San Diego Republicans Endorse Senator Joel Anderson For San Diego County Supervisor, District 2

Press Releases / Media Advisories Press Releases / Media Advisories 49 Comments


Press Release from the GOP

Overwhelming support among grassroots Republicans led to decision

SAN DIEGO – At its monthly meeting this evening, the Republican Party of San Diego County overwhelmingly endorsed Senator Joel Anderson for the office of San Diego County Supervisor, District 2. 
“Senator Anderson’s solid record of accomplishment and his steadfast advocacy for Republican principles earned him the endorsement tonight.  Our grassroots volunteers have taken notice of Senator Anderson’s leadership over several decades of engagement with the Party.  That’s why we will work extremely hard to elect him as the next Supervisor from District 2,” said Republican Party Chairman Tony Krvaric.

“I was struck by the passionate support that Anderson has among activists throughout the county,” continued Krvaric.  “Anderson has been a strong and effective voice for limited government and lifting the barriers to jobs and prosperity, and it’s clear those messages resonated,” Krvaric concluded.  
Committee members took note of Senator Anderson’s leadership in opposing tax increases and his nearly single-handed effort to restore integrity to the Senate floor.  Anderson stood alone in calling for the expulsion of Senators convicted of felonies while his colleagues voted to give them a paid vacation.

Senator Anderson has received numerous awards, including being named Legislator of the Year by the California Small Business Association, the California State Sheriffs’ Association and the San Diego County Deputy District Attorneys’ Association.
The vote in support of Senator Anderson was overwhelming, though it is the policy of the Republican Party of San Diego County not to reveal exact vote totals.


Comments 49

  1. Let’s go to work so Bill Horn will have a real ally on the Board! Walk, Call, Stuff Envelopes and Send $$$ – Anderson for San Diego County Board of Supervisors!

  2. This is a big mistake and one of the main reasons the Republican Party is being split in two. As County Supervisor, Dianne has advocated for the party’s platform of limited government, fiscal conservatism, as well as for support for local business. The County has been fiscally sound, and is recognized as such across the nation, and there have been no County tax increases. Joel and our State legislature cannot make the same claims. Can this really be about the Board of Supervisors’ support for a cap on party contributions to county candidates? Could it be so petty? The local party needs to remember that it endorsed Carl DeMaio in 2012 and in 2014, and he lost both races for mayor and for congress. Maybe it is the local party that needs new leadership.

  3. Michael,

    Dianne Jacob voted to significantly increase County employee pensions, including her own, and then voted to borrow $2 billion to pay for the increase. That is not my definition of “fiscally sound.”

  4. Stop it, Hypocrisy. Just STOP IT, ya hear???!!!

    You are NOT allowed to say such things about Dianne Jacob. Check your position description. Your mission statement. Nothing there authorizes you to assert that Supervisor Jacob — a local Republican icon — has spendthrift tendencies. Especially so regarding pensions.

    The fact that you are “spot on” makes it infinitely worse!

    I’m getting a severe headache from this. I’m going back to bed.

  5. @Michael (Casinelli):

    “This is a big mistake and one of the main reasons the Republican Party is being split in two.”

    “Maybe it is the local party that needs new leadership.”

    You’re a registered Democrat. What do you know about the internal workings of the Republican Party? We’ll keep our own counsel, thank you.

    I appreciate that you support the tenets of the Republican Party–would you like me to re-register you, Mr, Casinelli?

  6. Mr. Brady. I know a lot about the internal workings of the republican party. I have always used my intellect to analyze political issues and politicians ever since I graduated with a BA in Pol Sci, and as a result have always voted my conscience. That means I have and will vote for republican issues and politicians as well as democrat issues and politicians. My party affiliation was selected in 1969 as I had greatly admired JFK. I saw no need to switch parties as I do not vote a ticket or blindly follow a party’s recommendations, as it appears you do. Furthermore, I do not agree 100% with any elected official, however, I admire Ms. Jacob’s stance for defending her constituents. The opposite is true about Mr. Anderson and his loyalty to special interests groups even when those interests are against the interests of his constituents. Also, you should inform the public that Monday night’s vote was rushed to avoid the contribution caps that will be enforced in less than 30 days, and how when Joel transfers a significant amount of money from his assembly and senate campaign accounts to the party, the party will keep a sizable sum before returning that money to his Supervisor campaign. This is a major conflict of interest, and informs me that money is more important than loyalty. As a person who has studied political science, I stand by my conclusion that this type of sneaky tactics will further divide the republican party.

  7. Being two semesters away from a BA in Political Science, I can tell you that the degree teaches you nothing compared to what you learn actually working in the party and on campaigns. And considering that I’m currently reading The Marx-Engalls Reader on assignment, it hardly qualifies anyone to talk about the inner workings of the Republican Party. Finally I’ll add that pointing out one’s education in an argument is simply undisciplined, especially since BA’s have grown more and more unremarkable in the last 20 years.

    Is it about spending the money before the law changes? That plays into it I’m sure, just as there was a rush to buy foie gras and incandescent light bulbs leading up to getting banned by the nanny state.

    The bigger issue here is Dianne used her good intentions to stifle speech and will unknowingly create more “dark money” ultimately defeating the proclaimed goal of getting money out of elections. Since we know that her district is reliably Republican, that party is just selecting a candidate more reliably conservative.

  8. Michael Casinelli, I somewhat agree with you about her lack of help for special interests.

    My special interest, for example, is gun rights.

    She’s proven to have little interest and be little help with some of San Diego’s crucial gun rights issues. In my experience, her East County constituents have a special interest in gun rights that Sen. Anderson has paid attention to.

    I believe that’s a message I can effectively spread.

  9. Both Anderson and Horn support Obama’s rush to industrialize the backcountry by trenching, wiring and paving it over with wind turbine and solar panel farms–a preposterous alternative “green” energy plan that is both enormously destructive to land plants and animals AND is heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
    With conservatives like them, who needs progressives?

  10. A county supervisor’s ability to effect the constitution is very limited and reversible. But what Obama, Horn and Anderson are doing to the back country and the lives of its residents is forever.

  11. I absolutely disagree Mr Maxwell. The newest Council member, in the smallest municipality, has the ability to violate the Constitution and foreswear their oath of office. Jacob has done this for decades.

    The primary role of government is to secure our individual rights. That duty falls upon the Descanso dog catcher as much as POTUS. Jacob has violated that duty quite publicly.

  12. I like the tactic of linking him to Obama. I am sure that will gain traction.
    Every other business in Poway, Santee, and El Cajon has a good citizen award that was given to them by Anderson that all their customers see when they walk in.
    Who is going to generate more votes? Those business owners and their customers? Or a dozen NIMBYs in Boulevard?

  13. The “tactic” of linking Anderson (and Horn) to Obama is nothing more than the observation of fact.
    Obama has fast tracked solar and wind nationwide. Sadly, many so-called conservatives–people like Anderson and Horn–eagerly jumped on board.
    Floor mats are nice, but whether they’ll generate the sort of loyalty Anderson needs to win remains to be seen. In any case, numbers aren’t the issue here. Anderson may win. But that’ll do nothing to correct the injustice of destroying a community and habitat.

  14. By the way, Brian, what do you think of Anderson’s fund raising illegalities? Isn’t it at least ironic that such a supposedly staunch defender of our rights would himself be a scofflaw?

  15. Let’s look at Dianne Jacob v. Joel Anderson in another important way.

    Which person is unselfish, and gives time and money to support the Republican Party and other Republican candidates in elections? Joel Anderson. As an example, Joel organized a very large group of volunteers to walk precincts and help elect Kevin for Mayor. I was very impressed. That says great things about Joel and his supporters. Further, I see Joel at the monthly Republican meetings all the time. He is friendly, approachable, and has a good attitude. I’ve never seen Dianne. Joel is also a member of the SDRP donor club. He puts his money where his mouth is. Not Dianne.

    The SDRP has supported Dianne for years but in my eyes, it seems like a one way street. I might be off base but I can’t see anything she has done for the SDRP in the last few years.

    Life is about showing up and helping out. Joel does that and he got my vote Monday night.

  16. Craig, I know you addressed Brian, but I was a critical of the Senator’s fundraising thing issue back when he was running for state senator. The voters spoke, he was elected by a fairly wide margin, and the matter is settled.

    Supervisor Jacob isn’t a RINO and she isn’t a bad person. Trying to say she is someone who is anything other than caring is as ridiculous as tying Sen. Anderson to Obama. In her position, Supervisor Jacob has been adequate. That was fine in a relatively low profile seat that most people in San Diego are even aware of, but the issues she chooses to duck have added up and now this last vote to limit voters was the last straw.

    Sen. Anderson exceeds expectations, takes bold stands on issues, and is very, very accessible. He’s not simply adequate, he’s effective. Supervisor Jacob has left herself wide open to be challenged by someone like Senator Anderson.

    We need the elected, especially Republicans, to take stands, support other candidates, listen to their constituents rather than protect themselves from them, and support the grassroots. Not pay lip service to people who don’t want a casino down the street or some power lines in their back yard. Especially not to gun owners whose sheriff is so adamantly anti-gun that he has to be sued in federal court.

    Because of the issues that San Diegans face every day, adequate won’t do any longer.

  17. I am 100% in favor of electing Anderson in this race, but some of these comments are a little ridiculous:

    “Which person is unselfish, and gives time and money to support the Republican Party and other Republican candidates in elections?”

    Seriously, Dan? Is support for the Party really the most important attribute of an elected official?

    “I was a critical of the Senator’s fundraising thing issue back when he was running for state senator. The voters spoke, he was elected by a fairly wide margin, and the matter is settled.”

    Michael, I don’t remember you giving a pass to Scott Peters and his vote on Managers Proposal II even though “the voters spoke,” or to Sheriff Gore for that matter.

    As I said, I support Anderson 100%. There is no comparison really between him and Jacob, but if those are the arguments that are going to be made, we are going to be stuck with Jacob for another four years.

  18. Dan,
    If I thought much of the local Republican party, (of people like Kevin Falconer, for example) or put a big priority on politicians helping other politicians, then I might back Anderson, too.
    But I like politicians who think first about those they are sworn to serve. A supervisor’s biggest job is serving her constituents This, according to most of her constituents, and I’ve talked to many over the years, Dianne has done passably well.
    It’s good to know more about Anderson’s strengths, but, for me, these are more than off-set by his weaknesses. I’m impressed by Dianne’s willingness to part ways with the rest of the sheep on the council over things like Casinos, power-lines, wind and solar farms. These aren’t merely minor nuisances; they’re changing the face of the entire county. Anderson, on the other hand, seems to have partaken of the same pro-development/progressive energy policy Kool-Aid as Dianne’s conformist county colleagues.

  19. Is no one here aware of what may very well be the most significant abuse of property rights in the history of the county, in effect a widespread confiscatory abuse of private property under the guise of downzoning – the County of San Diego’s General Plan update?

    Most of those impacted live in the back country – Jacob’s district. They screamed foul for years and fought tooth and nail to protect their rights. Ignored.

    A few power projects, even if she may be right on those issues, pale in comparison to her support for this huge government changing of the rules on thousands of property owners, over a huge swath of acreage. Not aware of it, because it was too complicated for the media to cover adequately? Shame.

    Does Maxwell own impacted property in the back country? He wants “his” land out there left pristine, while completely ignoring the rights of property owners. That sounds like Obama right there.

    Nothing like a “conservative” who ignores private property and the constitution.

  20. Hypocrisy: Support of the party and its candidates is not the most important attribute but it is indicative of his attitude and his heart. He’s number 1 in my book. You and I agree on liking Joel?! Amazing.

    I have nothing against Dianne but I like Joel better. Especially given the down zoning of private property in the back country by Dianne and her fellow supervisors, Joel gets my vote. If Dianne is so responsive to her constituents, why the cold shoulder to many private property owners who want full access and use of their own property? This private property issue should be a MAJOR issue in this election.

  21. Good one, Steve. In fact, we do own property within this re-zoned area. So the same rules that apply to everyone else also apply to us. Sorry, no double “Obama” standard here.
    And please, spare us the amateur lecture in constitutional theory. Zoning has been a fact of civilized life since ancient Rome. Private property has never granted a unfettered right to do exactly as one pleases.

  22. “Michael, I don’t remember you giving a pass to Scott Peters and his vote on Managers Proposal II even though “the voters spoke,” or to Sheriff Gore for that matter.”

    HQ, this doesn’t make sense. I don’t think I said a word about Managers Proposal II either way. I’m pretty sure because I don’t know what that is. I haven’t said a word about Scott Peters since November, actually, because that when the voters spoke. I said little about him before the election, but did say a lot about his opponent because I agreed with more of his opponent’s positions.

    Gore didn’t have an opponent, but he does have policies that the 9th Circuit have found to be unconstitutional. As a voter, I think it’s ok to mention that. No? Since the voters spoke and elected him I’ve stopped mentioning that a woman holding her baby got shot and killed by one of his snipers under his leadership and a few of the 9/11 hijackers trained here while he chose to ignore requests to investigate them. The voters seem ok with his history of failing forward. I’m looking forward to a better candidate next time though.

    “… or put a big priority on politicians helping other politicians, then I might back Anderson, too.”

    Craig, this article is about the Republican Party endorsing Anderson over Jacob. Dan and Brian were two of the many principled votes cast to make that happen. Of course they are basing part of their decision on how the candidates have (or haven’t) helped the organization they are a part of. We now get that your interest in supporting Jacob is good for your own special interest (your land), but people like Dan and Brian are elected to represent their community. They have to think of what’s best for the voters. Not their personal asset statement.

  23. Well, this doesn’t have anything to do with “my land” which, in any case, is many miles from the Tule and Soitec projects.
    Are these monuments to public folly and waste the provence of “special interests”? Maybe to those, like you, who back the politicians behind them–politicians like Joel Anderson. But that in itself is a very small, special interest group.

  24. I disagree with Steve’s characterization of Supervisor Jacob not protecting private property rights in the East County. My family has been developing out there for years. A partial list of our projects would include Sycuan Estates, Willow Bend Ranch, Villa Rios, Pinery Grove, Quarry Creek, Quarry Palms, Hawks Ridge. We never felt Supervisor Jacob was trampling on our rights, to the contrary, she was helpful in getting our projects approved. She rose to the defense of property owners during the “Robert’s Ranch” fiasco. What I like about her is that she has listened to the concerns of her constituents. Maybe for some, Boulevard doesn’t have enough votes to matter, but that should not be the issue, representing the people that live there should be. Covering that place with solar panels definitely would not be what anyone who lives in the area would like to see in their backyard. Good for her for representing those people, that’s her job. Whenever you hold elected office, you cannot please everyone, but you should strive to listen to the voices of your constituents rather than any lobby.

    Additionally, showing up at GOP events should not be a requisite for endorsement, I rarely go. But, I walked my feet off in the effort in La Mesa to elect the party endorsed candidates elected and every chance I got, not one weekend, not one event, made sure people knew who they were and that they were the best choices for La Mesa.

    Just my two cents worth.

  25. Michael,

    All I was pointing out was that saying that an issue that can be used against a candidate is forever dead because “the voters have spoke” is not the way things work. Jacobs’ campaign will use Anderson’s past fundraising issues against him and saying “the matter is dead” is not going to be a sufficient response.

  26. Hypocrisy’s right. Anderson’s FPPC violations aren’t going to vanish just because he was elected; nor should they. They speak to his character, as did the entirely gratuitous, unwarranted accolades he heaped on Art Madrid at the latter’s council send-off.
    Art Madrid: easily the biggest scum-bag in East County politics, and there was Joel Anderson just slathering him with softsoap.
    That is…not good.

  27. That makes sense, HQ.

    My point is that the voters were comfortable with it back then right after it happened. I don’t think it will bother them years later after he’s done so well in his position as their senator though.

    I gave myself as an example of someone who was an ardent critic, but I am now an ardent supporter. I don’t believe it will be a factor, but understand what you are saying. With such a lackluster track record while in office, she’ll likely rely on attacking him on this issue.

  28. Craig,

    I think Jacob’s pension votes are even more of a problem for her than Anderson’s campaign financing issues are for him.

  29. You may be right, Hypocrisy, but I suspect otherwise. Dianne’s pension decisions will be seen primarily as errors of judgment. Anderson’s shifting funds around, on the other hand, is almost impossible to mistake as anything but sneaky and underhanded. That leaves a bigger impression. Rightly to my way of thinking.
    Time will tell.

  30. You’re both wrong.

    They’ve both been elected by the same pool of voters who will vote in this election. It will be decided by shoe leather and handshakes. And Sen. Anderson has a machine in place and a war chest. Right now more people in the district know Senator Anderson than Sup. Jacob. More voters can say they’ve met Sen. Anderson than Sup. Jacob.
    I don’t mean the 2% of voters who go to the cocktail parties and pay attention to the issues. I mean the bulk of East County voters. They’ll look at the ballot, see his name, recognize it, remember that time they met him, and he gets the vote.

    Judging by her past campaigns and engagement with voters, Sup Jacob isn’t going to overcome Sen Anderson’s popularity and community involvement.

  31. Craig,

    Time will indeed tell, but I disagree with your analysis.

    Anderson committed a violation which as the candidate he is clearly responsible for but probably was unaware of. Also, his violation was of a rather arcane campaign law and likely wouldn’t even be a violation today.

    Jacob, on the other hand, voted to significantly increase her own pension and then compounded that self-dealing “error in judgement” by voting to put The County in debt to the tune of $2 billion to cover the cost.

    Given, the option, I would choose to design the ad campaign against Jacob.

  32. Michael,

    Neither has been in a competitive race nor had an opponent with the wherewithal to make an issue of his/her faults. Trust me, this is going to get nasty and the attack ads will have an effect.

  33. All possible, I admit. But unlikely
    Anderson’s running against an incumbent with no major scandals and (still) solid support.
    He loses.
    Anyone wanna wager?

  34. Kristine’s anecdotes-the-real-world argument is also persuasive.

    Those who’ve actually dealt substantially with Dianne over the years–and there are an awful lot of them–know that characterizations drawn by her opponents are false.

    Joel’s door mats and glad-handing ribbon-cutting ceremonies (yes, for chains like for Pollo Loco!?) aren’t gonna cut it.

  35. “Anderson’s running against an incumbent with no major scandals and (still) solid support.”

    Sounds like the same obstacle facing the challengers in the 2012 CD 52 race, the 2014 Poway Mayor’s race and the 2014 Imperial Beach Mayor’s race. The Poway race may be the most instructional as it was also a very Republican electorate and the Republican Party endorsed the challenger.

  36. Yes, it can happen. And the last election’s strong mood of anti-incumbency greatly aided challengers throughout the nation. Bit will it happen again? I doubt it.
    (By the way, is that a bet?)

  37. The only betting I’m doing is in that nice, brand new casino down your street powered by Obama’s powerlink coming in from the desert.

  38. Suggest you establish as part of this…

    Whether the wager stands if the two don’t actually run against each other.

    What if Anderson runs, but Jacob doesn’t?

    If Anderson doesn’t end up running?

    Assuming it’s for all the marbles, not just the primary, unless it’s over in the primary.

    If a couple of folks had bet on Slater-Price vs. Danon a couple of years ago, for instance, would one of those wagering have won?

  39. T.A.,

    I am good with calling the winner dependent on which candidate becomes the Supervisor after the 2016 election regardless of who actually ends up running. If, by chance, a different candidate wins, then we can both make contributions to the other’s favorite charity.

  40. Craig,

    “Anderson’s shifting funds around . . .”

    I believe this was the political tactic used by his opponent in 2009 – a race he won by ten points. Going to run on this? Yawn.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.