Greg Howe Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 4:35 am

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?!?

ABC Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 5:15 am

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.

Wonder Woman Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 5:29 am

Don’t miss the article on Reed regarding his federal taxes.  It’s buried on p. 4B.

Steve Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 5:37 am

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

Wondering Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 5:48 am

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.

ABC Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 6:05 am

#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.

Bedtime for Gonzo Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 6:34 am

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.

2 Wrongs are still 2 Wrongs Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 6:38 am

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

Bill Payer Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 6:59 am

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.

#8 Got it right Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 7:04 am

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

just the facts Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 7:14 am

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.

waiting Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 7:16 am

I am really looking forward to the spin of RR, DB, and RC. I am having a bad morning and need a good laugh.

C. Gull Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 7:29 am

The silence from the Chavez smear brigade is deafening.

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

Reality Check Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 7:39 am

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?

Mark T Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 7:42 am

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.

waiting Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 8:27 am

“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.

Glenn Smith Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 8:30 am

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.

Richard Robinson Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 8:42 am

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.

Mal Content Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 8:44 am

#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.

Correction to #8 Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 8:45 am

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?

Reality Check Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 9:03 am

#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?

frustrated finfan Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 9:09 am

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.”

Greg Howe Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 9:12 am

Who takes Larry Stone seriously?  Perhaps those with the magnifying glasses should seek out his dirty laundry.

Mark T Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 9:15 am

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.

glennsmith Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 9:29 am

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!

waiting Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 9:30 am

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.

Vote All City Incumbents Out Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 9:45 am

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

Chamber Push Poll Results Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 9:55 am

Surprise Reed ahead by 11 points

waiting Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 10:00 am

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.

Richard Robinson Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 10:06 am

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.

k.le Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 10:09 am

WHAT DOES CHAVEZ HAS TO HIDE?

WHY DOESN’T CHAVEZ ADDRESS HER VOTING RECORD WHICH SHOWS SHE HAS WASTED MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS?

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.

Novice Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 10:10 am

#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.

k.le Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 10:17 am

WHAT DOES CHAVEZ HAVE TO HIDE FROM?

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 CHAVEZ STILL NOT ADDRESS HER VOTING RECORD WHICH SHOWS SHE HAS WASTED MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

why does RC continue on with his blather?

Comedian Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 10:43 am

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.

Greg Perry Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 10:45 am

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.

Mark T Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 11:32 am

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) .

waiting Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 11:44 am

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?

Money corrupts Politicians Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 11:49 am

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

johnmichael o'connor Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 12:09 pm

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?

Just Wondering II Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 12:49 pm

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.

Tom McEnery Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 1:01 pm

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

Richard Robinson Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 1:29 pm

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. . .

johnmichael o'connor Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 1:30 pm

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.

Randi Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 2:35 pm

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.

concerned citizen Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 2:49 pm

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….......

Novice Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 2:59 pm

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

Or are the after effects permanent?

Give it up Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 7:52 pm

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.

Who Me Wed, Oct 11, 2006 - 9:21 pm

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?

johnmichael o'connor Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 7:58 am

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.

Just Wondering II Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 8:07 am

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.

Richard Robinson Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 8:51 am

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.

Mal Content Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 9:02 am

#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.

ABC Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 9:27 am

#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.

johnmichael o'connor Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 9:33 am

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.

Just Curious Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 9:42 am

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?

Richard Robinson Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 10:16 am

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.

Checkmate Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 10:21 am

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.

k.le Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 10:23 am

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.)

Randi Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 10:39 am

I forgot to ask…how much did yesterday’s phone campaign cost and from where did the money come?

Steve Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 10:45 am

Rich,

Can you give us all the URL where us members of the “public” can download Chavez’s tax return?

Jim Arbuckle Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 10:48 am

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.”

Just the Facts Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 10:56 am

#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.

Comedian Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 11:06 am

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.

Webster Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 11:35 am

Rich-
(51)

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.

ABC Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 12:42 pm

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.

Rose Garden Dad Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 2:43 pm

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.

No Double Standards Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 3:10 pm

#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.

Barnum Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 3:13 pm

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.

Steve Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 5:32 pm

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.

Jeffrey dennison Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 8:13 pm

Larry Stone just needs to mind his own business and assess things…

Bridget Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 9:43 pm

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.

Jean Thu, Oct 12, 2006 - 9:56 pm

#70, Nice One Jeffery!

Tom,
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.

Steve Fri, Oct 13, 2006 - 5:36 am

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

Mac Fri, Oct 13, 2006 - 6:24 am

Check out the latest cartoon by DeCinzo:

http://www.communitynewspapers.com/willow_glen/letters_opinions2.shtml

A picture - or in this case a cartoon - says a thousand words!

Swift Plane Veterans for Truth Fri, Oct 13, 2006 - 6:36 am

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.

David D. Fri, Oct 13, 2006 - 7:03 am

#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.

johnmichael o'connor Fri, Oct 13, 2006 - 7:28 am

Tom McE:  What price victory, you ask?  For Cindy & RR, DB & RC, it would seem to be “Victory at any price!”

ABC Fri, Oct 13, 2006 - 7:48 am

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.

Likewise Fri, Oct 13, 2006 - 8:24 am

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.

Michael Schwerin Fri, Oct 13, 2006 - 8:57 am

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.

Just Wondering II Fri, Oct 13, 2006 - 12:18 pm

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.

Bobby Fri, Oct 13, 2006 - 2:49 pm

#78, #79 -

You have to go to this site:

http://tinyurl.com/ym2pwe

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.

johnmichael o'connor Fri, Oct 13, 2006 - 3:08 pm

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.

Democratic party represents people Fri, Oct 13, 2006 - 3:20 pm

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

Checkmate Fri, Oct 13, 2006 - 8:09 pm

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.

David D. Sat, Oct 14, 2006 - 8:33 am

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?

David D. Sat, Oct 14, 2006 - 8:35 am

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.

Richard Robinson Sat, Oct 14, 2006 - 1:07 pm

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.

ABC Sat, Oct 14, 2006 - 1:47 pm

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.

P. White Sat, Oct 14, 2006 - 1:49 pm

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.

ABC Sat, Oct 14, 2006 - 2:40 pm

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”
http://tinyurl.com/yjd42p

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?

David D. Sat, Oct 14, 2006 - 3:10 pm

#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.

Richard, 
The people are getting a grip.

Steve Sat, Oct 14, 2006 - 6:20 pm

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?

Mal Content Sat, Oct 14, 2006 - 6:41 pm

#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.

Jean Sun, Oct 15, 2006 - 12:58 pm

#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.

Bedtime for Gonzo Sun, Oct 15, 2006 - 8:58 pm

The question is: Why is Rich Robinson writing on this blog and not his own?

Michael Schwerin Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 5:08 am

#96
Because he has no choice.  No one reads his blog.

ABC Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 5:21 am

He has a blog?

Wondering Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 6:37 am

Who is Rich Robinson??

johnmichael o'connor Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 8:42 am

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.

David D. Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 9:47 am

JMO #100   RR #88

Could the no-issue combat campaigns and low voter turnout be the unintended consequences of the two-party system? 

Could Karl Rove have understood this early on in his career and used it to exploit the worst in people?

TV political ads for Congressional candidates in Nevada this year seem to play down or not not advertise their party affiliation.

I wonder what a democracy without political parties would be like.

Would candidates be more inclined to control and be responsible for the tone and content of their campaign?

Would it make a difference?

Bridget Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 11:48 am

Interesting thoughts. I must admit the concept of having candidates run without declaring a party is a very thought provoking idea. Certainly would be interesting to see what would happen. Would more people vote? Or would they continue to look at politicians in disgust?
I never thought I’d agree with Richard but, he’s right. If people really paid more attention to the issues, rather then gossip, may be negative campaigning would be a thing of the past.
By the way Richard, if you are reading this, I heard a very nice story about you at the Reed campaign headquarters yesterday. I must say I was impressed that you tried to help a friend in need, when others probably wouldn’t.  It was a very touching side of you I had never heard before. Now when I read things you write that annoy me, I can at least put a kinder more integrity ridden side of you in my mind.

Richard Robinson Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 11:51 am

David,

You and George Washington.  Seems our first President warned of the evils of party politics.

Low voter turnout is now an “intended” consequence of a nasty campaigns.  The lower the voter turnout the more “control” a consultant has on determining the outcome.

That is why most consultant’s prefer “special elections”, it is easier to determine the outcome by limiting to voting universe to your supporters.

Karl Rove has never won a national campaign, but he has stolen three.  Rove has taken negative campaigning and control of voter turnout to its logical conclusion—he has rigged the elections.

Bush just opined that he believed the House and Senate would stay Republican, against all polling evidence to the contrary.  It was not wishful thinking, he knows the votes have already been counted.

Why is it exit polls in the United States are flawed, but in Chechnya they showed the election results to be invalid?  The Conyer Report, the Georgia Patch and the Florida debacle show clearly that republican victories over the past three election cycles were fabricated.

But the American people don’t care as long as the TV is up.  We live in a dictatorship and nobody seems to care.

Please prove me wrong in this election.

Finally, the largest growing number of voters are Decline to State (DTS) voters are eschewing both parties.  The ads in Nevada reflect this trend,  appeal to the wide middle and you will win overwhelmingly.

Arnold has also adopted this strategy.  But most candidates in California appeal to a small minority of voters in their own party and hope to make the opposing candidate the lesser of two evils.

Hence the never-ending cycle of negative TV ads, declining voter turn-out and less than stellar public officials.

But in the final analysis the American people have only themselves to blame.  For if the took their duties as citizens seriously, they would have risen up years ago and stopped the fraud and this mindless approach to choosing leaders.

It is, afterall, ultimately in their hands.  But it would cause them to have to put down their remote.  Not likely.

Richard Robinson Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 12:24 pm

Bridget,

Thank you for the kind words.

Political differences aside, I’ve found most people have a “good” side to them—but it isn’t often brought up in the middle of a political campaign.

Steve Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 12:39 pm

Two parties versus one.  Don’t we have a one party experiment with the race for mayor in San Jose?

From the looks of things, this race between two Democrats looks as ugly as any Republican/Democrat race.

Why are the local Democrats spending so much money and effort to knock off one of their own?  Is the tent so small that a guy like Reed cannot be a member of the local Democrats club?

Since there are few significant differences between Reed and Chavez on the major issues, I cannot imagine why the local Democrats hate Reed so much.

R. Bitrator Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 1:02 pm

105 - Can you labor?

Just Wondering II Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 1:28 pm

#105 Steve,

I’ve been wondering the same thing (great minds think alike) why doesn’t the Democratic Party give equal amounts of money both Reed and Chavez? Could it be because Reed will stand up to the bullies when they insist on pushing their agenda, even though it might be a bad for the majority?

As an example, I will point to the new city hall. It’s a nice building. Unfortunately, it’s over priced and doesn’t accomodate city staff as promissed.

johnmichael o'connor Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 2:26 pm

David D #101 writes: “I wonder what a democracy without political parties would be like.”

David, I wonder what a democracy would be like.  The US of A is not a democracy.  It never has been.  It never will be. The founding fathers [should I have capitalized those “F’s”?] were EXTREEEEMELY wary of a democracy [all those pesky low lifes, ya know], and decided quite clearly that we would not have one here.

The two party system does have its faults, as you correctly point out.  Would you prefer, say, Italy?  How many post-WWII governments have they had?  Thirty?  Forty?  I stopped counting.

The problem here is less parties per se, but abject party loyalty—the Good German Syndrome.  But then, it kinda works in Britain.
What are we to do?

Vote our consciences?  What about those who have no conscience, how do they vote?

Our government is muddy/muddled.  We plod along, despite our politicians.  Our so-called leaders have become followers…of the latest poll numbers.  Seems like we’re doomed, doesn’t it?  I’ve rambled aimlessly enough.

It’s DEFINTELY time for another Boston Tea Party.  THROW ALL THE BUMS OUT; and they are ALL bums.

johnmichael o'connor Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 2:40 pm

RR#103 said: “But most candidates in California appeal to a small minority of voters in their own party and hope to make the opposing candidate the lesser of two evils.”

I presume you meant that the opposing candidate was the GREATER of two evils.

Richard Robinson Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 2:43 pm

If a man says he is a goat, does it actually make it so?

Reed is a Republican, despite his protestations to the contrary.  His political consultant is a Republican and a lobbyist.  He won the primary appealing to right wing republicans, his position on choice is out of the Democratic mainstream. 

As Pat Dando found out, you cannot win an election in San Jose being a Republican.  So Chuck does what every successful politician does, he becomes a Democrat.

Not as bad as charging off your life membership to the Veterans of Foreign Wars with taxpayer money, but a little disingenious nonetheless.

Chuck is a DINO, Democrat in Name Only.

We shall now hear a chorus of Chuck Reed was for JFK in 1960. 

Caveat Emptor!

David D. Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 2:43 pm

Yes, both candidates are Democrats.  Both want what’s best for San Jose.  Both have similar platforms and visions for the City.

But the “Party” has room for only one candidate, and the “Party” must win.  Sad.

The Party paints the other Democrat as a pro big business anti-labor Republican.  While the other Democrat claims his opponent is a Party puppet run amuck.  Sad.

If this were a race between someone like Richard Pombo and Cindy Chavez I could understand the rancor and Rove-like campaign.  But with Chuck and Cindy, it’s like a moderate Dem vs. a left Dem.

Anyone read the book “The Radical Center”? 

Interesting how real solutions and breakthrough progress is often found between the extreme positions. 

Interesting how good people in both parties have become dysfunctional in a governmental body as they align themselves with and become directed by their part affiliation. 

Does it have to be like this at the City level when “The Party” pours money and influence into local politics? 

Like JWII suggests, can’t the Party quietly support both in the primary; and then back each in the runoff to assure balanced funding and let the people choose? 

Would this not give the Party a stronger candidate to back at some later time in a State or National race?

You folks know more about this than I do.  Any thoughts?

Wondering Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 3:06 pm

Just think how bad it would be if this weren’t a non-partisan race. Yikes!

ABC Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 3:39 pm

#110 Rich, “We shall now hear a chorus of Chuck Reed was for JFK in 1960.”

Actually, what we’ll probably hear from Cindy’s camp are things like,

“Chuck Reed now refuses to deny he kidnapped the Lindbergh baby”

“Chuck Reed now refuses to say if he was on the grassy knoll”

“Chuck Reed now refuses to say where Jimmy Hoffa is buried”

“Chuck Reed now refuses to say what’s up with Area 51”

“Chuck Reed now refuses to tell us where the lost continent of Atlantis is”

“Chuck Reed now refuses to explain the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle”

“Chuck Reed now refuses to deny he was Jack the Ripper”

“Chuck Reed now refuses to explain Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”

“Chuck Reed now refuses to vote for $4 million dollar subsidies to car races without adequate public notice for the request”

Oh wait… yeah that last one’s true.

Richard Robinson Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 4:39 pm

Now that’s just unfair.

Chuck was nowhere near the Lindberg House when the baby was taken, the gas alone would have cost him 24 cents a gallon.

I also know for a fact he was not in Dallas in ‘63 because his request to be reimbursed from the City was turned down.

Mal Content Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 5:49 pm

#103 Richard: It’s nice to see that you have seen the light and foresworn the sinful ways of nasty campaigns.

This especially heartening since as recently as Saturday (post #88) you were still defending Cindy’s hit pieces on Reed’s supposed tax law violations. (You remember those “legitimate questions”?)

But the Campaign Gods work in mysterious ways, do they not? They are especially unforgiving when the P.R. has been bad and the bare light of dawn reveals that “Oops, we became severely bitten in the arse with this nasty campaign of lies and deception about Reed’s rendering unto Caesar!”

But before your conversion is complete there are a few lessons from Chapter 103 in The Book of Richard to consider:

Who gets your blame for the sorry state of political affairs?

Not the party hacks running Cindy’s phone banks and sending mailers pushing the lie about Reed’s taxes.

Nor the politician who allowed it to happen.

Behold: Richard sayeth it is the voters who don’t take “their duties as citizens seriously.”
(Smite them down, raise their taxes and send them another hit piece! Can I get an “Amen?”) 

Now Richard a question for your meditation: Is this The Word, or the ravings of a false prophet?

Get thee back into the wilderness of Cupertino and further ponder this mystery.

I’m thinking 40 days and 40 nights ought to do it.

Steve Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 6:14 pm

Rich #110,

If Reed isn’t a Democrat I guess he fooled the members of the Santa Clara County Democratic Club who endorsed both Chavez and Reed for Mayor.

Here is what they wrote [1] about their endorsement of Reed:

“While Reed expressed views that were clearly
more conservative than Chavez’s, he presented himself as an ethical, fiscally responsible centrist…”

[1] http://www.democraticclub-scc.org/NewsletterSep.pdf

Richard Robinson Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 7:18 pm

The Santa Clara County Democratic Club is a joke—not to be confused with the Santa Clara Democratic Party.

Again just because you say you are a goat, doesn’t make it true.

The San Francisco Democratic Clubs are even easier to manipulate.  There you just pay your dues at the endorsement meeting.

The candidate who has the most supports join that club wins.

Should we talk about bogus slate cards next?

Just Wondering II Mon, Oct 16, 2006 - 7:41 pm

So,... Mr. 117 RR,

Are we to understand that Cynthia Chavez Potter somehow paid her dues and agreed to abide under the terms of the secret handshake to be endorsed by ” The real Democratic Party and do as instructed till politics do us part?”

Is that what it takes to get their indorsement?

Steve Tue, Oct 17, 2006 - 5:42 am

[Sorry, I hit enter accidently on that last message before it was ready]

I was going to finish by saying the Santa Clara County Democratic club can’t be that much of a joke.

They have been around for 25 years.  According to their newsletter [1] Zoe Lofgren, Ira Ruskin, Chuck Reed, Cindy Chavez, John McLemore, Patricia Mahan, Dan McCorqoudale etc… all attended their 25th anniversary party. 

[1] http://www.democraticclub-scc.org/NewsletterAug.pdf

Jean Tue, Oct 17, 2006 - 7:36 am

#110 - Richard Robinson: 

Chuck Reed is not a Republican. Chuck Reed is not a Liberal Democrat either.  HE IS A MODERATE DEMOCRAT, something that the Democratic Party here in Santa Clara County has always shunned.  ALWAYS.  Just like you can’t be a moderate Republican and be accepted by conservatives, you can’t be a moderate Democrat and be accepted by liberals.  That is the problem with our local Democratic Party.  They DISCRIMINATE against anyone who is not like them, and doesn’t believe like them. 
I would like to see a Democratic Party where when differences like this come up, they talk about it, understand those differences, and accept them for what they are, instead of judging people because they are not like them.  To me, it is no different than the hatred we see in different parts of society - “you are not like me, I don’t understand you, so you are bad.”  To this I want to say, “GROW UP”.

Jean Tue, Oct 17, 2006 - 7:41 am

Anyone seen the Council Meeting where the City Attorney warned Cindy against coordinating with the Democratic Party on her mailers?  Interesting.  It was a Study Session.  I was real suprised.

Richard Robinson Tue, Oct 17, 2006 - 4:26 pm

Given the cogent legal advice the City Attorney has produced so far, don’t you think he ought to be advising the Santa Clara County Democratic Club—or some other second-rate organization—the Chamber perhaps?

BTW—Where is everybody’s sense of humor?  It’s not like thousands of people are going to die if Cindy or Chuck are elected.

For that we have to wait for the results of the House and Senate vote.

Bridget Tue, Oct 17, 2006 - 8:33 pm

Richard,
I must say you have been teaching me a lot lately. Aside from our differing choice for Mayoral candidates, I must admit I honestly never realized how much voters are manipulated by special elections, political parties, etc.
I mean, when you really think about it, it’s really rather depressing. So, tell me this, why should we vote if we are being jerked around so much that we don’t know which end is up?

For #121 Jean Tue, Oct 17, 2006 - 9:22 pm

For 121 Jean,

Which Special study session was it?  The Date?

Richard Robinson Wed, Oct 18, 2006 - 10:01 am

Bridget,

Truth will set you free.  Politics is a participatory endeavor.  The answers are out there, but it takes effort to find them. 

In a perfect world voters need to rebel against the system.  But that does not happen by not voting, it happens by engagement.

We need leaders to emerge who will not “join” the system.  Knowing how to say no to the system.  Moreover we need a sophisticated voting public who will not punish a public official for speaking the politically incorrect truth.

Most importantly, we must challenge current assumptions.  We must not believe the myths that are created to keep us docile and content.  We must understand the system we are trying to correct as not to be seduced by it.

One of the reasons I post on this board is to counter prevailing and widely accepted myths that are simply untrue.

It has been my experience in politics that most people agree on the goals—be they Republican or Democrat.  Everybody wants a good economy, a clean environment, better education for our children, protection for “evil doers” and an opportunity for a better life.

In these goals, few differ.  Politics is about the priorities we set and the tactics we utilize as a society for achieving these goals.

That is where the difference really lies.  However, if we can get people to agree on the goals before they start shouting at each other regarding the tactics, we can usually move the ball forward.

Unfortunately, our current political system doesn’t allow for the dialogue to take place.  It is a contest, where winning and losing is the only thing that matters. 

In short, we are too busy trying to prove our political opponents are crooks or worse—and the sheer number and myriad of ethics and campaign finance laws allows us to focus attention on these matters.

However, this prevents the substance of issues to emerge and it makes causes political contests to become a game of gotcha instead of a real contest of ideas or leadership skills. 

And this system will continue until the voters rebel and actively reject it at the polls.  But that requires two elements not currently part of the body politic—a candidate willling to risk and an educated, engaged electorate.

But I’m an optimist, at some point the conditions will be so bad, a candidate will emerge and the electorate must engage.

Let’s just hope the tools are still available to fix the system.  As it stands now, the Constitution of the United States is in deep peril and the basic checks and balances it incorporated have ceased to exist.

So it must happen soon.

David D. Wed, Oct 18, 2006 - 12:21 pm

Richard,  125

IF   the Constitution of the United States is in deep peril and the basic checks and balances it incorporated have ceased to exist…

...  it will be a FREE PRESS and a pissed off electorate that will rediscover and embrace the Constitution and the basic checks and balances.

Jean Wed, Oct 18, 2006 - 1:01 pm

#124 - It was Last Tuesday.  Check the online council meeting for last tuesday.  I was told by a couple of friends of mine who watched the special session, and were amazed.  That is why I asked.  I have not had a chance to look at the whole meeting, but I believe it is the last item, since that is where they are talking about independent expenditure committees.

Richard Robinson Wed, Oct 18, 2006 - 3:59 pm

David,

The press is not free or unbiased ie. Fox, Murdock etc. 

A research project showed many of our citizens would vote against the Bill of Rights as currently written.  Hence the need for the ACLU.

On Jay Leno, many could not identify the first amendment.

The majority in this country believe in the Constitution and the Bible, yet have read neither.

It doesn’t mean they can’t be educated, but it is going to take a significant event that punctures their comfortable lifestyle.  A draft, rationing of gas, energy blackouts—something that actually affects their lifestyle.  It has to get their attention.

Currently, the only way to “piss off” our noble citizens is to remove their remote and close their fast food restaraunts—neither of which seems probable.

However, I’m with you all the way, if we can accomplish it.

But education is the first step.

David D. Wed, Oct 18, 2006 - 6:33 pm

Richard,  128

RR:  The press is not free or unbiased ie. Fox, Murdock etc. >>

DD:  Absolutely.  Sure.  News is a business.  Media moves money and visa versa constricting its freedom.  No question.  However, just look at the endless stream of books published by Bush insiders that uncover everything from the NeoCon PNAC, to Rove milking the Faith Based for money and support, to Woodward’s State of Denial.  This is the free press I’m talking about.

RR:  A research project showed many of our citizens would vote against the Bill of Rights as currently written.  Hence the need for the ACLU.

DD:  Doesn’t surprise me.  Civics, American history and government are NOT high on the caricula of today’s education objectives.  Doesn’t mean our kids are stupid or incapable of learning; it’s just that they might have to learn the lessons of our fathers the hard way and later in life.

RR:  On Jay Leno, many could not identify the first amendment.

DD:  Yeh I know.  Pretty sad.

RR:  The majority in this country believe in the Constitution and the Bible, yet have read neither.

DD:  Sad.  However it’s those that belive in and have read the Bible that put “W” in office and supported his mission in Iraq… and later wave the flag in support of that.  Sad.  But they too may learn the lessons of life, politics and Jesus Christ the hard way and late in life.

RR:  It doesn’t mean they can’t be educated, but it is going to take a significant event that punctures their comfortable lifestyle.  A draft, rationing of gas, energy blackouts—something that actually affects their lifestyle.  It has to get their attention.

DD:  Let’s hope it does not have to come to that.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

RR:  Currently, the only way to “piss off” our noble citizens is to remove their remote and close their fast food restaraunts—neither of which seems probable.

DD:  No… how about removing their access to FNN and late-night radical-right radio talk shows and forcing them to watch CNN, MSNBC,  PBS and listen to NPR.  They can still go through fast food drive-thus until the doctor informs them that Type II Diabeates is now their number one concern… and their children’s number one concern.

RR:  But education is the first step.

DD:  and thus a free press; not an FNN press or Murdock Press.

Bridget Wed, Oct 18, 2006 - 10:38 pm

#125, Richard,
I like this side of you much better. When you are not touting Cindy’s virtues, you are actually quite nice to learn from.
I guess the truth is that I vote because I want to participate in life, my community, and my country. It gets difficult at times because there really is a lot of self educating, studying, talking to well informed experts, before making a responsible decision. I’m usually exhausted by election day, but truthfully, I feel pretty sure I’ve cast the best vote I know how, given all the misinformation, negative campaigning, and manipulation that goes on.
I like the thought of voters revolting, taking a stand, and in some ways I think people already are. They are by not voting. I don’t agree with that method, but with 60% of the populous not voting, I think the message is starting to be heard.
I personally would like to see protests against all this propaganda, and I’d like to see people hold politicians accountable for their lack of integrity, and not just at election time. I’d like to see good people run, but until elections can’t be bought and sold, I guess we’re SOL.
You know Richard, you would make an awesome teacher. Think it over. It doesn’t pay as well as being a political consultant, but you may just be the change our system needs. As Sally Ride said to President Reagan, ” I’ve already touched the future, I’m a teacher.”

Refugio Moreno Thu, Oct 19, 2006 - 6:27 am

#125 RR,

I’m always impressed by your eloquent presentation and knowledge of our political environment. Having said that, how would you compare Cindy and Chuck based on their voting record on the city council. What I’m getting is this:

We know how things have turned out with many of the projects Cindy supported (city hall, Grand Prix…) and how those projects consumed large sums of money thereby putting a strain on the city as a whole. Let’s assume Reed would have had his way. How do you think the city would look? How do you think things would be functioning as a whole (pot holes. city services…)?

johnmichael o'connor Thu, Oct 19, 2006 - 7:50 am

RR: Yesterday I received the Cindy hit piece with the title “When He Needed Money’, which spoke truthfully in large part about Chuck’s tapping the public till for completely improper purposes.

Then it went on to state: “Say you screwed up;say you learned from this mistake; say you’ll lead the fight to close the loopholes and find a better way to pay for the civic involvement we expect from public officials. And then say you’re sorry to the people of San Jose…”

Actually, RR, as you and Cindy well know, Chuck has indeed said all those things.  This painting of a false picture is the kind of reprehensible conduct we’ve come to expect of Cindy and her consultants.

Don’t tell me Chuck hadn’t said all those things before press time, ‘cuz during election season these bulletins can be printed up in a couple of days, if not mere hours.

That part of the piece is deceptive when it needn’t have been, since the truth alone is troubling enough.

It would be difficult to believe you did not have a hand in this misinformation, given your position with Cindy.

The piece also says “Paid for by San Jose First, a coalition of labor and business”.  I googled it unsuccessfully.  Who is San Jose First, and name the business groups that are a part of it?  Another deception, I suspect.  It’s probably just the SBLC.

David D. Thu, Oct 19, 2006 - 1:25 pm

RR:

Something I overlooked in reading the Grand Jury testimony now pops up in the Metro:  to 60 questions put to Cindy she responded, “I don’t remember.”  I did not count them; but it sounds conceivable.  Do you know if it’s true?

Ron and Joe had their testimony withheld from publication and Cindy answers, “I don’t remember.” to 60 questions in criminal investigation.  You have to admit, it does lead one to wonder.  Ronald Reagan after leaving office…  “don’t remember”….  I can buy that.

Cindy Chavez, Vice Mayor, key Council member, viable candidate for Mayor of the 11th largest city in the country…  “can’t remember”?  I don’t think so.

Climbing mountain roads on a bike on a beautiful fall day clears the mind and provides time for reflection; and these thoughts crossed my mind: 

1)  What if in the criminal investigation leading up to the NorCal trial in May, some attendees or principals in those meetings or conversations she can’t remember provide detailed accounts or answers to some of those questions Cindy can’t remember? 

2)  What if those answers lead to or implicate the Vice Mayor in the NorCal deal? 

3)  Is there any possibility she could be an un-indicted co-conspirator?  Odds?

4)  How would it reflect on the City if we elected her Mayor in November, she took office in January, and became a defendant a few months later?

I know this is pretty hard to swallow, but just like Chuck’s $38,000 expenses he repaid; until she answers those questions, it’s a reality the citizens of San Jose have to deal with.

David D. Thu, Oct 19, 2006 - 2:33 pm

When responding on the record to a question, Cindy said;

“He needs to run against me and my record…”

Would that be her rubber-stamp voting record supporting indicted Mayor Ron Gonzales, or her 60 Grand Jury responses, “I don’t remember.”… also a matter of record?

Every Mayor and Mayoral candidate sits on committees, has wonderful ideas, lends support and good words, rallies people to support improvements, etc. etc. etc.

Not every Mayor or Mayoral candidate has rubber-stamp-supported those now under criminal indictment.

Not every Mayor or Mayoral candidate has responded to 60 Grand Jury questions with the response, “I don’t remember.”

Maybe when Cindy invited Chuck Reed to run against her and her record, she should have been more specific.

Richard Robinson Thu, Oct 19, 2006 - 8:30 pm

Those attacking Cindy for her Grand Jury testimony have never been advised by counsel.

When you can’t recall, specifically, a meeting, conversation etc.  Don’t guess and don’t deny.  Say you can’t remember.

This is why Grand Jury testimony should be secret.  It is easy to embarrass a person who makes a mistake.  The way not to make a mistake is to answer the question honestly.

If you don’t know, don’t speculate.  If you are not a lawyer—and as you have no counsel in a Grand Jury hearing—you may be unaware of the legal consequences of your answer, honest as you were in trying to answer.

Using Grand Jury transcripts to paint a person as unintelligent or hiding something is despicable.

I can only wish those of you who are attacking her a nice long session, without counsel, in a secret session, where you have to answer questions and anything you say may be turned against you.

This is horse manure—and Chuck—being a lawyer—should stop his folks right now.  They have no idea what they are talking about.

Richard Robinson Thu, Oct 19, 2006 - 8:40 pm

JMO,

I have not seen the mailer to which you refer.

However, Chuck’s initial and subsequent response to his unethical actions was similar to our current Mayor’s.  What offends me most is the sheer hypocricy of the whole matter.  I’m for ethics, but Chuck’s approach has been to ride the wave as a holier than thou politiician. 

It’s not just that he made a mistake, but he made it on the issue for which he has demonized others.

Where is his call for investigation?  Where is the outrage over the system?  Where are the calls for censure or resignation?  Where or the Reformers on his ethics problem?

I guess, in the middle of a campaign, the reformers can turn a blind eye to the one they support.

Is it becaue the Mayor and Terry Gregory are different colors?  If Cindy Chavez had done what he did, he’d and they would be calling for her resignation in an indignant tone.

See http://www.rant.sv411.com for a full analysis of why I believe Cindy is better than Chuck.

It’s back.

Bridget Thu, Oct 19, 2006 - 9:09 pm

#132, San Jose First has the same address as United Food and Commercial Workers. (240 S. Market) I think this mailer is the lowest form of unethical, and misrepresentation of the facts that has been sent out by Chavez yet.
I have noticed that Chavez has now patterned her goals, visions, and politics after Reed’s, to give the illusion of sharing Reed’s politics. By doing this, she’s also trying to get voters to forget her past voting record, and the fact that she has contended all a long that Reed has been a loner, and has been nothing but a nay sayer. The sad fact is that people are actually buying this act she’s putting on. Chavez lost her soul a long time ago. She is the property of the majority, the Democratic Party, and Labor. She is thicker than a thief with Gonzo. Her back room deals, secret meetings, and notes on butcher paper have not been forgotten. Her neighbors want to hang her out to dry for breaking promises, and citizens are fed up with her two faced behavior. 
She has gotten people to put pressure on others to support her, and to donate to her. I’ve heard business owners say that Labor is using pressure politics on them, and they’re fearful of not complying. They say Labor has been threatening sick-outs on hotels, restaurants, and other businesses.
At this point, I would not be surprised if Chavez used donations to her campaign to bribe poor, desperate families to vote for her. That is how low I think she’s sunk.

I’m totally disgusted with her and her cronies.

Wondering Thu, Oct 19, 2006 - 9:27 pm

Ah, now we’re getting back to “normal.” The old, spinning, Rich is back. Shows how bad things are going for the Chavez campaign—look how long it took him to try and come up with some kind of spin in her favor. And this is the best he could do?? It’s too bad. At one time Cindy would have made a decent mayor, but that Cindy doesn’t exsist any more. Too bad.
Welcome Back, Rich.

Jean Thu, Oct 19, 2006 - 9:47 pm

Richard -

You make it sound like what Chuck did was criminal. If that were so, then:

- why did the City Clerk state that her office reviews EACH AND EVERY reimbursement request from ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS, and state that, while they have in the past refused some reimbursements, that they did not refuse ANY OF CHUCK REED’S reimbursements? 

- why do you neglect to mention that Chuck Reed was following a COUNCIL POLICY that allowed reimbursements?
- that he was only doing something that CINDY CHAVEZ, NORA CAMPOS, KEN YEAGER, DAVE CORTESE, and many other Council Members have done?

That mailer is nothing more than a HIT PIECE.  It is not factual - it is a misrepresentation of the facts, and it’s ONLY purpose is to sling mud onto Chuck Reed. 

Funny how that seems to be the only criticism of Reed she has.

Bridget Thu, Oct 19, 2006 - 10:11 pm

Richard,
Your assertions that Chavez is some kind of virtuous, integrity ridden person is ridiculous. Your statements that Reed broke the law, and should be investigated is equally unfounded. The City Attorney reviewed all expenditures and did not say Reed should repay one red cent, nor did he say Reed violated any laws. What he said was that some of SEVERAL of the Council Members, Chavez included, made donations to groups that may have been too political, or religious. Yeager only paid back a very small portion of questionable donations, while Williams, Chavez, Campos, and Cortese paid back NONE. Go watch the Council Meetings on line. See the FACTS for yourself.
Secondly, Chavez spearheaded removing Gregory, with a majority of the Council, including the support of the Mayor. After Chavez saw that her campaign was in deep trouble due to her alliance to the Mayor, and because she stopped the investigation into the Norcal deal, she then, and ONLY then, moved prematurely to try to get the Mayor kicked out of office.
Chavez could have gotten Ron removed legally, in Dec. of last year, when he admitted withholding facts on Norcal from the Council. Instead, she got a majority to censure Ron.  So the race card doesn’t wash here.
Also, Chavez was quoted in the Merc as saying that the first Grand Jury’s investigation read like a tabloid. The exact same statement Ron gave. You can’t twist the facts on us Richard.
If anything should be investigated and punished, it is Chavez’s withholding of information for two months, from the Council on the Grand Prix, and the secret meeting at her house attended by fellow Council Members, to write the Sunshine Laws down on butcher paper. That is in direct violation of open government she touts, and in violation of the Brown Act.
Finally, the City Attorney also cautioned Chavez that her coordination with the Democratic Party, and Labor on mailers, and ads is illegal. I think that should be investigated, and she should be booted off the Council for it. But, as someone said earlier, the reformers are a sleep at the wheel, or may be they’re just too busy working on her campaign to notice.

k.le Thu, Oct 19, 2006 - 11:21 pm

Chavez’s deceit, political grandstanding, dirty campaigning are out there for anyone to see unless they want to cover their eyes to it, like paid political consultants who love to write about how our political system is broken when they themself are contributing to the problem.  Hyprocrisy is the word.

Funny that the only mailers the Chavez camp has sent just point out Reed’s reimbursements (in a deceptive way too) and to ask us to vote no on Chuck. 

Are there no positive achievements that Chavez can point to in her years in office that can convince voters to vote for her?  Or is she afraid of bringing up her record: millions of taxpayer dollars wasted, backroom political dealmaking, actions and half-truths based on political expediency.  Come to think of it, maybe it is a better campaign strategy to throw mud at your opponent (even if you are wallowing in the mud yourself).

Just Wodering II Fri, Oct 20, 2006 - 6:04 am

For all of you who support Reed,

Do you think Mr. Robinson is using you as a source of information to plan Cindy’s strategy?

Let’s face it, whether we like it or not, the poles show Cindy is gaining on Chuck. Maybe those of you not walking precincts should consider joining Chucks campaign before Nov. 7th.

Just a thought…

David D. Fri, Oct 20, 2006 - 6:06 am

Richard,

Is it possible that someone can be immersed in politics so long that they view their community and everyone engaged in wanting to improve it as participating in a zero sum game with only one worthwhile end… where winning at any cost is acceptable?

What must a Cindy think of her neighbors and fellow citizens to assume that they are simple, naïve, gullible sheep incapable of independent thought?
Richard, you said:  “Using Grand Jury transcripts to paint a person as unintelligent or hiding something is despicable.”
Using Chuck’s testimony out of context to paint him as a knowledgeable insider hiding secret information is perfectly ok?

Is it possible one can be too immersed in politics?

Wondering Fri, Oct 20, 2006 - 7:07 am

142 - As will be shown, the “polls” were cooked. The real “poll” will be 11.7 when Chavez is retired.

David D. Fri, Oct 20, 2006 - 8:33 am

# 142

Walking a precinct in a race likes this is inefficient and a waste of resources.  It’s like walking a precinct for George Bush or John Kerry. 

With the hit pieces, mud slinging, and the shrill of expressed feelings in this race, it doesn’t appear there are many minds that could be changed or influenced by an annoying uninvited visitor.

Undecided voters are most probably ‘apathetic’ voters or ones that ‘decline to state’; and a stranger knocking on the door runs as much chance of gaining a vote as turning one off..

Maybe in a race between unknowns where folks truly want to know something about the candidates, walking a precinct would be more productive.

I may be wrong about this; but it’s just an impression received from walking a precinct in a Mayoral election years ago.

abc Fri, Oct 20, 2006 - 8:46 am

#136 Rich, I read your analysis and now that I’ve stopped laughing, I just wanted to make one comment.  There seems to be a lot of noise about how Cindy “forms consensus”.  The problem is Cindy is forming consensus on bad public policy.  “Let’s authorize $4 million dollar subsidies without adequate public notice?  You bet”.  “Let’s stop investigations about my buddy Ron, Absolutely”.  “Let’s do an illegal land grab on the Tropicana and get the city sued.  I can’t wait.”

Voting for Cindy is ensuring that if consensus means jumping off a cliff, she’ll lead the city over that cliff.  Voting for Chuck means there will at least be a voice at the mayor’s podium that says, “Please, let’s not jump off a cliff.  I know I’m not being a team player about this, but jumping off a cliff is the wrong thing to do.”

We need someone who will change the culture of cliff diving at City Hall.  Cindy isn’t that person.

Just Wondering II Fri, Oct 20, 2006 - 11:25 am

# 145

Cindy wanted the public to judge her and Reed on their record. My concern is that Reed is not hammering that point to the public the same way the Cindy camp is hammering Reed’s $38,000 reimbursments. Even though Reed has clear up the mess with the media and the city attorney, the Cindy camp won’t let it go. I think it’s still rings true to a lot of unsuspecting voters; and that has me a little concerned.

Instead of being nicy nice with Cindy as seen at the last debate, he needs to open up the dialogue where the public can compare their records and clearly see where the RonCindy administration has constantly lead us astray by “pulling the wool over our eyes”

The truth ought to be able to stick to her, unless she’s made of teflon…

Richard Robinson Fri, Oct 20, 2006 - 12:49 pm

David D.

I think Chuck made some mistakes in his GJ testimony.  As a lawyer, he would know the difference. 

Contradicting your own public statements vs. saying you “don’t recall” is a huge distinction.

But I think Cindy’s campaign over-reached in putting the charge forward because it took three pieces of paper to make the case.

At the sametime, no one has given Cindy credit for her private actions in telling her own constituency that it was not a “City Problem”—especially after all the innuendo that she was an unindicted coconspirator.

As the election gets closer, I think the reason Cindy is finally surging is that her message is finally getting out.

This is in part due to Chuck’s fatal flaw—it’s hard to say you’ll “clean house” when your own dirty laundry is a major part of the problem.

Dr. Spin Fri, Oct 20, 2006 - 1:28 pm

Richie, Richie—“...Cindy is finally surging…”????? Even Cindy knows that isn’t true, but I guess as a good solidier you are required to spread misinformation.

David D. Fri, Oct 20, 2006 - 3:17 pm

Ridhard…

RR… I think Chuck made some mistakes in his GJ testimony.  As a lawyer, he would know the difference.

“Q”  You said, “I think”?  Sounds again like Richardspin for Cindy.  The innuendo etc.
RR…  Contradicting your own public statements vs. saying you “don’t recall” is a huge distinction.

DD…  If you mean adding the context that Cindyspin left out to create a hit piece; yes it is a huge distinction.  The SJMN even called it a blatent misrepresentation of his testimony.  “Don’t recall.” Is no big deal.  60 times sounds like taking the Fifth Amendment.  And Richard; you know that Cindy and the Central Committee would be all over that if it were Chuck who said “Don’t recall.” 60 times.  What’s fair for the goose is fair for the gander.

RR…  But I think Cindy’s campaign over-reached in putting the charge forward because it took three pieces of paper to make the case.

“Q”  Or because the three hit pieces got old and began to smell.

RR…  At the sametime, no one has given Cindy credit for her private actions in telling her own constituency that it was not a “City Problem”—especially after all the innuendo that she was an unindicted coconspirator.

“Q”  Are you speaking about the Norcal indictments?  And Cindy is telling her constituency that it’s not a “City Problem”?  You’re kidding.  Right?  And we all should give her credit for trying to convince folks of this?  Could you clarify this?  Thanks.

RR…  As the election gets closer, I think the reason Cindy is finally surging is that her message is finally getting out.

“Q”  Out to who?  To people who read news papers, follow city government, care about fiscal responsibility and open government?  Or those folks that fall in love with what they want to hear?

RR…  This is in part due to Chuck’s fatal flaw—it’s hard to say you’ll “clean house” when your own dirty laundry is a major part of the problem. 

DD…  Chuck must be in great shape if the Party is still kicking this dead horse.  When the horse goes stiff, starts to bloat and attract flies, it’s time to go look for a new horse.

Just Wondering II Fri, Oct 20, 2006 - 7:00 pm

Mr. RR,

You claim that Cindy is surging because her message is finally getting out?

What message is that?

Is she personally going to go out and butcher a cow to feed the hungry of San Jose?

Is she going to buy $200.00 hammers and help the homeless build new homes for them?

Or, since the Grand prix was such a success this year, next year she’s going to use personal funds for the race and return the subsidy to the general fund?

Or, maybe she’ll ask for forgiveness and promise not to waste public funds any more; or any less.

What is her message?

David D. Sat, Oct 21, 2006 - 7:07 am

Richard…  you said “no one has given Cindy credit for her private actions in telling her own constituency that it was not a “City Problem”—”

This sounds a little obtuse.  Could you take a few minutes and fill us in what your talking about? 

What exactly “... was not a “City Problem”?  And how did she communicate this to only those in her district?

Thanks Richard.

David

johnmichael o'connor Sat, Oct 21, 2006 - 3:19 pm

RR#135: Nice try, Rich.  I agree that if someone truly doesn’t know the answer, an “I don’t recall” is the best answer.  But it is also clearly a way to keep damaging testimony from coming out, since it’s virtually impossible to prove the person was lying.  BUT SIXTY TIMES RICH, that’s blatant bullsh*t.  Not even you can spin that into any vestige of credibility.

If Cindy could not recall sixty times on issues of clear weight and importance, she doesn’t deserve to be a city-employed janitor, let alone a councilmember or Da Mayor.

You’re grasping at wet straws when you have to give a lawyered up answer to her alleged lack of recollection before the Grand Jury.  It’s pathetic, Rich.

johnmichael o'connor Sat, Oct 21, 2006 - 3:29 pm

RR#136:  I cannot disagree with you, Rich, re Chuck’s donning the mantle of moral superiority, running on a campaign stressing ethics, and claiming hundreds of questionable reimbursements, and many that are beyond questionable, probably illegal.  I consider his actions indefensible in that regard.

However, he has tried to make amends, he has apologized. Yet the recent mailer I got from San Jose First [which I now know is from the labor guys—retail clerks, etc.—and NOT a “coalition of labor and business” as theyFALSELY claim], implies that he hasn’t made an attempt to be purged of that sin.

So, Rich, in your consultant’s book of ethics is it acceptable for a purely labor group to falsely claim that they are a coalition of labor and business?  If I were Chuck, I’d file a complaint with the FPPC on that one.  I’d skip the SJ Ethics Board, since they are constitutionally challenged at best.

Has San Jose Firstr registered with anyone?  How come googling it comes up empty?  What are they hiding?  Have they filed campaign expenditure reports?

johnmichael o'connor Sat, Oct 21, 2006 - 3:37 pm

RR # 148 said: “As the election gets closer, I think the reason Cindy is finally surging is that her message is finally getting out.”

Well, ya, Rich; but her only message is the “Reedimbursements” that DB coined.

Boy, did DB die or get arrested?  Haven’t heard from DB in a while.  That’s a good thing.  Or did you finally figure out that the DB harangues were counterproductive, so you buried him with Jimmy Hoffa?

David D. Sat, Oct 21, 2006 - 5:57 pm

Richard,

If in the close days of this race Phil Angelides is double digit numbers behind in the polls, and Dem’s loose momentum in getting out the vote, could this dampen the Labor show at the polls on election day?

Any thoughts, ideas or insight would like to share with us?

Thanks,

David

David D. Sat, Oct 21, 2006 - 6:34 pm

Richard…

There’s a general feeling out there that Cindy will not talk to media she or her people feel are not complimentary or supportive.

I can understand this.  Like answering Grand Jury questions that might leave you exposed to misunderstandings or such…  there’s no need to talk to confrontational media.

This is old news but reported from the Grand Jury testimony.  (see below)

Is there anything about this that is incorrect, inaccurate, or out of context?  You would know better than us. 

Also, if you were reporting on Finkelstein’s questioning of Cindy,  how would you lay it out for us?  How would you deal with the transcript?

Would you have Cindy deal with this head-on and in a way that was positive for her?

Or would you do everything possible to distance her from transcript and indictments?

If she felt so passionately about voting $11mil for decent wages for the workers, why is she not making it a centerpiece of her campaign?  She is proud of her record is she not?

<<“Finkelstein corners Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez about why she agreed to have taxpayers “shell out an additional 11 million” to Norcal. She squirms around his pointed questioning and takes about 1,000 words to say, “For me, the vote was about whether or not we were going to pay people a decent wage ... From a policy perspective it would not have been inconsistent in my mind to pay for the additional costs.” But the prosecutor doesn’t let Chavez off the hook. No official policy, in fact, required the city pay Norcal for any additional labor costs, and union workers had already been getting their decent wage since the recycling plant opened in 2002. Then Finkelstein pounces: “So the policy in fact being furthered was your policy, not necessarily the city’s policy?” >>

David D. Sat, Oct 21, 2006 - 7:28 pm

Ok Richard,  I accept Cindy’s wish to judge her on her record.  You win.  But I need some help here with the math and understanding the process.

$11.25mil was the extra payment to Norcal.  But let’s assume $1.25mil went to support additions to the scope of work and $10mil went to improve wages as Cindy said.

Assume as this Metro article quotes… “…this entire $11.25 million scandal is about 50 employees at a San Jose recycling plant run by Norcal subcontractor California Waste Solutions”

$10mil divided by 50 employees is $40,000/worker/yr. increase for 5 years. 

How many years was this $10mil to cover?  Any idea?

And if the real worker wage increase times the number of workers over the life of contract adds up to less than $10mil…  where does the rest go?

Did the City Manager or staff have this information or financial details?

Did the Mayor or Joe have this information?

Did anyone on the Council have this information before the vote?

Did the full Council have this information before the vote?

What am I missing here that was matter of public record?

What am I missing that WAS NOT a matter of public record?

With these increases, how do the Norcal/CWS wages compare to grade school teachers and health care workers?  Any idea?

ABC Sun, Oct 22, 2006 - 6:42 am

#148 Rich… “Cindy is finally surging”???  Please tell me you’re not trying to convince Cindy of that.  I have this horrible image of a meeting in Cindy’s office….

<inside Cindy’s office.  Cindy is sitting behind her desk, sobbing uncontrollably.  Also there is RR, looking much like this man—http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/2/27/240px-Villianc.jpg—DB, sitting in a chair with his knees pressed to his chest as he rocks back and forth muttering – looking similar to this person—http://blogs.prisacom.com/rollingstone/wp-content/subidas/2006/04/Dustin-Hoffman—-Rain-Man—C1010188.jpg—and finally RC is there… or is it Justin?>

CC: <sobbing hysterically>  How can I be trailing in the polls?  People like me!  Chuck Reed is a stiff.

RR: There there Cindy,  You’re surging.  BTW, please sign your mortgage over to me.

CC: <still sobbing>  Don’t hand me that crap.  I’m not surging, I’m trailing by 13%!  I was trailing by 2%.  That doesn’t sound like surging to me!  And <sniff> why do you want me to sign over my mortgage?

RR: It’s routine, just in case

DB:  Justin!  Justin!  Justin!

CC:  <snifling> Someone make that idiot shut up.  DB, how many times do I have to tell you RC wears glasses, Justin doesn’t?  I would never let one of my staff blog under an assumed name on Sanjoseinside.com and spread a bunch of falsehoods about my opponent.

RC:  <clearing his throat> ahem.  Cindy, don’t you worry your pretty little head.  I’ll tell you what.  I’ll go blog – incessently, over and over, beating a dead horse until people are beyond sick of hearing about this issue—that Chuck Reed won’t apologize for his complete lack of charisma.  That’ll make you move up in the polls. <he absently mindedly takes off his glasses>

CC:  <looking at RC, or is it Justin?> Justin, where did you come from?  I was just talking to RC and now you’re here.  Where did he go?

RC: 

CC:  Oh, RC, glad you’re back.  Now where did Justin go?

David D. Sun, Oct 22, 2006 - 11:30 am

It’s Sunday…  give it a rest.  N O T

Full disclosure – this may be unfair and mean, but after Chuck paid back $38k out of his own pocket, apologized and asked staff to tighten the reimbursement policy, Cindy continues to beat him over the head with it like a mugger trapped by an angry crowd.  So maybe giving a little back is in order.  (thank you ABC for kicking it off)

    Like Sands Through the Hourglass,  So are the Polls of this Campaign

—-  feeling wrung out but encouraged by Richard. . . —-

CC:  (sniff sniff) you really think I’m surging?
RR:  You know you are Cindy.  Just look around you; Democrats all over the country are surging and here in San Jose you ARE the Princess of Dems.  Folks love you.  You are the heir apparent; the queen in waiting.  Look… the polls are all messed up… you know…  with cell phones and all the weird prefixes and foreign tellapollsters.  Cheer up.  Wipe your eyes.  Put on a happy face.  You are surging.
CC:  Thank you Richard, you don’t know how much I appreciate that.  Speaking of happy face…  lets get out of here.  I’m hungry.
RR:  Great idea.  I’ll drive.
CC:  No way.  You ride with me.  You have to meet my new driver/body guard.  He’s a hunk; retired SJPD and in great shape.  He pumps iron and rides mountain bike you know.  You’ll like him.
—- in the car—-
CC:  Buck; we’re starved.  Step on it; you know where.
—- later in Mc Donald’s—-
CC:  Ok Rich, go ahead and give her your order; I’m still trying to decide.
RR:  I’ll have a grilled chicken and ice tea.  Thanks.
—- Cindy steps forward looking up at the menu—-
Cashier:  Oh my God!…  you’re Cindy Chavez aren’t you.  I’ve heard so much about you.  I wish I was old enough to vote for you.  I can’t wait.
CC:  That is soooo sweet.  Then you must know all about how much good I’ve done for this city.  So informed and so young.  Geee.  Thank you dear.
CC:  I’ll have a Big Mac, fries and Coke.  And before the girl can ring up the bill, Cindy puts two twenties on the counter, turns and heads over to the table to tell Rich all about her new constituent.
—- Cindy’s number is called, she picks up the order, and returns to the table—-
RR:  Didn’t you give her two twenties?
CC:  So?
RR:  Didn’t you have change coming?
CC:  Probably.
RR:  Well?
CC:  She’s a worker.  She works hard.  She likes me.  Life is hard in San Jose.  It’s only right.
RR:  Yeh I know.  But do you know who her father is?
CC:  No, why?
RR:  He owns this franchise and six others in town and she’s here on break.  She’s a junior at Harvard working on her MBA.
CC:  O M G…  She was putting me on wasn’t she?
RR:  Eat your fries.  We have a lot of work to do.

David D. Tue, Oct 24, 2006 - 7:34 am

How many dead horses does a candidate have to kick to become Mayor?

After Chuck paid back $39k, apologized and asked staff to tighten the reimbursement policy, Cindy continues to beat him over the head with it like a mugger trapped by an angry crowd.

Chuck must be in great shape if Cindy’s still kicking this dead horse.  When the horse goes stiff, starts to bloat and attract flies, it’s time to look for a new horse.

Now Cindy’s found a new horse:  “Blasting Reed for shielding client’s Ids”. 

Unlike the last horse, someone had to dig this one up and put the pieces in the trunk and haul it over to her campaign headquarters.

Maybe by kicking dead horses, she thinks people will forget about those horses she has locked up in ol’ Finkelstein’s barn behind those “I don’t remember” signs.

How many dead horses does a candidate have to kick to become Mayor?

Jockey Tue, Oct 24, 2006 - 9:57 am

There aren’t enough horse carcasses for Cindy to kick to become mayor. But, that won’t keep her from trying.
There is nothing more pathetic than a desperate politician grasping for the slightest straw hoping to survive.
Say Goodnight, Cindy.

Fat Lady Tue, Oct 24, 2006 - 11:02 am

Re: San Jose Mercury News endorses Chuck Reed.

I’m singing

Harry Truman Tue, Oct 24, 2006 - 5:55 pm

Please, start counting your chickens; I wouldn’t even bother to vote if you’re so certain of the outcome.

abc Tue, Oct 24, 2006 - 7:27 pm

164 sounds a lot like RC.  Kind of whiny and bitter.  I guess the result of supporting a losing candidate.

Sex m Wed, Sep 26, 2007 - 9:26 am

Your know last news! What is this? Discounts!
<a >casual Sex ads</a>  <a >alien Sex comics</a>  <a >hardcore midget Sex</a>  <a >Sexy girl next door</a>  <a >free download arabic Sex</a>  <a >man having Sex with dog</a>  <a >kajol Sex</a>  <a >street fighter Sex</a>  <a >prague Sex</a>  <a >Sexy blow job</a>  <a >bi mmf Sex</a>  <a >free Sex dating services</a>  <a >hannigan Sex</a>  <a >Sex in amsterdam</a>  <a >granma Sex</a>  <a >avatar Sex</a>  <a >olsen twins Sex</a>  <a >anorexia Sex</a>  <a >jennifer anniston Sex</a>  <a >Sexy teen lingerie</a>  <a >Sexy foto</a>  <a >hardSex</a>  <a >shitting Sex</a>  <a >Sex mpeg clips</a>  <a >licking Sex</a>  <a >different ways to have Sex</a>  <a >fetus Sex</a>  <a >film Sex scenes</a>  <a >hot blonde having Sex</a>  <a >lord of the rings Sex</a>  <a >Sex instructions</a>  <a >mature and old women having Sex</a>  <a >transSexual anal</a>  <a >Sex starved wives</a>  <a >Sexy nubiles</a>  <a >adult Sex games online for free</a>  <a >hot shower Sex</a>  <a >Sexy pregnant belly</a>  <a >black women having Sex</a>  <a >ryoko Sex</a>  <a >free Sex in shower</a>  <a >olsen twins have Sex</a>  <a >Sexy sheer lingerie</a>  <a >Sex drugs</a>  <a >gay dildo Sex</a>  <a >male Sex organs</a>  <a >krystal steal Sex</a>  <a >Sexy mixed wrestling</a>  <a >professional wedding photographer middleSex</a>  <a >anal Sex cum shots</a>