Press "Enter" to skip to content

Truman Award Program: Where was Tom Daly’s Ad?

Tom Daly at Truman Award Dinner
Tom Daly at Truman Award Dinner

I don’t get to go to Drinking Liberally all that much, but when I do, there’s a non-stop lobbying job by my fellow bloggers to get me to embrace the campaign of Tom Daly for Supervisor.  I’ve met Tom there during an Angels playoff game.  He’s a nice guy and very likeable.  And normally, I’d be perfectly happy to support someone with Tom’s experience and credentials for a BoS seat.  But with five conservatives on the current BoS, we need a fighter and it’s one of the reasons I’m backing Lorri Galloway in the race.

I saw Tom at the Truman dinner but he was otherwise engaged.  I did finally meet Lorri personally and came away with a couple of Galloway for Supervisor Fortune Cookies and convinced that I’ve got my money on the best candidate for the post.  And Lorri reinforced her message and marketing at the Truman Dinner with a full page ad in the program.  Rose Epinoza, another great Democratic candidate, has a small ad in the program as well.  But I looked and looked and found no ad for Tom Daly.

So I have to ask; is Tom still running for Supervisor now that Supervisor Chirs Norby appears focused on the Assembly seat (note to Norby; you may have a much tougher time leaving committee meetings early and still pocketing checks for “attendance” in Sacto than you do in the OC) and has thrown his support to Shawn Nelson.  Or will Tom run for another term as clerk-recorder.  Did Tony Bushala waste his money on buying Daly’s URL (even as he censors comments about Art Pedroza that he allows about Matt Cunningham)?  Is Tom Daly simply pulling a Joe Dunn? 

The situation has changed the dynamic of our friendly Thursday night debates.  Subsequent conversations with my Drinking Liberally buddies now places the shoe on the other foot.  If Daly drops out, will you support Galloway for 4th District supervisor?  And why didn’t Daly place an ad? 

Lorri Galloway (right) and friend at 2009 Truman Dinner (c) 2009,
Lorri Galloway (right) and friend at 2009 Truman Dinner (c) 2009,


  1. Gary Kephart Gary Kephart December 9, 2009

    Let me get this straight: you’re basing your support of Tom off of one lacking ad? It seems to me that there’s got to be more to your decision that just that.

  2. Mike Tardif Mike Tardif December 9, 2009

    Is anyone aware of Tom Daly’s position on Project Labor Agreements for public works construction projects?

  3. Bill Spaulding Bill Spaulding December 9, 2009

    Look for Tom Daly’s ad in the same place where Dianne Feinstein put hers.

  4. Dan Chmielewski Dan Chmielewski Post author | December 9, 2009

    Gary — there is. As I said, I like Tom and I think he’s perfectly competent. But I think Lorri is the sort of fighter we need in this seat at thsi time.

    Bill — Dianne isn’t up for re-election but her letter and an ad are also missing from the program. I am hoping its a sign DiFi is getting ready to retire so we can get some new blue blood in the Senate.

    • Bill Spaulding Bill Spaulding December 9, 2009

      Yes, I’m aware and you are correct Dianne isn’t up for re-election. It also occurs to me that after her votes for Roberts, Alito, Mukasey, immunity for telephone companies, etc., etc., she might want to remind Democrats that she is one, also. If she continues the trend, she could get a credible challenger in the primary. Or maybe she figures she’s unassailable. Then again, yes, maybe she is getting ready to retire (stranger things have happened…this is, after all, California) but I doubt it because sitting in a committee chair is a plum job that took her oh so long to achieve. Regardless, she should have had a presence in the program whether by letter or an ad or both.

  5. Publius Publius December 9, 2009

    I think campaign contributors expect their contributions to be spent on voter contact, staff salaries, basic overhead expenses, etc. – NOT ads in dinner programs!
    So in my book, Daly aces this test. Espinoza gets a C. And Galloway fails.

  6. Daniel Lamb Daniel Lamb December 9, 2009

    There is something else Dan,
    I had been hearing for quite a long time that Daly and Chris Norby had a “deal,” of sorts, to switch seats. Supervisor-Clerk
    Obviously, the missteps of a certain assemblyman has changed that. Norby had to become more of a republican to beat Ackerman. And now, Norby has endorsed republican Sean Nelson. This is a big blow to Daly, as he has spent most of his career kissing up to republicans. Or this could mean he is no longer running.
    It it important to note that clerk-recorder is an easy and HIGH paid job. And Daly would easily win if he ran again, especailly with the money he is raising “for” his supervisor race.

  7. Here, Here Here, Here December 9, 2009

    I just read the fortune cookie and it says,”Spending campaign money on fortune cookies is so stupid, you go home.” I have heard insiders last year griping about Lorri spending money on bill boards. Another wasteful tactic. Publius is right, voter contact is the way to go.

  8. Colony Rabble Colony Rabble January 12, 2010

    Jumping in late, but to Here Here I would reply that Lorri did not buy those billboards. They were an IE, from a developer she tossed a sweetheart deal to after screwing the poor she claims to represent. See below for a post from the old No on Gallway blog from her City Council re-election. So Dan, this is the “fighter” you are looking for?

    “It seems the funding on this project got a little creative. On November 28, 2006, SADI, the developer for Elm Street Commons, came to City Council to have their standard DDA approved through the Housing Authority. Standard practice in Anaheim is to give the developer money, to be paid back over time, 85% to the City, and the developer keep 15% as profit. The 85% is then recycled into more housing projects, which keeps Anaheim building apartments for the working poor. Whether you agree with building subsidized housing or not, it is an efficient system. In the development of the Elm Street Commons, the City offered many millions of dollars in direct funding, plus incentives added later such as a sewer project the developer decided the City should do. Rather than approve the otherwise ordinary deal, now-convicted-felon Richard Chavez pulled the development from the Consent Calendar, allowing discussion. In the end, the City Council, led by Chavez and backed by Lorri Galloway, changed the condition of the agreement, bumping the developer’s profit from the standard 15% to a whopping and unprecedented 50% profit for a private corporation!!

    Mayor Curt Pringle admonished Council not to approve this deal, saying, “By taking money out of that pot and not returning it to that pot it limits the amount of affordable housing we will do in the future.” The change meant that the developer would not be paying back 35% of the cost of the project to a revolving fund, and therefore that 35% would not be available for housing the working poor in the future. Why would Chavez propose such a move? Seems the same folks had filtered money through a shady PAC (Hometown Voter) just before the vote, funding an Independent Expenditure on behalf of Richard Chavez’ failed re-election. Why would Lorri Galloway take money from the very people she claims to champion? Perhaps the answer is in her Council statement, as she looked at the developer and admonished him, “I hope you acknowledge how much Council has been supportive of you.”

    Well the developers at Elm Street Commons sure did remember to acknowledge that 35% jump in their profits, funded by robbing Anaheim’s working poor. Again funneling money through PAC filings with Treasurer Kinde Durkee….a donation of $15,000 was made by Elm Street, which funded the Clear Channel billboards Lorri has all over the City. They also underwrote a large mailing, and the graphic arts for the mail piece”

Comments are closed.