Terry Lamphier for Supervisor??!

George Rebane

Sitting supervisor John Spencer will now have some competition for his seat this June.  We all know what John has done as county planning commissioner and supervisor. His record of solid contributions to a fiscally sound county during difficult times, when so many other counties are on their collective butts, is well known and a matter of record.

When I look at Mr Lamphier’s record and his ideas, all I see is a man still running for a seat on the Grass Valley City Council, which contest he lost over three years ago. (He also had an unsuccessful run against John in 2006.)  I have read his writings over the years and am still confused as to what problems besides traffic congestion he plans to solve, and what programs he proposes to achieve that goal.  He seems to be stuck in an endless loop of wanting more business in the county, while lamenting that it would mean more traffic in the area.  Is that the limit of his thinking?

Visiting his website (here) is at the same time a challenging yet illuminating experience and reveals the thinking of a man who would bring his to-be-determined talents and organizational skills to our Board of Supervisors, a board that continues to work as an exemplar of efficiency and fiscal responsibility for other northern California counties.  If I recall, Mr Lamphier’s only previous incursion into a public service position as GV Planning Commissioner ended prematurely, a bit abruptly, and for cause.

I would recommend the voters of District #3 take a very careful look at Mr Lamphier.  Perhaps another try at city planning commissioner would still be a good starting point for Mr Lamphier’s political career in Nevada County.

Comments

[Michael Anderson]

George,

Terry was at the Googlebit rally today and I had a chance to introduce myself to him for the first time. My only question to him was about working with the shoe-in existing supes, and how he would integrate himself with the county economic strategy. I was encouraged to hear him say that he would support the current program of fiscal conservatism, which has served us well. Nevada County has reserves that have come from fiscal prudence that was the hallmark of the BOS since at least the 1990s (before the landfill debacle, after the NH2020 debacle).

Michael A.

[George Rebane]

Good to hear that Michael. Do I read correctly that yours is a veiled? endorsement of Mr Lamphier's candidacy?

[Mikey McD]

I have read Mr. Lamphier's ramblings over the years in The Union. He strikes me as confused, inexperienced/naive, controlling and unable to focus. His resiliency is to be commended. Mr. Spencer on the other hand, strikes me as no nonsense, focused, experienced and proven. With the fiscal conservative action our board (and CEO's office) has taken we are weathering the current economic storm better than others, the same economic storm that will dampen the growth Mr. Lamphier abhors.

[Michael Anderson]

George, I am not endorsing Mr. Lamphier's candidacy. I'm a pretty fickle voter. Presently I am a registered Republican, but in past years I have registered Democrat, Green, and several others. The second time I voted for president was for John B. Anderson in 1980 (and not just because we share a last name ;-) That should give you an idea of the type of candidate I will endorse.

The last time I endorsed anyone for office was Peter Van Zant in 1996. I stand by that endorsement 100%, I thought he was an excellent supervisor. I would compare him to our present Nate Beason, someone who votes based on research and facts, not just on party line. Nate and Peter both reach across the aisle to get things done. Those are the kind of politicians I like to vote for.

Hence, my question to Terry, "will you be reaching across the aisle?" I look forward to hearing the coming debates; I will most certainly be attending the TPP forum on April 1, as well as any others that the League of Woman Voters might be sponsoring, or other media outlets.

[Steve Enos]

Speaking of folks running for office:

"We want to make sure that voters in California's 19th district know who they'll be getting if they vote for Pombo," said Defenders Action Fund President Rodger Schlickeisen. "People need to know that he was and likely will always be a creature of the special interest culture that has so corrupted our political process."

The new radio ad names just a few of the many embarrassing incidents from Pombo's past; namely that he billed nearly $5000 to taxpayers for a two-week family vacation, as well as paying his wife and brother over $500,000 out of his campaign funds. These proven indiscretions, among others, led to Pombo being named one of the 13 most corrupt members of Congress by the independent watch dog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a fact also cited in the ad.

"To many, Pombo was an example of the classic unethical politician while in office -- taking money from special interests while doing their bidding -- and nothing he can say during this campaign can alter that shameful record," concluded Schlickeisen.

Question: Pombo... a Tea Party guy?

[NC_Guy]

Pombo would never dip with the baggers. His horse (SUV) is hitched to the RNC. He is a yes man of heroic proportions.

[Steve Enos]

Hey George, how about you review some of your past posts here and on The Union website where you praised Lamphier and even stated The Union should hire him.

Seems some of your past posted comments fail to match your current position. Isn't history and the internet amazing?

[George Rebane]

SteveE - more careful reading is in store here. What I praised Terry Lamphier for back in 2008 still stands. He wrote a good piece on capitalism then - not all of which I agreed with, but good stuff compared with what the Union published then. What may confuse you here is that I would pick TerryL over JeffP for a Union job, but not pick TerryL over JohnS for a job as a Supe. My endorsements/criticism are context specific, we're not considering the man for Lord of the Universe.

[Mikey McD]

Lamphier candidacy is a waste of time and money.

[Steve Enos]

Mickey, it's good to have a choice in elections. It's good to have two people run for an office so a discussion takes place. One candidate and no discussion.

Now John Spencer will need to work if he wants to get elected. Soencer will need to show his face in District III, a place he has not shown up in since elected. Now all the nasty and strange things John Spencer has said in the BOS meetings will come out for the public to see and hear as video tape is great stuff. The strange, insulting and nasty things Spencer has posted on line can see the light of day and voters will be able to understand what Spencer is really like.

Having two candidates is good for many reasons.

[Fred Harriman]

Thanks for this discussion. It's hard for people like me who spend a great deal of time outside of the county working to get some idea of what local candidates stand for.