_____________________________ ST. NORBERT CHURCH           RATES _______________________


Jaimes, Ian Calderon top 57th Assembly District Campaign in close, tight battle

By Brian Hews

In one of the closest campaigns to be held in California’s new “open primary” on Tuesday, Democrat Ian Calderon appears to be headed to a November runoff election in the 57th District against Republican La Mirada businessman Noel Jaimes.
Calderon, 26, who is the son of California State Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon, narrowly defeated rival Democrat Rudy Bermudez, a former two-term member of the Assembly


California State Assembly candidate Ian Charles Calderon chats with campaign supporter Diane Gramajo and his aunt Leslie Rodriguez waiting for election results on Tuesday night.

who was attempting a political comeback.
The 57th Assembly District holds an overwhelming Democratic Party voter registration, and many political experts believe that Calderon is now the heavy favorite to replace his father in the upcoming November campaign.
“This is amazing. I grew up in politics. I am a Calderon, I get it, but I also recognize that nothing in life is just handed to you because of your family,” Calderon told Los Cerritos Community Newspaper at around 1:15 a.m. Wednesday morning.
“This campaign was about bringing new ideas, and new energy to the next generation of leaders in California,” Calderon said with his voice cracking.
Calderon said that there has “always” been at least one “Calderon” in the California State Legislature for past thirty years, and it appears that the streak will continue.
Majority Leader Chuck Calderon told LCCN earlier in the evening how proud he was of his son. “Ian worked day and night in this campaign. He has worked tirelessly,” he said.
Jaimes, a business owner from La Mirada took the top vote in the election and garnered 43.38% of the overall vote. Calderon finished in second a little more than 28.67% and Bermudez trailed in third with 27.96%.

57th Assembly District
Official Results

(Party Preference: Rep)
13,688 votes 43.4%

(Party Preference: Dem)
9,046 votes 28.7%

Rudy Bermudez
(Party Preference: Dem)
8,823 votes 28.0%

100.0% ( 239 of 239 ) precincts partially
or fully reporting as of June 6, 2012, 1:50 a.m

*Will compete in the November General Election

  • mark hylland says:

    It was an honor and a pleasure to have worked with Ian’s Campaign…….Never under estimate the power of the REAL PEOPLE.

  • A Sad Day for Democrats in the 57th District says:

    Mark, on behalf of the majority of Democrats and swing voters in the district who did not vote for the Calderon dynasty, we are also real people. Would Ian have won without daddy and daddy’s political donors?! Please, Mark, let’s be real. The hard-working, good people of this district deserve better than Ian the surfer boy to represent them. Make no mistake about it, this is a terribly sad day for the 57th district. Now we are stuck with a horrible choice this Fall. Vote for a Republican or vote for the terribly unqualified surfer boy. So, Mark, ask yourself this disturbing question: How many swing voters and disappointed Democrats does it take for the Republican Noel Jaimes to hand Ian a defeat this Fall? What Chuck and Ian Calderon have done is set things up so that Democrats risk losing this district to a Republican in November. That is why Democrats need to vote the Calderon family out of office (Chuck, Ron and Tom) as soon as the chance comes and replace them with Democrats who are not self-interested. The Calderon’s run our area’s politics like it is their entitlement, as if it were their family business to operate. And now we might pay the price this Fall if Noel Jaimes wins. Swing voters, who vote based on experience and not based on party affiliation, will clearly vote for Noel Jaimes (a successful business man and city commissioner) over Ian the surfer boy this Fall. So please, Mark, open your eyes and see the big picture here! Ian’s victory is our defeat.

  • mark hylland says:

    Greetings “A Sad Day for Democrats in the 57th District”, you write your comment “on behalf of the majority of Democrats and swing voters in the district who did not vote for the Calderon dynasty”. Who did they vote for then? If those you mention cared enough to vote then we would not have Ian nor Noel. I ask once again WHO DID THEY VOTE FOR? If I recall there was only one other candidate in this race and the “majority” did not vote for him. If Ian Calderon and Noel are so terrible, who should the “majority” of voted for—-

  • FFL says:

    Sad day for Democrats? Gimme a break— things are as they are not because of conservative republicans.. in California and especially that district they are irrelevant. The skewered with liberal ringers redistricting committee saw to that one! Most all problems can be laid DIRECTLY on the door steps of democrats who have had a death grip stranglehold on California politics for DECADES locally and state wide. But like good liberal democrat comrades who can’t think for themselves, they will continue the insanity and vote them in AGAIN. And HOPE for different results! Next time TRY somebody ELSE besides a democrat! You MIGHT be surprised at what might happen! And as the folks in Wisconsin found out, THE WORLD HASN’T ended! In fact a LOT of their problems are being addressed as they SHOULD be, and getting solved!

  • A Sad Day for Democrats in the 57th District says:

    Please, Mark, spare us from the all-caps technique. It is quite juvenile and caps do not actually make things louder. And it does not make much sense to repeat a question before one offers a chance to respond, does it. None of this, however, is surprising coming from Ian’s camp. So let’s try writing something worthy of being in the Los Cerritos News. Your first comment above implies that only those in Ian’s camp are “real people.” I must hasten to state that, by your definition, supporters of any other candidate and non-voters are not real people. As you should know, that is a characterization that Sarah Palin tried some time ago by somehow implying that there is a real America and the rest of us non-Palin supporters are somehow not part of the real America. Michele Bachmann tried that too by implying that Democrats are un-American while Republicans in her mind are the only true Americans. But, to address your point, one only needs to read the article above to see how many people voted for Ian and, more importantly for the Fall, how many people did not vote for Ian. Presuming that the June 5 election is a statistically accurate sample of what could happen in the Fall, all Noel needs to win in November is about as little as 25% of Rudy’s camp . . . and there just might be enough swing voters and Democrats from Rudy’s camp who can’t stand being represented by an inexperienced surfer boy, or yet another Calderon, for Noel to pull it off. If that does not concern Ian, then I am afraid Ian is indeed as arrogant and inexperienced as some may believe he is. Had Rudy had as much access to money as Ian’s daddy (and, let’s be honest, access to his daddy’s political donors is precisely how Ian won over Rudy), then at least we would have a qualified and experienced candidate like Rudy to go head-to-head against someone like Noel, who has plenty of business and community experience to run, lightly jog or even surf circles around Ian. But, now, because the Calderon family is so blinded and pre-occupied by preserving their dynasty (notice in the article above how much obvious emphasis there is on the Calderon dynasty), we are stuck this Fall with Ian, an unqualified and inexperienced candidate who has probably spent more time at the beach than he has serving the community, to go up against Noel. We are now in jeopardy of becoming a Republican district because of Ian and the Calderon dynasty. Our community deserves better than having to decide between bad and worse, especially in times as hard as these. In this particularly exceptional case, let’s all hope that surfing, lots of money and daddy’s connections constitute the qualities of a formidable candidate to defeat Noel. Cowabunga Mark!

  • A Sad Day for Democrats in the 57th District says:

    FFL, to begin, facts are your friends. There is no need to run away from them. They won’t bite. Republicans have overwhelmingly dominated the California governor’s office and the California supreme court for quite some time. That kind of divided government in a blue state, combined with the overwhelming amount of red dollars flowing into our state from Republican outsiders is making things worse in California, not Democrats generally. But you do have a point. Continuing to blindly vote Calderon’s into office merely because they are Calderon’s is an inherent Democratic problem in our area. Dynasty or legacy politics is generally not healthy (take the Bush legacy in national politics as an example, especially when you consider the tanking of our economy way before January 20, 2009 and the incredible amount of spending during “Dubbya’s” two terms). The Dow Jones has only gone up and up since President Obama’s policies were put into place and unemployment has decreased (I know, FFL, that’s another set of facts that Republicans run away from). But enough of national politics. You are right in that some Democrats and swing voters in this district this Fall might try someone other than Ian the surfer boy and vote for Noel the Republican instead, which turns my stomach. But that’s the position the Calderon’s have put us in … having to decide between bad and worse. Again, all Noel Jaimes needs is 25% of Rudy’s supporters (Democrats and/or swing voters) to win in November. Anyone can guarantee that Noel will focus on Republican turn out and target Rudy’s supporters to win in November. And after the kind of campaign that Ian ran, it is doubtful that Ian will be endorsed by Rudy, which would have really improved Ian’s chances of winning in the Fall. However, one must give credit to the California Democratic Party for not endorsing Ian Calderon earlier this year. They endorsed Rudy instead. They wanted experience (Rudy) up against experience (Noel) in November. At least that way, Democrats could win, taking into account the voting habits of swing voters who look to experience over party-affiliation. Instead, we got Ian (inexperience) against Noel (experience) to look forward to because of legacy politics. In that respect, FFL, we are in agreement that Democrats are now vulnerable in this district because of Ian. But please, FLL, “the world hasn’t ended” is no benchmark of success.

  • mark hylland says:

    Greetings Sad Day……

    First, please get your facts straight. Example, you accuse me of using caps to get my point across. I encourage you to get your facts straight before you go off on a rampage—–sort of reminds me of someone who used to toss eggs at a poor innocent brown Volkswagen (and slashed tires)—The poor little brown Volkswagen was owned by a girl who no longer wanted to be with the guy who tossed the eggs and slash the tires of the poor little brown Volkswagen. With that said, it appears that your opinion is that Rudy should have won. Rudy could have won if the majority had voted for him, but they did not. You don’t need money to walk the neighborhoods to meet the real people (meaning those that actually live in the community). You claim that Noel is “experienced” and Ian is not. What “experience” does Noel have? Which elected positions has he held?

  • A Sad Day for Democrats in the 57th District says:

    Mark, you can try to equate writing to a violent act, but it is abundantly clear to any reasonable person that such a comparison is void of even a modicum of sound logic. Again, not surprising coming from the Ian “the Cowabunga candidate” Calderon camp. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of political campaigning can explain to you that dramatically out-spending one’s opponent virtually guarantees victory. There are exceptions to that rule, of course, but they are quite rare. And the Calderon’s know that very well. They know it so well that they can prop up an inexperienced surfer boy like Ian against an experienced former assemblyman like Rudy and win, provided they have the right amount of money to do it. And, boy, do the Calderon’s have access to cash! You should read the Daily Breeze article from June 6 written by Mike Sprague. According to that article, Ian outspent Rudy $238,000 to $153,000 for the June 5 primary election. And, in addition, “independent campaigns on behalf of (Ian) Calderon” and against (Rudy) Bermudez spent $660,000 (that’s basically the money coming from the political donors of Ian’s daddy). So, did Rudy stand a chance with a mere $153,000 against Ian’s treasure chest of nearly $900,000?! Come on, Mark! Rudy could have walked from house to house all he wanted but to what end? With that kind of money up against him, there was nothing Rudy could do. Rudy knew it and the Calderon clan knew it. But at least Rudy tried anyway – to represent our voice, not a political dynasty’s interests. If you really want to learn more about Ian’s access to his daddy’s political donors, just read the LA Times article from April 29 on the subject. So, one would think that with all that spending, Ian the surfer boy would have swept the Democratic vote at the polls. But he didn’t. He barely defeated Rudy. All of these facts in the aggregate signal to the Republicans that they have a substantively weak Democratic candidate to defeat in this district in November. Republicans will be at the polls in record numbers this Fall just to try to defeat President Obama and will vote party line in a very disciplined fashion all the way down the ballot. And Republicans will have a record amount of money to pour into the November elections as well. This makes Noel, despite the fact that he affiliates himself with the whack-a-doodle Tea Party, a serious opponent irrespective of Noel’s experience. But Noel has indeed run a successful real estate business in our area for a very long time, raised a family and has served on various commissions for the city of La Mirada (see the relevant article written by Randy Economy and published on April 24 on this very website). All of such experiences are appealing to swing voters, notwithstanding Noel’s Tea Party affiliation. Now, Ian’s record is that he surfs and, well, that’s about it. Yes, Ian has been a legislative aid and a field rep outside of our district for a couple of years (probably also thanks to his daddy’s connections). But, please Mark, you and I have socks with more than two years on them. So, taking all of this into account, no reasonable person could deny that our chances of defeating Noel in November would have been much better with Rudy (a former assemblyman, city councilman, school district board trustee and parole officer with a masters degree in public administration) than with Ian the surfer boy. Ian is a weak candidate substantively. Ian couldn’t win in a debate against Rudy or Noel. Even you wrote a comment on this very website expressing your disappointment in Ian’s failure to appear at the candidate debates, which Rudy and Noel attended. But, because cash is king in politics and the Calderon’s are obsessed with controlling our area’s politics, Ian took the victory over Rudy. This is why we regularly hear of campaign finance reform. This is why there is so much disappointment over the terrible US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Our voices in this district are being drowned out by money, dynasty politics and blind ambition.

  • Samuel Johnson's says:

    I have been intricately involved in California politics for over 24 years (take my word for it). If I have learned anything it is this: Don’t fall in love with your own bullshit.

    I am tired of all the fecal matter being slung around by “Sad Day”. Generally I have better things to do than to spend my time indulging the fantasies of a sore loser in the comment section of the Los Cerritos News about the coulda, woulda shoulda of Rudy Bermudez’s humiliating defeat by Ian ” the cowabunga candidate” Calderon, but even I am not perfect.

    Lets take “Sad Day’s” analysis point by point. First, I will concede that money plays a significant role in campaigns and generally, the one with the most money wins…but as acknowdeged by Sad Day, not always. Take Bermudezz’s campaign chairman Assemblyman Mendoza for example. He is a three term incumbent Assemblyman who spent $200,000 against Hawkins’ $35,000 and couldn’t even win in his own Assembly District. So much for the money factor in this area.

    Second, Bermudez spent far more than $153,000 except he did not report it on his campaign statements. Bermudez was censured for this by the FPPC in 2009. This is SOS for Bermudez.

    He did not report any expenses for consulting fees to his campaign manager disgraced exassemblyman Bruce Young. Nor did he show an in-kind contribution from Bruce Young. Same with his social media consultants Full Disclosures and California Index.Org. (run by a lobbyist for the porn industry) both of whom ran a shameful smear website which among other disgraceful attacks, attacked Ian Calderon’s grandmother on Mother’s Day WHO HAS BEEN DEAD FOR 17 YEARS.

    Third, about “daddy’s donors”, Mike Sprague did not write an article about this for the Daily Breeze because he works for The Whittier Daily News. And about the futility of Rudy walking “house to house”, why didn’t he walk. Ian did–everyday for 80 days. I don’t know how often you replace your socks but I gaurantee Ian has more miles on his.

    Fourth, about I.E.s–They are a mixed blessing. Sure, better to have them support than oppose but there is no controlling them. The Tribal Alliance sent out 8 hit pieces. Before their mail went out Ian was ahead by 7 points. Afterwards, he was dead even with Bermudez. They nearly cost Ian the election.

    Fifth, the General election in this district won’t even be a blib on Republican radar screens. They know Noel cannot win. Set aside for a moment that he is a Tea Party Candidate running in a solid Democratic district, that he makes a living selling forclosed homes, and that he has run three times in this district and lost, there are not enough Republicans in the District to overcome a 2-1 democrate registration no matter how “deciplined” they vote “all the way down the ballot”. This is pure fantasy on your part and unflattering as a sore looser. Ian defeated a four year incumbent who couldn’t even get the endorsement from his own union.

    And while we are on the subject of Bermudez’s qualifications, let’s examine what the Republicans might do against a Bermudez candidate. He tried to put a Prison in Whittier. He lives in Sacramento. He is a double dipper. His media consultant is a lobbyist for the Porn industry (Michael Ross go to his website–facinating reading), he broke his own law and impersonated a state officer in his nominating papers which he submitted under penalty of perjury. He is being investigated by Los angeles District Attorney, and he is being investigated by the FPPC for Money Laudering which in all likelihood will result in a criminal prosecution. Two time Parole Officer of the Year who knows Rudy called him unfit to serve in the Assembly. I could go on, but I think I made my point.

    By the way, Ian debated Bermudez on the Fernando Espuelas radio show and mopped the floor with him.

    Too often the confidence of ignorance overcomes the measured decision of knowledge. Keep it up Sad Day, you may succeed in getting us a Tea Party Assemblyman yet. However congratulations would be more honorable and better for the community.

  • BMAC says:

    Thank you Samuel Johnson… I second that comment!

  • A Sad Day for Democrats in the 57th District says:

    Dearest Samuel, you have lowered the bar to schoolyard vitriol like “fecal matter” and “(b.s.).” That is quite unfortunate. I must say, Samuel, nowhere in your missive above do you mention any qualification of Ian’s other than that he walked for 80 days, which only confirms what I have already stated: Ian is a weak candidate substantively. And if you, with 24 years of political experience, think that I, a single voice, a mere constituent of the district without any financial clout, can cause the Cowabunga Candidate to lose this November then, as a candidate, Ian is much weaker than I thought and it is surprising even to me that you have conceded it. If it is indeed inevitable that Ian wins in the Fall because of the volume of registered Democrats in the district, then I imagine I am of no concern to you, Ian or his campaign. So why insinuate that we might have a Tea Party candidate running the district in the Fall if I “keep it up”? Seeing that you are not entirely irrational, I suspect that what you are trying to say is that I should shut up and put up. Samuel, one would normally expect despots in autocratic regimes to advocate the silencing of opposing views. It is truly disconcerting to hear that sort of nonsense in a democratic society that embraces political discourse. One of the most important things in politics, and life generally, is to hear out opposing views, not just the ones with which one agrees, even those from within one’s own political party. The free exchange of speech is the hallmark of a civilized society and it is shameful for anyone to advocate the silencing of others. One falls in love with one’s own views when one surrounds oneself with like-minded “yes men.” To advise Democrats to follow such an approach is tantamount to political malpractice. So, if I feel as though I should “keep it up,” Samuel, I shall, whether or not you approve. Now, I didn’t run as a candidate and I didn’t work for any campaign, Samuel. I am mere voter. So there is nothing for me to have lost for you to say that I am a sore loser. What I am saying is that we all lose when we put our weaker candidate in the forefront to battle for and/or represent us, not only in terms of winning or losing an election but also in terms of who ought to be representing our interests on a go-forward basis after all the election season mud-slinging is over. As much as I disagree with FFL above, they bring up a very valid point. The Public Policy Institute of California reported that the California legislature’s overall approval rating had fallen to as low as 9%. Democrats constitute roughly 65% of the California legislature and Charles Calderon is the majority leader of that terribly rated legislature. We as a party must make a much greater effort to represent constituents better than that and it starts by offering experienced and qualified candidates, not inexperienced and unqualified legacies. If we fail to do so, we allow Republicans the opportunity to fill that void. I would rather have Democrats clean our own house instead of allowing Republicans to do it for us. Addressing your points one by one: (1) You are quick to point out Mendoza’s loss and just as quick to concede that it is an exception to the rule. So I am not sure why you in the same breath imply that it is at the same time also an example of the general rule that money usually wins. (2) I would genuinely like to see the news article wherein it is reported that Rudy’s camp spent anywhere near the $900,000 that Ian’s camp spent. Please refer the article to me and I’ll be happy to read it. You strongly focus on political scandals as an impediment to electability. Let me bring your attention to a tradition of a few other ones per the LA Times: In January 1995, Charles Calderon was fined in part for using campaign funds to pay for modeling photos of his wife and an entertainer for his son’s birthday party (the FPPC said Charles Calderon violated a ban against using campaign money for personal purposes and improperly reported more than $32,400 in campaign expenditures); In December 2001, Charles Calderon was fined for violating political reform laws, including treating himself and his fiancee to a vacation at a Lake Tahoe resort casino and renting a limousine for the premier of “Liar, Liar”; In February 2010, Ron Calderon agreed to pay a fine for failing to disclose gifts from interest groups. Are these seriously Ian’s mentors? How many times has Rudy been fined? Not ever. Now, I think any reasonable person would agree that the grandmother bit by Rudy was below the belt. But, from what I recall, it was soon after Ian involved Rudy’s children in the mud-slinging, which I imagine you find equally offensive. Both sides should have cooled it but they got out of hand. (3) Mike Sprague is a writer for the San Gabriel Valley News. The article was indeed written by Mike and does indeed appear in the Daily Breeze online. I believe the Whittier Daily News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Daily Breeze (among other local newspapers) all share a common parent/distribution company, which probably explains why the article is available at multiple source points. Now, how many miles I have on my socks compared to Ian in the world of politics is not relevant as I am not the one running for office. It is Ian who must prove himself to us, not the other way around. Rudy has far more years in serving this community than Ian. Ian might have walked for 80 days. But Rudy has walked far more than that in and for his community and for far more years than Ian. It is disingenuous, even for you, to state otherwise. But I must admit, Ian has probably surfed more miles than Rudy. Incidentally, did Charles, Ron or Tom Calderon walk for 80 days in their last campaigns? I imagine you hold them to the same standard, don’t you? (4) Special interest groups are what they are, right? But according to an LA Weekly article from June 1, 2011, Charles Calderon’s campaign contributions from 2007 through the middle of May 2011 were $1,116,396 – “yet only a scant 5% came from his constituents — you know, those people he represents.” Charles Calderon was “the number one taker of outside money, in a California legislature filled with such takers.” That’s what I am talking about: outside dollars determining election outcomes in our district. It needs to stop. Even Charles Calderon advocates campaign finance reform as I do. In that same article, Charles Calderon states “I’d rather have public campaign financing.” The hypocrisy is overwhelming. (5) Republicans represent only 25% of the registered voters in our district yet Noel got about 43% of the June 5 primary votes. Just about the worst advice one can give Ian is to not worry about the November election and that it’s in the bag. Now, a prison in Whittier?! Good heavens, no . . . not near the Whittier Hills where rich people live! If the cities of Sausalito, Tiburon, Mill Valley, San Rafael and Larkspur in Marin County, some of the wealthiest towns in the wealthiest county in California, can handle being within 5 miles of San Quentin, one would think Whittier could handle it too. Construction and security jobs would be created, not to mention all of the ancillary services resulting from such a project. What is Ian’s plan to create jobs in the area? More infrastructure, which is correct. Someone needs to tell Ian that a prison is infrastructure. The Supreme Court declared California prison overcrowding unconstitutional and we need comply with the law. Rudy does not live in Sacramento. He lives in La Mirada. The rest of your list of hits is straight out of the Calderon spin campaign cool-aid pitcher. Ian and Charles Calderon are currently both under investigation by the California FPPC. Per a June 1, 2012 article in the OC Register, the CFPPC “launched an investigation into Ian and Charles Calderon over allegations that Ian failed to report income and gifts on his economic disclosure forms and that Charles improperly used a 2010 campaign account. The complaint against Ian Calderon centers largely on his ‘statement of economic interest’ forms, which he was required to fill out as a legislative aide and as an Assembly candidate. The complaint claims he failed to accurately disclose all of his income. Ian Calderon prepared his first statement of economic interest in August 2010, after going to work as a field representative for then-Assemblyman Ed Hernandez. It wasn’t until February 2012, however, that Ian Calderon amended his statement to reflect that he had received between $10,001 and $100,000 from his father’s 2010 campaign. Ian Calderon’s campaign website says he worked for the retail clothing company Hurley in its marketing department for the Los Angeles and Inland Empire regions, and also formed a company representing athletes in contract negotiations and sponsorship relationships.” Ian Calderon’s statements of economic interest on file with the Fair Political Practices Commission do not show any income from either firm.” Samuel, we can go on and on with the mud-slinging contest from the flyers we received in the mail a few weeks ago but it gets boring. I listened to the radio show you refer to above. The barking dog in the background was hysterical. Rudy and Noel destroyed Ian in that radio show. Ian said nothing novel or new other than conceding that recycling the same people through Sacramento with the same ideas will prevent us from moving forward. That’s exactly what I am saying! We need to stop recycling the Calderon’s into Sacramento. Ian also said that he wants to get more constituents involved in our area and improve education. Every Democrat believes that. That’s like saying “I like breathing.” Ian was also clearly confused about the bills he was talking about, as confused as Sarah Palin in front of any newspaper, book or magazine that is placed in front of her. The rest of Ian’s contributions on the radio show consisted of attacking everyone else because Ian has no record of his own to run on. It was clear in that radio show that Ian is not ready for the wolves (seasoned politicians and lobbyists) in Sacramento. Ian is the definition of amateur hour. All Noel needs to do to win in the Fall is to play that radio show over and over again. There is no question that Ian got owned in that radio debate by Rudy, Noel and Randy Economy himself. Cowabunga Samuel!

  • mark hylland says:

    It is in fact a Sad Day for “Sad Day”. There is really so much more I would like to say but will stay focused on relevant issues. Item number one, I have known Rudy for several decades. In fact, he dated a very close friend of mine. I do consider Rudy a friend and had intended to vote for him (along with many others) and in fact I contacted Rudy in March and I offered to volunteer my time to his campaign. I did receive an e-mail from his campaign manager in April and stated that I was very busy until mid-May. In Mid-May I contacted his campaign office to let them know I was available but never heard back from them. I learned that Ian did not attend the Whittier debate and contacted Ian’s campaign Manager (Leslie Rodriguez) to inquire why Ian did not attend the debate (I was concerned that Ian was absent from the debate) and she explained to me what happened (I took the time to confirm her explanation and found it to be true—NOTE, I have been to a “debate” hosted by the League of Woman Voters and witnessed how one sided their “debates” can be. WARNING to future candidates, be CAREFUL and do your research prior to agreeing to a “debate” with the League of Women Voters. For example, I attended the 2012 Little Lake City School Board Debate. Board Member Hilda Zamora handed me a card with a question on it and requested that I submit it (I did not). The personal collecting the cards was Richard Martinez’ wife (Richard Martinez was one of the candidates and “debating” that evening). The “debate” was clearly stacked against Janet Rock (who I supported and she WON, despite not having the financial backing that Ken Arnold had–from Luigi Vernola (Note—I like Luigi). Note to “Sad Day”—you are quick to point out all the negative newspaper articles on Ian, yet you failed to mention the OC Register article that alleges Tony Mendoza (who I know and like) laundered money to Rudy Bermudez via others (such as Richard Ramirez, LLCSD Boardmember). Note—My mother was a Secretary for the LLCSD and Richard was very disrespectful to her. Being a well informed voter, I researched what both sides of the Ian/Rudy camps were saying. In late May, I was still considering voting for Rudy—I noticed many “Vote for Calderon” signs throughout the city of Norwalk, many on blighted public properties. I telephoned Leslie Rodriguez who informed me that the signs were placed by a private company. Ms. Rodriguez took the time to personally remove the signs. The Calderon Camp took immediate action and I was impressed. Ms. Rodriguez invited me to the campaign headquarters to meet with Ian. After we spoke, I invited him to our neighborhood and that same day we visited several of my neighbors and THANKED IAN for taking the time to come here. Ian impressed the Seniors with his willingness to listen to their concerns, he spoke with law enforcement (even Parole Agents) who live in our neighborhood and were impressed with him taking the time to come visit with them on a Sunday afternoon. Ian spoke with families who were concerned about education. Ian took the time to listen to the needs of our neighborhood (as well as other neighborhoods). Many of the people we visited had received absentee ballots but had not mailed them, due to Ian’s personal visit, many people took the time (as Ian did for them) to hand carry their ballots to the polling place. I also contacted a friend of mine from La Mirada and she spoke with Ian, changing her vote from Rudy to Ian. I contacted friends and family in Santa Fe Springs and they also took time time to vote for Ian. Ironically, my friend from La Mirada were with Ian on election night as the results came in. There is no doubt that the time Ian spent to meet and greet the people in La Mirada, SFS, and Norwalk pushed him to victory (all of this happened on the final weekend of the campaign). Congratulations Ian

  • A Sad Day for Democrats in the 57th District says:

    Mark, I admire that you have participated and continue to participate in local politics as a volunteer and as a voter. For that, we should all thank people like you, whichever side you may have campaigned for. People like you keep our politicians in check. But, I have to say, your first instinct to support Rudy was the right one, regardless of the primary election outcome. My last comment above only seems one-sided because it was in response to Samuel’s obviously one-sided comments. Unlike Samuel, I am a fan of making the entire picture available, not just the part with which we fall in love. Since Samuel provided one side, I tried to supply another. We, especially Samuel, should always remember to have a complete discussion of the issues. I have no doubt that Ian hit the streets to meet and listen to as many people in our community as he could and I am glad he took the time to do so. As you know, Rudy has met countless of people in our community throughout his career as well. But we are at a crossroads. We can either continue allowing money from the outside to determine our elections or not. We are in desperate need for campaign finance reform. Even Charles Calderon has agreed with me on that point (I just wish he and Ian would walk the walk and not just talk the talk). As Samuel pointed out, the ads we receive at our homes are highly effective, whether on paper, TV or online. Those ads are not cheap to make and distribute. Walking door-to-door in today’s political environment will not in and of itself win an election. Ultimately, ad money is what tends to win elections. More specifically, ad money from outside of our district has and continues to be responsible for the outcomes of our district’s elections. And the Calderon’s are exceptionally good, if not the best in California, at tapping into that outside-of-the-district money, as reported by the June 1, 2011 LA Weekly article referred to above. So I continue to believe that Ian’s highly effective negative ads won this campaign for him, notwithstanding his good faith efforts to meet constituents. Ian’s access to his father’s political donors to fund such ads is what really drove Ian’s primary campaign from beginning to end. So, while it is admirable and right that Ian spent time meeting constituents, if any victory congratulations are due, they would be due to Charles Calderon and his political donors, not Ian. Ian has a lot to be thankful for this Fathers Day. So, look, we all know that special interest money runs our politics in the district and in Sacramento, regardless of candidate or party. And, inevitably, campaigns today always devolve into negative attacks. Unfortunately, Ian is already breaking all of his promises to stay away from the typical politics of Sacramento, which he is now obviously embracing. Again, take a look at the April 29 article in the LA Times by Michael J. Mishak to get a feel for exactly how Ian got involved in the underworld of Sacramento lobbyists. Of most concern to me is Ian’s inexperience. He is making classic mistakes that most novices make. For example, he was not prepped properly for the radio debate referred to by Samuel. Whoever did prep him should be fired on the spot as it was a horrid performance (and I am really surprised that Samuel drew attention to that radio debate in his comments). Ian was not familiar enough with the senate bill discussed in the debate to make a solid argument. Ian had to be pressed by the other candidates to take a “for” or “against” position on school vouchers. Ian hesitated and waffled to what seemed no end on that issue until he was forced to commit to a position by the other candidates. But those are forgivable mistakes that one can caste to the wind as novice mistakes. But here is one of the things that really concerns me and it has a lot to do with Ian’s lack of experience. It is obvious to anyone that Noel will ask three questions: Where did Ian go for elementary school? Where did Ian go for junior high or middle school? And where did Ian go for high school? We all know that you need to live in the district to run as a candidate, which I believe Rudy and Ian do. There is absolutely no requirement to have grown up here. But, for some inexplicable reason, Ian keeps saying that he grew up here when, in fact, literally everyone knows that is only partially true. There is a reason courts ask you state the truth, the whole truth (i.e., don’t leave any truthful things out) and nothing but the truth (i.e., don’t pepper the truth with lies). Every time Ian says he grew up here, it comes off as a lie because he is not telling us the whole truth. He just needs to be straightforward and fully honest and just say that he grew up in both Mission Viejo and Whittier at the same time. His parents got divorced when he was really young, they fought bitterly for custody and Ian as a kid had no choice but to live in both places regularly when growing up – weekends with his father in Whittier and weekdays with his mother in Mission Viejo. It was not his fault his parents got divorced and it is the story of countless of others. End of discussion. It’s really not a big deal! But Ian has clearly and unnecessarily painted himself into a corner by insisting he grew up here and not telling us the whole truth, another novice mistake. But what makes a normally irrelevant and innocuous issue become a very big deal is when Ian continuously and knowingly keeps us in the dark. There is an LA Times article from May 11, 1994 by Lynn Smith in which Charles Calderon details how the custody arrangement actually worked. Here is the quote: “His sons are with him in Whittier every Thursday night through Monday morning except the third week of the month. On Thursdays I fly (from Sacramento) into Orange County and pick them up at their school in Mission Viejo, bring them back to live here and do homework, give them a bath, get them ready for bed, do some reading, watch a little TV sometimes. Friday, he drives them back to Mission Viejo to school. Their mother brings them back to his house after school. Monday morning, he drives them back to school in Mission Viejo, then catches a plane from Orange County to Sacramento. They take turns on holidays.” So, you see Mark, it makes us wonder that, if Ian is willing to lie about something so easily explained away without controversy, what else is he willing to lie about when something of substance is at issue? What rules is he willing to bend to win an election or to pass legislation? Will he lie under oath? Will he represent us honestly? Then mix in the LA Times articles about Charles and Ron Calderon having been fined for improprieties with how involved his father and his father’s political donors are in Ian’s campaign and it forces us to ask: Will Ian cave to the lobbyists/sponsors who will write the bills that he is supposed to author? Is he experienced and mature enough to make sound judgments, even over little things like not lying about where he grew up? Ian painting himself in a corner has snowballed into something much more concerning, which is the element of trust. I just don’t think that Ian is ready or experienced enough for the election he is about to face in November or the lobbyists and politicians in Sacramento that he will face if he wins. And I know you respectfully disagree. But Mark, let’s continue keeping our politicians in check before, during and after elections regardless of the candidate’s party affiliation. And, Samuel, doing exactly that is more honorable and better for the community than congratulating victors.

  • mark hylland says:

    Dear Mr. Sad Day,
    While I am attempting to follow your train of thought, it can be as confusing as the Tax Code itself that only an experienced attorney can understand. With that said, I did grow up here and attended the Whittier Union High School District (Santa Fe High). I am also a child of divorced parents and although my father had visitation rights he did not always utilize them. Charles Calderon should be congratulated that he took such an interest in his son’s life and while Ian may have only spent 1/2 of his time “growing up” in Whittier, he did in grow up here and in Mission Viejo (as you stated). Now that we know where Ian “grew up”, should we ask the same questions about Noel? Sad Day, do you know the answers to the three questions (for Noel) that Noel will ask Ian? Where did Noel go to elementary/middle-junior/high school? I would also like to know about NOEL’s EXPERIENCE—What experience does Noel have as an ELECTED official? How many times (and for what positions) did Noel run for office? Mr. Sad Day, concerning “outside money”—what is your opinion regarding the allegations of “money laundering” between Tony Mendoza, Rudy Bermudez and others? I do realize that they are innocent until proven guilty. I am NOT out to bash Rudy or Tony, I am simply making some inquiries. It is my understanding that Rudy once served as the President for the once powerful CCOPA Union (prison guards) and had spent a great deal of money that essential bought politicians who in turn approved the prison boom/building which deprived our schools/colleges as well as other public services of their fair share. Another reason that I elected not to vote for Rudy was due to the fact he could only serve us for 2-years instead of a full term. I also questioned how much more of our tax dollars would have been spent on an election in 2014 to fill his seat (if he had been elected). I would like to see Tony and Rudy support Ian Calderon in being elected to the Assembly. It should also be noted that I am open-minded and have an message out to Noel James to contact me, as a swing-voter I am interested in hearing from him. Until the election day, no voter should be taken for granted.

  • Cowabunga Dude says:

    “Sad Day” get over yourself, Rudy lost and now he can join his rumored boyfriend Tony Mendoza at their rumored favorite West Hollywood Leather Bar, while they wait to get prosecuted by Cooley.

    As for Ian putting the district at risk, lets be serious for one moment the Reeps turnout at greater percentages because up until a week out from the election their candidate Romney had not yet secured their party’s nomination. The Tea Baggers don’t like that they are stuck with panderer in chief, flip-flopper Romney. If you look at the money the Reeps pull more money out of California than they put into it and will be focused elsewhere leave down ticket candidates like Jaimes as orphans all on their own. So, in the fall, our people will show to re-elect President Obama, so a Reep like Jaimes does not have a chance.

    Ian will win and he probably does not have to campaign very hard now that he can rely on registration. So, Cowabunga Dude!!!

    Obama-Biden 2012

  • mark hylland says:


    Well said with one caution. An election should never be taken for granted and it is imperative that all of us get out and VOTE. Congratulations to Ian, Sad Day sure seems quiet. Perhaps he is struggling on how to deal with FACTS. Sad Day, I am anxiously waiting for the answers to my questions. Surfs Up!

  • mark hylland says:

    Did anybody watch the “debate”? It is online, Noel Jaimes mentioned that he was three years old when his mother first brought him to the USA and later she became an American Citizen, he swore allegiance after this.


    Did Mr. Noel Jaimes and/or his mother (or whoever brought him here) enter the United States of America Illegally? Or did they have the proper authorization to enter the United States?

    Mr. Noel Jaimes, we are waiting for your answer.

  • Cowabunga Dude says:

    I am hearing rumors that Rudy Bermudez is actually thinking about sinking a ton of cash into a recount. Dude, what a waste. Get over yourself and go to your favorite WeHo Leather Bar with your boyfriend Tony Mendoza and wait for your matching money laundering indictments.

    Until then surfs up, and Cowabunga Dude

  • mark hylland says:

    Hello, Mr. Sad Day—come in…I have a question for you….You bashed Ian on where he was raised/grew up/attended school etc…..What about Noel Jaimes, WHERE was he born? When did he come to USA….Illegal or Legal entry? WHERE did he grow up.

  • mark hylland says:

    Where has everyone gone? Including the candidates? I thought there was an election in November? Who is worthy of our votes…perhaps Sad Day was correct, should we have voted for Rudy? Has a write in candidate ever prevailed? Is this possible?