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?
The problem with today’s political climate is that the voters just don’t trust their representatives any more! The tea party movement is pretty good proof of that. So we shouldn’t be surprised to hear that CD-11 establishment candidate and bay area lawyer, David Harmer, seemingly stole the California Republican Assembly endorsement with the help of Harmer’s paid deputy campaign manager, Sara Blicharz.
Though I wasn’t at any of the events leading up to this CRA catastrophe, I have been told that once all was said and done, Brad Goehring was likely to end up with the endorsement of the California Republican Assembly. Knowing that his endorsement would put the final nail in David Harmer’s campaign coffin (and make it his third failed campaign), it seems as though Sara Blicharz jumped into action.
You may recognize the name Sara Blicharz because back in April the CD-11 candidate Elizabeth Emken accused Sara Blicharz and the Harmer camp of rigging the open forum held at the San Joaquin Delta College.
“It’s just flat-out inappropriate,” Emken said. “This was the David Harmer show.”
Sara Blicharz, who is also a member of the San Joaquin Republican Central Committee and San Joaquin chapter of the California Republican Assembly (SJ CRA), organized the event and definitely had the ability to tip it in favor of her boss David Harmer.
In my opinion, the right thing to do would’ve been for Sara Blicharz to remove herself from organizing or having any hand in this event whatsoever. It seems as though that is not how she works. In fact, throughout this entire process, it seems as though Blicharz chose the wrong thing and quite possibly even the unethical thing. I’ll let you be the judge of that.
Like any other political organization, the California Republican Assembly has by-laws that are supposed to be followed at all times. From what I’ve been told, this wasn’t the case when the chapters involved in the endorsement of the 11th Congressional candidate had to make a decision.
It started in Sara’s San Joaquin CRA chapter. This chapter contained both Goehring and Harmer supporters. The other two candidates, Emkin and Amador, had little support. The numbers weren’t in their favor, so it was common knowledge that this would be a battle between only the Harmer and Goehring campaigns. It was finally decided to have a special meeting in which nominations for voting delegates would take place, and the first five vote-getters would represent the SJ CRA at the endorsing convention to choose these delegates. The votes were in and the top five were overwhelmingly in support of Goehring. The President of the SJ CRA was behind Harmer 100% so this nomination posed a huge problem for her and Sara. The meeting was ended and everyone went home knowing that they had delegates chosen to represent their charter. But some left unhappy.
Another meeting was held later on and it was brought to the attention of the SJ CRA that two people weren’t notified of the special meeting held earlier, so according to the President the prior nominations were void. A motion was brought to the floor to accept the previous nominations. In a clear violation of “Robert’s Rules of Order,” which is the set of procedural rules adopted by the CRA to adhere to, the motion was ignored. Somebody seconded the motion and again that was ignored. A call to a vote was also ignored. After realizing that they only needed to bring three delegates to the endorsing convention, it was apparently decided that, in the interest of speeding the meeting up, the SJ CRA would just use the delegates that the SJ CRA President had appointed at an earlier meeting back in January. Guess who was chosen back then? I’ll help you out: Sara Blicharz and the SJ CRA President.
I would think that as Harmer’s deputy campaign manager, Sara Blicharz would’ve recused herself from all votes. Did she? Absolutely not! Needless to say the Harmer fans and campaign staff came out of the second SJ CRA meeting victorious but not representing the SJ CRA chapter properly. To be fair to Sara, “Robert’s Rules of Order” does not require a person to recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest, but it is encouraged.
The final endorsing players are the chapters of San Joaquin county, Gilroy, and Contra Costa county. Here are two problems; Gilroy was unable to send enough delegates to the endorsing convention and Contra Costa was supposed to be an inactive chapter for failure to follow the rules set forth in their by-laws which required a certain amount of meetings per year with a certain amount of members attending those meetings. I’ve been told that they had only met once in the last 18 months. To my knowledge, they haven’t met the requirement to continue their chapter so it is confusing to me as to how they were allowed to renew in 2010.
With Gilroy out of the picture and not able to vote for Harmer, Sara Blicharz seemingly wanted to cover her bases just in case anyone exposed her for the shenanigans it appears that she had pulled. She was able to somehow breathe new life into the Contra Costa chapter with members grabbed out of thin air. How do you have members when you shouldn’t have a chapter? How do you have delegates if you don’t have members in a chapter that shouldn’t exist? Good questions. It’s seems impossible, but they still showed up.
Seeing that something was odd when the three delegates chosen by the SJ CRA President showed up along with the five that were voted on by the SJ CRA chapter, statewide CRA Vice President Angela Azevedo called in Celeste Greig, the President of the statewide California Republican Assembly, to preside. I’ve been told that she ordered the SJ CRA chapter to caucus which basically means to have a meeting and figure out what to do. But seeing the numbers in favor of Brad Goehring (five for Goehring and two for Harmer), the SJ CRA President refused to, and decided to put everyone’s name in a hat and choose the three delegates that way. So that’s what they did.
So through manipulation, political maneuvering and parliamentarian gamesmanship, Sara Blicharz was able to yank the endorsement from under Brad Goehring’s feet and secure it for her boss David Harmer. The California Republican Assembly is usually conservative and I used to have the utmost respect for it. But I’m sorry, in my opinion the CRA needs to either investigate Sara Blicharz and how she handled this or lose a lot of supporters’ respect forever.
I have to assume that Sara is merely following the orders of her boss who, as a lawyer and big Republican party guy, has credentials from here to Timbuktu. It appears as though he knows how to play the political game. That’s what voters like right? This sort of action is exactly the kind of thing us voters enjoy right?
If you ask me, this is quite the embarrassing fiasco for the California Republican Assembly to let happen and to ultimately have an endorsement drawn out of a hat. Pretty amazing how essentially one person, seemingly on behalf of David Harmer, could bend the system to work in her favor as she did. I asked Sara about this myself and she responded, “Everything was done according to by-laws…you must be drinking the kool-aid.”
By-laws? Really? Which ones? The David Harmer by-laws that seems to say, “Anything for a vote? Anything for an endorsement? Anything to get into office? Anything for power?”
Those aren’t the by-laws I want to follow. Do you?
Written by John Heida
Originally posted at http://www.rtamerican.us and written by John Heida. John Heida is not paid by any campaign and is not paid by Conservative New Media. He is only a guest author and has his own opinions which you can find on his website at http://www.rtamerican.us. The views expressed in this article are John Heida’s personal opinions only and are meant for informational and entertainment purposes only. John Heida does not allege any facts, cast aspersions on anyone, or make any claims about what he says here, or in any of his other columns on Conservative New Media or on his site. Again, these are only John Heida’s own personal opinions and his First Amendment protected exercise thereof. These opinions are not necessarily the views of Conservative New Media and Conservative New Media does not endorse or represent or warrant any of the content of his articles in any way and is not responsible for them.
