So, Hanford Democrat Nicole Parra will endorse Danny Gilmore, her former Republican opponent, in the race to replace the termed out Parra in the 30th Assembly District. Surprise, surprise.
Gilmore, the retired CHP officer, is running against Democrat Fran Florez for the South Valley seat Parra is vacating in January. Florez is the mother of state Sen. Dean Florez. The Parra and Florez clans have engaged in a long-running blood feud that resembles the Hatfields and McCoys, except that no one has actually died. Yet.
Democrats in the Legislature are steamed with Parra; Republicans are giggling with glee. The 30th District may be one of the few legislative races this November that offers an ounce of interest, since it is one of the few districts that is the least bit competitive.
Democrats desperately want to keep the seat; the Republicans desperately want to take it away. Expect a barnburner.
As for Parra, some speculate that she'll slide into a career as a lobbyist when she's termed out. That's hard to see. I can't imagine the Democratic majority in the Legislature -- which won't change whatever the outcome in District 30 -- to be very receptive to anything sought by any future lobbying client of Parra's.
But for now, the political junkies have an engaging spectacle to watch in the South Valley.
Nicole Parra has been an outstanding advocate for the Valley and the people of her district.
Bee editors love to pretend seriousness about issues, but can't resist their addiction to political gossip and the intoxicating opportunity to disperse their opinions through their own newspaper.
The election is much more than an "engaging spectacle" for "politcal junkies." The election is a chance for a voice from people in the district whose lives are affected every day by the caprices of an arrogant, ignorant, juvenile Democratic majority in a Legislature that is bound and determined to run California into the ground.
Nicole's integrity and capabilities would be highly valued by any serious public policy advocacy firm, and her familiarity with legislative procedure and the Capitol staff who truly run the place don't go away just because Karen Bass and Fabian Nunez wish all of the Valley's representatives would just close their mouths and follow orders.
I second what Tony said.
Why doesn't she become an (R) instead of a (D)if "Little Nicky" is serious.. The Florez/Gilmore thing seems like she's trying to settle a score.Maxim magazine says she's hot...can we get a full length photo instead of just a head shot so I can make up my mind on this.
Some time ago there was a post, claiming that women (sans exceptions) are not
fit for political positions that wield power because women, more likely than men,
abuse the power of office for personal emotional reasons. Sarah Palin (Alaska)
and Nicole Parra (California) are accused of having abused that power because of
family squabbles. Both of them are easy on the eye. But they remind me of a certain actress who had the reputation of being a "chocolate covered black widow" [spider].
Not being a farmer, Parra did nothing for me. Dropping the "other shoe" means
precursor. What was it?
How is it an abuse of power for Parra to back Danny Gilmore? After she claimed victory in their last race together, she publically stated she considered Gilmore a worthy and respectable opponent.
How is it an abuse of power not to endorse those you don't believe are fit for office (AKA Florez)?
Must everything in politics be partison? It seems to me this classy lady is rising above partisonship.
And the key word here is accused. It seems NOMOR is insinuating that just because an accusation of this nature is made against women, it must be true.
Sounds pretty sexist to me.
Since when is it a given to assume an accusation made by a political enemy is complete truth?
The jury is still out on the Palin case, and there's plenty of red flags pointing towards dishonesty, retaliation, partison politics, if not sexism are behind the accusations being made about Sarah Palin, in Alaska.
She has a right as an American to endorse anyone she wants and why should we care. I am sure she has her reasons whether it be because she likes what he stands for or retaliation. Who cares not I.
Jackie, I kind of agree; however, she is in a position that her endorsement sways the endorsement of other people. That is why they make an issue of it. I however, agree with her endorsement. Believing (there are exceptions of course) that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and Dean Florez values have been influence by his mother Fran Florez... she will exhibit similar attributes. Dean Florez is one of the major problems in Sacramento. He is a grandstander, acts without thinking issues all the way through and works more for his own notoriety than the needs of the people. I don't want a carbon copy of him, in Fran Florez, in Sacramento.
"drops the other shoe?" You know with women, it isn't always all about shoes... giggle.
I must be living with my head in a paper bag because I still don't know what it means
dropping the other shoe. With Tony Casteleum, we are are getting more of the 100% partisan's posts, but being grateful for life's little favors, without the Bible.
I believe, for what it's worth, that in a democratic form of government there is little
room for political dynasties. See what happened between the republic that was
Rome and the Renaissance. The absolutism of the feudality in the dark ages.
And closer to home and our time, nepotism, more often than not, breeds favoritism
which is sometimes corrupting the system. But I have not been appointed arbiter
of our strength and failings.
Unfortunately, I can't afford paying for overtime posting.