“The little campaign that could”

 
Yeah. That was it.
 
 

 

 
 

Advertisements

126 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

126 responses to ““The little campaign that could”

  1. Anonymous

    I want to thank everyone who helped and worked so hard to help Sharon win a seat on the city council. I especially want to thank Mike Nolan now that the campaign is over for all of his help and guidance in getting Sharon Springer elected. Thank you Mr Nolan

    • semichorus

      Fuck you.

      This town deserves everything it’s going to get with this pack of Useful Idiots. No class, no sense, no critical spirit to speak of. Perfect fodder.

      • Sarah G

        Mr Nolan was so supportive of Sharon because he realized that we need women incharge to address the problems we face after allowing men to be in charge for years. Mike Nolan has become enloghtened even if it took him years to see that women are smarter than men.

    • Ellen C.

      I used to think Mike Nolan was a conservative but this is just crazy. I get it though because he did tell me to vote for Frutose. I was shocked because Frutose is a full on liberal.

      • RINO POACHER

        Copy that, Ellen!
        We now have 5 libs on the council. we’re fucked!

        • semichorus

          Again. None of them are liberal. They may think they are, but they’re not. They’re corporate Democrats at best. Big difference.

          • RINO POACHER

            “None of them are liberal” What? are fuckin’ stupid? Stop defending the indefensible. Don’t measure them by their rhetoric. Measure them by their votes. Sorry Semi, they vote left all the time. Do you need me to list the votes? I could start with ‘cap and trade’ if you’d like. Yeah, that’s left wing liberal crap to the extreme. Oh, sorry your trying to save the planet with the ‘cap and trade”. You must think all of us are idiots like Sharon out here.
            With you, the fight is always about definitions. I know who’s on the left and who isn’t. Do you? This playing fuck around with you is getting tiresome. Why don’t you once and for all why don’t give us the definition of a Liberal.
            I think AlinSoCal would even like to hear that one. Just to make sure he’s on this side of Marxism.
            Btw, you don’t even know who your party is anymore – look they who tore down and look who they backed!

            • Burbank 2.0

              Hey, RINO POACHER
              Except to say ‘she’s not a liberal’, the grass roots left (semi) has no term for what a Luddy is/does. Which is on a day to day basis they vote left, but will throw all that aside to temporarily jump in bed with the establishment or the corporatists (the airport, tilapia, e.g.).
              When engaging with the establishment the ‘Luddy Liberal’ will only give a passing glance to those grass roots who got them elected with maybe a shout out to ‘sustainability’. People like Semi see right through this and brand them as traders.
              The punishment is that they are permanently stripped of the moniker ‘liberal’ by the grass roots. Even after the corporatist event has passed and they go right back to voting left – there is no redemption, even if you wear a pussy hat.
              Now AlinSoCal, a lefty, but not grass roots has no problem at all with a ‘Luddy Liberal’. Luddy can cozy up to the establishment, get wined and dined, go on jet plane rides as much as she wants if the rest of the time she votes, advocates and pushes to the cultural and political left. And, if it’s easy, stick it to the Right occasionally.
              I don’t think Semi cares that he looks less than intelligent to those on the political right if his message to the traders on left is heard loud and clear “you’re not in the club”.
              Semi has some understanding of Frutos/RINO, but really should stay out of it. We will handle our people in our way. Make no mistake about it, Bob is on the cultural left, he’s in bed with the establishment, and votes left. A RINO all the way.
              The left is more concerned with precise definitions of what branch of the left has someone may be on. This angers some on the left if you get it wrong. Semi goes through great pains to make sure we all know he is associated with the ‘progressive’ strain of the left. The grass roots right can pick out the lefty in 2 seconds, we’re not concerned with any other detail.
              The inner workings of the grass root leftist is a bit of a mystery, so there is some speculation here, but I think I hit a target or two.

              • semichorus

                There are no “left” or “liberal” council members in Burbank. So I don’t worry about what’s going on with them in the broader view. They’re all deeply conventional and sympathetic to the business/booster class. Three of them at least are also deeply entrenched in the bureaucracy–they made it their career.

                They got big pensions out of it. You think they’re gonna ask tough questions? If they ever had the ability to do so, they lost it long ago.

                Sadly, the only hope in the criticism dept. is Rogers

                • Village Idiot

                  10-4 Semi!
                  OK then, we will all be waiting right here for you to let us know the moment when a real live liberal shows up at City Council.
                  Since we don’t know what a liberal is, you will let us know when that happens, right?

    • Bev

      Nolan is an undercover agent for Springer and the Democrat Club ? No wonder I saw he had a sign for Frutos. Guess Nolan has turned traitor on Burbank.

  2. Marge

    Here is what I find so amusing. Almost all these we know what’s best for you liberals are well off white people who want to trash white people. Oh but if you are a well off white person who shares their every thought then you must be ok. If you put dogs and bikes before people then you must be brilliant. The liberal Democrats sure left me behind with their current insanity.

  3. chad

    Think of it this way. This type of governing and mentality is a good example go how registered Republicans and Democrats see eye to eye. These are establishment figures out of touch with working people and beholden to bigger money interests. They’ve all been irresponsible when it comes to the budget which makes the city now particularly vulnerable to out of town money that wants to exploit the situation. If we had “real” leadership they would make the tough decisions which would go against the established way of doing things but this group can’t. It’s outside their world view. We’re about to become San Bernardino and other cities that went bankrupt unless tough decisions are made. Is this group up to the challenge?

    • Don

      This group is not up to any challenge if you ask me Chad. I agree there are both establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans but unless somebody can correct me our city council is and long has been far more filled with Democrats than with Republicans. I don’t ever remember a Republican majority on the council. So when we look at the current mess and decline, honestly who do we blame ?

    • Burbank Loser

      “We’re about to become San Bernardino and other cities that went bankrupt”
      Chad all the cities that went BK was the result of over compensation – high salaries, benefits, and pensions. This might come as a shock, but those ‘high salaries, benefits, and pensions’ are the result of a Democrat vote buying scheme, and it worked perfectly. Well, sort of.

  4. Al in SoCal

    ” If we had “real” leadership they would make the tough decisions which would go against the established way of doing things but this group can’t.”
    What specifically do you want to see? Write a letter to the editor – focus on 1 or 2 things and take them to task if you don’t like what you see.

  5. chad

    Al, the editor stopped publishing my letters years ago.

    • Anonymous

      The Leader reports their own agenda and only prints letters that maych their agenda. They are not news thay are,agenda. That makes them FAKE NEWS.

      • semichorus

        I think they print what they get. No one’s engaged in the issues any more.

        That’s partly because there rarely are any now. If there’d been a big development project or two on the current docket Gordon would have won — it would have enunciated the differences between the candidates and pointed out his strengths. But staff made sure there weren’t any.

        • Gary

          Wrong on this Semichorus. Don’t forget no news coverage and no debates allowed in Burbank. Where has the news coverage been for that fifty-thousand gift in the last election for the airport ? In fact where was any news on that measure B election. Reporters are suppose to dig into stories not wait to be handed something by government.

          • semichorus

            No one was engaged on the issues, that’s for sure. I blame the paper, but I also blame the residents. The sub-50 year olds are all way too busy taking pictures of themselves for social media.

            I say fuck ’em. They deserve the consequences. Most of them lead horribly inadequate lives, so they probably wouldn’t know any better anyway.

        • Anonymous

          Gordon blew a lead of 885 votes. Explain that with your conspiracy theories. He was out campaigned and he had no message that the voters cared about.

          • semichorus

            He had no lead like that. It was a different election with a different group of final candidates.What btw were Springer’s positions?

            So what happened?

            -He was outspent by business interests who wanted another stooge in there.

            -He was subject to a vicious whispering campaign

            -He was the victim of the dirtiest campaign tactics I’ve seen in 40 years

            -His main opponent ran a partisan race that tried to falsely frame him as a Republican. A “man bad; woman good” Hillary/Trump grudge match.

            -Burbank has a lot of credulous, uninformed, and deeply ageist new arrivals.

            Oh, and blatant anti-Semitism and classic Jew-baiting. Gordon has been subjected to repeated accusations of conspiring with other Jewish-named individuals in various financial and business intrigues. Golonski just did it last week​. The dog rescuers — most of whom are HUGE Springer supporters — did it a few years ago. Shameless.

            • Anonymous

              He had exactly that lead. He scored 4799 votes in the primary, Springer ha 3914 votes. The difference is a lead of 885 votes. Which he blew.

              Be good enough to list all the nefarious business interests that supported Springer. If you can.

              • semichorus

                It was a different set of candidates. The booster deck was cleared when Talamantes got out of the way. That automatically increased her count.

                All the business and establishment interests were supporting her, local and outside.

                • Anonymous

                  God what hogwash. In the primary there were 3 seats in contention. If, and that is a big if, the Talemantes vote was in lockstep with Springer, it was just as much so in the primary as in the general. She would have scored bigger in the primary if she was a shadow candidate of Talemantes, which she was not, she would have edged Gordon in the primary.

                  You still cannot name the interests that backed her, just your usual vague assertions that mean nothing.

                  • semichorus

                    You’re not too bright, are you?

                    With Talamantes out of the way, the booster/conventional crowd was no longer split three ways. They could now concentrate their two votes on Frutos and Springer. The Talamantes voters were freed up after the primary, and they constituted a far bigger crowd than Sousa etc., who also fell out of the final race.

                    In other words, it took NO skill on her part. There was a whole pack of additional supporters automatically available to Springer in the runoff who voted for Talamantes the first time. No Gordon supporters changed their votes because of her “brilliant campaign.”

                    And I guarantee you that if there had been a controversial development issue in front of the council during the last six months, Gordon would have won easily. Watch all these projects suddenly appear now!

                    (Gee, I wonder why there weren’t….?)

            • Anonymous

              Next you will be confusing Springer with Frutos.

    • Anonymous

      Reactionary rants do seem to suffer such bigotry.

  6. Anonymous

    Springer did brilliantly. She was nearly 900 votes behind in the primary and won by nearly 400 votes. It was a swing of 1264 votes. Like it or not, that is impressive. Possibly unprecedented.

    • semichorus

      You are so completely full of shit. She spent a ton of money on a deeply dishonest campaign backed by business interests. No skill there.

      She and her supporters lied through their teeth about Gordon. I hope they enjoy the bad karma about to befall them. The woman is such an obvious joke; so, so inadequate.

      • Anonymous

        Oh, bullshit. Name the business interests. Quantify the amount that she spent that Gordon did not.
        Let’s remember that Gordon sought the same $400 from Biz Fed. It would be OK for Gordon to get that endorsement but not Springer? Got it.
        Springer took no money for developers. Just to clear that one up.
        Springer had ONE mailer. Spent a ton of money. What bullshit.

        • semichorus

          She had signs everywhere. She also ran a dishonest campaign– full of total and complete lies about Gordon. And intensely anti-Semitic, with all sorts of conspiratorial and mucky muck Jewish imagery.

          Money means nothing. It’s the political SUPPORT that counts. The Cusumanos gave money to Gordon to make him look bad. Why didn’t they do that to Springer?

          What a sleazy election. But what can you say? It’s a sleazy town.

          • Anonymous

            “She had signs everywhere.” So WHAT? She had a good volunteer effort that got the signs out. Gordon did the same. He was just less successful. Again, it is bad when Springer does it but not when Gordon does?
            “And intensely anti-Semitic” Back that up with any examples. Which you cannot do, because they don’t exist. Gordon is Jewish? I thought he was Scotts.
            “Money means nothing.” Then WHY do you keep banging on about it? Springer did not have lots more money than did Gordon. In fact I’d bet Gordon had more.
            ” But what can you say?” That you are a paranoid whack job.

            • semichorus

              Gordon and Blitz and “Ira Lippmann” and “the Berlins” are all Jewish names, if not Jewish themselves. These have been the sum total of the Gordon haters little rumor mongering tales about his allegedly perfidious dealings. Figure it out.

        • Anonymous

          “Let’s remember that Gordon sought the same $400 from Biz Fed. It would be OK for Gordon to get that endorsement but not Springer? Got it.”
          Putz, you keep saying that, it’s just more of your lies. Prove me wrong, dip shit!

          • semichorus

            And no one’s complaining about “money,” either. Take their fucking cash.

            It’s the political support that matters. The fact that this outfit picked her over him speaks volumes. Regardless of whether he wanted them or not.

        • Anonymous

          “Springer had ONE mailer. ” Liar again, shall I show you my two from her sleazy campaign, you ignorant putz?

        • I counted at least 4 mailers from the Springer campaign or independent expenditures from other groups dedicated to her candidacy.

          • H.G.

            I received at least 4 flyers from groups that paid for them for Springer. Reminded me of Rizzotti and the Chicago big money mailers in his dirty realtor campaign. I have no respect for Burbank realtors after that one. Come to mention it I have no respect for the Burbank Chamber of Corruption either after Measure B. On Nolan I ran into him at the store and he told me to vote for Frutos and when I said what about Dr Gordon he was like oh yeah Dr Gordon too. My encounter with Nolan was like he was all in as a Frutos boy but I did not vote for Frutos that guy is a dirty cop if you ask me I just get a bad vibe from him.

          • Anonymous

            Spell and his clown show makes me want to puke. Get a clue clown no one likes you or listens to you.

            • I have a clown show? Sweet.

            • Anonymous

              You’re using intimidation to get him to back off. Lots of people like David Spell and listen to him. That’s why you took the time to make the comment. He is one of the few who puts his name with his comments. That speaks for itself. He has something to say and stands behind it. I respect that because in this town you get pounced on if your opinion is contrary to the current political injustices.

          • Anonymous

            Jesus, Dave, are you dull witted. She mailed one mailing. That is a fact. What the League of Conservation Voters did is another issue.

            • semichorus

              But she had TONS MORE! That’s the POINT.

              Jesus, the obtuseness of these Springer supporters. There’s gonna be some fun council meetings coming up.

    • Anonymous

      ” Anonymous (LEMMING)
      April 16, 2017 at 2:48 pm
      Springer did brilliantly. She was nearly 900 votes behind in the primary and won by nearly 400 votes. It was a swing of 1264 votes. Like it or not, that is impressive. Possibly unprecedented.”

      Why you trying so hard to rewrite history, putz? Let me school you some more.

      “Springer did brilliantly. ”
      INDEED, following the twisted, dung-slinging orders of your MAN leader, Golonski, yet she’s the first to play the WOMAN CARD! What a weak, conniving, can’t think for herself “woman”!

      “Possibly unprecedented.”
      YES, on filth and dirty dung slinging tricks, while being led by men…what a whorish, legacy.

      • semichorus

        She also had more establishment/anti-critic votes available to her after talamantes avoided the runoff. THAT’S what made the difference for her — besides the mudslinging and dishonesty.

    • Her victory cost $7.12 per voter in the general.

      • Anonymous

        and it was worth every penny you fat idiot Spell. Now you and your circus can do a disappearing act.

      • Anon

        What did David spend per vote to lose?

      • Anonymous

        Go fuck yourself.

        Gordon DID seek the biz fed money, He admitted as much in council.

        And Warner gave him $400 as well.

        What the hell does Friedman, who is from Glendale, btw have to do with it?

        • semichorus

          And they wanted HER instead. That’s the point!

          Who cares if he wanted the money. He can take all he can get. It’s who WANTS HER IN THERE that’s important.

      • Anonymous

        Cost who? Just like your cheap accusations to not recognize that her campaign paid next to nothing for her victory,

        It was that evil cabal known as the League of Conservation Voters that spent the money. Lord knows she should be ashamed of their support.

        Bet you cannot even remotely back up that $7.12 claim.

        • semichorus

          The point is that MORE MONEY WAS SPENT FOR HER.

          And from outsiders. Do you people get it?

          Do you get the point? Gordon was outspent. No one’s saying SHE did it — that she did NOT makes it even worse!

  7. Anony Miss

    People in Burbank who agree with all the antics of the council and city officials have me perplexed. What am I missing? This strange virus is alive on other levels and situations in Burbank. I’ve moved past the anger phase. Now, I’m dumbfounded. The craziness is absolutely beyond belief.
    I think Dr. Gordon lost part of his effectiveness due to the unbelievable pressure put upon him to shut up. Yes, he did speak up but not enough. Four bullies against one. Now, it will be five bullies with zero resistance.

    • semichorus

      I agree. He was constantly being sighed at and hassled about his questions, to the point where you could see him hesitate about asking any follow ups.

      There were also no recent campaign/agenda items the last few months that spoke to his strengths. By design.

  8. U.S.

    Don’t go away a bad loser Simi…. just go away! Mooohahahahahaha!

  9. Anonymous

    ” Anonymous
    April 16, 2017 at 3:02 pm
    Gordon blew a lead of 885 votes. Explain that with your conspiracy theories. He was out campaigned and he had no message that the voters cared about.”
    Ah, thanks funny. Pull your head out of your ass and let me educate you on the truth. Gordon was most definitely out slung with the mud, he slung none and had a mountain thrown at him from Springer’s Golonski ran campaign.. He was out financed because he had no outside corporate PAC money flowing in like Springer did which bought her the phone banks, the incessant signs and flyers. In fact Gordon gave back developer money. Then you combine that with the fact that only about one sixth of the voters voted. And, those 885 couch potatoes voted on the last name they saw, Springer. LOL, “blew a lead”, “out campaigned”? … what arrogant naivety! He, just, didn’t whore himself to the big business like Sharon did making her a mega hypocrite. Now, it’s pay back time for the “out campaigned” she whored herself with mixed with her reputation being trashed as a slimy, manipulative bitter, hypocrite. Ok, schools out.

    • semichorus

      Agreed.

      There were also no campaign issues to speak of, because staff and the developers DELIBERATELY withheld projects from the agenda.

      Just one controversial project the last three or four months and Gordon would have won. Easily.

      • Anon

        Ha! I wish Gordon were as well informed about the lack of campaign issues as you. Because when he was going door to door, he was carrying around the Save our Burbank Neighborhoods mailer showing upcoming projects and showing it to anyone that wanted to discuss upcoming projects. I guess that must have been a prop.

        • semichorus

          Nothing on the agenda. Public votes up or down would have gotten lots of publicity. Negative publicity for the advocates.

          So people voted then … to build 2,000 apartments in downtown Burbank?

          • Anon

            So he was running a crooked campaign by running around talking about irrelevant upcoming developments because they weren’t on the agenda. Someone should also tell Save Our Burbank Neighborhoods that they wasted a mailer. I hope they didn’t spend too much. Keep spinning Jim. Your candidate lost. You can come up with whatever fictional explanation you want but Gordo is gone. And yes, fuck all us stupid people. You and Gordo can hang out together at Lancers and argue about which one of you are the smartest in the lounge.

            • semichorus

              What a vile town you’ve become. Is there anything good there that isn’t at least 50 years old? Such an uneducated lot, too. What a decline.

  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous (LEMMING)
    April 16, 2017 at 5:56 pm
    “Let’s remember that Gordon sought the same $400 from Biz Fed. ” LIE
    “Springer had ONE mailer. ” LIE
    “Oh, bullshit. Name the business interests.” OK
    —————-
    MEDIA WEST REALTY: $400.00
    (FROM THEIR WEB PAGE: “Media West Realty offers complete real estate services to the entire Los Angeles area…” “Our extensive background enables us to provide invaluable insight….all types of investment and commercial properties.” (http://mediawestrealty.com/)
    —————
    BIZFED: $400.00
    (PAC for BIG BUSINESS, known for killing environmental projects, yet Sharon’s in bed with them. And, she throw dung at Gordon and Guillen for getting Cusumano set-up money, of which they returned. SHE DID NOT, so whose the fucking hypocrite.) (Google, “BIZFED” and read all the PROOF)
    —————
    DAVID GOLONSKI: $400.00
    (Retire council whore for big business. (his record of over-spending and back room deals speaks for itself)

    PAUL GOLONSKI: $400.00
    Hmmmm?
    —————-
    PAUL HERMAN: $200.00
    (COMMERCIAL Real Estate Agent, Commercial Asset Group: Century Park Plaza, 1801 Century Park E #1420, Los Angeles, CA 90067)
    —————-
    LAURA FRIEDMAN: $300.00
    (Assembly Member California State Assembly) (Encino, CA 91436)
    —————
    WARNER BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT $400.00
    —————–
    Not to mention retired big business individuals, the old Burbank money!

    See, putz, this is why Sharon will go down as the dirtiest, mnaipulative and most sleazy, hypocrite to sit on council since Rogers and Golonski. Truly what “Bull Shit” you do spew. Now, shut the fuck up.

  11. Anonymous

    Things will change now. No more No all the time to progressive ideas that will move Burbank into the future. No more disbelief of Climate change and our need to protect our community against environmental issues. Oh and No more Nolan screaming at the city attorney. We now have a council that will take control of the council meetings and restore order. Burbank was ready for this change.

  12. EDDIE

    Debbe C Bruin CONGRATULATIONS!!! So proud to have a female, progressive and forward-thinking voice on the council. 😃
    Like · Reply · 3 · April 14 at 5:28pm

    • semichorus

      So sexist.

      And she’s anything but.

      • Laura

        Interesting because that is exactly what Springer and company told people. Vote for her because she is a woman and she is a progressive Democrat ready to bring progressive changes to Burbank. I heard it from them myself

      • Styles

        The sexist in Burbank is Nolan. The man is a complete old fool that should be in a mental hospital. He is a threat to society.

  13. Anonymous

    There are no campaign issues in Burbank because things are great in Burbank.

  14. Anonymous

    “Anonymous
    April 17, 2017 at 6:54 am
    Things will change now. No more No all the time to progressive ideas that will move Burbank into the future. No more disbelief of Climate change and our need to protect our community against environmental issues. Oh and No more Nolan screaming at the city attorney. We now have a council that will take control of the council meetings and restore order. Burbank was ready for this change.”
    _—————-

    So, now you’re speaking on behalf of city council members in addition to your lying delusions. LOL, you’re not only a putz, you’re an idiot. And, you seem fixated here to defend the indefensible…LMAO!!! It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

    • semichorus

      Are there plans afoot against Mike Nolan? Is Rogers that dumb?

      Yeah, arrest him! At last!

      If they do, he’ll end up owning half of Chandler Blvd.

      • Shana

        The council now needs to place restrictions on people like Nolan. There should be no tolerance of negativity in the council chambers during meetings. I think Sharon will be the final vote to end all the wasted time listening to Nolan being negative.

  15. Anonymous

    ” Anonymous
    April 16, 2017 at 7:31 pm
    ‘She had signs everywhere.’ So WHAT? She had a good volunteer effort that got the signs out.”

    LMAO, yeah a volunteer (paid?) effort to remove the competitons’ signs or place her’s illegally in front of their. Remember, dweeb, the Gabel-Luddy explanation of that…it was “gremlins” and “gardeners”. OMG, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel with this Springer idiot crowd.

    • semichorus

      Yeah, there were reports that her supporters (like Golonski) were going around and asking that her signs be put up next to Gordon’s. Can you imagine the hypocrisy in this?

      The zealots were out in force on this one, that’s for sure. They were so inspired by their own self-righteousness.

      Why, she’s just like Hillary!

      • Anonymous

        So what if Springer supporters put campaign signs next to Gordon’s. There were two seats to vote for so why can’t people have a Springer sign in front of the Gordon sign ? Didn’t Nolan have three signs ? You people are really stupid.

        • semichorus

          Because it’s hypocritical. Gordon’s a bad guy, but we’re gonna run right next to him for support and even ride his coattails.

          That’s not “brilliant.” It’s disingenuous.

          Word around town is that it was a Golonski-led stunt. He was doing it.

      • Anonymous

        It was just the opposite. Springer got there first and Gordon asked to be featured as well.

    • Anonymous

      Nobody was paid. Look at her reporting and you will see that she had nothing like the money needed to hire people.

      Nobody removed the competitor’s signs, nor placed her signs illegally. I defy you to prove your allegations.

  16. Battery Charger

    It took a major group, backed by Developers $$ to remove our very Effective Dr. G. and replace him with two very in effective parts. Bravo! for Dirty politics, those of you without shame. Thank You to Dr. Gordon for all your
    years of service standing up ALONE for the Little guys. The people have
    lost their Voice. We will miss you.

    • Nancy

      Battery Charger says:
      “Bravo! for Dirty politics, those of you without shame.”

      So true, outside interests, large political parties, and local hacks all joined forces with some unexpected maybe longtime bedfellows. Like Mr Nolan who they claim to brand as inappropriate, while he was simply a useful tool of the developers and destroyers of Burbank.

      Boo on you Mr Nolan you have zero credibility with many of us now. I hope you find great solace with your new developer friends, and joy in selling out our city.

      • Anonymous

        Gordon both sought and received the endorsement of the Democratic party four years ago. And campaigned on it.

        • semichorus

          He didn’t campaign as a Democrat. Big difference. She did.

          Distinctions don’t make much of a difference in this town, do they.

    • Theresa

      Dr Gordons loss in the election is a real loss to Burbank. I fear there will really be no dissenting opinion any longer on the council and that means many residents no longer represented. I suspect those responsible will realize in time what a mistake it was this concentrated effort to quiet the voice of many citizens in Burbank.

      I now have no faith or trust in city hall at all.

  17. Battery Charger

    Thanks for running Juan Guillen, You had our Vote. You had no chance against the Corrupt Machine. For trying to make a Difference in the former Good Old Burbank, we Aplaud you.

    • H.F.

      While a few acted like 11 years were too long for Dr Gordon they voted in Talamantez who when the term ended will be there 12 years or three full terms. Gordon had two terms and due to a special election a few years of Murphys term after she was arrested. Gordon was one of the best council members in Burbank history and time will prove that as fact.

      • semichorus

        I get such a kick out of how when Gordon beat the favored Bill Wiggins for Murphy’s old spot, the establishment crowd IMMEDIATELY worked to change the law to have replacement “appointments.”

        Assholes. It was just so blatant. And talk about a consolidation of power away from the voters. Pure bad faith move.

  18. Carla M

    Without Dr Gordon we will all need now to flood city hall to stop these massive projects like the one for that old IKEA building property. That project is massive and will be the destruction of Burbank High School. Then there are the ones down the street they all must be stopped or we will all be ready to move out of Burbank.

    • semichorus

      It’s also a bit of a fraud, besides the “We Heart!” crap.

      Why?

      Because they have no intention of putting in 1500 apartments over there. There’s not even room for that many. What they want instead is an easy 500 or 600.

      So, by claiming 1500, but “agreeing to compromise” at 500, everyone will cheer.

      I can hear the moronic Talamantes now. “People, they came down! You should be thanking them!”

      It’s the oldest bargaining ruse in the world: always ask for more than you want.

      • Toad

        That old ikea store and that mall developer is a crookster and hustler. That should not get turned into a big mixed use housing project. It should stay a store.

  19. Anonymous

    Juan Boy Wonder Guillen nobody likes you so just go back to your mommy’s basement boy wonder.

  20. The real news

    From the Fronnie Lewis gag me file

    Springer ran the most impressive campaign, beating three-time council candidate Juan Guillen and incumbent Dr. David Gordon, who has spent more than a decade on the city council. Springer responded to her victory in an email by saying: “I’m thrilled. We ran the little campaign “that could” and we won! I thank my amazing volunteers, supporters and Burbank voters.  I’m humbled and honored to be elected to serve our city and all residents in a positive way.”

    • semichorus

      Yes, the Little Campaign that Could….

      …outspend the rest. Her characterization of her own campaign is amazingly dishonest. It was no small campaign.

      And taking over Talamantes’ establishment voting bloc was no brilliant achievement. It was an automatic gain.

      • Anonymous

        “Outspent the rest” Bull shit she did.

        And you have no clue how our elections work if you make these references to talementels.

        • semichorus

          The Springer crowd has no idea why she won. I’ll explain:

          In the primary, the establishment “We hate those ugly council critics!” supporters had three viable candidates to chose from: Talamantes, Frutos, and Springer.

          After Talamantes hit 50 percent, their votes were now split off to only two in the runoff: Frutos and Springer. That means Talamantes’ spillover added to their totals. With two votes per ballot — split between two and not three candidates now– they both got them all. The result was a natural statistical increase for the remaining “booster” candidates.

          Gordon didn’t have the same advantage. Any spillover he could get in the runoff would only have come from marginal and much lesser known candidates. At best, there weren’t enough of those votes available.

          None of this is brain surgery to figure out, and none of it involved a “brilliant campaign.” If there’d been another popular or known “booster” (or even a popular “semi” booster) candidate in the runoff in PLACE OF GUILLEN then Gordon would have been a shoo-in. The two votes of each “booster” anti-critic resident would have been split three ways, not two.

          If you look at past Gordon victories, that’s exactly how they occurred. Unfortunately for Burbank and the way this younger and more credulous electorate always pans out now (not as it did 25 years ago), there’s only room for one dissident candidate at a time.

          Here’s an example– Gordon’s first victory. The “establishment” votes were split and Gordon got in:

          http://articles.burbankleader.com/2006-01-25/news/blr-election25_1_mayor-bill-wiggins-vacant-seat-burbank-glendale-pasadena-airport-authority

          Just wait though– when we have a reprise of the 80s and early 90s “growth” years…

          Then dissidents will run freely. And win again.

          • Anonymous

            “That means Talamantes’ spillover added to their totals.”

            Wow are you ignorant.

            In the primary people had three votes. In the General people had two votes. There was no rush of Talemantes voters going to Springer. The spare vote does not exist. The third vote went away when Talementes was elected.

            • semichorus

              I know. And there was still a spillover effect.

              And, when you have two votes per voter and four candidates to choose from, as in this runoff, and two are booster types and two are dissidents, the boosters are always going to win in Burbank unless there are serious gripes out there spread among the entire population. Which has happened.

              So you didn’t disprove anything. There aren’t enough dissident voters for two candidates in most eras. But if you can split the establishment candidates to three choices and just two possible votes among them, one dissident candidate has a much better chance of winning.

              That’s not what happened this time, and it’s why Gordon lost. He’s always won by having the luck of running against a surplus of much more conventional candidates in his races.

              But keep flattering yourselves guys, and your candidate. If Guillen had been replaced by, say, David Nos, Gordon would have screamed to victory instead. Springer would have lost mucho votes to Nos. Possibly Frutos as well. And that’s just one hypothetical.

              The moral for populists in Burbank: only run one candidate at a time. Unless the electorate is out in the streets, you won’t win otherwise.

              • 91505

                Anonymous you are not just an idiot you are rude. The fact is more people voted in the second election so no talamoron voters and votes did not go away. Since you worked on the springer campaign no surprise you work from lies and alternative facts.

            • Anonymous

              “In the primary people had three votes. In the General people had two votes.”. Wow you not spew, you can add too. So, what does that have to do with the truth of what Semi says. Please, tell us your “brilliant” monday morning quarterbacking? Don’t forget to add Sharon’s slimy campaign backed by the good old boys…as she played the “woman card”? LOL. Truth!

              • semichorus

                I think my language might have been confusing. Yes, there were three possible votes in the primary, but looking at the results, it’s obvious that many voters did not vote for three candidates. There was a big Talamantes surge, a bit for Frutos, and then a falloff.

    • Anonymous

      My letter to Fronnie’s take.

      “Springer ran the most impressive campaign, beating three-time council candidate Juan Guillen and incumbent Dr. David Gordon, who has spent more than a decade on the city council. “

      http://www.mediacitygroove.com/news-general-info/2017-burbank-general-election-final-results-released-today

      Wow, Fronnie, I could not disagree more based on the facts.

      – Sharon slung mud incessantly attacking other candidates bashed on misinformation, hyperbole our outright lies. No other campaign did that.

      – Sharon lied consistently, no other campaign did.

      – Sharon’s people stole signs and without permission, placed signs, the others did not.

      – Sharon played the “woman’s card” while being controlled by a man, Golonski

      – Sharon was the biggest hypocrite of accusing others of being in bed with big business, yet she took the most money from developer related businesses

      – Sharon had/spent the most money due to the prior, developer related businesses and individuals

      – Sharon illegally used kids to help in her “volunteer” work on the campaign

      – Sharon due to the above showed exceptionally poor decision making

      There’s nothing “impressive” about her dirty and hypocritical campaign. You lost me on your take, Fronnie, I need to rethink my opinion of your blog. It makes me wonder why you truly closed your “comment” section.

      If you would like to print the aforementioned facts with the proof or discuss this in an open forum, I’d be more than happy to contribute. -Tony Noakes

      • semichorus

        She also put her signs up next to Gordon’s for bolstering, while at the same time condemning him with ridiculous claims.

        Clearly, the only reason Springer won is because there were two council critics on the ballot. This is hardly a novel idea — it’s been well known in Burbank politics for years; there’s rarely room for active non-conformist critics. Replace Guillen with Nos though and she would have been creamed. Put a real issue in there and she would have lost even more votes.

        Gordon’s effectiveness comes out when there are development issues on the agendas … which explains why there haven’t been any recently! It was a deliberate staff (and developer) strategy to get more useful idiots on the council.

        Proof? Watch development issues suddenly come rushing down the pike. What a coincidence they’ve suddenly become ready for council action!

        • Anonymous

          Here’s the entire thread exchange with Fronnie concerning my above initial email to her disputing her claim that Springer ran an “impressive” campaign. Notice how she implies I’m bullying her, when in fact she’s being the bully.

          NOTE: the emails are chronological from most recent backwards:

          From: TONY NOAKES
          Subject: Re: You lost me with your take on Sharon
          Date: April 18, 2017 at 11:05:07 AM PDT
          To: Fronnie Lewis
          Who are you to tell someone they have a “serious problem”? We’ve never even met. Why do you choose to make it personal? As to your blog, it’s out there for the public to read and respond, it you don’t like then shut it down.

          On Apr 18, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Fronnie Lewis wrote:
          You have a serious problem.If you don’t like my blog GET ONE OF YOUR OWN. I will not be bullied by you or anyone. I will no longer respond to your emails. So stop sending them!
          Fronnie

          On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:36 AM, TONY NOAKES wrote:
          Fronnie,
          Clearly you got it WRONG again. Your opinion? And, I have facts to my allegations. That’s why I offered to discuss publicly to get the truth out there. That’s why I’m disappointed in you not doing your due diligence. Offer still stands.
          Cheers,
          TONY NOAKES

          On Apr 18, 2017, at 10:18 AM, Fronnie Lewis wrote:
          Tony,
          Clearly it’s tough for you to HEAR someone else’s opinion on the facts. Let me suggest you start your own blog with your own comment section. Perhaps some of the 500 people you say you sent this email to will contribute and comment on your blog.
          Good luck,
          Fronnie

          On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:05 AM, TONY NOAKES wrote:
          “Springer ran the most impressive campaign, beating three-time council candidate Juan Guillen and incumbent Dr. David Gordon, who has spent more than a decade on the city council. “
          http://www.mediacitygroove.com/news-general-info/2017-burbank-general-election-final-results-released-today
          Wow, Fronnie, I could not disagree more based on the facts.

          – Sharon slung mud incessantly attacking other candidates bashed on misinformation, hyperbole our outright lies. No other campaign did that.
          – Sharon lied consistently, no other campaign did.
          – Sharon’s people stole signs and without permission, placed signs, the others did not.
          – Sharon played the “woman’s card” while being controlled by a man, Golonski.
          – Sharon was the biggest hypocrite of accusing others of being in bed with big business, yet she took the most money from developer related businesses
          – Sharon had/spent the most money due to the prior, developer related businesses and individuals
          – Sharon illegally used kids to help in her “volunteer” work on the campaign
          – Sharon due to the above showed exceptionally poor decision making

          There’s nothing “impressive” about her dirty and hypocritical campaign. You lost me on your take, Fronnie, I need to rethink my opinion of your blog. It makes me wonder why you truly closed you “comment” section.

          ff you would like to print the aforementioned facts with the proof or discuss this in an open forum, I’ld be more than happy to contribute.
          BTW, I have sent this email to approx. 500 people.
          Cheers,
          TONY NOAKES

          • semichorus

            I’m so sick of everyone being a victim of something or another. This “bullying” thing is a perfect example.

            I guess everything is bullying now. Just like almost everything sexual now is culpable “rape.”

            What’s going on here is just a blatant below-the-belt attempt to get people out of the way whenever possible: like potential rivals, challenging intellects, unpopular personalities, simple competition. All wrapped up in piety and self-righteousness.

            • Anonymous

              Yep, if you can’t beat’em, remove them by any means necessary. Reminds me of a totalitarian state, yet many like to call it it being a “liberal” or “progressive”…go figure. The more people try to be different in their with arrogance and self-righteousness the more they become what they despise. This is why I will never trust Sharon Springer.

  21. Ellen

    That media city groove is just fake news I never read it anymore.

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s