2016 Elections: Sukhee Kang Moves Into SD29; Quirk-Silva Seeks AD65 Re-Match with Young Kim

The 2016 state primaries are still more than a year away, but candidates are already positioning themselves to run.

Sukhee Kang Running for SD29
Word among insiders is that former Irvine Councilman Sukhee Kang, a Democrat, has sold his home there and moved to Fullerton and re-registered to vote there in order to run for the 29th Senate District seat being vacated by termed-out Republican Bob Huff. [Huff is running for the LA County Board of Supes seat being vacated by termed-out Republican Mike Antonovich.]

La Habra Councilman Tim Shaw, a Republican, jumped into this race at the beginning of the year, and has already announced the backing of Huff and a number of other elected officials.

Kang will add an interesting wrinkle to the contest. The GOP experienced great success fielding a quartet of Asian-American candidates last year; for example, Sup. Janet Nguyen beating Jose Solorio in the 34th Senate District and Young Kim defeating incumbent Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva in AD65. And earlier this year, Andrew Do edged former state Senator Lou Correa in the 1st Supervisor District special election.

Ethnic solidarity tends to trump party affiliation among tight-knit communities such Korean-Americans. While Kang is a Democrat, don’t be surprised to see a number of Korean-American donors who supported Young Kim and Michelle Steele to show up on Kang’s campaign reports.

Sharon Quirk-Silva Wants A Re-Match With Young Kim
Sharon Quirk-Silva wants another shot at the person who turned her into a former Assemblymember: current Assemblywoman Young Kim. Color me skeptical.

Granted, Democratic turnout will be higher in the 2016 presidential year than in was in the GOP-dominated 2014 off-year election, but Quirk-Silva won’t be facing a target-rich, distracted incumbent with multiple vulnerabilities like she did when she defeated Assemblyman Chris Norby in 2012. Young Kim is an energetic fresh face who has not slowed down since assuming office. And while party registration in AD65 is evenly split more-or-less competitive, it’s a district that wants to be Republican. Challenger Kim beat incumbent Quirk-Silva by nearly 10 points despite being significantly outspent. It’s difficult to see why AD65 voters will decide make another change with those roles reversed.

Young Kim’s campaign consultant, Dave Gilliard, had this to say:

“Sharon Quirk Silva seems desperate to get back to Sacramento but she had  her chance and she failed  represent the values or priorities of the people she was supposed to represent.”

Another factor to consider: Jon Fleischman writes in BreitbartCA that an initiative to repeal the transgendered bathroom law may very well be on the November 2016 ballot. Quirk-Silva voted for that bill (AB 1266), and Young Kim made opposition to that extreme, exotic position a major plank in her campaign. Letting boys use the girls bathroom may resonate in San Francisco, but it’s out-of-touch with the more common sense attitudes of AD65 residents. It’s one of those issues that tells voters a lot about a candidate’s world view even beyond the issue itself, and having it on the November 2016 ballot would be a reminder to AD65 voters of why they made a change in who represents them in the Assembly.

 

 

58 comments

  1. Dan Chmielewski

    If you talk with high school kids who have a transgender friend, you’d find them very supportive. The Transgender bathroom bill is akin to “coloreds only” drinking fountains..its bigoted and out of step with the times. If Republicans push this initiative forward, my party will thank you for sending more young voters our way

    • For once, Dan, I agree with you.

      “Letting boys use the girls bathroom may resonate in San Francisco, but it’s out-of-touch with the more common sense attitudes of AD65 residents.”

      This sad little sentence summarizes everything wrong with the Republican Party in Orange County. It’s ignorant and spiteful.

      • Ryan thinks it is “ignorant and spiteful” to want to reserve the girls bathroom for girls, and the boys bathroom for boys.

        Let’s put Ryan in charge of the OC GOP, and he can them apply his political genius to launching a registration drive based on having only unisex bathrooms in public schools. That should send Republican registration through to roof.

        • One day you might get it, Matt. I’m sure today isn’t that day. People who hold opinions like yours are going to kill our party in this county.

          A little food for thought: AB1266 reserves boys restrooms for boys and girls restrooms for girls.

          I know you’re going to have a really hard time with that, but that’s how the cookie crumbles.

          Maybe Dan can explain it to you. Ask him real nice like.

          • You’re adopting the chimps-throwing-excrement approach to debate, Ryan.

            AB1266 reserves boys restrooms for boys and girls restrooms for girls.

            No, it doesn’t. AB 1266 says “A pupil shall be permitted to…use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.” So, the determining factor in which restroom a student wants to use will be whichever gender the student “identifies” as. Regardless of the student’s actual sex, AB 1266 permits a boy who “identifies” as a girl to use the girls bathroom – regardless of how that makes anyone else in the bathroom feel.

            • [Comment deleted due to false and gratuitous character attack.]

              • Free tip.

                Sex and gender are not the same thing.

                • [Comment deleted due to inability to adhere to civilized conduct.]

                • I know that – I’m impressed you do as well. If you read the bill, you’ll note it refers to “sex” throughout – only referring to “gender” in the line I quoted in my previous comment, which strengthens my point and weakens yours. I have to say, it is disturbing to see your adoption of the smash mouth, just-shout-’em-down techniques of left-wing culture warriors.

            • [Comment deleted due to false and gratuitous character attack.]

        • Sick of Politics

          Agreed!

  2. Dan Chmielewski

    The majority of the party has already distanced themselves from Diamond who needs to be a little more aware of the rolling eyes when he speaks (often) at Central Committee meetings.

  3. Dan Chmielewski

    I don’t think anyone is arguing that point Ryan. Matt is correct on two things. 1) He’s not a bigot. 2), The language of AB 1266 is correct.

    AB 1266, Ammiano. Pupil rights: sex-segregated school programs and activities.

    Existing law prohibits public schools from discriminating on the basis of specified characteristics, including gender, gender identity, and gender expression, and specifies various statements of legislative intent and the policies of the state in that regard. Existing law requires that participation in a particular physical education activity or sport, if required of pupils of one sex, be available to pupils of each sex.

    This bill would require that a pupil be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

    • “use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

      is not consistent with

      “Letting boys use the girls bathroom may resonate in San Francisco” (this bill doesn’t do that and what does San Francisco have to do with anything?)

      or

      “Ryan thinks it is ‘ignorant and spiteful’ to want to reserve the girls bathroom for girls, and the boys bathroom for boys” (Matt doesn’t want to reserve girls bathrooms for girls and boys bathrooms for boys. He wants to define gender based on 6000 year old definitions.)

      AB1266 does not let boys use girls restrooms or vice versa. Your buddy Matt is openly denying facts about gender and sex. He’s doing so to support outdated norms and to support a backhanded slander at residents who happen to live in a specific geographic area of the state.

      Glad to hear you’re on the record that denying a core tenant of gender science isn’t a bigoted opinion. Make sure you share that with your liberal buddies.

      You have a nice wide open path here to do the right thing and advocate for a position that’s right in your wheel house.

      • I wasn’t aware human nature had an expiration date, Ryan. That would have been news to the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln. The Ten Commandments are approximately 3,500 years old. Does that make them “outdated norms”?

        • Human nature?

          Explain that for our viewers, Matt.

          • Really? Did you sleep through Servite?

            • No, but I think you did. Your willingness to side with judgement before mercy– particularly here– is a raging example.

              Explain it, Matt. Tell me all about human nature and how it relates to the science of gender.

              • Hold on, kid. Take a look in the mirror if you want to find someone who deals in judging others. I’ve done no such thing. I have passed no judgment on transgendered people. You have so recklessly distorted my comments here that I have no confidence that you can engage in an honest, reasoned discussion with me. You charge in out of the box flinging false charges at me and behaving in a not-very-Christian manner. And all the time you try to make me the bad guy for making a factual point about AB 1266 (you’re rebuttal to which has basically been to repeat “nu-uh”).

                And if you don’t understand what human nature is, it’s not my job to educate you.

      • Dan Chmielewski

        Denying a core tenet of gender science? You’re trying to put words in my mouth. Not going to work. If a person indent infuse themselves as male, they use the men’s room. If they indentify as female, they use the ladies room. The only problem I have ever had with the transgendered people I know is pronouns, especially if they identified as a different gender when I first met them. That’s it.

        That language I posted on AB 1266 is from the bill. Try Google. It works.

        • Exactly Dan. Matt’s denying what you just typed into the screen.

          ” If a person indent infuse themselves as male, they use the men’s room.”

        • Also, Dan– I’m a little surprised that you really believe I got the wording wrong.

          I didn’t.

          • Dan Chmielewski

            You got the language of AB 1266 completely wrong Ryan. Review your May 5 comment. 10:43. Middle paragraph. You. Got. It. Wrong.

            http://www.bbklaw.com/?t=40&an=23163

            Someone’s gender identity and anatomy can sometimes be completely different. If an biological male identifies as female, the stall in the girl’s bathroom works just fine. If they are biologically female but identify as male, there are stalls in the boys room too. It shouldn’t be a big deal. And the subject can be debated without shouting “bigot.”

            • You’re unstoppable, Dan. Simply unstoppable.

              So what exactly did I get wrong? Are you going on record stating that a transgender boy isn’t a real boy?

              • Ryan, you spend a lot more time twisting what other people have said and then challenging them on your twisted misrepresentation, than you do actually discussing the issue or your own views. If you were willing to engage in honest, reasonable conversation for a change, you might be surprised by the response you’d get.

                • Done.

                  Per my usual request, you provide a level playing field free or your unreasonable and frivolous restrictions, I’ll provide the content.

                  In this case, why don’t you start a new post outlining the conservative argument supporting forced sex segregation. I’ll provide the conservative argument supporting AB1266, assuming across you agree to publish it in its entirety irrespective of what descriptive and perfectly appropriate adjectives I elect to use.

                  We’ll see just how reasonable the conversation is.

                  • The only “unreasonable and frivolous restrictions” you strain against are that you be polite.

                    Since you sound more and more like a progressive, it will be interesting to read what you think the “conservative” case is for banning girls softball.

                    • I’d love you see you apply that same standard to everyone else.

                      Allowing your buddy Dan to mock my testicles and insult my wife is hardly polite. I think you’ve surrendered “reasonable” by letting those two pass.

                      ANYWAY, it sounds like you’re ready to throw down! Shoot me a note when you’re ready.

                    • I do my best, and I have removed and/or edited Dan’s comments in the past. Whenever Greg Diamond complains about a comment, I take the comment down. Too bad he doesn’t accord me the same courtesy at OJB, where the piranhas are allowed to slander and vilify me any way they please, with the sensitive Mr. Diamond taking part.

                      That said…you are welcome to present your “conservative” case in favor of the state government abolishing single-sex sports in public schools; because gosh, there’s such a popular groundswell to do so. It’ll be especially interesting to see if you can make your case without denouncing as a “bigot” anyone who questions your opinion. But I am not going to waste my time in an interminable, fruitless back-and-forth with you.

                    • Dan Chmielewski

                      Mock your testicles?

                    • Shifting the goal posts already? Sports? <– That's what you want to talk about? Not bathrooms?

                      Also, case and point on Dan's comment above.

                    • I’m not moving anything. You support AB 1266, which also bans single-sex sports. Or hadn’t you read the bill?

                    • You could publish the comment before you reply, you know.

                      ANYWAY.

                      Are you agreeing to this or not? I’d suggest keeping it to bathrooms for the sake of brevity, but if you want to do the whole thing, fine.

                    • “You could publish the comment before you reply, you know.”

                      man, you are the most ultra-sensitive, high-maintenance commenter I’ve ever encountered. But I did – on the iPhone WordPress app, which can be buggy and often requires approving a comment several times before it sticks.

                      I’m not agreeing to anything, Ryan. You claim there’s a “conservative argument supporting AB1266” and against what you term “forced sex segregation.” If you’re going to defend AB 1266, then defend it. Don’t cherry pick the parts with which you’re more comfortable.

                    • Dan Chmielewski

                      Onion-think skin Ryan. Considering how often you try to put words in my mouth to say I’ve said something I haven’t, one might think you can take what you dish out. Send me your address and I’ll forward you a case of pacifiers

              • Dan Chmielewski

                A transgender boy is biologically female until he decides to have gender reassignment surgery ( see Chaz Bono). A transgender woman is biologically male until she decides to have gender reassignment surgery. (Multiple examples to offer). After such surgery, both are biological the gender they have identified with.

                Are you still having reading comprehension issues with what I write or to links on AB1266 and why it’s praised by the LGBTQ community? Or do you want to continue to misrepresent everything I say so you can call me a bigot?

                • Categorical confusion of a basic sex/gender concept.

                  Go read it again, Dan. We’re talking about gender, not sex.

                  • Dan Chmielewski

                    We’re talking about gender identity and you’re arguing from both sides of your mouth.

                    Do you know anyone who is transgendered? I honestly don’t think you do

                    • Dan, I asked you a pretty simple question.

                      Your answer of “not real until surgery” is disappointing.

                      Who I know and who I don’t know is really none of your business.

                    • Dan Chmielewski

                      Thanks for confirming you don’t know anyone transgendered. I don’t care if my answer disappoints you. I imagine disappointment is a regular emotion for you

        • Dan Chmielewski

          I hate typing on my iPad sometimes; “if a person identifies themselves….” and “If they identify….” Apologies….

      • Ryan – pick a spot on the wall, focus, take deep breathes and calm the hell down. And stop pretending this bill doesn’t do what it does.

        “Gender identity” is subjective. It’s whatever a person says it is. How is a school going to second guess a male student who declares he identifies as a female?

        If we take Wikipedia as accurate, 0.3 percent of the population is transgendered. And you support up-ending the rules of using public school bathrooms, or locker facilities or wherever human beings naturally desire privacy. Or is that an outmoded norm?

        • “Gender identity” is subjective.

          Sorry. Automatic “F” for the inability to know anything.

          Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

        • Dan Chmielewski

          Actually, if you talk to many kids in most high schools, they are largely supportive and understanding of their transgendered peers. Most really don’t care who uses what bathroom and locker room accommodations can be easily made for transgender athletes.

          Just curious, but how many transgendered people do you personally know? People are people.

          More importantly, Ryan seems to have trouble researching the actual language of AB1266; he says it doesn’t say what it does. And worse, he wants to put words in your mouth you’ve never said or don’t believe.

          • Dan,

            AB1266 does exactly what I said it does. Are you contesting that?

            Second, I’m ripping on what Matt said. Not you.

            I trust that at least one, if not both, of these concerns are reading comprehension issues on your part. Maybe you just went too fast.

          • I mean holy rusty metal batman– I NEVER quoted the language. Unfreaking believable . . .

          • Dan Chmielewski

            the “he” here is Ryan, for those confused by pronouns

    • Thank you, Dan, for being a civilized human being. While you and I hold opposite views on this bill, we are able to do so respectfully like grown ups, without sinking to gratuitous personal attacks.

Leave a Reply

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

*


Skip to toolbar