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.
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.
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/
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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!
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)
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.