Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Another Quid Pro Quo Waiting To Happen?

Sure! Paul Loomis has his supporters, but there are good reasons why he came in last in the recently primary.The overwhelming majority of the voters were sick & tired of Loomis and his cunning ways.

Satish is a nice man. He asked to meet with me a short time after he announced his candidacy. We had a cordial meeting. "Why," I asked, "are you running for mayor." "Two reasons," Satish responded. One was because he believed he could do a good job, and secondly, he said---not verbatim, but close enough--- We have to get Loomis out of there. He's a disaster!

Why bring this up now?

Loomis has now publicly announced his support for Hiremath. That's fine, but what many in the public do NOT know is this:

The new council will appoint a person to take the vacant seat of Salette Latas on June 2.

Paul Loomis has already lobbied for that vacant seat.

If Hiremath, Hornat & Waters get elected, joining Snider, don't you think they'll appoint "one of their own?"

Who's on that short list? Yup! Paul Loomis who we finally voted out of office.

We can NOT allow this to happen. PLEASE---Vote for MIKE ZINKIN & ONLY MATT RABB>

Our future depends on it.

For those interested, here's the Loomis letter to The Explorer.
Loomis gives support to Hiremath

Thank you, Oro Valley, for your support over the past 12 years. We have a great town, and I am thankful for the opportunities I have had to serve as your mayor.

The successful transition from my administration to the next is important for Oro Valley during these tough economic times. Dr. Satish Hiremath has demonstrated his commitment to Oro Valley for many years, and he has the experience to lead Oro Valley in the future.

Dr. Hiremath also has the support of many people who care about Oro Valley. They are committed to making Oro Valley even greater in the years to come. For these reasons, I have decided to support Satish Hiremath for mayor.

I urge all of my supporters and voters to vote for Satish Hiremath.

Mayor Paul Loomis, Oro Valley


artmarth said...

Dear readers---Please read the Loomis letter carefully.
He gives the following reasons why he endorses Satish Hiremath.

1) "His commitment to Oro Valley."

2) "He has the experience to lead Oro Valley in the future."

3)"He has the support of many people who care about Oro Valley."

Talk about "lame" reasons. What commitment? What experience? The support comes to a great extent from those with Special Interests.

Don't "buy" this. The REAL reason. Loomis wants Hiremath is to get appointed to the council and knows damn well Mike Zinkin won't be part of that sham.

Zev Cywan said...

So, what else is new? The Mayor's judgment has been considerably less then stellar over the periods of his terms; this is simply an extension of such judgment type.

OVDad said...

In a world full of gray, this blog is black and white: "one of their own"? I'm baffled, but I should not have underestimated this election getting uglier and uglier. I am guessing the Emmons debacle, not getting their candidates elected right away, and Loomis endorsing Satish (add their percentages and you see Zinkin has lots of ground to make up) is forcing this blog's hands. Please try to keep it clean though.

freedom fighters said...

Hmmmmm, . . . I'm wondering if all this could have been set up; all these candidate/incubent withdrawals, especially Salette Latas', look suspicious to me.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Loomis came in last place in the primary and is now lobbying for a seat on the council. Just more proof that he doesn't care about the desires of the citizens. We threw him out the front door so now he's trying to scratch his way in through the back door.

He's proving that he's everything we said he was.

Fear the Turtle said...

This election is making a mockery of out the democratic process.

Unions backing the "pro-business conservative choice", when is the last time unions backed a pro-business conversative candidate? Well look it up....NEVER! The unions could give a crap about Oro Valley. They want Hiremath as their puppet and they will pull hard on his strings.

Not sure why all of the Realtors and Builders are backing a pro-union candidate in Hiremath, but if he is elected maybe he can introduce unions into the local construction community.

Loomis's letter erases any credibity he might have had. Hopefully he will bow out of public service with grace and dignity

OVDad said...

Fear the Turtle-

Thank you for giving any sensible, rational person more reasons to vote for Satish. Having been endorsed by so many groups can be interpreted in two ways.

First are the conspiracy theorists, like a lot of people here. They will say it is "another quid pro quo waiting to happen" and talk about the endorsed candidate being obligated to the endorsing organization. They will talk about the candidate not being married and how that reflects about him not being able to commit to anything. They will talk about him texting during meetings - something any intellectually capable person can do while paying attention at the same time - and how that reflects on him not taking the mayor position seriously. Meanwhile, they supported a candidate for council for an election where they knew he would not even accept the position if elected. I predict the closer we get to election day, the more smear will be brought forward by these people.

On the other hand, there are rational people. They will think about why the candidate is endorsed by so many different organizations and groups, why the three council candidates that received the most votes in the primary (one of them receiving votes from about 60% of all voters) support this candidate, and why supporters of his opponent revert to his family life to pass judgment about his qualifications while having completely neglected that part when they supported a certain council candidate before. These rational people will come to the conclusion that Satish Hiremath is the better fit for the position.

Fear the Turtle said...


Wow, if you were a spin doctor then you would be sued for malpratice.

Please answer the following questions for me:

1)Why are unions endorsing a conservative republican candidate?

Being a republican this raises a red flag for me, and not many republicans back union candidates.

2)Why won't Hiremath debate Zinkin?
There is nothing more basic in an election than a debate, and it is rare when a candidate with so many "endorsements" won't debate.

travelling dancer said...

After reading many comments on this blog, it comes to mind that individuals of both political partes are concerned with the behavior of our elected politicans.

For example:

1. 2004 Republican Senatorial candidate Jack Ryan was asked by the GOP officials to withdraw from the Senatorial race due to the opening of sealed divorce records (per the Chicago Tribune).

2. 2008 Presidential hopeful, Democrat, Senator John Edwards.

3. 2008 Governor Eliott Spitzer, Democrat.

4. 2009 Governor Mark Sanford, Repubican, Presidental hopeful, just to name a few.

All of these mem have one thing in common, irregular values, which has caused the ruination of their political FUTURES.

This just goes to prove no matter what political party they are affiliated with, the American Public feels, what an individual does with their private life is not important, BUT when it comes to POLITICAL LIFE, "family values" are important.

Desert Voice said...


Republican supporting unionism is an oxymoron...definitely a red flag. Very astute on your part to point that out.

What is crystal clear is the with so many groups backing SH, one wonders if the groups have TOLD him not to speak fearing their loss...or fearing embarassment...or fearing his opponent...or his irregular lifestyle that has sunk may a pol...whatever...they want Satish to stay "in the closet".

OV Dad,

You write of an escalating "smear campaign" towards the end of the campaign...If there is no wood in SH's campaign, how will his oppostion light fires? Or do you, OV Dad, fear that opposition will find the fires to light?

John Martin said...

My how the charges fly during an election year.

Oro Valley voters you're forewarned: A vast cabal of fearsome business interests and nefarious firefighters has been pining for the moment when they could, with the blessing of a few sympathetic politicians, desecrate every last vestige of Oro Valley's purity.

Endorsements are what you make of them. Which is why I'm so confused about the obsessive focus of this blog on endorsements. If they don't signal substantive support for one candidate, then why suggest they bolster his opponent.

If Hiremath is nothing more than an inexperienced, unqualified outsider, then why do any of his endorsements really matter?

By contrast, if Zinkin is the experienced, supremely qualified choice, then why bother touting his lack of endorsements (other than his support from this blog)?

It appears as if this blog and its most ardent supporters believe that theirs is the only endorsement that matters.

Again, Oro Valley voters be warned: A vast group of your self-appointed guardians has been pining for the day when they, with the blessing of a few sympathetic politicians, can finally get their way and do what's best for the rest us.

In all seriousness, however, I confess reservations about both mayoral candidates. I remain undecided. Neither has truly offered a substantive vision for the future of this town.

One comes across as collegial; the other hard-nosed. One has vast experience with the inner-workings of government here; the other only can express disdain for the acrimony that exudes from government here. One's been divorced; the other remains unmarried. One's refused outside cash; the other's flush with it. On and on we could go with that tired list, to no real conclusion.

After cuts are made and policies altered, what will each man's ideal Oro Valley look like? What will either man's vision entail for the rest of us?

Candidates should always seek to define themselves by the things they're for, not solely by the things they oppose. Such an approach to politics certainly would mean less fireworks and invective, but it's the hallmark of effective leadership. I challenge anyone to suggest otherwise.

Desert Voice said...


Agreed: positive goals make a far more powerful statement than negatives.

If you review the history of why blogmasters started this forum, you would see why citizen input gets highly rated. Both mayoral candidates stated the previous Mayor did not value voter input and acted independently.

Hence,Zinkin states he will listen to voters.

During the last council election, Parish acknowledged he received $33,000 from backers. That's what he "said" he received. "The People" sounded alarms as he was less articulate about his positions and appeared easily manipulated. In contrast, Garner and Gillaspie's budget were modest in comparision. Both study issues and make decisions/votes on their findings.

Hence, Zinkin reminds voters he is free of endorsements of big business.

"The people" want this to hold to the American ideal a "government of the people, by the people and for the people."

PS. You described Hiremath's living situation incompletely and the details make all the difference in the world.

Zev Cywan said...

John Martin makes excellent sense out of the 'much ado about nothing' endorsement 'arguments'. Having personally and privately interacted with several candidates who have, in fact, received endorsements, I have concluded that, if they are elected, such endorsements won't amount to a 'hill of beans' when the reality of their overall responsibilities come into play.

I agree with Martin's conclusion that candidates should define themselves by the "things they
are for not solely by the things they oppose". I would like to add that the candidates should communicate their qualifications, experience(s), visions, etc., rather than try to invent themselves in order to 'fit' a particular picture.

It is my hope that Oro Valley, somehow, can come into harmony with itself. As a 'neutralist' my own selections for the remaining seats might seem to be that of not holding to some kind of a political 'oneness'; they ARE Mike Zinkin, Joe Hornat, and Lou Waters. Not taking anything away from Matt Raab, a truly fine and capable person, I want the experience and drive of a Mike Zinkin (Mayoral candidate) over a non-experienced, politically evasive, and somewhat 'invented' candidate, Dr. Satish Hiremath (Mayoral candidate), an 'immersed', caring and 'studious' candidate, Joe Hornat (Council candidate), and Lou Waters, probably the most astute 'life experienced' candidate that we have.

Can these three work well together? I believe they can! Can a Council, made up of those who will remain seated plus these three Candidates work well together? I believe they can! Will ANY of these three cave into outside pressures? I think not! They ALL have one thing in common - their want for Oro Valley to be a better place, a better experience, and a Town able to work with itself.

Nombe Watanabe said...

John Martin, one of the few thoughtful voices on this blog has, once again, hit a home run. I remember when GHW Bush admitted he was lacking the "vision thing", well OV does need a vision for the future. Sadly with the low rent development which has taken place here under the previous administration, I don't think we will be able to achieve a Rancho Mirage like oasis. We will just have to muddle through as a nice place to live.

Whoever is elected.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

John Martin,

I believe the answer to your question..."If Hiremath is nothing more than an inexperienced, unqualified outsider, then why do any of his endorsements really matter?" is the following:

Too many people vote for a candidate without even knowing the issues or what the candidate has done in the past that indicates what he might do in the future.

So when police and firefighters endorse a candidate, for example, many people who know nothing about the issues will vote for that candidate based solely on the endorsement of these groups. They trust the judgment of these groups because police and firefighters are revered.

I've seen people on television at rallies who make all kinds of unfounded, untrue statements and when asked where they got that idea they will say, "from my church group." Same theory applies. They trust their minister and believe anything he tells them and never bother to research it themselves.

In the 1980 presidential election, a woman in my office said she was voting for Reagan because, "He's from Hollywood. He'll bring glamour to the White House and that will look good in front of other nations."

I kid you not. She knew absolutely nothing about the issues, where he stood on anything, or anything about his record as Governor.

I have a cartoon that I saved from many years ago. A woman walks up to a candidate and says, "Only an idiot would vote for you!" To which the candidate replies, "Maybe so, ma'am, but that's a fairly large segment of the electorate."

Fear the Turtle said...

An endorsement from a group of realtors or builders is very different from an "endorsement" from a Union.

Realtors, Builders associations, or Chamber of Commerce endorsements have a mimimal impact on their members, and the voting citizenry usually doesn't base their vote on an endorsement from any of these groups.

Now unions are a different story altogether. I was a member of a union in 1973, and I can still remember the intense pressure from our shop steward to vote for our union's candidate. All of the members in our shop just shrugged their shoulders voted the union way. Most union members fall in line with union leadership, and vote for the candidate their union endorses regardless of the qualifications of that candidate.

Once the unions get their tentacles into the political processes of any government entity, it is next to impossible to remove them.