.

Waxman, Bloomfield Advance in Congressional Contest

Longtime incumbent Henry Waxman, a Democrat, will meet Bill Bloomfield, a candidate with no party preference, in the November general election for the 33rd District.

Longtime incumbent Henry Waxman, a Democrat, easily cruised to a first-place finish Tuesday night in the primary election to fill the 33rd Congressional District seat and will face Bill Bloomfield, a candidate running with no party preference, in the November general election.

Waxman, 72, has served in Congress since 1975 and was expected to handily win in the largely Democratic district.

Waxman was the top fundraiser going into the election and went into the final weeks of the primary with four times as much cash as Bloomfield, the next top fundraiser going into the primary.

Waxman was the top vote-getter with 43 percent of the vote and was followed by Bloomfield with 26 percent of the vote. Christoper David, a 25-year-old Republican, finished third at 16 percent. The other five candidates running in the primary each gained less than 5 percent of the vote.

Waxman moved from his 30th Congressional District to the newly drawn 33rd Congressional District after redistricting altered district boundaries to reflect population changes. The new 33rd Congressional District includes Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach and Palos Verdes and runs north through slivers of Marina del Rey and Venice and also includes Calabasas, Agoura Hills, Malibu, Santa Monica, Westwood, Beverly Hills and the communities of Brentwood, West L.A. and the Pacific Palisades.

Waxman and Bloomfield will square off in the Nov. 6 general election. The winner of California's 33rd congressional race will serve a two-year term starting Jan. 3, 2013. The expansive district is heavily Democratic. Of the 430,618 registered voters, only 28 percent are Republicans.

Another WorldView June 08, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Unlike the mostly poor and darker skinned people of Michigan, who get the transparently fascist "emergency managers", that their Republican Governor selects for them, at his own whim; in places like Benton Harbor, particularly (rich white folks in places like the Deerfield area aren't as likely to be affected by this "emergency management" scheme, for some reason). It could be worse Wolfman - you could be living under a Koch Brothers-style dictatorship, instead of the tyrrany of a (lop-sided) majority of Democrats - who to their (dis-)credit allow the Republican minority in California an inordinant amount of influence.
Another WorldView June 08, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Look out Phil - Jason must have a better take on the Constitution than the guy who edited the Harvard Law Review. Obama understands the Law and the Constitution, Jason, he just doesn't always care to follow them (at least as plainly read). If you weren't so busy advocating for the Koch Brother's version of fascism-American-style, perhaps we on the left could get about to replacing Obama with someone less enamored of War(s) of Aggression, extra-judicial executions (= Murder) and selling out to the same (1/10th of) 1%'ers, from whom Romney takes much-more-direct dictation. While no amount of partisan shenanigans can be put past the right wing of this Supreme Court - it would be shocking to see them find that Congress lacked the power to do what it sees fit to - in areas of "interstate commerce", like the healthcare of US citizens. There are opt-out provisions for income, and religion/conscience as well. Facists and tea-baggers seem to be a proudly ignorant bunch. And where the Koch Bros. and the insurance industry are concerned VERY usefull idiots, to boot. Try some book-learnin', dude. http://state-citizen.org/ http://1215.org/
Another WorldView June 08, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Good point Phil - looks like someone's been following Mr. Waxman's voting record.
Denise June 08, 2012 at 03:41 PM
Why are you fighting to close Santa Monica Airport?
John June 08, 2012 at 03:52 PM
Phil, looking at how long Obama has been in politics in an official position, he has less time and experience than say Pelosi or Reid. In that matter yes, he is new. New ideas and direction are needed unless you prefer the status quo of the past. He is doing as best he can with what he inherited. As for you comparison of a politicians service to our veterans in WWII is disturbing and insulting. Discussing issues is one thing. Banter and bullying over the internet for enjoyment is something else. The proof is in your posts. Thank you.
Jason June 08, 2012 at 04:30 PM
Question for you Phil, you posted "I think we need to go back to literacy tests as a voting requirement." Literacy should be a requirement for voting but obviously not ID right?
Tacit_Blue June 08, 2012 at 05:06 PM
Oh yes ,Waxman is so awesome and intelligent, that he sponsors bills that he has NO CLUE as to what's in them. Case in point - Cap and Trade. The man has been in congress since the same year I was born. Time for him to go.
PHIL HENDRICKS June 08, 2012 at 05:39 PM
Tacit_Blue seems to have a problem with either Waxman's alleged lack of knowledge about Cap and Trade or about Cap and Trade itself, but she does not state what her issue is. She does imply that experience in one's profession should disqualify one from remaining in it. I imagine she goes out of her way to find the least experienced doctors, dentists, attorneys, mechanics, hair stylists, plumbers, electricians, accountants, landscapers and of course - therapists.
Always Right June 08, 2012 at 06:00 PM
Very well said Pam!! Democrats/Progresives have destroyed California and are well on the way to destroying this once great country. The Wisconsin victory has sent a message loud and clear across the nation that we are fed up with the direction the country is moving. People like Phil just love to hear the sound of their own voice. His kind of message has gotten old and tiresome. BTW Phil, Waxman has spent his life feathering his own bed at the expense of the citizens of this corrupt state. Phil, you are going to have a rude awakening come November. Count on it !!!!
PHIL HENDRICKS June 08, 2012 at 06:00 PM
Is Jason making a case for literacy tests? Well done Jason! As for Voter ID's; when one can be developed that does not disproportionally affect the poor, elderly, ill, infirm and frightened, then maybe Jason will have an issue. I expect if Jason were a poll worker and a white man in a suit showed up to vote, his ID would not be as important as say that of my "non-white" landscaper (who probably makes more than anyone on here) showing up all sweaty and gritty. Voter ID laws that target populations known to favor one party over another and are also not uniformly enforced, depending on one’s skin color or neighborhood, are just one more anti-democratic, Red-Herring promoted by people who have no interest in democracy at all, but every interest in suppressing it. By the way; I wonder if Jason has his ID on him? How about his mother? Are they current ID’s? Are they from this State? Are they legible? Did they leave them at home, in the car, at work? Was it lost or stolen? Is it in the mail? Will Jason support ID’s based on instant, sweat derived DNA testing? I wonder if Jason can man-up for it – maybe?
PHIL HENDRICKS June 08, 2012 at 06:05 PM
Wolfman seems to have issues with pinheads and liberals - where is his sense of inclusion? When he says they "...get what they deserve" does he mean it is good, or bad? Just curious, but he probably means bad. If he means bad, just what is it exactly that is so bad. Does Wolfman have clue or is he just playing?
Jason June 08, 2012 at 08:39 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble Phil, I would ask for everyone's id, black, white, blue green, it doesn't matter. I don't play identity politics, that is more the platform of the Democratic party. Voter ID laws are to prevent non-citizens from voting, and if you forget your ID in the car or at home, go get it, or don't vote, very simple. BTW my mom, dad and everyone I know has an ID. Also you are assuming that I am white, maybe I am not. I know it is beyond comprehension that blacks and Hispanics don't believe that Obama is the one, and might be conservative.
Always Right June 08, 2012 at 09:37 PM
Very good Jason! Phil's bubble was burst a long time ago. I would bet after reading some his posts that Phil has had his nose broken more than once.
PHIL HENDRICKS June 08, 2012 at 11:36 PM
So John says he is disturbed and offended that I used the Commander and Chief of US Forces, President Obama, in an analogy to the service of WWII military men and women - go figure? More to the point; I see John has changed his position on Obama being a "newcomer" with Obama's now nearly 16 years of legislative and Presidential experience. Now John merely says Obama has “…less time and experience” than say Pelosi or Reed - and his point is...?. I suppose one could continue the digression and say that Pelosi and Reed have less experience than say Dingle, Inouye, Conyers and many others. Does John have any cut off for when Obama would not be a "newcomer"? Do we dare guess at what is required for him not to be considered a “newcomer”?
PHIL HENDRICKS June 09, 2012 at 12:16 AM
There is no lament like the lament of the privileged. Pam's main point here seems to be to present the much requested, much awaited evidence of "losing her rights under Obama's regime". Let's see: First she exercises her right to buy property during Bush's term in office. She buys this property knowing it has use restrictions, and pays a discounted rate for it due to those restrictions - still under Bush's term in office. She then exercises her right to take legal action challenging the use restrictions she knew existed when she purchased the property under Bush's term in office. (That she claims it took seven years is due to her improper procedures and poor representation) She then, for consideration, is successful at breaking the use restrictions under - “Obama's regime". She then exercises her newly acquired “right” to build on the previously restricted property during - “Obama's regime". And now she uses her right to freedom of expression and complains that her rights have been lost under - “Obama's regime". What she is really complaining about is that she did not get a free ride and had to play, for awhile anyway, by the same rules that everyday people have to live by. What a lamentable tragedy.
PHIL HENDRICKS June 09, 2012 at 12:52 AM
More generally; Pam's "evidence" of "lost rights" ranges from supposed loss of property rights, TSA pat downs, to not being able to buy a large soft drink in New York. To the first claim: Property use restrictions have been part of the American landscape for more than 200 years, broadly upheld by local, state, US and Supreme court decisions. The restrictions date back to English common law - but somehow that historical reality is due to "...Obama's regime" - such amazing power he has! To the second claim: The TSA searches originated under her buddy Bush's term in office. As much as everyone hates the screenings, it is an expected condition of "war time" and has historical precedents hundreds of years old, including in American history. (To avoid these screenings Pam should band with her cohort and buy a plane where no one is screend and take her chances - although I would be concerned for her children’s safety.) To her third claim: Bloomberg is the Mayor of New York City. It is a city within New York State, which is situated in the US. The City elects its own Mayor and has its own laws, in addition to State and Federal law. However misbegotten the proposed soft drink tax may be (there is no ban as Pam falsely claims) it is the proposal of the Mayor of New York City, not of New York State, nor of the "Obama regime". I am sure Pam and her ghost writer will find some other false claims to present. That is the pattern of falsifiers - present, defend, lose, repeat!
PHIL HENDRICKS June 09, 2012 at 12:57 AM
As to Pam's allegation of my being a “Card Carrying Communist”: I find no record of the party ever issuing cards. However, the term “Card Carrying Communist’ is fabulously alterative and appears to have first been used in 1948. In any event, Communists, like Tea Party right/radicals, react to me and people like me in very similar ways – they are outraged that we show their logical, knowledge and psychological failures in public. Each group wants us silenced, or worse. They need an island somewhere to carry on their pathology.
Pam June 09, 2012 at 12:58 AM
First, I did not pay a "discounted" price. Hardly! Second, the restrictions were imposed by the CCC, not the Bush administration. I had to pay about twice for the "right" to use my own property and also give most it away. This "privilege" used to be free to the property OWNER and contrary to your claim, the restrictions imposed on the property have increased over the years. But I don't care what you think, however, I am most curious what you do for a living, Phil. You are incredibly insulting and your intelligence inferiority complex and the chip on your shoulder must greatly weigh you down. Unless you are a prison guard in one of our maximum security penitentiaries or a meter maid, you must be some kind of split personality. I've been watching your posts and it's crazy. Have you gone off your meds? What is going on with you? Never mind. Don't answer that.
Pam June 09, 2012 at 01:18 AM
Oh Phil, did it confuse you that I didn't include a "C" after the "NY"? You need to read a little more carefully, genius. I said "IF the Mayor has his way". There is no ban, yet. Also, if you were smart, you could have inferred that I was referring to New York CITY and not New York STATE by the use of the word Mayor, since States don't have Mayors. Cities and towns have Mayors, Phil, not states. New York City has a Mayor who is proposing a ban. There is no Mayor of New York State. Correct (maybe for the first time), the screenings originated with Bush. You asked for examples of lost freedoms, not an explanation. Try to follow along. Try. You are the one who puts me in the Republican Party and Tea Party. Not me. You do not insult or offend me by calling Bush my buddy. You are just incorrect. Again. Phil, IF, and that's a big if, you had anything of substantive value to add, no one would ever be able to decipher it amongst all your personal attacks and name calling. It's been great. See ya!
PHIL HENDRICKS June 09, 2012 at 01:31 AM
Grand! Jason has a solution to a non-problem! Where is the overwhelming evidence of this grand offense of illegal voting? We know that Ann Coulter voted outside of her district at least once (we forgive her), and everyone knew who she was; but what else? So Jason promises to be an Equal Opportunity vote suppressor. Will Jason vouch for his cohort? I can just see Jason carding Wilson, Riordan, Bloomfield, Bush. You can almost hear it now; "No, no Jason, they are OK, let them vote, it's alright." Maybe Jason is not unaware of the already glaring selective use of voter ID requirements - even Republicans (real ones, not TP/right/radical ones) agree that misuse of ID requirements is a problem. How does Jason propose that poll workers be policed? Will they have uniforms? Will Jason lead the squad? Maybe we can make Jason and the TP/right/radicals a deal: You get voter ID cards and we just show up to vote, no registration required! Why not? - you are already 90% there with the ID cards! Sends shivers down your legs doesn't it – the most expansive act of democracy since the 14th amendment!. Good bye TP/right/radical suppression, hello American democracy! Semper Fi!
PHIL HENDRICKS June 09, 2012 at 02:17 AM
Pam and her ghost writer were amazingly entertaining - too bad they collapsed under the weight of their own inconsistencies (I couldn't resist – it’s that “Card Carrying Communist” thing coming out). Even in the clarification of her own posts, she still gets it wrong, back tracks and draws conclusions not supported by even her own statements on the subject - Hers is the face of a TP/right/radical Bloomfield supporter!? Poor Bloomfield. I particularly loved her denial that her property was not "discounted" in price. In market economics, when two otherwise identical properties are adjacent to each other, the one with restrictions and the other without restrictions - guess which one sells for less (a discount to normal market)? That is correct - the one with restrictions! Pam is a little too coy on that one, but her privileged status insulates her from responsibility. I guess we will not be seeing any evidence from Pam for all of those "...lost rights under the Obama regime" we have been hearing so much about on here. Must have been those invisible rights. "Ain't no sunshine when she's gone...." (With apologies to Bill Whithers)
Another WorldView June 09, 2012 at 02:56 AM
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11811-focus-the-horrible-lingering-horror-of-george-w-bush "According to the poll, released Thursday morning, 43% of people questioned had a favorable opinion of Bush, with 54% saying they had an unfavorable view of the former president. Bush's 43% favorable rating is the same as it was in 2010 in CNN polling, but is up from his mid-30's favorable rating during 2009, his first year out of the White House. Is it that hard to believe? The data seem to prove that the longer C-Plus Augustus is out of the White House, the better people like him. However, there's one prediction here that I would not take to the bank: "Don't be surprised if the Obama campaign mentions the name of George W. Bush at every opportunity, and don't be surprised if that strategy works," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "And the mention of Bush's name appears to prompt at least a few people to take a more positive view of their current financial situation."" 43% isn't much, to base your proposed putsch upon. Good luck with that Bloomfield-ites. Perhaps you'll win one for the Trotsky-ists, who hope to foster the 'inevtiable collapse of the Capitalist system' by enabling and exacerbating its internal contradictions - which Romney and Bloomfield are no-doubt preparing to do, as we type.
Another WorldView June 09, 2012 at 03:06 AM
Tacit_Blue should love Waxman - he was a co-sponsor of the Republican plan to destroy the Post( Office)al Service, by burdening it with the odd requirement that it fund its pension liabilities NOW, for 75 years into the future (something that no business could ever survive doing). He never saw a war in SW Asia that he didn't like (he's a huge Zionist-Hawk for Israel), and he didn't bother asking any impolitic questions about the Bush Reichstag-Fire(s) on September 11th 2001. Since you folks will never get a Republican in this district - really, what are you complaining about in Waxman!?!?! It seems more likely that this is just an attempt to prevent the inevitable turn-over of the House back to the Dems - that 2 years of Republican chaos/blackmail, pro-Billionaire sycophantry and inexcusable inaction will naturally bring about.
Another WorldView June 09, 2012 at 03:34 AM
ID's are not required for Citizenship - read the caselaw in Houston Vs. Hill (from AZ), if not the million other places that this is discussed. You want "republican" government (or is that just Republican Govenrment?), yet don't realize that the ID you carry is prima facie evidence that you are not entitled to it. Please go ahead and educate yourself, just a bit, before rebroadcasting your ignorance - http://state-citizen.org/ . Really, you just want things both ways, limited-corporate-liability, and benefits, but yet you don't want to pay the associated costs. And really, what are the chances that a non-gusano "latino" would be as invested in support for fascism, as you seem to be.
Jason June 09, 2012 at 05:33 AM
Wow, please go to http://state-citizen.org to see a wacky website written by Sir Richard James, McDonald. A legal scholar with no law degree. He is also the president of New Lemuria. Another WorldView, I think you are even more of a nutcase than Mr. Hendricks if you are recommending anyone to such a weird website to learn of their rights as citizens. I am done debating with you people because I do not think you live in reality. Go ahead Phil Hendricks, get in your last word.
Jason June 09, 2012 at 05:35 AM
Here is a link to the website of new lemuria and the great scholar who we all should learn from. http://newlemuria.org/news.html
Pam June 09, 2012 at 05:50 AM
Jason, I think Phil is Sir Richard. haha
Another WorldView June 09, 2012 at 06:05 AM
"The Republic of New Lemuria is an Constitutional Sovereign Nation State" "The people of Republic of New Lemuria desired independence from their former Nation and renamed it and installed a new administration which was approved by the new Senate and the President and adopted a new Constitution that was more to their liking so that the problems of the past would not appear, thereby forming a government of the people based upon spiritual, political, educational humanitarian and democratic principles. All prior treaties acknowledgments and claims were brought forward under the new name The Republic of New Lemuria." Seems to me, like the sort of spirit, that started the experiment in Constitutional republican and democratic self-government once known as the united States of America. The fact is, Jason, you probably have more in common with Mr. McDonald than you are willing to admit. Of course if you demand that he produce "ID", to secure his right to be an "elector" of the state, he might become cross with your ignorance, as well.
Another WorldView June 09, 2012 at 06:13 AM
Yeah Jason, a wacky former policeman who did some research. Amazing what you find when you start cracking books. Having a J.D. isn't a requirement for understanding the law, though perhaps it helps for a conformist such as yourself. Did Mr. McDonald write Tashiro v. Jordan, or any of the numerous other cases he cites? Having sat down with Mr. McDonald, I can tell you that he has a firm grasp on reality - perhaps a firmer one than your own, Mr. Papers-please goosestepping-Bloomfield supporter. Could you pick a more Quixotic campaign to run disinformation operations for? I suggested that you go there and learn a bit. It appears that all you've learned was how to impugn the character of a man, far greater than yourself. To end your debating, you must have started somewhere. That would be a fairly charitable description of your comments on this board.
Another WorldView June 09, 2012 at 06:18 AM
Pam, on a planet with over 6 billion possible guesses, I don't think that you could have been farther-off. But your quip is about the level of understanding that you've shown yourself capable of, here on this board - so far.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »