What Price Victory?

Once again, the ugly head of gambling is raised in San Jose politics. It has been seen before.  In the eighties, in the wake of destroyed families, ruined lives, and rising crime rates, a number of people were indicted and sent to jail. Grand jury investigations were the staple of the daily news. On every level it was a tragedy. A decade ago, the “win at any cost” leaders of the Democratic Party laundered money from the Bay 101 card club into a number of local races. Two years later, the State Fair Political Practices Commission found them guilty of a number of infractions, including late reporting. In other words, the leaders of the local Democratic Party did not want the voters to know who was funding these campaigns. Secrecy was their tactic and it worked then. They never seem to learn and they have seldom been called to task for these illegal and unethical actions. Now, it is happening again—big time!

Recently, the local Democrats have accepted $55,000 from the Indian gaming interests that have so corrupted state politics. The Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation and the California Nations Indian Gaming Association have given the money. At the same time, the local Democratic Committee has spent over $128,000 for the Cindy Chavez campaign. It makes a farce and sham of our local restrictions on fundraising limits.  Gambling money has been forbidden in San Jose elections for years, but this thinly veiled laundering is a pure insult and a threat to the well-being of our city. 

The questions that must be asked are:
Who solicited this money? 
What promises were asked or given?

The local Democratic leaders should answer—now. 

The citizens of San Jose have the right to know—in this most scandal ridden of times in the history of San Jose—just who is buying what. The Democratic Party, in its mad quest to gain an election win, is in danger of losing its soul.


  1. #4 Steve, I think we’ll be waiting for a long time for that apology.  The saddest part of that article was Larry Stone’s involvement.  He signed the letter making false claims about Chuck Reed—whom he “considers a personal friend”—without even asking him about it.  Doesn’t sound like much of a friend.

  2. Yea, with friends like Larry Stone, who needs enemies?

    Guess that the charges of tax evasion and theft will be dropped, right? Looks like the Chavez campaign should have been paying attention a little closer but were too busy slinging mud. Sure made them look dumb. Too bad that it isn’t Chuck’s style to make a big deal about this, as most politicians would have. That is why it was buried in the Local.

  3. Democratic Central Committee solicited gambling money to support the Chavez campaign in response to Chamber’s COMPAC independent expenditures for Reed against Chavez

    What is illegal and what is unethical or questionable gets lost in the partisan politics of San Jose’s decades long political win at any cost unethical city government culture

    Time to elect a balanced city government – 50%  Chamber , 50% Labor and alternate the Mayor between both groups

    Taxpayers have no say in how our taxes are spent so with a balanced city government we will stop the worst spending and dumb ideas of both Chamber and Labor and when the agree on a really bad spending decision like Grand Prix we can blame both

  4. COMPAC and the local Dem party are two different things. The Dems and Labor were “outraged” when the Chamber put out a mailer accurately detailing the votes of Chavez. They were not equally “outraged” at the money that came into them that circumvented the rules that were then in place.
    The local Dems and Labor play by their own rules and have for a long time. I say this as a lifelong Dem but one who has avoided the questionable dealings of the local party. When Labor and the local Dems show equal outrage at ALL wrongdoing, then I will look to them as a credible organization. It won’t happen. Reed is the only chance we have to break the grip of this “ignore the rules” group. If we get Chavez, not only will we see more gambling money, but we kiss good-bye any chance of cleaning up the current mess.

  5. We have out of control spending politicans unaccountable to the public so 50% Chamber / 50% Labor is a great idea to stop worst abuses and spending Maybe we will actually get a responsible and clean City Hall  

    Ops, except for San Jose’s dirty political fund raising secret – that thousands in developers contributions and other freebees for both Chamber and Labor are not for votes but access to our politicians to show how their project is in ” public interest ” just like gambling money

  6. The only thing wrong with your argument #8 is the Chamber did not do any Independent expenditures for Chuck.  They endorsed Mulcahey in the primary and have not endorsed anyone yet unless I have missed something.

  7. The silence from the Chavez smear brigade is deafening.

    Apparently, lies and smears mean never having to say you’re sorry.

  8. Did I miss something in the Mercury News story today?  Reedimbursment has not released his itemized charitable deductions since he has been in office, has he?  He has been in office longer than two years, hasn’t he?

    When Chuck makes public all his itemized charitable deductions he will have fully disclosed, until then, questions remain.

    Who were the people Chuck met with that wanted to bring an Indian Casino to San Jose and or Santa Clara County? Why did he not disclose this information?

    When will he release all of his itemized charitable deductions since he has been in office?  What does he have to hide?

  9. I’m gravitating towards voting for Chuck with each passing day.  Another snippet on the TV news last night from Cindy and again she provided nothing of substance and had a horribly weak rehearsed commentary on Chuck’s alleged wrong-doings.  She is NOT mayor material.

    We need regime change in a major way and with a guy like Chuck at the helm the party will be over for the likes of Campos, Pyle and Chirco, the coucil mutes as one blogger has described them, and Gonzo water girls. 

    I shudder to think of the steamrolling that would result from a win by Cindy.  This cannot be allowed to happen.  If the race is tightening, I won’t throw away my vote on Pandori.  The more I see of Cindy the more I see someone poised to pick up the baton from Gonzo and continue with four more years of corruption and recklesss disregard for what’s best for the city of San Jose.  She looked downright sinister on TV last night.

  10. “Ignorance is the state of not knowing. Ignorance occurs when those who can benefit from knowledge are unwilling or unable to find or assimilate the knowledge.

    I believe this just about sums up Larry Stone and Justin Schall’s response in today’s paper.

  11. The spin of anyone who does not have the courage of his convictions by signing his name is only good for laughs. Even Rich (RR) has the guts to stand up and go on and on and on with a message that is boring boring and very boring. Throw this into the fray; I submit that most Democratic office seekers become Democrats to take the easy way. Think the voters want and deserve some candidates with intestinal fortitude for a change. If we got that we wouldn’t have do nothing wimps in office.

  12. To all those awaiting a response:

    see http://www.rant.sv411.com

    Let me say I am the happiest guy in the world for Chuck.  I am glad he did not cheat on his taxes and I am happy he showed his documentation to the Mercury News.

    However, the question needed to be asked and I am happy it has been answered.

    As for the “Indian Money”, and with all respect to Tom, it is a nonissue.  There will be no new Casinos in San Jose regardless of who becomes Mayor.

  13. #5. I’m beginning to think the Mercury News is playing favorites. Maybe iut’s an issue of perception, but consider the following:

    The local Democratic Party gave back the Indian casino money after Reed challenged them to do so. Did you see this reported in the Mercury? I didn’t. Yet when Reed reimbursed the city for the questioned expenses it was mentioned in numerous articles, including today’s article.

    Why did the Mercury wait so long to report the facts it had about Reed’s tax returns while knowing the Chavez campaign was putting out false claims? The Merc has been in a position to nip this lie in the bud but instead allowed it to fester for two weeks. Why?

    Why was today’s story exonerating Reed and pointing out the questionable tactics of his opponent buried on page 4-B? How does this compare to the Mercury’s coverage of Reed’s officeholder account?

    And, just out of curiosity, how is it that Reality Check knows about pro-Chavez or anti-Reed stories that will appear in the Merc before the newspaper is published?

    It sure smells funny.

  14. OK technically Chamber did not do any Independent expenditures for Chuck

    but COMPAC mailer attacked Labor candidate Chavez which greatly benefited Reed and the upcoming mailer will attack Chavez which will again benefit Reed with or without an endorsement

    Look for COMPAC mailers in District 3 & 6 races to attack Labor candidates or more phone push polls

    Anyone get the anti Chavez phone push poll?  Who is doing it?  Reed or Dando’s Chamber?

  15. #17
    I can not sit by and read you attacking Single Gal, Mark T, Novice, Mal Content, waiting, Wondering, just the facts, 1,2,3 get rid of ronnie g, finfan, got it right, Bill Payer, Steve, Wonder Woman, ABC, 2 wrongs are still 2 wrongs, and many many other honest posters in the horrid manner in which you do and not respond.

    They all have courage and convictions and it is wrong of you to attack them for not using their names to sign their posts.  I think Single Gal (or Guy) also has convictions and he or she should continue to sign his or her weekly posts as he or she sees fit.

    Shame on you #17.

    Now, will Reedimbursment tell us who he met with that wanted to build an Indian Casino in San Jose/Santa Clara County?

    Will Reedimbursement release his itemized charitable deductions for every year he has been in office, not just two years?  What does he have to hide?

  16. I envision settling this whole, nasty business between Chuck and Cindy with a game of Texas Hold ‘em, played at Bay 101, and sponsored California Indian Gaming.

    Announcer: “Folks, this is poker at its best. “Action Chuck” Reed, a notoriously tight player, head-to-head up against free-wheeling Cindy “All-in” Chavez.”

    Sidekick: “This is going to be great. “Action Chuck” is going to have to be careful not to get lulled into a trap by “All-in” Chavez, whose big weapon is her ability to charm her opponents into making bad reads. She is as crafty as she is cute.” 

    Announcer: “Well, she’ll have to be at her best today because, in “Action Chuck,” she is facing a player who learned a long time ago that he has no ability to read other players. He’s got to where he is by playing only his cards, and playing them cautiously. He’s a guy, I tell you, who will bore his opponent into a mistake.”

    Sidekick (jumping to his feet): “Well now, here’s a guy never accused of being boring, Tony “Big Chief” Siciliano, president of the Hu-r-weagin Tribal Casino, one of the sponsors of tonight’s game. How, Big Chief—oops! I meant, how ya doing Tony?”

    Big Chief: “I’m doin’ great, guys. Good to be back at Bay 101. Great joint.”

    Announcer: “Who you pickin’ to win this thing?”

    Big Chief: “My money’s on—I mean, my gut tells me that Chavez will take it. Dat’s da insider’s view, anyways. Word is “Action Chuck’s” luck is about to run out.”

    Big Chief (pointing to the mike): “Is that thing on? Oh, crap. I hope don’t nobody take what I said da wrong way.”

    Announcer: “Always a colorful, fun guy! Hey, it looks like we’re about to get under way. The dealer—strangely I don’t recognize him—is about to be introduced.”

    Female voice from the floor: “Mr. Guerra, shuffle-up and deal the cards.”

  17. Also, did anyone see Blanca Alvarado’s disturbing letter to the editor in yesterday’s paper defending Manny Diaz?  If there was ever a political figure in this valley who had an obviously ethnic slant to their political agenda, it’s her.  Anybody think Ken Yeager is going to push a 100% gay agenda when he becomes a supe?  His record as a councilman should answer that question.  Blanca has done nothing but show bias from day one even on the SJ council.  If there has ever been anyone who hasn’t done one lousy thing that people even less “grumpy” than finfan would approve of, it’s her.  If there was anyone on the fence about Manny before yesterday, hopefully the fact that he has Blanca’s support will make them realize that Sam is the right choice.

    When is her term up anyway?  She needs to be political history ASAP.

  18. Like I said No. 21, you a just a good laugh and really lack any conviction or you wouldn’t be hiding behind “RC”, can’t bring my self to say what you call yourself cause your a fake. No reality in your house! If someone doesn’t want to use thier name then thats thier right bur on the other hand I sure don’t have to believe what the say or would. So continue on with the comedy!

  19. RR
    regarding the gambling money. Someone from the Democratic Party asked for that money. Who?

    Preminger said they would not spend it on Cindy’s race. Why?

    He said he would keep it separate. How?

    If it is OK to ask for the money, why would they not spend it for Cindy?

    Since all the money goes into one big pot how do they keep the gambling money out of Cindy’s? You know as well as I do they can’t.

  20. San Jose City Council has failed voters and taxpayers while local politicians past and present knew or should of known what was going on was illegal, unethical and pay to paly politics but did nothing and stood by did nothing

    So we should now believe their political recommendations and endorsements – NO

    Simple way to get better city government
    – Vote against All San Jose Incumbents
    – Vote against their poltiical endorsements ” more of same ” political friends

  21. RC
    What is that old expression about beating a dead horse…anyone seen that chicken asking for the taxes? I hear Chuck’s campaign is serving fried chicken today.

  22. Waiting,

    I do not know who asked for the money, but traditionally everyone on the data base, be it a phone list or mailing list, is asked to donate—usually from professional fundraisers.

    People send money back to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest or because they don’t want to be associated with a certain group, corporation, or cause.

    But the message is bad.  If a politician sends the money back to the tribes, does that mean everyone who else who gave them money bought something? 

    People ought to give contributions to better their community.  No politician, party or campaign should ever accept money for a quid pro quo. 

    The fact that everybody assumes it happens is unfortunate, because it doesn’t.

    I advise all my candidates to solicit money on the basis that people are making a contribution to good government and their community.  If anyone asks for a “favor”, discontinue the conversation at once.

    It is a simple rule, that most politicians can easily follow.



    why won’t she come clean in her backroom role in the norcal and grand prix vote.  why does she continue to pretend to be stupid and ignorant.

  24. #24.  Mark T may post politely here but he is undoubtedly hateful when it comes to the subject of Mexican Americans and I’ll side with anyone when it comes to equal rights for ALL, especially with those who blend in with society and contribute to the greater good.

    I always wondered how it felt to unjustly accuse others of racism and bigotry at the drop of a hat.  Who knew it would feel so good?

    Now I understand why it’s so popular with the left.

    - It requires no thinking whatsoever – which makes it completely compatible with your intellectually lazy garden variety leftist.

    - And it seems to release endorphins that give you a false sense that you’re somehow morally superior. 

    But alas all is not roses.  As with anything that’s overdone to the nth degree, the frequency with which leftists play the racism card has caused it to lose it’s potency. 

    It’s now down to children’s aspirin strength.

    It’s only real purpose is to serve as a signal that accuser has lost the debate and provide a bit of   insight into the mental state of the accuser.


    why doesn’t she come clean about her backroom role in the norcal and grand prix vote?  Or is she still pretending to be ignorant and stupid.  Or maybe it’s not a pretense.


    why does RC continue on with his blather?

  26. Thanks for the material, Rich. Your stuff about people giving money to politicians to better their community and that there is no quid pro quo, is comic brilliance.
    You really must think the people on this board are too stupid to vote if you expect us to believe the stuff you are serving up.
    Sure, some folks give (generally the smaller donors) because they think they can make a difference, but the big donors give for one reason—access. Your statements to the contrary are disingenuous at best, and flat out fantasy at worst.
    But thanks for the laughs, though. Keep it up—I can always use new material.

  27. It gives me the giggles that an anonymous poster keeps saying “what does he have to hide”.

    It’s a nice line, but if you don’t have the courage to use your real name, you’re in no position to demand another man’s tax returns.

  28. Novice, I’m not hateful, just very very disgusted with the tail wagging the dog in this town.  They’ve wagged it so much they shook out a nice big pile onto the Plaza downtown.  Yeah, I’m disgusted with that group of noisemakers and their facilitator Ms. Alvarado, you bet I am.

    Hateful?  Try again.  I’ve been living under the same roof with a Mexican American for 21 years now, a Mexican American with a wonderfully assimilated family (Arnold, you go boy) .

  29. Rich,

    I like your idealism but please, tell me is there a line you won’t cross?  If it is OK to take gambling money how about tobacco money? big oil? the porn industry?

  30. Rich,  asking for access or project approval occurs after the election so that the politician can legally claim under our weak election finance laws that meetings or projct approvals was not connected to the campaign contribution or pay to play ” but for ” public good ” reason provided by the campaign contributor or their lobbyists to fit the opposition to the project  

    The falseness of your comments has been proven in San Jose when our politicians have routinely referred developers or those wanting project approvals to a former staffer now lobbyist ” who knows the local process ” as there has been many documented examples in the Gonzales administration and prior years

    Rick your comments should be on Friday’s humorous blog or told to school children who still believe in tooth fairy or that all politicians are well meaning ethic people – not some of ours

  31. Fair enough, RR#30 when you say: “I advise all my candidates to solicit money on the basis that people are making a contribution to good government and their community.  If anyone asks for a “favor”, discontinue the conversation at once.”

    But don’t you REALLY believe that major contributors rightly feel that they are buying access that non-contributors don’t get? They take “cuts” in line ahead of non-contributors, don’t they?

  32. RR,

    Now that you’ve got to seen the clear differnce between Chuck and Cindy, does this mean you’re going to support Chuck Reed?

    Or, is the pay check too good to let go? Keep in mind that your salary is coming from gambling money.

  33. Who solicited the Indian Gambling money??  Simple question and no one is dumb enough to think it just arrived with no request. Let’s get the answer.    TMcE

  34. Comedian and waiting,

    People give money for a variety of reasons, if think they are buying access, chances are they have it already.

    Given my political leanings I don’t take money from tobacco, big oil or porn.  They are not offering.

    But if Chevron or Marlboro want to send me a check, I’ll cash it and I’ll still actively support 86 and 87.  I’d use their money for a great utilitarian purpose—putting them out of business.

    Actually, Chevron can stay in business—they just need to morph into a green alternative fuel company.  But Marlboro, Philip Morris, Altria or whatever they are calling themselves should go the way of the dinosaur.

    I guess that is why they are not offering. . .

  35. Waiting #37:  C’mon, get real.  Money is money, and anyone will take it until the other side catches them with a politically incorrect donor.

    They ALL be Ho’s ‘til they busted.

  36. Am I the only person Tom has cared enough about to leave not one but two messages for today?  Gee, Tom, I didn’t know you cared.  Sorry I missed your calls.  I just wish you’d been a little more honest in the message you delivered on the phone and a little more ethical than today’s attempt to tie the Chavez campaign to Indian gambling money.  Gee, if they’d given a big fat donation to COMPAQ would you have been so outraged?  There is nothing to tie the Chavez campaign to Indian gambling, nothing to suggest any back door deals, nothing to suggest anything unethical except for your wish to make it so.

    I guess that you figure if you throw enough s**t at the voters and call it Cindy they’re dumb enough to blame her for the smell and not the person who threw it.

  37. Wait, wait a cotton picken minute here…are you suggesting that money laundering is still going on in the 101???????? Well, possibly so……..proving it is another thorn in the side of justice for all……….

  38. Anyone know the half-life of massive amounts of summer-of-love ‘experiences’?

    Or are the after effects permanent?

  39. Tom, speaking of contributions, did you catch the City Council meeting last night.  Chavez had a couple of her drones show up to speak, Phaedra Lampkins and a fellow named Walter.  They both accused Chuck Reed of racism and, even more ridiculous, Walter claimed that Reed was guilty of felony tax evasion.  To what lengths will Chavez go to win the mayor’s race?!?

  40. Tom,

    Don’t you read comments on your posts?  Please see post #89 from “Stone Silence”.  Rich has already explained to us that “the Reed “Indian Casino” money is a ruse…”.  You realize what you’ve done don’t you?  We’re going to be cursed with a 5000 word comment post from Rich where he explains—ad nauseum—how this issue is bogus and those of us who don’t understand that are too stupid to vote.  Then RC and DB will comment (2 or 3 times for RC and 5 or 27 times for DB—depending on whether or not he’s taken his medication) on how Rich is brilliant and the rest of us are—yes, too stupid to vote.

    In the future, please consult with Rich before posting so as not to raise his ire.

  41. I am waiting for Rich Robinson and Reality Check’s apologies to Chuck Reed.

    To the surprise of our local Democrats, Chuck Reed released his taxes to the Mercury News [1] and guess what: no felonies committed.

    All the speculation by Rich and others on felonies committed by Reed reflects poorly on the Chavez campaign. 

    Do we really want a mayor surrounded by people so willing to ruin another’s reputation?

    [1] http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/15729972.htm

  42. Well, well, well. Just as most of us suspected. RC and DB are certified morons and campaign flacks. Their smear campaign against Reed is as hollow as their arguments have been. What a shock—there is no Reed tax evasion or whatever other nonsense the Chavez smear army has been spreading.
    Reed is not my favorite candidate, but when given the choice between he and Chavez, it’s easy to choose.
    While Chavez has made it clear that she and her campaign cannot stoop too low, at least Reed has addressed issues and raised legitimate criticisms.
    When will Chavez give back the $55,000 in gambling money?? We’re waiting RC, DB, RR, et al.

  43. What gets me is Chavez had volunteers calling Reed’s Council office saying they were going to vote for Reed until this whole reimbursement issue came up. Then they say they will vote for him if he releases his tax deductions. Oh, but they don’t need a call back, they’ll wait to see it “on tv or in the press.” Cindy, come on. How can someone live with themselves when they have to win like this? It’s truly pathetic.

  44. So, now that the Larry Stone signed pro Chavez letter has been proven to be false, will Larry sign another letter disavowing the first one, and will the Cindinistas send it out to all the same people?  They can use the gambling money to pay for printing and mailing, rather than return it.

    Larry phoned me yesterday and told me the several things he heard about the issue from Barry Witt and others, which pointed to its accuracy.  He also said he wrote a letter to Chuck asking about it, but that Chuck never responded.  He admitted that he did not attempt to telephone Chuck to personally corroborate the truth of the content of the letter before he signed it.

    In the law most hearsay is inadmissible as evidence.  It seems to me that at the very least, the attempt to call someone you consider a friend to get the story straight from the horse’s mouth would have been the best course to take.

    In my view the only way to right this wrong would be for a retraction letter to be signed and sent by Larry to everyone who got the false first letter.

  45. Anybody hear from Downtown Brown? Is he OK?

    With Reed making his tax information public, and laundered casino money funding the Chavez campaign, it would be interesting to see if he decided to support Reed.

    Election is November 7th, go out and make the right choice; VOTE REED.

  46. JMO and others,

    The Larry Stone letter was not “false”.  It was a question and it needed to be asked.

    Chuck gave his deduction information to one reporter.  Why the information did not come out earlier we do not know.  Maybe Barry Witt was simply verifying the response.

    Nobody else had seen or has seen the deductions.  If Barry says they are OK, that is good enough for me.  But other reporters did ask for the information and it was not given to them.

    So the question had to be asked, don’t go throwing rocks at Stone for asking a legitimate question.  Throw rocks at the reporter or Chuck for holding the information.

    If you want an apology—as it seems to be the desire of everyone—here it is:

    I’m sorry Chuck used taxpayer money for political and religious purposes which forced him the need for him to show a reporter his tax deductions.  I am also sorry the information was not given to the public earlier.

    BTW: I rarely am forced to be this contrite in a public forum.

  47. #49. JMOC. While apologies may be in order the Chavez campaign won’t be able to use the Indian casino money to pay for a follow-up mailing. The Santa Clara County Democrat anounced that they returned the casino money after Reed raised the issue, something that the Mercury failed to report.

    If you looked closely enough in Saturday’s paper you might have been able to find the brief item about Reed pointing out the infusion of casino money into the local campaign. It’s my understanding that Saturday has the lowest readership.

    See post #19.

  48. 45 – So, you are saying Tom made up the whole thing?? Over $50,000 in money from Indian gambling interests was not donated to the local Democratic party?? And the local Democratic party is not funding the Chavez campaign?? What was dishonest in Tom’s message for those of us who did not receive one?

  49. #51 Rich,

    You need to check your facts.  The letter Larry signed said, “…he NOW REFUSES to include the income tax schedule, which shows his itemized deductions.”

    He hadn’t refused. He in fact had released them.  Larry did not bother to pick up the phone to call his “friend” Chuck to see if what he was signing was true.  It wasn’t true that he “now refuses”,  it was a lie. 

    So to be clear,  if the letter had said only that they were asking Chuck Reed to release his itemized deductions, that would have not been a lie.  It just would have been ignorant of the facts.
    That the letter said, “he now refuses” steps over the line.  That part was false and was a lie.

  50. Mal #52—I guess my sarcasm re use of Indian money didn’t come through in print.

    RR#51: Nice spin/hair splitting.  The effect of the letter was to state something that was not true; even if by innuendo it needs to be reversed and the truth be made known BY THE PEOPLE WHO PUT OUT THE MISLEADING INFORMATION, AND AT THEIR COST.

    You consultants may try to whitewash it, but it’s dirty pool not to retract a false message like that.  Y’all whined like stuck pigs about COMPAC, when every last thing in the flier was true, so don’t be splitting hairs on this one, Richie.

  51. Richard, you are only sorry because people now look like idiots as a result of listening to someone who didn’t have the correct information. Chuck Reed released his tax information to ALL press for two days.

    Is it Cindy’s way to bully people into getting what she wants? We can add Rudy Nasol, President of the Board of Trustees for Berryessa Union School District to the list. He wrote a letter and mailed it to District 4 constituents asking them to call Reed’s office and ask him to release his deductions. Ruday was endorsed by Gonzales. Yay, one of the team!

    If Cindy is so concerned about the way tax payer money is spent, why is she wasting Reed’s City staff time answering a failed campaign tactic?

  52. ABC,

    Wrong.  Chuck did refuse to make his deductions public.  One reporter was invited to get the information and no one knew it.

    Chuck was asked repeatedly by several people to make the dccumentation public.  He refused. 

    No one knew he had given them to Barry Witt and he never said that he had.  The documentation still is not “public”.

    In fact, his campaign said exactly the same thing, that he would not make them public.

    Both were correct, as he did not make them “public”.  Chuck let one reporter have the information—we are taking his word that the deductions are valid.

    But Larry did not “lie”.  He owes no apology.

  53. Rich: So it’s Chuck’s fault Cindy’s campaign lied about him because he didn’t deny the phony charges before the hit pieces went out?
    That’s a great bit of spin!

    Maybe you can hit up the casinos for more heap big wampum for another hit piece to explain it to voters.

  54. The Chavez apologists should be sorry for supporting such a lame candidate who has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and who now is trying to find dirt on someone when she herself is wallowing in the mud.

    this is the question that needs to be asked: if Chavez has made such poor decisions when it has come to taxpayer dollars, why should she even be a candidate for mayor?  and why should anyone even vote for her? (unless they are bought and paid for.)

  55. Reading this interplay takes me back to Norman Solomon of The Nation, neither he nor they known for being right wing, who wrote to Tom’s topic well more than a decade ago. Particularly apposite was

    “…you’d have to forget the …miserable urban Democrats who run our big cities, hacks utterly in the grip of local real estate and banking interests who promote downtown development above all else.”

  56. #11 Just the Facts (of late)
    I have been using the nom de plume (Just the Facts) for the past year, so please choose an other.  Though I agree with a lot of what you have to say, it makes things confusing.  Good luck.

  57. Thanks for the new material, Rich. Your stuff is priceless. Keep it up. I can’t write stuff funnier than what you do. Alice in Wonderland must be your favorite book—the letter was not false, it only asked a question based on untruth. Great stuff, Rich.

  58. Rich-

    You wrote

    “If you want an apology—as it seems to be the desire of everyone—here it is:

    I’m sorry Chuck…”

    When people ask for an apology, they are not asking that you apologize for someone else.  They are asking that you apologize for YOUR actions.

    If I say “I’m sorry Rich Robinson isn’t more honest”, that is not an apology.  It is an attack. 

    Similarly, you are not being contrite.  Contrition implies some amount of reflection and self-evaluation leading to regret about ones own actions.  Your quote displays none of these admirable qualities.

  59. I really think Rich’s inability to admit that Cindy made a mistake is just a reflection of Cindy herself.  She can’t accept responsibility.  She can’t admit that she has ever done anything wrong.  The tortured logic used by her and her mouthpieces to absolve themselves of any responsibility is breathtaking.  I’ve had enough of that type of politician with Bush, I sure don’t need that in a mayor.

  60. I just came to this thread and I don’t have enough fingers to answer the question: “How many times does Richard Robinson say ‘the question needed to be asked?’ ” This is a very disingenous piece of rhetoric because it’s revisionist in orientation: the question was valuable to RR and Chavez supporters only because they got political capital out of it because the answer *might* have been damaging to Reed, and the suspicion was valuable to them. Now that the answers don’t support their suspicions, they *still* want the conversation to circle around the suspicions (asking the question) instead of the facts, which are the answers.  Lame, guys.

    I might also point out the the “questions need to be asked” angle is exactly what Ken Starr & Co. said about Clinton sex escapades.

  61. #21 – RC:  Has Cindy Chavez released her tax returns for every year she has been in office, or did she just do it for a year or two?  Also, has Chavez paid the City back for all her reimbursements, including the $1600 add San Jose Magazine, which featured her name and title at the bottom, as reported in the Mercury News?
    Talk to me when your candidate, Chavez has done that which she demands others do. 
    When you can take a balanced and fair look at ALL THE MAYORAL CANDIDATES, not just one candidate, and apply the standard you set for Mayoral Candidate Reed to ALL members of the City Council and ALL candidiates, then I will listen.

  62. It is striking the similarlities between the Bush-Rove, et al regime and the Chavez campaign. 66 points that out as have many others on this site. Yet, Chavez is the “real” Democrat. If she’s the “real” Democrat I’ll take the “fake” Democrat anyday.
    If the Chavez campaign is any indication (and it is) of what a Chavez administration will be like, let’s make sure we keep it far away from City Hall. We’ve had enough of these types of tactics over the past 7 years. No more of the Chavez-Gonzales type of government. It is more than time for a change.

  63. Dear Cindy,
    Since it seems you are running out of fresh “scandals” to dig up on Chuck Reed, I have a suggestion.  Borrowing a tactic from our current president, lets dig into Chuck’s military career.  I’m sure we can find (or better yet make up) something juicy about this flag tie wearing Air Force Veteran.  Maybe he dropped a medal once, or failed to polish his shoes one day.  You know, real relevant stuff like you have been digging up lately.

  64. #71 Bridget…

    The beautiful, young, caring and moraled woman we once knew has been consumed by her honest and laudible passion to help working families thrive in this city and protect what is left of the ‘middle class’. 

    Tragically, while emersed in the struggle to realize her dream, ethical choices had to be made…  some of which may have not seemed important at the time.  Now engaged the race to be Mayor, she is having to face the consequences of those choices.

    It’s sad that such a caring moral woman with such selfless goals made choices that leave us to believe that in her mind the end justifies the means.

  65. Anybody else get the recorded phone call from Tom blasting Cindy and her campaign for their lies about Chuck?  You go Tom! I got mine on Wednesday.  And, not that the world revolves around me (but it does), but I’m exactly the type of voter—liberal, always votes Democrat—Cindy should be getting and isn’t.  She lost me with her Grand Prix vote and has only reinforced my opinion of her with her behavior in this campaign.

  66. Boy, 78, you certainly got that right! I, too, consider myself a liberal, lifelong Democrat (although I have voted Green on rare occasions.) Cindy lost me long ago and the local Preminger Party lost me even longer ago. What happened to the Party that truly reprsented the people??
    I know many others of similiar political leanings who also feel the same way. Cindy has done a great job of alienating the very people who should be supporting her. Kind of like what Gonzales did.

  67. If I had known all along that it only took Chuck Reed releasing his tax information to a reporter to get rid of RC, DB and RR, I would have paid him to do it a long time ago.  A legal donation of course.  The articles on this web site is so much easier to read and more enjoyable without long rants and raves from the three (political) stooges.

  68. Tom,
    I agree you with completely. I sent an e-mail to Steve Preminger asking him to resign. His stewardship of the Democratic Party is like that of Jimmy Hoffa, may he rest in peace, in his cement boots. I have been offended by the methods of pressure politics, the half truths in the media, and the hypocrisy of the party under Preminger’s direction. His arrogance in the media is appalling, and his treatment of Mayoral Candidate Reed, a fellow Democrat, is disgusting.
    Bringing in gambling money to ensure the win of a candidate is just unacceptable to me. I too would like to know who solicited these funds from Indian gaming interests. It seems a desperate way to try to win an election, but nothing would surprise me anymore. I’m saddened by the desperate antics I’ve seen Chavez and her supporters participate in since the primary.
    The woman, Cindy Chavez, that stands before us is no longer the beautiful, young, and caring person she once was. Someone you could trust. Her soul, like that of Dorian Grey, has melted slowly away, leaving no trace of the once beautiful, moraled woman we once knew.

  69. #70, Nice One Jeffery!

    The Democratic Party isn’t endanger of loosing it’s soul, it already has. I guess Preminger is drinking the same tainted water that Gonzo, Chavez, and the rest of their cronies are.
    I saw a commercial tonight bashing Reed in a way that shouldn’t be allowed on T.V., but I guess money can buy you anything. Ask the Indian gambling interests, they bought Cindy’s soul, and the Democratic Party’s for a mere $55,000.00.
    I’ll be glad when Nov. 7th is here, and gone. May be not, the way this race has gone, I’m sure we can look forward to a fight from Chavez over who really won, and at least a law suite or two over the final tally.

  70. FLASH!!!

    Preminger decides to not to give the gambling campaign contribution back to the doners. Instead, Mr. Preminger will forward the money to the democratic party on the assumption it was meant to be used on the governor’s race; not the Chavez campaign. How ethical is that?

    In either case, the money has already past through the Chavez camp for laundering. Their hands are dirty and soap won’t clean this mess. It must be hard to pass up a few thousand $$$ if it means making a loosing mayor’s race a little closer.

  71. #78, #79 –

    You have to go to this site:


    They are promoting that all democrats must vote for Cindy Chavez – she isthe ONLY democrat in the race. 

    Your personal experiences would add a lot to what is best for San Jose.  Please consider adding to the discussion.  Let them know not all democrats are sheep.

  72. So, I just heard something new—various political organizations pass questionable donations from one candidate or PAC to another in order to disguise the source.

    Sounds like Chavez campaign was the first to “receive” Indian Gaming Dollars, via SC County Dems, then pass it on to another campaign, rather than return it to the “donors”.

    Sounds like money laundering to me.  Isn’t that a RICO case?  OOOpps, no, it’s the Dems, and isn’t Lockyer a Dem?  He’ll never prosecute unless a Repub. gets some.

  73. The local Democratic Party has for years truly represented the people – that pays bills ( developers ) and campaign volunteers ( labor ) to elect local politicians –  pay to play politics

    You are surprised? Oh, you ment public, liberals   or working people only after developers and labor get theirs first, we get leftovers, if there is any left – almost never

  74. Rich,

    In #56 you wrote:

    “The documentation still is not ‘public’.”

    about Reed’s tax returns. 

    You (or Reality Check or D.B) still have not responded to my request about where us members of the “public” can download Chavez’s tax forms to view them with our own eyes.

    As it stands right now I am “taking the word” of the Merc reporter who wrote the tiny article about Chavez’s tax returns that everything looks OK.

    Your definition of “public” is suspect.

  75. Reading today’s article [1] in the Merc you might get the impression that the local Democrats returned the gambling money to the Indian tribes.

    Sorry.  Our ethically challenged local Democrats just “..sent the money on” according to Mr. Preminger, to party officials elsewhere.

    Where did the local Democrats actually send the money?  Not back to the donors.  Why not?

    If you have spent any time reading reports at the Secetary of State website, there are large sums of money that are laundered between committees so it is nearly impossible to track.

    I would bet the local Democrats will get this money back through another channel. 

    Ms. Chavez and Mr. Preminger need to stop trying to fool the public and really return the money to the tribes. 

    [1] http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/15748585.htm

  76. Preminger told KLIV on Tuesday he sent the casino money back to the Indians. Now he tells the Mercury News he sent it to Democrats in other counties.

    Preminger seems to have trouble remembering what he did with that $55,000.00!

    Maybe he should be less concerned with Reed’s tax returns and more concerned with his own accounting.

  77. Re:  <<Asked if she was concerned about the use of Indian gambling money on her behalf, she said, “I have nothing to do with this.”  “You shouldn’t be talking to me, you should be talking to the Democratic Party,” Chavez said. >>

    “YOU SHOULDN’T BE TALKING TO ME…” ?  What’s up with this?
    Will she stand up, or duck the hard questions?
    As Mayor, will she lead, or be lead?

  78. re:  <<  She (Cindy) complained that Reed was using a side issue (Gaming money) rather than deal with important issues facing San Jose.  “He needs to run against me and my record,” Chavez said. >>

    And if Chuck hammers too hard on her costly Council votes and support of Ron Gonzales, she’ll surely cry FOUL.

    Figuratively speaking,  The Vice Emperor Has No Clothes.

  79. Tom McEnery’s “silly season” is in full bloom.

    Here’s the news of the week:

    Chuck did not cheat on his taxes, but those who asked the legitimate question are “liars”.

    There will be no Indian Casinos in San Jose, nor will there be under either candidate.  But allegations fly regarding the potential “influence” of Indian money. 

    Get a grip, people.

    Cindy offers a plan for a Green San Jose with Barbara Boxer and the entire Congressional delegation, that is lost in the noise of ethics charges and counter charges. 

    There is a reason substance isn’t discussed in campaigns—it doesn’t sell and it is not news.

  80. Wow, I posted the link to the Chronicle article before reading Rich’s post #88.  Rich, again it wasn’t that they asked the question, it’s that they made a false claim – that he was “Now refusing” to release his deductions.  It was untrue and it wasn’t a question.  Your time has passed Rich.

  81. 88 – Or maybe what Chavez said wasn’t news. Where has she been the past 7 years with her “environmental” plan? Maybe if she supported green buildings in the past, out present buildings wouldn’t be as unenvironmentally friendly (like not supporting the new city hall being green.)
    Give it a rest, Rich. If either candidate actually says something newsworthy and not just a campaign stunt, it will get some coverage. The Indian money got some ink but not that much. Cindy just didn’t like getting caught with tainted money.
    Nice try as usual.

  82. Darn, something happened to my post that was supposed to appear before #89.  Sorry for being out of order here.  I was asking Rich if he had seen the article in Friday’s San Francisco Chronicle titled, “Governor scores by saying he’s sorry.  Apology strategy is effective, operatives in both parties say”

    To quote from the article:
    ““That’s (apologizing) something that is almost anathema to come out of most politicians’ mouths,’’ says Democratic consultant Chris Lehane, who worked on the Bill Clinton and Al Gore presidential campaigns. “But I think some candidates are working off an old playbook—never admit a mistake.’‘

    Washington-based Republican consultant Mike Collins agrees that stonewalling errors is an idea whose time has passed.”

    Rich, given you are from old school—never admit any mistakes (see Cindy’s false statements about Chuck for the most recent example)—are you now forever cursed to continue to represent 2nd and 3rd rate candidates because they can’t afford consultants who are actually in touch with voters, or are you going to begin to recommend to your clients that they start accepting responsibility for mistakes they make?

  83. #88   Richard….

    We the people are getting a grip…. 

    a grip on how the DNC machine is not always perfect…  and how passion, money and the lust for power can cloud judgement and comprimise integrity.  Too bad Cindy could not have taken control of her campaign and kept it on the high road.  But I guess she stepped on that slippery slope when she aligned herself with Ron Gonzales.

    Chuck calls for parks closer to neigbors…
    ——Doesn’t count because Chuck’s wants it.

    Chuck has an agenda for a GREEN San Jose…
    ——Doesn’t count because Chuck’s wants it.

    Chuck wants to keep Indian gaming out of San Jose…
    ——Doesn’t count because Chuck’s said it.

    Chuck wants open government and staff reports and issues before the council available 4 days before important votes…
    ——Doesn’t count because Chuck’s asked for it.
    ——Doesn’t count because it weakens Mayor’s control of the Council.

    The people are getting a grip.

  84. Rich #88,

    You can complain nobody is talking about Chavez’s Green San Jose but Chavez is not either.

    KTVU news interviewed Chavez and Reed after a debate this past week.  What did Chavez talk about?  Reed’s reimbursements. 

    Looks like Chavez is making much of the noise you complain about.

    Speaking of noise,  what happened to Reality Check and Downtown Brown?

  85. #88. Oh for God’s sake Rich is it really so hard for the Chavez campaign to admit a mistake?

    Your latest:
    “Chuck did not cheat on his taxes, but those who asked the legitimate question are ‘liars’.”

    Chuck also did not rob banks, spit on the Pope or do mean things to puppies. Are those also “legitimate questions” for Cindy’s campaign to ask in mailers and telemarketing calls?

    An organized effort suggesting that an opponent committed a federal crime is not asking “legitimate questions.” It is a deliberate attempt to plant the seeds of a lie in order to gain an illegitimate advantage in a political campaign.

    It’s dishonest and it’s indefensible. It does not speak well of the candidate who would not tell her campaign staff “No, we will not do this.”

    And like it or not: THAT’S the news of the week.

  86. #88, Mr. Robinson,

    Bit worried there, are you?  The fact that you are now spending your time complaining over what others do, as opposed to talking about your candidate, suggests to me that you have some doubts about Chavez’ chances on Nov. 7. 

    Want to know something?  I agree with you. I think voters are smart enough to see through Chavez’ lies, misrepresentations, and her negative campaigning tactics, and vote for the best candidate, Chuck Reed.

    I read a commentary you wrote during the primary election, about David Pandori, where you stated that you felt Chavez’ real competition was Pandori.  I am curious to know how you feel about the fact that he is supporting Reed, and not your candidate.

  87. RR # 88 said:“There is a reason substance isn’t discussed in campaigns—it doesn’t sell and it is not news.”

    Sadly, RR is more right than wrong on that count.

    We on this blog may all be tired of the no-issues combat campaigns that do little than denigrate the other candidate.  I doubt we are the majority of the electorate, however.

    I also believe that this type of campaigning is largely responsible for the decrease in voter turnout.