Is it true that California 11th Congressional District Republican primary candidate David Harmer filed for unemployment shortly after making nearly $500,000 in a 16-month period?
Please watch the video below for more details on what appears to have been a most un-conservative course of action by the two-time failed political hopeful:
Contra Costa Times political editor Lisa Vorderbrueggen — whose paper had already endorsed Harmer — seemingly attempts to whitewash Harmer’s unemployment flap in her piece on the subject:
Harmer collected $2,395 in unemployment insurance through April 30, 2009. However, all eligible workers who pay into the unemployment insurance pool receive benefits regardless of whether they “need” the money.
Not exactly true, Lisa, which is what I attempted to tell you via Twitter when I saw your mischaracterization:
That is, one has to choose to file for unemployment before one receives any benefits, a reality which Ms. Vorderbrueggen almost certainly knows.
I should mention that I never received a reply from Ms. Vorderbrueggen on Twitter.
David Harmer, after making nearly half a million dollars in one-and-one-quarter years as a lawyer for a failed Wall Street Bank, decided that he deserved a few thousand dollars more from California’s public coffers.
Some might refer to Harmer’s choice to file for unemployment as “greedy,” particularly during a time of such national and statewide economic hardship.
However you view Harmer’s decision, this much is certain: Other conservatives who have made far less than Harmer had during that 16-month period prior to his filing for unemployment have chosen differently. That is, they have chosen not to file for unemployment insurance when it was their right, legally, to do so.
Whether these individuals have not liked the idea of relying on the government for money, have felt someone less fortunate may need the money should there be a shortage of California unemployment funding or were motivated by both of these or other reason(s) isn’t known.
What is known is the choice which David Harmer made when faced with that situation.
And his choice is something which California’s 11th Congressional District voters have the right to know before they head to the voting booth on June 8, 2010.
There is a very disturbing trend occurring with the signs of David Harmer’s opponents in the California 2010 Congressional District 11 Republican primary election.
At least some of the signs for Tony Amador, Elizabeth Emken and Brad Goehring — David Harmer’s three opponents in the upcoming primary — have been damaged in recent days.
Oddly enough, however, none of Harmer’s signs seem to have suffered similar “wind damage” or the like.
The video has more on this subject, including evidence of the damage that has happened to these signs:
Who or what is behind the damage which has befallen these signs, and why does it appear that the signs of David Harmer have not been similarly affected?
We are less than three weeks away from the California primary, and some of you may have already received your ballots by mail. It’s time to get serious about our future.
I’ve been saying since the 2008 General Election that this would be the most important election year in most of our lifetimes. And I don’t mean the election in November. It’s the primaries that matter, people. For those with a Tea Party mindset, we’ve been complaining for over a year that we need candidates who are grounded in Constitutional thinking. The only way that happens is through the primaries.
Let’s take the 11th District in California, for example. This is my home district and the one that I will be voting in on June 8th. There are four Republican candidates vying to unseat two-term incumbent Democrat Jerry McNerney. No one is going to confuse McNerney with a Constitutionalist. He votes in lock-step with Nancy Pelosi, and we know where she stands. So, what about these Republicans?
I’ve been following this race since last fall when candidates first started announcing their intentions to run. I’ve watched the four remaining candidates (two have since dropped out) at various forums and public events, and listened to them on the radio. I’ve studied their websites to get an idea of who these people are and what they believe in. And, on the surface, they all appear to be saying the right things. But if you dig a little deeper, there are some issues that I feel deserve to see the light of day.
Let’s start with David Harmer. Harmer entered the race in January, after all the other candidates had long declared. Harmer lives in San Ramon, but OUTSIDE the district. He won’t even be able to vote for himself. He’s an attorney (wanting to represent a largely agricultural district) who has run for Congress twice before unsuccessfully, once in Utah in 1996 and again last year in a special election in his own district (CD-10) where he lost to John Garamendi. He apparently supports homosexual marriage. He has received about 84% of his contributions from outside the district in which he is running. I believe he is the establishment candidate. Why else the late entry into the race, and all the money from around the country instead of within the district? In addition, his endorsement by the California Republican Assembly is dubious, at best. Having attended the last two San Joaquin CRA meetings, I was privy to the shenanigans that took place to ensure that Harmer would get the endorsement. I don’t think Harmer is the kind of candidate that true conservatives want. Now, if you’re voting Republican, and not conservative………..
Elizabeth Emken is an interesting story. She is a former employee of IBM, and for the last couple of years has been a lobbyist for Autism Speaks, an advocacy group. Her background would indicate the type of person that you might consider as a great Congresswoman, were it not for the lobbying activity. From her own website: ”Elizabeth joined Autism Speaks in March 2007 to manage the relationship between the organization and the federal government, state governments, and related agencies.” In my opinion, if part of her job there wasn’t dedicated to ELIMINATING the relationship between the organization and the federal government, then she’s missed the boat. As great a cause as Autism Speaks is, it has no business lobbying from the federal government, as that would be outside of their Constitutional mandate. Emken says on her website that she is for limited government and lower taxes, but her actions don’t quite bear that out.
Antonio “Tony” Amador is a retired U. S. Marshal with an extensive law enforcement background. He spent 13 years as an LAPD officer, and since has served at the request of governors and presidents in various law enforcement roles. He makes for an intriguing candidate. He seems to have the right answers to all the questions, but all of the candidates do. My question of Amador is like that of Emken and Harmer. You’re all insiders to a degree, having spent time in “the machine”. How do I know that you won’t be just another Washington elitist once you’re elected?
And lastly, there’s Brad Goehring. Goehring is a wine grape grower in the Lodi/Clements area, and has lived in the district for his entire life, save his college years. He knows what it means to be a victim of an out-of-control government. He was almost charged with “filling and destroying waters of the U. S.” by the Army Corps of Engineers….on his own property. He has since become an expert on the Clean Water Act. He calls himself a conservative before a Republican, so he doesn’t seem to have any deep party connections, like some of the others do. This is the one issue that I think sets him apart from the other candidates. He’s one of us, not one of them.
I’m supporting Brad Goehring and will be filling out my mail-in ballot soon. Take the time to learn about these candidates, and make an informed choice. The only way that we take back Washington is if we elect people like ourselves to represent us. People who understand the Constitution and it’s limitations, and then defend it with everything they have.
Originally posted at restoreconservatism,blogspot.com by Evan Stone. The opinions expressed in the above article are those of Evan Stone, and not necessarily those of Conservative New Media. Evan Stone is not paid by any political campaign or by Conservative New Media, and provides the above article as a guest contributor to Conservative New Media.
