This guest editorial is from Irvine resident Diane Bucka: it was originally sent to the OC Register as a letter to the editor which they didn’t run. We are happy to do so. The Register also admonished GOP CA-45 candidate Greg Raths and fact checked his fundraising letter where Raths called the paper “Fake news” and “Liberal Media.”
Bucka is spot on; Katie Porter deserved the paper’s endorsement. Here’s her post:
Here in OC, perspectives have evolved on social and political issues, with Chapman University’s 2020 Orange County Annual Survey[1] stating “ideologically, the area is much more balanced than in previous decades.”
- 64% of OC residents favor gun control and more restrictions on access to guns.
- 69% believe immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take.
- 73% of those surveyed said climate change is a serious problem and most do not support President Trump’s dismissal of climate change as a hoax.
These are not positions Raths – or Trump – embraces. Raths’ website, and numerous social media declarations, are fraught with Trumpian tones of “Chinese virus,” 2nd amendment “freedoms,” cries to reverse the Affordable Care Act (with NO alternative plan), ambiguous claims about support for deficit reduction and the like. Trump’s low approval rating (43%) suggest that candidates like Raths who reliably align with him are outnumbered by the >51% who would support a Democratic candidate. This is only underscored when Rep. Katie Porter, the candidate in question, “has quickly garnered a national reputation as a crusader” and who “impresses with her knowledge and focus,” to use your own words. (Incidentally, the statistics you cite in your article are incorrect; Porter won by 4% in 2018, not 3%.[2])
Raths’ minimal experience as an elected city official is tainted by local cronyism, rumors of bad behavior, and inappropriate, aggressive actions taken against opponents and critics; he is way out of his league.
The OC Register’s endorsement of Greg Raths shows us more about its own biases and lagging awareness of shifting constituent values than it tells us about how well the candidates would serve us. Rep. Katie Porter’s reputation on tireless advocacy for the people in CA45 over special interests and corrupt actors has earned our gratitude and inspires broad, enthusiastic support.
[1] https://www.chapman.edu/wilkinson/political-science/_files/2020_orangecounty_annualsurvey.pdf?fbclid=IwAR27jdjxhWn-hMsYB5VY9RzeN9TtFD-OM19KvPyo2CSnxTiXmNQovqzflcE
[2] https://ballotpedia.org/California%27s_45th_Congressional_District_election,_2018
The other mistake the editorial board made in its endorsement was stating that “…Raths’ policy positions more closely reflect our limited-government views…” As this letter points out, Raths positions are aligned with the president’s, who is a populist/nationalist, NOT a limited-government conservative. Since CA45 took its current shape after 2010, Campbell and Walters were elected by comfortable margins through 2016, and Romney carried the district by more than 10% in 2012. Then Clinton won the district by a narrow margin in 2016, followed of course by Porter’s win in 2018. This is a reaction to Trump as much as it is to any particular issue (although the 2017 tax bill that Walters supported against the interests of her constituents seems pertinent) and is also apparent in changes in voter registration in CA45 from 2016 to 2020 as well. Why the current Republican candidate would look at those trends and choose his election strategy suggests that he (and his party) is not serious about contesting the election.