Senator Joel Anderson tonight told an East County meeting of the Lincoln Club that he’s dropping his campaign for San Diego County Supervisor this year, instead focusing his attention on the race in 2020 when current Supervisor Dianne Jacob is term-limited from office.
Anderson confirmed the decision with Rostra and will release an official announcement soon. (See update below.)
Jacob said, “This is a victory for my constituents and all the people who have worked so hard over the last year to build a strong campaign. It’s not over until June so I will continue to build support over the next few months. I look forward to serving taxpayers and my communities for another four years.”
Update Friday, 9:32 pm, official announcement from Anderson…
Thank you! You gave of your time and treasury and fought alongside me for the future of our County. While we knew this race was an uphill battle, you trusted me and were there for me. I am immensely grateful for your support.
After many discussions, it’s become apparent that moving forward in this race for Supervisor would potentially jeopardize other East County races’ resources, and I wanted you to be among the first to know that I have decided to withdraw from the 2016 race.
I am certainly disappointed with the outcome of the 2016 race because I feel like I’ve let you down.
Yet I am inspired by the fact that you and others went to great lengths to help me because we shared a vision for a brighter future for San Diego County.
As I have sent notes and called people today, I have been encouraged by many to run for the open Supervisor seat in 2020. On Monday, I will be filing for that open seat and I would be honored to continue to list your name as an endorser of me.
From a heart full of gratitude,
Joel
PS. The effort to make our vision a reality will continue. I believe our County has enormous potential, and I want to ensure that it’s a place where our kids and grandkids can live and work.
Comments 35
That was a tougher contest than most thought. It served a purpose though; Jacob actually had to want it this time instead of taking the voters for granted.
I have no doubt that Jacob will “Slater-Price” Joel and back a Dem in 2020. You heard it hear first.
These County Supes CRAVE power; they have had it for decades
A prudent decision for Anderson and good news for the county.
Author
From @TonyKrvaric: Shame that @JoelAndersonCA won’t run. Was looking forward to electing a #conservative for that seat. sdrostra.com/?p=44279 @sandiegorostra
Oh no. Bummed to hear the news. Wishing Senator Anderson the best!
Will Joel give back the $200,000??? Not a political genius but could be useful in races before 2020……
I understand why losing a party yes-man would disappoint Krvaric. But if trying to buy votes with tax free tampons and diapers is his idea of conservatism, both he and Anderson have a lot to learn.
Senator Anderson is a well respected member of this country who truly cares about San Diego and the people who live here. I am disappointed to hear the news.
Senator, thank you for standing in the ring and offering us a choice. You’re always in the ring and making an effort to uphold principle even when your peers are reluctant. Thank you for not succumbing to the temptation of populism. Thank you for being willing to spend your week in a community that would depress me while I get to sleep comfortably each night in my own home.
As a conservative, I repeat publicly what I have shared in private, if Lorena ever wishes to stop taxing on any product or service I will gladly stand by your side. It takes character to do such and I would expect nothing less from you.
Thank you again.
Craig,
When did you become pro-taxes?
Mr. Maxwell, I am not one to throw about the term “misogynist” with any great regularity, but your statement calls for the rare occasion I free it from the “too often used by liberals” vocabulary vault. That you would suggest the women of this county are so defined by their menstruating baby makers that a few bucks a year is enough to purchase their franchise infuriates me. The constituency served by the Senator might just be bright enough to see that the tax break on these items is a small, but welcome, compromise between the left and right. We females have the capacity to appreciate an effort to bring relief to the many struggling mothers and fathers living in his district. I actually can see through all the raging hormones brought on by periods and postpartum to give Sen. Anderson my vote based on the fact that he is looking out for the families trying to make ends meet, not because there are a few more pennies in my purse. Thanks though, for assuming women can be bought and paid for with tampax and pampers.
Leah,
It was Joel who made that–I won’t call it misogynist, just stupid–assumption, not me. Of course women are smart enough to see through it, but it made Anderson look desperate and dumb.
Hypocrisy,
I’m very much for lower taxes. But I’m also against politicians like Anderson who make fools of themselves with gratuitous, ornamental, pseudo anti-tax overtures.
Don’t we have any people willing to fight no matter the odds?! What does it say about these people who give up so easily?
Joel Anderson has been a good Senator. The Iran divestment bill he sponsored makes him an asset to the county. I hope he sticks around.
Mr. Maxwell,
The result is, in fact, lower taxes. Your assumption at the intention of Sen. Anderson reveals your complete lack of insight as to how he operates within his district. The Senator serves a very poor population and the, albeit small relief, the tax breaks provide demonstrate a conservative’s compassion for their struggle. Your argument that a conservative should do nothing if he can’t do everything just because it means consorting with the enemy belies a complete and total lack of understanding about the definition of politics. The struggle for power in a one party state is not won by inaction. If the Senator chooses an academically supported path of incrementalism as a means of grasping for what power he can from progressives, I can only support his forward movement. Your vilification of him for it is lame and only serves to perpetuate the characterization of conservatives the left has made popular.
You would have him simply do nothing to serve his constituency? You would rather see a CA representative only try with futility to further an agenda of large scale, general tax relief?
Do or do not. There is no try.
Hypocrisy is an elected official who swears to serve the electorate with promises of economic relief, but accomplishes nothing because his promises are unrealistic and consider nothing of the political climate in which he must function. Not just hypocritical; stupid.
Craig,
I would guess that none of the struggling new parents in the Senator’s district consider his bill to be either ornamental nor gratuitous. In fact, I am sure that they consider it very helpful.
Leah,
Where did I say “that a conservative should do nothing if he can’t do everything,” or that I “would have him simply do nothing to serve his constituency”? Please. There’s nothing easier to knock down than a straw man.
Hypocrisy,
Right.
>>>Where did I say “that a conservative should do nothing if he can’t do everything,” or that I “would have him simply do nothing to serve his constituency”?
Right here:
>>>But if trying to buy votes with tax free tampons and diapers is his idea of conservatism, both he and Anderson have a lot to learn.
You suggest that the Senator’s tax policy is a vote buying scheme rather than a serious attempt to remove what is clearly a regressive tax.
Brian,
Those claims are not equivalent.
Taxes on tampons and diapers are regressive? That sounds like something straight out of a meeting of a local Democratic club.
No it’s just out of a freshman year macroeconomics class, Kristine. I am happy to educate you, as I have many other councilmembers, about economics. You would not be the first one that needed help and I am more than happy to help Republicans.
Craig, if I accept that they are not equivalent, what exactly did you mean by suggesting that Anderson’s tax repeal on staple items was not necessarily conservative?
Brian, I have a college degree and took Economics…I don’t need an education on what is and is not a regressive tax. Do you believe all sales tax is regressive? Is it by nature regressive?
Author
So, before likely philosophical allies on the general issue of taxes get into a spat over the definition of a regressive tax, we’re having real difficulty in understanding how anyone would see repealing a tax as anything other than reducing taxation (?)
T.A.,
In today’s political reality, the substance of a policy is much less important than the author of that policy. In this case, Liberal Democrat Lorena Gonzalez proposed the repeal of a tax, therefore Conservative,Republican, and usually anti-tax Craig Maxwell is opposed to it.
Brian,
Their truth of their non-equivalence doesn’t depend on anyone’s acceptance.
And pre-election pandering to (mostly) non-Republican constituencies with largely symbolic gestures is, by definition, not conservative–though some, people like Donald Trump, for example–would doubtless disagree.
Thor’s Assistant,
Is it a reduction? Technically, yes. Just as leaving a penny tip for a waiter is, technically, to engage in the act of tipping.
“Do you believe all sales tax is regressive? Is it by nature regressive?”
Not necessarily but certainly on staple items like food, water, gasoline, and..,wait for it….diapers. Again, you learned this in your Freshman Econ course Kristine.
What Andersen did was to repeal a tax, a tax that hurts young parents, the people climbing the economic ladder. Note that he didn’t raise taxes somewhere else to make them revenue neutral. Anderson deprived the State more money from its subjects. That’s a good thing. Would that all of you (elected officials) practice that, we might just get more power out of your hands and back to where it belongs
Who writes the talking points for the left wing of the SDGOP, Craig or Kristine?
Tax cuts are good and should be supported. But using terms like “regressive tax” plays into the entire income equality debate. My issue is not with tax cuts but the use of the term regressive tax as applied to taxation on feminine products.
First Leah’s straw man, now Hypocrisy’s ad hominem circumstantial. Again, I have some logic texts here at the store and would be happy to make them available, free of charge.
Writerjeff, I still wear pants in public but, after raiding your miniskirt collection, have developed alternative wardrobe tastes.
“But using terms like “regressive tax” plays into the entire income equality debate”
Two different animals. One has nothing to do with the other.
Conservatives want less taxes on eveyrtuing, we want to cut the size of government to the point where we don’t notice you. Most Republican politicians in San Diego County, don’t get that– Joel Anderson does.
The simple facts are these– we don’t want you to arrogate more power from us, we want you to liberate our money, cut our taxes, return our money if you do a good job, and stop creating monuments to yourselves.
Joel Anderson understands this– I hope you do one day Kristine
Author
Ok, Writer Jeff’s comment was personalizing the debate, so we deleted the part dealing in personalities instead of issues. Per our oft stated rules. However, Mr. Maxwell was responding to it at the same time, so the end of his comment may now make little sense. Suffice it to say that the edited WJeff comment was getting into personal relationships and calling into question CMaxwell’s masculinity. The Maxwell response we’ll leave up, so as not to cause additional confusion. But, with the usual caution. Stick to the issues.
Arguing against — indeed arguing FOR — some “tax cuts” is tricky. 44% of Americans now pay zero federal income tax. Is that a good thing?
I think not. Not if that 44% gets to vote to raise taxes on the others who DO pay taxes — and that’s the way a democracy works — representative or direct.
I prefer less progressive taxes — but not regressive. I’d like to see lower tax revenues collected (and spent) under a system with lower tax RATES but more people PAYING taxes. Both parties have been guilty of increasing the progressive income tax structure — though of course Democrats get all the credit.
Speaking of “credit,” 34% of income tax filers (77% of the 44% percent who don’t pay ANY federal income taxes) now actually PROFIT from the income tax system, getting hundreds or even THOUSANDS of dollars of tax credits annually. For them, the income tax is an annual profit center — they LOVE the “income tax.”
http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2016/02/44-of-american-pay-zero-income-tax-34.html
Is THIS good tax policy? YES — for Democrats. Best legal vote buying scheme even invented.
Thank you, T.A., for defending my (dainty) honor.
my apologies, my comment was out of line.
Author
No problem, we understand getting passionate about issues.
Carry on.