – COUNTY TAX LIEN RELEASE Debtor Name – IAN S PARKINSONDebtor Address – 4618 POINSETTIA ST, SN LUIS OBISP CA 93401-7691Amount – $164 Original Filing Date – 10/5/2005 Creditors – COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Filing Numbers – 2005083891 Filing Location – SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY COURT (RD), CA Filing Type – COUNTY TAX LIEN Debtor Name – IAN S PARKINSONDebtor Address – 4618 POINSETTIA ST, SN LUIS OBISP CA 93401-7691Amount – $201 Original Filing Date – 10/9/2002 Creditors – COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Filing Numbers – 2002085584 Filing Location – SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY COURT (RD), CA Filing Type – COUNTY TAX LIEN Debtor Name – IAN S PARKINSONDebtor Address – 4618 POINSETTIA ST, SN LUIS OBISP CA 93401-7691Amount – $215 Original Filing Date – 10/8/2002 Creditors – COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Filing Numbers – 2002097801 Filing Location – SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY COURT (RD), CA Filing Type – COUNTY TAX LIEN RELEASE Debtor Name – IAN S PARKINSONLink ID – 1919887033SSN – 565-43-xxxxDebtor Address – 4412 SUNFLOWER WAY, SN LUIS OBISP CA 93401-7664Amount – $237 Original Filing Date – 10/10/2001 Creditors – COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Filing Numbers – 2001097607 Filing Location – SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY COURT (RD), CA Filing Type – COUNTY TAX LIEN RELEASE Debtor Name – IAN S PARKINSONLink ID – 1919887033SSN – 565-43-xxxxDebtor Address – 4412 SUNFLOWER WAY, SN LUIS OBISP CA 93401-7664Amount – $222 Original Filing Date – 10/10/2001 Creditors – COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Filing Numbers – 2001076846 Filing Location – SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY COURT (RD), CA Filing Type – COUNTY TAX LIEN Records: 1 to 7 of 7

  28. May 12, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    Okay, I am done with any consideration of Ian Parkinson for the position of SLO County Sheriff. Link here to the Cal Coast News article about Ian Parkinson and his lying on Dave's show to a call in question. We don't need another Sheriff who has trouble with the truth.

  29. May 19, 2010 at 5:33 am

    I welcome your ideas on the coming election. Here is one of mine. I've spoken with Joe Cortez many times and am firmly in his camp. I hope you willforward my message to your contacts in our county.Joe strikes me as a humane,sensible and rational person, who can and will clean up the mess and create a viable Sheriff dept. we can dependon.Parkinson is mired in some scandal of questionable honesty (see Calcoastnews.com) and the others seem no where near Joe in experience. Jerry keeps claiming Supe experience but he was thrown out of there in a landslide loss to Adam.The following is floating around, two questions he answered on critical issues of the day and to us here. If you are impressed as I am you can at the least vote for him. Next up tell your friends abouthim. Next ask me for a yard sign (I have plenty of literature and signs, I better get those requests). And finally you could throw a couple of bucks his way via his site. This is important, let's do itright this time. If you will just spend a few minutes checking thisout and responding to my appeal a miracle could happen! You can ask him whatever you want at "Joe Cortez" .

  30. May 26, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    It's rare to find a candidate that garners strong respect from conservatives and liberals. Joe Cortez is that kind of a candidate.Our community needs unity more than ever. We need people in leadership roles who want to and are able to bring people together and forge a common vision that transcends petty politics.Everything suggests that Joe Cortez is a perfect fit for Sheriff, exactly the kind of person who can heal a deeply divided Sheriff's department and make this community stronger and more healthy. Joe Cortez seems to be running for Sheriff for all the right reasons. We can't honestly say that about some of the other candidates who have self-interests and extreme political ideologies that are misplaced when it comes to law enforcement. Conservatives AND liberals strongly support Joe Cortez, for al the right reasons..

  31. May 29, 2010 at 2:23 am

    In considering all of the candidates for Sheriff, consider the following:Mark Adams: Good strong contender, but lacking real experience in leadership and education.Michael Teixiera: Another strong contender, but again, not any real command leadership experience and advanced educationIan Parkinson: Wow. A really sad situation that the man cannot admit to what he had (or hadn't) done in the past, and certainly lacks the education that should be required for the position.Jerry Lenthall: Once again, a lack of real leadership in command experience, and though he has two college degrees, neither of them are connected to law enforcement, not to mention his apparent good old boy membership.Ben Hall: Lots of command experience, certainly has the education background as well, but there seems to be some real baggage about the conduct of his position in the Sheriff's Department; not sure that he would be the best person. Joe Cortez: He has the experience, has the education, is not connected to the current situation in the Sheriff's Department and seems to have the best of intentions concerning operating the Sheriff's Department in an above board manner; he gets my vote.

  32. May 30, 2010 at 6:05 am

    San Luis Obispo Supervisor Achadjian is a Republican candidate for Assembly who tries to be as conservative as Governor Schwarzenegger and Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado.All three promoted, supported and approved the largest tax increase on the people of California, ever. All three promoted the February, 2009 State budget that included increase vehicle taxes, increased sales taxes and numerous fee increases.The results of the Arnold, Abel, Achadjian efforts? Highest unemployment in California history. Highest taxes in California history. Reduced revenues, even with increased taxes.California is insolvent thanks to their efforts.San Luis Obispo Supervisor Achadjian voted for this: This is all on the county website under the agenda and minutes for the 2/3/2009 meeting:The Board amends the Legislative Platform by adding the following: support for the May Election as a vote by mail election; the approval for the state budget and local voter-approved gasoline sales tax from two-thirds to 55%; support for returning the vehicle license tax back to its historic level; and approves the 2009 Legislative Platform for the County of San Luis Obispo, as amended.Think this is bad? Separately he also voted to increase the cost of wine, a major industry in the county. Go to "read more" and see the portions of the minutes of the APCD of San Luis Obispo from July 23, 2008.If you enjoy my newsletter, please help my readership grow by passing it around. If some one sent this to you, and you would like your own subscription, you can sign up on my web page at http://www.capoliticalnews.com

  33. June 8, 2010 at 5:19 am

    Wow. Did you get a load of that guy on Dave's show today who told us, in convincing detail, about Jerry Lenthall using the power of his police badge to, and I quote: "beat the crap" out of a person and then lying about it, with the end result being a tax-payer pay-out of $2.5 million? If anyone called in to defend Lenthall on this, I didn't hear it. These kinds of stories dog him. Yet, Mr. Lenthall comes off so cool and controlled most of the time when the microphones or cameras are on him, as if he never gets angry, as if he never loses control. We're definitely hearing two EXTREMELY different views of Mr. Lenthall. Yet I haven't heard any particular denials from the Lenthall camp either. The top spots at the Sheriff's department can be stressful. Look what it did to Hedges. And Bolts. Who's next?..

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: