Top Ten Candidate Statments for OC1

Taking up the challenge from webmaster Jubal, here is my Top Ten list ranking the soon-to-be published OC1 Candidate Statements written and submitted by the candidates themselves (they may be viewed here). These statements are very important in a competitive election of such short duration. Most voters will vote absentee (if they vote at all) and will do so in the relative quiet of their homes. As such, the only information they may have in front of them is the Sample Ballot containing the printed Candidate Statements.

I critique these statements on content, format, cleverness (turn-of-phrase, context, use of compelling examples), relevance, persuasiveness and puissance. It was tough ... and close; all but one are pretty good.

So here are my rankings, in reverse order (with acknowledgement to Mr. Letterman):

10. Lupe Moreno - She did not file a candidate statement. Not only won't people get to read her views, many voters do not realize that it costs a LOT of money to get these statements printed. Therefore, they think a candidate that does not is too arrogant, uncaring, shallow, stupid (pick one) to communicate with voters. Of course, Lupe is none of those things ... I assume she simply did not have the money to pay for a statement by the due date.

9. Larry Phan - First on the ballot, Worst on the page. More people will read Larry's statement than any other, because his will be the first they come to. But it is written in a single block paragraph, dense in structure and content. He identifies himself as a 25-year county employee (he works for L.A. county) but does not discuss why that alone qualifies him to be Supe. We don't know if he is a custodian or CEO. His ballot title is "Television Producer" but he never mentions it in his statement making the title a non-sequitur. This statement gets him zero votes.

8. Benny Diaz - Benny's statement is formatted in three block paragraphs, making it hard to read. But the biggest problem is that after we read it, we still do not know very much about Benny - his education, his job, his family, his political background. He also chooses to ID himself as an advocate of Immigrant Rights - not a crowd-pleaser in today's political climate, especially among likely voters. And he talks about education, which the BOS is not involved in. In another non sequitur, he does not mention his ballot title of "City Commissioner" ... What city? What Commission? (For the record, he is a Garden Grove Neighborhood Improvement Commissioner.)

7.Tom Umberg - I just didn't like this statement. It feels rushed, which it may have been since he pulled papers and filed on the last day. It is written in third person, which makes it sound a little bit like a Rotary Club luncheon introduction. He does not speak much of what he WILL do on the BOS, although the background experience he lists is impressive. Not a BAD statement, but I EXPECTED better from Umberg, which is one reason I rank it this low. That said, I don't think Tom is counting on his votes being generated by his statement. It is probably enough to reinforce the votes he can already count on.

6. Brett Franklin - Serviceable, nice, brief. A quick rundown of qualifications and aspirations. But it contains the usual generalities. He is listed on the ballot as an Orange County Businessman, but he does not provide any details (just that he is "successful"). The statement is OK, but nothing compelling here.

5. Janet Nguyen - Not too bad talking up a limited amount of experience. She gets points for referencing her website. She does not discuss what she does as "Hospital Boardmember" which is the occupation she lists on the ballot. I think she misfires by saying she wants to "repay our country" but then equates serving in the USMC in Iraq (which her brother did) with running for Supervisor. I don't think there is a compelling reason to vote for her in this statement. I expected better, especially with her consultant Gilliard's depth of experience to guide her. She'd better hope her mail is much better than this.

4. Mark Rosen - Points for mentioning the endorsement of Chuck Smith. Demerits for too many insider references. For example, "...job’s too serious to be a stepping stone or a consolation prize"... obscure shots at Janet(?) and Umberg. Lots of specifics and examples, but maybe too many. Does mention Senior Transportation, an important issue for a high-propensity voter bloc. This is one of three statements that bought the 400-word version (the others are all half that long (and half the price)), and it comes of a little too long. But it makes a case for his qualifications and temperament.

3. Kermit Marsh - Kermit chose to make this into a first-person "letter" to the voters (even leading with a "Dear Neighbors,") a strength that is lost on many of the other candidates. He identifies himself too strongly as a "lawyer," which does not play well with voters. At 400 words, the statement is a little long, but it works, especially because of the readable formatting. He talks a lot about his past and not enough about what he WILL do. He lists a phone number which almost no one will ever call, but almost everyone will appreciate the opportunity to.  A good statement.

2. Carlos Bustamante - Another 400-word statement, and probably also a little too long. I like this statement because he writes in the first-person, lists his ballot title (good psychological reinforcement), and he asks for your vote right away. He goes on to mention his military service and law enforcement experience (trumps Janet's brother, and Brett and Kermit's father being in the military), and eventually mentions the Governor, Mater Dei, the Air Force (again), and Senior transportation. Extra points for mentioning a website. A very good statement, possibly due to some advice from his campaign consultant John Lewis.

1. Trung Nguyen - I know this is going to raise some hackles, but I like this statement better than all the others. Trung's statement is concise and well-formatted and hits quite a few good notes. He is one of only two candidates that mentions Illegal Immigration as an issue (Umberg is the only other!), and we all know it is a major issue for a large bloc of voters.

Trung falters a bit when he tries to describe his job in a flattering way - he still sounds like a bureaucratic engineer. I am told that he possesses a very high security clearance for his job and is therefore limited in how detailed he can be in describing his duties. It shows. The statement also would have been strengthened if he mentioned a website or phone number.

But, otherwise, the statement is a textbook example of good voter communication. Even though it is written in third person, it comes off as sincere. Trung leads by listing his ballot title (good reinforcement) and goes on to label/position himself as THE conservative candidate, important in dividing up the small voter base. His statement quickly resonates on several hot-button issues. He closes with a sweet but profound testament to his family: Married 27 years with two children. It is short of profound, but it has resonance. The statement is readable, almost lyrical with its short paragraphs, and has puissance.

Some have argued that everyone who votes already knows by now who they will vote for. Although that may be mostly true, there are surely some who have not decided (I, for one). That being the case, these statement are critical in swaying that cohort of undecideds to the respective candidates. And in this election, those untethered votes may be the key to victory.

Ironically, the best candidate statement (by my estimation) is also the last in the Sample Ballot. Will people read that far? Trung should hope so, because he scores high on one of the most important tests - will voters be MORE likely to vote for you after reading your statement? The answer for Trung is "YES."

Comments

Bustamante and Trung seem to have good statements. Trung is concise and touches on several issues. Bustamante comes off as honest and likable, with substance. Kermit - well qualified, but seems a bit dry and too lawyerly. Janet - seems like some resume padding with lots of titles but few accomplishments. War/council comparison could backfire. Umberg - a lot of people seem to be questioning if he really lived or lives in the district, but he takes them head on with his statement about his family. Rosen - statement is too disorganized and scattered, too much detail for the average joe. Larry Phan - failed to mention enough about his background/qualifications.

[Trung should follow the rules.]

If he is such a conservative then why did he even RSVP... Also he has Democrats endorsing him as well as giving him money... Yeah Right he also viloated the county contibutions rules and will get fined and have to give back half his money for not following the rules. Candidates can't except money from other candidates committees. Sorry Trung you should follow the rules. I'm suprised the rest of the trannies don't know the rules.

[A Chatterer]

Those long statements are boring to voters and too costly for candidates. Overall, ...

Janet Nguyen's is the best and most readable due to the very short sentences highlighting her background.

Trung makes the mistake of limiting his audience to only conservatives - good idea in a GOP primary, but not in this race.

Carlos's statement is OK, but way too long.

Kermit's is terrible. Who wants to vote for a "Super Lawyer"?

[Mark Leyes]

"Trung makes the mistake of limiting his audience to only conservatives"

I don't think it is a mistake at all. It is actually a great strategy for this election. It concedes that Liberals will vote for Umberg and that Latinos will vote for one of the Latinos.

In fact, I think Janet (and others) made a mistake by NOT reinforcing a base - any base - whatever that may be.

Trung is aiming for two pots of votes - Vietnamese and Conservatives. If he is successful, it may be enough to win.

[A Chatterer]

Maybe I am wrong, but a ballot statement to be read by all does not seem to be the place to send such targeted messages.

My overall rankings are:
1. J.Nguyen - most readable
2. Umberg - strong frontrunner statement
3. Carlos - OK but too long
4. Rosen - OK but also too long
5. Franklin - pretty good, short
6. Trung N. - too limiting, engineer thing not working
7. Kermit - Super lawyer bad idea
8. Benny - too limiting, bad style
9. Phan - 0 points for style

[Mark Leyes]

Chatterer, you make the rookie mistake of many green candidates. Just because Candidate Statements are "read by all" does not mean everyone reads them out loud together in the same room at the same time. Each voter reads the statement to himself (or MAYBE with their spouse). The goal is to reinforce, if not garner, a vote, one at a time.

Too many inexperienced candidates underestimate voters and think they can get away with mixing messages, trying to be all things to all people and not offending anyone.

A homogenized statement can undo $200K worth of targeted mail because it does NOT reinforce your message or, worse, it CONTRADICTS it. That is one reason that really well-funded candidates will sometimes NOT print a candidate statement, simply because it is NOT targeted.

[Fullerton Conservative]

I'm not in district, but here goes:

#1 - Tom Umberg scores the top position with his Federal Criminal Prosecutor gig and all the other cop references. Crime is a big issue in Santa Ana.

#2 (tie)- Janet Nguyen's is good because of the concise style. She made the best of a fairly short resume.

#2 (tie)Trung Nguyen's is good - staking out conservative ground.

rest of bunch:

Kermit Marsh - well I agree with the comments about the super lawyer award.

Carlos Bustamante - long-winded and he tries to do way too much. Few voters will get through it.

Rosen - another long-winded politician and I agree with other poster = too many insider comments.

Diaz, Franklin, Phan, etc - who cares?

[QUESTION]

Umberg included his OC Deputy Sheriffs endorsement in his candidate statement, which he filed Tuesday. But the Association statement says they conduced their interviews on Wednesday. How could that be?

[ANSWER]

Only one possible answer:

Umberg can foretell the future!

He must also have seen that he wins the election. Ask him for Saturday's Lottery numbers!

Leyes is such an expert on candidate statements, given the amount of elections that he has lost!

Janet has more experience working with the County Board of Supervisors than any of the other candidates in this race.

[Dumb and dumber]

"Janet has more experience working with the County Board of Supervisors than any of the other candidates in this race."

Do you count by hours or months? What title did she have as an "intern" or paid staff?

I thought Carlos Bustamante is employed by the OC County.

9:39

Janet has worked with County Supervisors and knows more about serving her constituents at the County level than the rest of the candidates in this race.

[time card, anyone?]

Carlos may work for the county, but one would like to think that he doesn't go into work much... many have seen him campaigning before the race even started during work hours.

[Dumb and dumber]

10:01PM,

"Janet has worked with County Supervisors and knows more about serving her constituents at the County level than the rest of the candidates in this race."

Was she a CEO of the Orange County? What did she do? Was she a chief of staff of any supervisor? How long did she work for OC?

An inquiring mind needs to know.

[OC Bystander]

"Janet has more experience working with the County Board"

By that reasoning, Charles Manson should be made Warden of his prison.

Janet worked for the most liberal Supervisor since Edison Miller, then went to work for Union-stooge Assemblyman Ken Maddox.

Maybe she was in charge of getting Project Labor Agreements adopted. That would explain why she got elected to the GG city council in 2004 on the union slate.

[GGReep]

Oh, please! Janet has barely two years experience as an elected official. And she has missed several critical meetings including the last annual budget hearing!

Janet is ten years younger than the next youngest candidate. Never having a real job is NOT a virtue!

[Janet can't Dance]

"Janet has more experience working with the County Board of Supervisors than any of the other candidates in this race."

Then why didnt she mention it in her candidate statement? Even she knows its a load of hooey.

[In the Arena]

To 9:38PM
"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
- Theodore Roosevelt

[Critic]

My nomination for worst sentence from one of these candidate statements comes from Mark Rosen.

I served on the John Wayne Airport Commission in the dark days after 9/11.

I guess he can't appreciate freedom as fully as the candidates whose families fled tyranny in Southeast Asia, but the courageous Councilman made sure that we restored valet parking at the airport; otherwise the terrorists would have won.

Mark, you are right on with Chatterer. Seems this site is becoming a "training site for wannabe politicals". Can you tell me why fighting Umberg on residency within legal arena isn't a winnable fight even before the election? A great ballot designation which IS CURRENT would filanderer. Seems he keeps mistresses longer than any public office! A real profession for this guy obviously.

[Dazi]

I've read the statements and everyone's comments. Most of the people posting here are not the average John Q. Citizen who is uninformed and couldn't care less about this election, especially right now. But that is the type of voter who will be deciding the outcome of this election.

My question is- How many voters do you think will actually bother to read these statements or make a decision based on them? Voters are not going to focus on this election until mid -late January. By then, the mail box will be full of stuff and I think that will have a much greater effect on voters than any candidate statement.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that candidates do need to file these statements. I'm only questioning their real value to attract votes.

[Mark Rosen]

The reference to John Wayne Airport was that we were the first airport in the country to comply with the new TSA guidelines for baggage and security check-ins after 9/11. Even today, there are many airports in the country, including LAX, where you have to put your bags in an X-ray line and then separately check them and then go through the security line. I said all that in the original draft and then cut it because of word limitations.

Personally, I like Bustamante's statement the best (after my own).

Mark Rosen
Supervisor Candidate

[Stephen E Brown Jr]

Why doesn't Bustamante mention that he has done nothing to fix all the potholes is the streets of his own district in NE Santa Ana? Does he ever drive down Santa Clara or Wright St? What about the major eyesore at NW corner of 17th and Broadway? Been abandoned service station for years.

[Bladerunner]

17th & Broadway corner would have been developed long ago by a 1st class gas station and nice convienience store, well landscaped etc, but ran into city staff opposition. Things allegedly got worked out but its still sitting there as an eyesore. Its in Carlos' ward, you think he'd get on it.