NEW POLL SHOW ISSA PICKS UP LEAD IN 50TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
By Miriam Raftery Photos: Darrell Issa, left, and Ammar Campa-Najjar, right October 30, 2020 (San Diego’s East County) — A new San Diego Union-Tribune/10 News poll conducted by Survey USA shows Republican Congressman Darrell Issa with a double-digit lead over Democratic opponent Ammar Campa-Najjar in the 50th Congressional District race to fill the seat left vacant by Duncan D. Hunter’s resignation. The poll has Issa leading with 51% to Campa-Najjar’s 40%, with 9% undecided. That’s a significant shift from three other recent polls which showed the candidates far closer, some within the margin of error and one with Campa-Najjar in the lead. In a statement, Issa attributed the poll results to his “busy schedule campaigning across the district over the past year, the fact that [he’s] winning the independent vote by a massive 14 point margin, and that the Republican base stuck with [him] through a long, difficult, and expensive primary campaign.” Issa’s campaign also attributed the shift in part to a negative story on the conservative website Breitbart, which claimed leaked text messages revealed anti-Israeli views voiced by Campa-Najjar. In an interview with San Diego Jewish World, Campa-Najjar was asked about the Breitbart piece. He reiterated his support for a peaceful two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians, and his opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Issa has an advantage in the heavily Republican district. However, the outcome may come down to turnout, with the winner benefitting from a coattail effect in the presidential election which is drawing record early voting and mail-in ballot turnout. Campa-Najjar posted on Facebook, “The only poll that matters is on Election Day! Let’s make everyday count and win this race for all of us.” Still undecided? NBC 7 recently hosted a candidate debate with Issa and Campa-Najjar. View the NBC 7 debate.
READER’S EDITORIAL: FOR WHOSE VISION DO WE VOTE?
By Patrick Osio October 30, 2020 (San Diego) — Conventional political wisdom dictates there are two main factors that propel a sitting president to reelection victory – positive economy and low unemployment. Arguments can be made that President Trump inherited these two factors from the Obama years. But those arguments make no difference, simply because under Trump economy growth, rising new employment and decreasing unemployment continued. Other detrimental arguments about Trump can and are being made – such as his constant lying, his exaggerations on how well he is personally doing, condemnation on Obama care, racial and ethnic divisiveness, constant insults towards the press and opponents, his favoritism to Russia’s Putin, his trade wars, using resources to build a wall along the U.S. Mexico border, and many other anti-Trump concerns. Yet, to a significant sector of the electorate, the economy and unemployment are the two issues favoring voting for Trump. Voters can and do overlook most anything else if these two issues are positive. However, the country is deeply divided between those who believe the economy and employment are the only issues of importance as to whether Trump should or should not be given another four years, while a possibly greater number believe that Trump is a danger to the country for many reasons including that he is responsible for the economic disaster. I, like many, believe that the country’s economy and employment are CRUCIAL issues simply because we are all so very dependent on salaries and employment for family support. Trump had strong campaign arguments based on the economy and employment continued positive outlook – but then disaster struck in January of 2020 – a deadly virus invaded the country with a vengeance – Coronavirus began its deadly march striking at will, causing sickness and death — In an effort to stop the onslaught the best scientific minds with great experience in fighting deceases attempted to stop the onslaught – but in this, President Trump failed the country. He feared following the scientific advice of our nation’s top science and health advisors, the economy would crash and unemployment would soar, so he rejected their plan and advice. Regarding the economy and employment, his fears proved him right – the economy faltered, and unemployment erupted with a vengeance not seen since the 1930’s Great Depression years. In a desperate effort to reverse the onslaught, President Trump decided it was more important to recuperate the economy and gain back the lost employment, than it was to support the Nation’s scientific community. That decision has to date caused close to 230,000 American deaths with thousands more estimated. Now President Trump tells us that the pandemic is on its way out, that a vaccine is near and its distribution not far into the future, so that meantime we need to live with the virus and its deaths as “it is what it is.” He tells us to vote for him because he can bring back the economy and employment to new heights far superior to any growth the nation has ever seen. So, he asks for us to have faith in him and re-elect him so he can accomplish these vital goals. We are faced with questions – do we believe him? He was wrong in not following the plan and advise from the prominent scientific minds not only in our nation, but world renowned for their expertise and experience. And saying that the vaccine is near, is an admission that science was right – is it not? Ah, but the economy, the economy? Trump reasons that reopening businesses and allow people to patronize local stores, bars, restaurants, theaters, sporting events and all other enterprises will bring back the economy and created the much-needed employment though the prize will be more deaths. If we accept his reasoning and vote for his economic and employment recuperation plan, we must also set aside who we are and are as a people. Are we to set aside the abduction, the snatching of babies, toddlers from their mothers’ and fathers’ arms and placing them in cages? Then throw their parents out of the country to teach others who seek asylum yearning for a better life in our country, as in times past, millions of others have done. Through our silence, are we not guilty of the monstrous crime against humanity and our own immigration laws? Do we willingly accept our scandalous and odious rotting of our honor, decency and national heritage? Ah, but the economy, the economy! Oh God, what are we becoming? God forgive us, for we know not what we do. Patrick Osio Jr. is an award-winning, San Diego-based former editor and former columnist associated with San Diego Metro Magazine and the former Knight Ridder newspaper group. The opinions in this editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine. To submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.
RESTAURANT OWNERS SEEK REFUNDS OF STATE AND LOCAL FEES
By Miriam Raftery October 29, 2020 (San Diego) – Restaurant owners in San Diego and several other counties filed claims Tuesday October 27, asking for refunds of state and local fees assessed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs seek refunds of costs incurred for liquor licenses, health permits and tourism fees at a time when public health orders shut down many businesses or forced them to operate at reduced capacity, while incurring added expenses. The state has 45 days to respond to the claims, after which a lawsuit could be filed. San Diegans joined with restaurant owners in San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento and Monterey Counties. City News Service reports that claims are also expected to be filed in San Francisco, Fresno and Placer counties. California Restaurant Association president and CEO Jot Condie (photo, right: CNBC archives), said, “Even when the restrictions are lifted, the devastating impact on the restaurant industry will extend for years. Restaurants have not received any form of relief. Easing fees would help enable establishments to stay open and keep vulnerable workers employed.” Results of a survey published August 28 by the California Restaurant Association revealed that 60% of restaurants that responded indicated they received no federal aid through the Paycheck Protection program and would run out of funds at month’s end. Nearly two-thirds (63%) have not received and rent relief and 30% said they will close their restaurant permanently or downsize by closing some locations. Only 41% said they could remain viable even with 50% indoor capacity. Before the pandemic, 1.4 million Californians worked in restaurants. Since March, between 900,000 to 1 million of these workers have either been laid off or furloughed – and many continue to wait on an unemployment payment that never comes. Around 60% of California restaurants are owned by people of color, and 50% of California restaurants are owned or partly-owned by women. “Our members are like most Californians, now wondering not just how to sustain a job or a business, but how to make the mortgage payment on their homes,” Condie said in August. “This could have been prevented with a few simple policy changes that would give restaurants rent relief and allow them to work with their insurers to cover some of their massive revenue losses.” He blamed legislative inaction, adding, “Californians will soon look around our communities and see too many dark, empty store fronts, and it could have been prevented.”
READER’S EDITORIAL: LA MESA CANNOT TRUST COLIN PARENT
By Aaron Amerling October 29, 2020 (La Mesa) — Over the past four years, it has become apparent that the citizens of La Mesa can not trust Colin Parent to do what is in the community’s best interest, and only what’s in his personal or donor’s best interests. Two recent examples of Colin putting his own career over the will of his constituents would be the ADU vote in 2019, when despite overwhelming public opinion for more time and discussion before changing the laws to the most lenient in the state, Colin Parent argued for an immediate vote, inviting pro-ADU spokespeople to come out and speak against community members and even failed to acknowledge a campaign by an ADU promotion company to sabotage the community survey, a company later found to be one of Colin’s campaign donors and he has subsequently posted links to their website on his Twitter several times. After using a procedural maneuver to cut short council discussion of the proposal, Colin pushed the ADU proposal through on a 3-2 vote, and since then has used it as a career talking point and called citizens against “racists.” A more recent example of this pattern would be the Holiday Inn Homekey Homeless Housing Proposal. The proposal was brought to the county by Affirmed Housing, a developer with a history of contributing to candidates for political favors and a corporate sponsor of Circulate San Diego, the nonprofit lobbying group run by Parent. The proposal requested to receive a $37 million dollar grant from the state and county to convert the Holiday Inn Hotel on Fletcher Parkway into permanent homeless housing for the unhoused from throughout all of East Country. Colin Parent was notified of Affirmed Housing’s plans, via a LinkedIn message from its CEO directly to Colin on August 12th. Now one would think a council member’s first response would be to find out more details about the project and investigate its feasibility with the City Manager and City Staff. Instead, after hearing the details about the project only from the developer, Colin immediately wrote the County a letter of support for the project, saying that it perfectly aligned with the City’s goals and would “go a long way towards helping the council’s priorities” without first speaking with the mayor, the city staff, other council members, or the public. The timeline from this point until the special council meeting on Sept. 21, as evidenced by emails gathered through public records requests, shows a very different tact taken by Colin Parent as opposed to the Mayor, City Manager or other council members. The City Manager was busy gathering facts, opinions, and recommendations from various city departments, and the county, eventually coming back with a recommendation to the Mayor and council that they do not support this project for various reasons. While during this time period, the Mayor was busy working on a strategy to slow the county vote for approval of this project until the community had a chance to weigh in. Meanwhile, Colin Parent, on his own accord, was meeting with the developer on numerous occasions, lobbying the board of supervisors for support, rounding up supporters to speak in favor of the project, and even going so far as to give out the contact information of private citizens he thought would be favorable to the project directly to the developers. Much of this after the City Manager had already given the council the staff’s recommendations against the project and the Mayor expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of community input. Eventually, Colin Parent recused himself from the special counsel vote (though he argued to the city attorney that he should not have to) when La Mesa Village Voice exposed his ties to the developer, including a $1000 donation from Affirmed Housing’s CEO just days after Colin wrote the County in support of the project. After hearing overwhelming public input against the details of the projects, and the recommendation from the City Manager against the location the council, minus Colin Parent, unanimously voted against supporting the project. At the Board of Supervisors meeting the following day the developer’s request was denied following La Mesa’s input; the Supervisors voted to withdraw a state grant application for the project. This is a pattern of behavior of doing things purposefully without transparency. Combine this with findings from his campaign finance docs that showed between 2016 and 2020 he took in close to $200,000 of special interest money, mostly from developers and building industry insiders and less than $3000 from regular La Mesa residents, plus the fact that he has voted on several projects involving his campaign donors without recusing himself makes this a candidate we can not trust to do what is in our best interest. Do we want to spend the next four years wondering if Colin Parent is making a decision based on what’s best for La Mesa, or what’s best for his donors and his career? The answer is a clear “no.” The opinions in this editorial reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of East County Magazine. To submit an editorial for consideration, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.
CAMPA-NAJJAR TELLS STANDS ON MIDEAST PEACE, BDS
By Donald H. Harrison, San Diego Jewish World, a member of the San Diego Online News Association Photo: former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and congressional candidate Ammar Campa-Najjar October 29, 2020 (San Diego) – Congressional candidate Ammar Campa-Najjar, reacting to an unfavorable story carried about him by the Breitbart news organization, reiterated on Wednesday his support for a peaceful two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians, and his opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. In a telephone interview with San Diego Jewish World, Campa-Najjar pointed out that he once had met and shook hands in a moment of reconciliation with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who during his career as an IDF officer commanded the mission which assassinated Campa-Najjar’s grandfather, Mohammad Yusuf al-Najjar. The grandfather, who was killed 16 years before Campa-Najjar’s birth, was considered one of the masterminds behind the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre of Israeli athletes. The mission not only killed Campa-Najjar’s grandfather, but also his grandmother. Yet, in meeting Barak, “we shook hands and said let’s make peace,” Campa-Najjar recalled in the interview “Peace is my biggest priority,” adding others can also do it, “if he and I can let go of the past. … Peace is my biggest priority.” Campa-Najjar, who follows his Mexican-American mother’s Christian religion, said he considered the BDS movement harmful not only to Israel but also to Palestinian workers who commute every day –“like Mexicans do here” — to work in Israeli industries. “BDS is just wrong in every way,” Campa-Najjar said. The 50th Congressional District candidate, a Democrat, is opposed by former Congressman Darrell Issa, a Republican, who a recent poll in the San Diego Union-Tribune indicated is trailing Issa by a margin of 51 percent to 40 percent. Campa-Najjar also told me that he is in support of the Abraham Accords, in which both the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain normalized relations with Israel, and which Sudan also recently agreed to participate in. Campa-Najjar said Israel and the Arab world now recognize that they have a common enemy in Iran. As important as those agreements are, he said, “there still is much more to accomplish,” especially bringing about a permanent peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians. Campa-Najjar said that the Middle East is “so much more nuanced than the President (Trump) understands.”