Copycat Reality Show in Alum Rock Park to Decide Mayoral Contest
The five lesser-known mayoral candidates have upped the ante in this year’s mayoral contest by “calling out” the Big 5, as they have been labeled, to a winner-take-all Survivor contest in Alum Rock Park.
All ten contestants will call the infamous albino caves home for 9 weeks and compete in a number of immunity challenges that will decide who stays, who goes, and who will ultimately be sworn in as Mayor of San Jose.
“This levels the playing field tremendously,” said one of the Little 5 mayoral hopefuls John Candeias. “Money and influence will be nullified and strength and perseverance will be rewarded.”
The show is being managed by Mark Burnett Productions, the company responsible for such reality TV hits as Survivor, The Apprentice, and The Contender. Challenges will include running a mock council meeting with the un-dead albino community living in the park, trying to build a consensus without any lobbyists, and standing on a 4 X 4 fence post for several days without food or water listening to former Mayor McEnery’s old speeches.
In a scene right out of the movie Deliverance (no, not that scene), a location scout for the production company reported seeing two albinos sitting on the porch of the Alum Rock Cabin picking at banjos. “They scared the hell out of me,” said the scout. “Sitting on rocking chairs with their overalls falling off of their emaciated frames, there was an eerie hollowness behind their icy blue eyes, but they lit up, flashed a toothless and gum-filled smile and said ‘bring ‘em on’ when we explained there would be a bunch of politicians running around the grounds for nine weeks.”
“This is the real deal,” warned Little 5 member Timothy Fitzgerald, “This ain’t no pussy debate at the California.”
Debates in San Jose Mayoral Races have never determined the outcome. However, they can be entertaining—as was yesterday’s sponsored by the business folks at the California theatre.
It was four white guys versus Cindy Chavez. Here is my report card on how they did—and those who believe I’m simply a Cindy shill will be surprised.
David Pandori-“A”, he dominated the stage took on all comers, chastised the entire group, provided a clear message and was, especially at end, inspirational.
Without him the debate would have been dull by comparison. Obviously his skills as an orator have improved in the DA’s office.
David Cortese “B”—He didn’t hurt himself. Showed command of the issues, answered some of Pandori’s assertions, was articulate and in command of the issues.
Cindy Chavez “B-”. Nobody is going to outfriendly Cindy. She had a command of all the issues, showed her intelligence, stuck to her message (a consultant’s dream) and articulated very how she is not the pawn of labor, but a consensus builder.
However, she never mixed it up with the other candidates. This was probably by design as this wasn’t her natural crowd. But she never engaged with Pandori.
It was clear Cindy was going to “let the boys fight” and stay above the fray. She did, but it cost her “debating points”.
Chuck Reed—“D”—From a debate standpoint he tried to mix it up, utilize his themes. But his stiff, defensive delivery was poor. At one point he committed the debate sin of almost asking the audience for money to keep his campaign alive and somebody has got to ditch that hokey American Flag tie.
He did, however, show a command of the facts and offered up his 35 points of light on the reform issue. At one point he told the audience to feel free to “tell us when we do something stupid.” It must have been a “senior” moment.
Mike Mulcahy—“D”—I won’t fail anybody—he takes a lot of courage to stand for office and participate in a debate.
I can only describe the Mulcahy performance as Gavin Light. He had all the hair, make-up and demeanor of our Mayor to the North, except for depth and substance.
He used canned glittering generalities and his lack of specifics compared to the others was evident.
He had a “George Bush Sr.” moment when he asked the moderator how many more rounds of questions were coming. Clearly it reminded one of George Bush Sr. looking at his watch during a very poor performance against Bill Clinton.
His “Gavin demeanor” may be a result of his consultant, who also advises Gavin—but he clearly needs to do some homework before his next outing. They “I’m not a politician” line is pretty lame, when you are standing in a dark suit, tie and offering canned statements to a pretty sophisticated crowd.
But he can recover, he has the money and good people around him. They just need to prep him better—and he needs to study. His lack of substance was in stark contrast to the others.
Last, I saw the debate from the venue. All consultants will tell you it looks different on TV. While Pandori clearly shined, his walk around the podium could have been a distraction on television—I would be happy to hear someone else give their opinion from watching it on the screen.
In the final analysis, we will little note nor long remember this debate—but it beat American Idol for entertainment and I could think of doing nothing better on a cold, rainy night in downtown San Jose.
What’s all this talk about today being Cindy Chavez Day??? Why does she get her own day? She’s not even the Mayor and she certainly didn’t seem mayoral last night. I think we already have too many days. What’s next, a Tom McEnery Day or a Salamander Day? Pretty soon every day will be a Day Day. Let’s stop this trend now before it gets out of control.
The debate was shocking!
Pandori kicked butt and stirred the pot and basically called out the other candidates. Cortese defending himself but Cyndi was like a punching bag. She was so weak but I have to believe that was her plan.
Rich – The debate played well on the screen. Pandori’s stage front presentation worked very well. I agree with your assesment of his “performance.”
I think you are being overly kind to Cindy and overly harsh to Chuck. You’re pretty spot on about Michael—he seemed way over his head but it wouldn’t be the first time that looks and money triumph over substance (but I doubt it this time.)
I agree with you that Cindy stuck to her message—she seemed to be reading every comment she made—kind of Reaganesque.
Chuck is Chuck—he’s not flashy but he does know his stuff, whether you agree with him or not. You are so right about that tie—it’s a silly bit of pandering and makes him look more like a clown than a politician (save your comments, I know it’s hard to tell the difference most of the times with or without that tie.)
Thank you NBC for an excellent livecast. Much better quality than what we get on Civic Center TV via the Internet.
My naïve impressions:
Reed: And make those kids stand up straight!
Pandori: Needs to get rid of the handlers left over from the Kennedy era. The walk around WAS distracting on the LCD screen.
Mulcahy: Has seen too many Schwarzenegger movies.
Cortese: Needs a sense of humor.
Chavez: A deer in headlights.
If that is Cindy’s strategy to play nice and let the boys fight, she certainly did that. I can’t believe that she had two rebuttals – two more chances to get her message out there – and didn’t use them. She didn’t even seem like she was in the same debate as everyone else.
Dave Cortese was okay – still a little stiff. Chuck Reed was stiff but I liked what he was saying more than Dave.
Mulcahy was likable though I felt like he was an actor up on stage and started to repeat himself a bit.
I thought David came out with guns blazing and was passionate and likable. A great and welcome surprise.
I hope that these debates help determine the outcome though I think that if you are voting for Cindy, nothing will change that. The other ones still have a shot to sway voters I think.
If you enjoyed last night’s mayoral debate, there’s another happening downtown this coming Monday evening, April 3, at 7 pm, at Le Petit Trianon Theatre, 72 N. 5th St. Free parking is available at the 4th St. Garage not far away or in one of the nearby Trianon lots. This debate is sponsored by the Northside Neighborhood Assn, and moderated by Mercury News columnist Joe Rodriguez (a Northside resident), who’s likely to be just as feisty as Vintage Foster was in moderating last night. All of the big 5 mayoral candidates are committed to attend.
I predict the Northside forum will provide a distinctly different flavor than the gathering of the Valley elites last night. You “insiders” might see the world differently by getting out among ordinary San Joseans—you know, the folks who will actually be voting.
California Debate Results:
1. David Pandori
2. Cortese, Reed, Mulcahy
3. The Little 5 – John Candeias, Timothy Fitzgerald, Larry Flores, Jose Aurelio Hernandez, Michael Macarelli
4.
5.
6.
7. Cindy Chavez
What the hell happened to Cindy? It can’t be a strategy to look weak. She has been in office nearly 8 years and she didn’t seem to have a handle on any issues! Schools and kids?
I am excited to know that I am now a Valley Elitist – just from attending last nights debate! I want to know how I can parlay that into dinners and cocktails with the other elitists, Scott Knies, Pat Dando, Dan Fenton, & Vintage Foster and the rest of the business community that took time out of their week to become more informed about our mayoral candidates. I’m excited!
I was very disappointed with the coverage of the debate last night:
NBC11.com’s live stream didn’t work (did anyone else have that problem?), and KLIV didn’t even cover it live. I couldn’t attend last night, but wanted to get a better feel for the candidates – but I sure wasn’t going to stay up until 12:00am to listen to the delayed taping on KLIV.
Will NBC have it in there archives?
Although I find NBC11 kind of an oxymoron, I had no problem with the live stream last night. Sound and video were fine.
Could somebody explain what #9 is talking about? “Insiders??” People who will vote? Who does he think we are? Who does he think he is?
If there is truly going to be a Survivor contest for Mayor, I want in. I’m not afraid of no albinos!
She shoulld be running for supperintendant of schools not Mayor of San Jose, Cindy was very weak and wimpy. Chuck and Dave Ok, Mulchey was canned and no imagination and Pandori was very good especially his closing statement.
Last night’s Big 5 Mayoral Debate was my first exposure to the Mayor’s race, to the canditates credit, it was boderline enjoyable.
Here is my take on each of the candidates:
Pandori: . I couldn’t help but notice Pandori’s striking resemblence to Stephen Colbert from comedy central. Aside from that, Pandori dominated the debate.
Reed: I’m afraid, if elected all San Jose resources would go to North San Jose, and the rest of the city neglected.
More than running for mayor, it seemed as though Reed was just trying to bulster his district. Every topic seemed to come back to how North San Jose needed this or that. And come on man, show some emotion and ditch that tie!
Mulcahy: What a joke! You can’t “not” be a politician and run for mayor, that’s not the way it works. And did he seriously ask how many questions were left?
Cortese: At the start of the debate, he seemed quite arrogant, almost bragging. He calmed down, though, and had some interesting points. I would say he held his own.
Chavez: Chavez seemed above it all. She let the men butt heads, while she got her message across.
She wasn’t the strongest debater, but she was the only candidate who talked about real local issues and how they affect the average person, such as neighborhoods and schools.
How this campaign will end, I don’t know, but the debate makes for some great political fodder.
I thought Johny and Edgar Winter would be on stage jammin it up.
Pandori stays on the offensive:
http://www.bettersanjose.com/blog/index.cfm
Can’t wait until Monday night.
Our Mayor would like San Jose to take the big step of public financing for local campaigns.
While we ponder the Mayor’s idea, why can’t we immediately devote some funds to let Civic Center TV tape all the major candidate forums?
The forums should be archived on the city’s web site with an index for each topic much like you can jump to any agenda item for the council meetings.
NBC Channel 11 web streamed last night’s Mayor candidate debate but did not record it for later playback as an archived video clip like the City Council meetings.
Did anyone make a recording of last night debate web streaming broadcast so those who missed it can see it ?
17 – You are correct that CIndy talked about schools and education. The only problem is that schools and education are not basic city services and city government should have little to do with pouring money into something that is not a basic city service.
As another contributor said, she should be superintendent, not mayor, if she wants to help the schools.
#17
I agree with most of your assessment, but you are so wrong with Cindy. She was totally out of her league, talking like an administrator or councilmember and not someone that can lead.
If that was her strategy, she is going to strategize herself right out of the runoff. Although all she has to do is make a call to Labor to fix things.
After last night, if David continues to be seen, and gets that message across, he is the candidate to beat.
Chuck Reed would’ve made an okay mayor for San Jose about 40 years ago. His platform of “no spending” is small town thinking. Yes, spending $4 million to bring the Grand Prix to San Jose was steep. But the gains over 5 years will far exceed that investment. According to Reed lastnight he would’ve spent that money on crossing guards…(???)
I agree with the above posts, Pandori made quite an impression lastnight. I can see him representing this city.
Chavez is smart and poised. Why she wasn’t more aggressive lastnight is a mystery to me. I mean, her District 3 experience counts for something, she didn’t even mention it lastnight.
#23- You are way off. I agree 100% with EVERYTHING #17 has to say. You may want to pull your head out of your ass and listen to what someone with some real knowledge has to say.
#22 Keep Cindy out of our schools unless you want a mess like Oakland.
In the debate Cindy said she had to make some tough decisions on closing community centers and supports using non-profits to run them. Brilliant!
How can Cindy be for education if she is shutting down our after school programs and turning them over to non-profits?
The money she approved for the Grand Prix without public input would have kept those community centers open.
Her record doesn’t show she is actually for education.
Phil Yost has a good recap of the forum on his blog. Much better than his article in today’s Merc.
See http://blogs.mercurynews.com/on_politics/
I don’t know if I was watching a different debate, but I saw Mulcahy neck and neck with Pandori. The other three were miles behind.
Most importantly, lets stop holding Mulcahy’s appearance/charisma against him, and try to actually listen to what he says. You people sound like some jealous high-schoolers ripping the homecoming candidates behind their backs. We could use some charisma and appeal in our mayor. Maybe then our mayor could pull off a public appearance outside a Phoenix baseball stadium without looking like a clown.
And you’ve got to be kidding if you’re going to slam him because he reminds you of Gavin Newsome?? Ask SF citizens how they like their mayor. You’ll find out that they love him for his bold leadership (gay marriage, stem cell institute, etc.). If a board of directors were interviewing our five candidates for an executive position, my money would be on Mulcahy. The charisma is a bonus.
In the debate I saw, this race is down to Mulchay and Pandori. They are the only two offering what SJ needs – a mayor with business-sense AND enough charisma to relate to regional CEOs and leaders. Gavin Newsome demostrated the value of having these qualities by orchestrating the stem cell institute locating in SF. Which of our five SJ candidates can you see pulling off something like that?
In addition to running and leading the city, we need somone to represent San Jose, to stand next to the other big city mayors and hold his own, to help put us on the map. Whether you like it or not, that takes some charisma. It’s time for us to elect someone with not only the capabilties to lead San Jose, but someone who can represent San Jose as the top ten US city that it is.
Hey JOhn – easy on the personal attacks…
Talking about schools and health insurance might be okay in another forum but none of the questions or repsonses had anything to do with those! It was like Cindy was in a completely different debate. She didn’t talk about Coyote Valley, Evergreen, North San Jose, cleaning up City Hall, etc. So no one knows where she stands on those other than avoidance.
I have to agree with What?
I was surprised Gonzales didn’t show up and demand to chair the debate.
If you like David Pandori, tell a neighbor, tell a friend, send him a check.
Prior to letting the public in, a nervous staffer for Chavez came out to check the lighting on stage, requested that the house lights be brought up, and was asking about the camera angles, while standing at Cindy’s podium moving it a bit. He seemed very concerned that she was at the end, that one camera had a bad angle and her line of sight to the moderator made her have to turn her head a lot.
He spoke directly to the cameramen, asking how shots are determined and if there were red lights on the camera to let her know which one is live. And he let everyone know he once worked in the White House. The camera crew shot each other funny looks when he left.
So, did this concern translate into a good TV performance for Cindy?
I’ll be at the April 3 debate.
From everything I have heard so far, it seems this could come down to Pandori vs. Mulcahy in the runoff. Chavez, Reed, and even Cortese, as City Councilmembers, are being viewed as part of the problem with San Jose. Truly, an outside perspective and experience is needed to fix much of what ails San Jose nowadays.
I had the opportunity to be at the Cal last night as well. I think #9 might have been referring to the fact that there was a fair amount of outside power at the event in addition to some residents. It did seem like there were a number of non SJ folks at the event checking it out.
Here’s how I saw it:
Reed: In trying to distance himself made it seem as though he could not demonstrate how he would build coalitions in creating solutions.
Chavez: Surprised that her normal powerful, charming self didn’t seem to be there. Reading cards, not focusing directly on other debaters or audience much. She’s so smart and thoughtful that I was amazed at what happened. It was a missed opportunity for her.
Cortese: Needed to take a few deep breaths and relax – gets caught up in battles too easily. Cindy was able to take full credit for negotiations with Mexican Government on an issue in his district.
Pandori: Wandered around the stage, intimated he personally accomplished the things he spoke about – numerous residents and his former councilmembers/Mayor would disagree. He did seem to strike a more conciliatory tone than is the norm. If he cares so deeply about SJ why didn’t he run 4 years ago and why hasn’t he been involved in the community since leaving office?
Mulcahy: Going on about lobbyists when he and his family are among the biggest around? Who’s he kidding? That’s how he got the Chamber endorsement. He and Cortese share at least one thing – neither needs any donations to run, they can both write their own check.
An elected from outside SJ indicated afterwards that it’s highly unlikely he’d be voting on much, even with a blind trust.
I am not a debate veteran but here are my first impressions…my turn to write a novel…
1. Chuck Reed knows his facts front and back. It changed my initial impression of him in general. It would be nice to see that from others.
2. Pandori and Mulcahy at first glance looked oddly similar. Easy for the average public to distingish?
3. Dave and Cindy will need to have better stage presence. Standing behind the podium makes the feel “separated from the public” and career politicians.
4. Pandori pointed out a number of times his role as a former councilmember and the “old guard.” I understand why. But, is there any way that approach could end up hurting him or get old in the long run?
5. Cindy reminded me of the Gonzales campaign and his emphasis on schools and neighborhoods. Of course it is an important focus but will it win the election? I agree with “Wondering” about the role of the mayor with education (#22).
My vote is going to be based on the candidates approach to the budget crisis, job creation/economic development and the planning for No. First, Downtown and Coyote Valley.
6. I think Cortese in sincere in his approach to “look out” for the next two generations of San Jose. I wonder what that San Jose looks like?
#32 – Yes, the lighting was poor for Cindy on that end of the stage. If I were a staffer I would be asking those same questions. I don’t think that changed her approach to the debate and her decision to not challenge her opponents.
I thought the debate format and content were well handled. More position statements got made than I imagined going into it. All the candidates felt “well schooled” by consultant types in advance, but that is life in the political world so what of it. Vintage did a great job even if he did tout his own paper a bit more than required.
I am amused at the strength this site’s visitors are showing for Pandori. His was the most staged and least responsive of all the candidates. It was a show prepaed in a closet and delviered without regard to the issues being raised. It puzzles me that the repeated marching out from behind the podium to take the stage physically is benig given so much credit. Its just another style of consultant-directed campaigning.
For my vote, Reed, Cortese and Mulcahey all held their own. Pandori and Chavez slipped quite far.
Remember that the Mayor has to make the council walk a unified path. Can anyone look at Pandori’s perforamnce last night, or at his terms as the lone wolf 1-10 voter of his Council days, and see anyone following him?
I guess that what the election is about, but what about leading when its over.
Leadership et al,
If you are looking for a consensus builder, Cindy is your candidate.
Anybody who says Pandori was being “staged” doesn’t know his handler. Richie Ross is the king of podium and he lacks even a rudimentary knowledge of visuals.
That was all David—give credit when credit is due.
From a strategy point of view who met their campaign’s expectations:
1) Pandori exceeded expectations. He needed to do that to generate interest in his campaign.
I’ve pointed out before he has the best message of the four. That was demonstrated last night. Will his performance generate enough interest to fund his campaign? Time will tell—but he did not hurt himself last night.
2) Cortese met expectations. He made no major gaffes. A little over-enthusiastic at the beginning, a bit too much I and me. But he shined coming back at Pandori on a couple of occasions.
He is knowledgeable and he has resources. Pandori gained, but Cortese lost nothing.
3) Chavez met her debate goals, but missed opportunities to exceed expectations. As the frontrunner, she needs to consolidate her base and let the “boys” duke it out.
She has the advantage of saving her powder until it counts. She did this effectively from a strategic point of view.
4) Reed—did not meet expectations. Some have said they were impressed. I didn’t see it.
But even if he met expectations he loses because he needs to generate excitement about his canidacy to raise the necessary revenue.
He doesn’t have the luxury Cindy has of flying below the radar. He doesn’t have the resources of Cortese. He doesn’t have the passion of Pandori. He doesn’t have the hair of Mulcahy.
If he is to “catch fire” he has to do better than everyone else. It did not happen.
5) Mulchay—did not meet expectations. His inexperience showed, his answers were the most canned of any participant.
He appeared as an empty shirt.
He does have the resources to compete and he can overcome this first debate. But you never get a second chance to make a good first impression.
His campaign team will have to go back to the drawing board. His strength may not be in debates.
Look, Bush lost three debates in a row and was still sworn in. . . Debats are but one way we receive information about candidates and will not necessarily reflect the outcome.
The best debater is not always the best leader. Other qualities are far more important than the ability to speak before a crowd—in 60 second sound bites.
But for entertainment value, blogging and news reporting—there is nothing as entertaining as a good debate.
One cavaet, for the most part Vintage did a good job as a moderator. But he continually butchered the name Chavez, which is not pronounces (shevaz).
A good rule for moderators is to practice the names in front of people before you go on stage.
#37, though I don’t know who the “consultants” that the Candidates have, their top campaign workers are listed on their web site.
Out of boredom I GOOGLED a few, particularly those with uncommon names. It’s important to put the name in parenthesis to tailor the results.
The results were pretty funny: an interesting MYSPACE, a lawsuit, long records of working on losing campaigns (Bob Graham for President?), some true believers…..
What a trail we leave………….
Initial impressions:
The clear standout in the debate: Pandori. With the exception of his TV lawyer routine—I kept waiting for the “donk donk!” Law and Order sound—his speaking abilities and ability to stay on message were superior.
I went into the debate leaning toward Reed and came out in the same position. The tie was funny, but I think the quirkiness worked. I liked the way he stepped aside from the podium for his longer speeches but wished he’d stay put in rebuttals. Good blushing and smiling at appropriate times. Got squeezed in his 30-second “last word” far too often.
Cortese’s face was red as a lobster. Too much precinct walking sans SPF45? I like Dave personally. Good but stiff performance—not his best.
Mulcahy, whom I’d never seen before, struck me like Marty McFly. Hair and dress made him look like he was ready for junior prom, not city hall. Gavin Jr indeed.
Chavez looked plain and missed the a chance to step out and show leadership. Situated on the end, she could have literally stepped out toward the crowd. On the other hand, I think the lighting in the room was such that, had she left her podium, she would have fallen out of the light, so staying put was good. Too much reading; sounded rehearsed and boring.
Issues:
Typical tripe. No one said anything especially exciting….
Cindy was consistent on her messaging, which likely will have some salience but is idiotic here: education!? Education is NOT a city issue! We have school districts, county board, and the state already involved. Inserting another layer of govt here will make our schools über-competitive!
Her focus on the neighborhoods and services was nice, but few specifics on what that means. The mention of small businesses was likewise vacuous, coming from someone clearly backed by labor unions and not business owners. I’m at least glad she wore “labor” proudly. Good strategy to turn that into a values play at this point.
Reed made a great case about fiscal responsibility and value choices, his strongest play. A city that is ~$50M in deficit has no business sinking $4M into the grand prix. Showing how he really enjoyed it, “I’d love to drive a Corvette down Almaden at 150MPH myself!” was witty and fun, even if he’s not Mr. Excitement. His comparison of crossing guards versus grand prix was crisp and relevant. One dead kid and neighborhoods will be screaming bloody murder at the mayor’s door. That was a smart comparison with a well-aligned theme.
He consistently contrasted himself from business as usual while highlight experience that the ‘outsiders’ lack: 10-1 votes, his reforms, and his achievements.
Remember, this was a *business* debate. He smartly focused on North San Jose as the hub of Silicon Valley and employers’ needs to expand there. I don’t live in North San Jose but I agree with him. It’s where the jobs are. Indeed, why not let businesses grow where they are now?
Reed’s closing comments were great and orderly. The pander for money: probably a misstep, but a good use of free media to get an ad out there to viewers at home.
Pandori made great points again and again about the state of the city. But his lumping of Reed in with everyone else was faulty. By saying, “Reed hasn’t been able to get his reforms passed = no reform” he’s essentially conceding that as mayor he would have the same problem. Why would councilmembers follow the Mayor, who doesn’t have more votes or more electoral power than anyone else on the Council? That bridge wasn’t crossed, unfortunately.
Mulcahy: No specifics. You are a politician when you’re running for mayor of the 10th largest city in America. Imagine interviewing for CEO somewhere and saying, “best part is, I have NO BUSINESS EXPERIENCE!” Instead focus on transferables. Corteses have a ton of land and roots, too. Mulcahy is not the only real estate guy here.
Cortese: Great rebuttals on Evergreen and commentary on the development process. Nice backing away from Baseball SJ in light of budget problems. But the initial leadership there is good to capture the sports-at-any-cost crowd.
The “Smithsonian West” thing was news to me. Don’t we already have the Tech Museum? And how can these people be proposing more museums when the 7+ we have are hurting? Do we really need more?
His references to the coffee shop and the Flames were concrete details on difficulties of small businesses in this city, showing his command of this issue over Chavez’s in her district. Well put; took back her points over the Mexican Consulate situation.
Nothing incredible, but nothing horrible either. Little electoral impact for most candidates, but I do think Pandori picked up some steam.
I’m excited by this race now. Finally.
FYI – In case you missed it or want to hear it all over again, a podcast of the debate can be found at
http://feeds.feedburner.com/CSJ
Enjoy!
I’m just an undecided voter. but here is my take on the debate:
Chavez – horrible! Nothing to say. Seemed to be reading notes prepared by someone else. Wouldn’t use her challenge cards; which showed real weakness!
Cortese – not much better. He feels he knows it all, he may have actually invented the internet before al gore invented it!
Mulucahy – not bad. good points. could make great committee chair for a hollow Chavez Task force.
JMOC maybe cindy will make task for on salamanders and mulcahey can chair it.
Reed – good job over all. But I just can’t get excited by this guy. He going to just manage a shrinking economic budget; and do nothing to build more jobs, growth etc.
Pandori – the suprise of the night. He took charge, he had energy. He actually seems like he could make a difference / shake things up.
“Hello” Everyone,
My name is Larry Flores and I’m running for Mayor of San Jose.
Next week I will make my statement on your website and answer your much awaited questions.
I will not avoid questions like the 5 so called major candidates from the debate last night.
If you should not hear from me today or this weekend, (I apologize). I need to attend a friend’s funeral out of town today, but I will return next week, I look forward to your questions.
Thank you
Sincerely,
Larry Flores
http://www.larryfloresformayor.com
Why do you, Rich Robinson, think that the voters are going to accept the biggest lobby activest, Cindy C, as a consensus builder. She only represents the interests of labor and ignores the fact that she not only should represent her district but the interest of all San Jose residents.
How she is escaping her role, real or aledged, as a council member who supported “The Gonzo” is a testament to the old adage that if you repeat a story enough times people will believe it. The continued statements by you and others who think as you do that she is the front runner is only a dream. I have faith the voters will see through that scam!
Didn’t know that the election was a popularity contest. Thought we were looking, hoping for someone who could not only be positive but concerned about SJ. We could at least hope that tax money can be directed toward the city problems, like street pot holes, etc. Haven’t seen anyone on the Council express any dismay at the lack of concern by the Dept. heads on fixing our problems. Maybe, if a few heads fell the rest would earn the big salaries they earn.
The downtown merchants were taken to task by claims that they did not provide the service the customers were looking for. Well we have the same situation with the city and also the county government. Try to do business with either when you are not working, not only have they closed down but the stop at 4. If they split coverage they could provide service to the public to at least 8 pm when the majority of people are not working. If your in the service business then you have to provide it when it’s needed.
If our city government was really thinking about our problems they can find many that need taking care and all I’ve heard from Cindy is how to spend.
Glenn,
You don’t know Cindy personally. She is a wonderful person who cares deeply about our city.
She represents the interests of labor, she also represents theinterests of children—through the childrens health insurance program, affordable housing, the arts and is a staunch supporter of neighborhoods.
She is not a screamer. She doesn’t thump her chest at her accomplishments, but she has lead the Council in a deliberate fashion to do the right thing.
She doesn’t just take positions, she builds consensus. She has gotten labor to back-off some issues when she told them they were wrong, she has gotten them to the table when she thought they were right. She has worked with business leaders, she has supported downtown, she has led the effort to make Cinco de Mayo safer, downtown safer and has been the guiding force for policy in San Jose.
It is true that a flawed Mayor has made her and the Council look bad at times. She hasn’t grandstanded, whined, taken the easiest political path—she has led.
She not only leads the Council, she listens to others and she acts.
Cindy has deep values and is dedicated to public service. Her critics aside, she has done what she believed to be right and in the best interests of San Jose—regardless of political consequences.
That’s why she has so much support. Is isn’t only labor, but neighborhoods, affordable housing activists, government leaders, police officers, Democratic activists and others who know her personally.
What Cindy has that no one else can match is a core constituency that believes in her. She could lose every debate, be attacked by the Mercury News, and be assailed by every other candidate and there are people that will go to war for her.
She inspires loyalty in people because she treats them with respect, even when she disagreees.
You could sit down and have a cup of coffee with Cindy and you may come away disagreeing with her, but you won’t come away disliking her. She has a special quality to get people to do things they ought to do anyway, without the club.
It is a far different style than the current incumbant—and it has proven to be more effective.
If you trash Cindy, hundreds will come to her defense and they will come from all walks of life. They will walk the precincts, donate money and deliver her message.
Nothing is more important to San Jose that it move forward with grace and integrity. Despite what conspiracy mongers may believe, there is not a dishonest bone in Cindy’s body.
She tells you what she thinks, not in an arrogant—I’m always right way—but in a manner that inspires confidence.
You don’t get the kind of support she already has without accomplishing a great deal. Her strength is in the large body politic who understands her values.
That’s why she is the acknowledged frontrunner.
Ms. Chavez may be a front runner but after reading her web site I have no idea what she is hoping to accomplish if she is elected mayor. I did learn she is self-described on her web site as “savvy” and possessing “down to earth charm.” These are nice qualities but we really need a clear vision spelled out on her web site as to where she would take San Jose as mayor.
The three categories for the coming Mayoral primary:
I – Gonzo II – more of the same from Mayor Chavez.
II – Short End of the Stick – Cortese and Reed on the losing side of votes for the past seven years.
III – Newbees – Let’s try new leadeship (Pandori or Mulcahy), the “experienced” politicians have little to brag about.
Stop right here! Scroll up to Richard Robinson’s post (#43), open this webpage in another browser window, then reread his inspired words accompanied by the appropriate music :
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/b/h/bhymnotr.htm
Finfan, I am really shocked that you would use a well-know religious hymn to make fun of someone’s ideas. Richard has every right to express his opinion about the coming mayoral election without you making a mockery of him through religion. You are certainly insulting which goes beyond the pale of political expression. Of course what else could one expect. I remember racist insults coming from you earlier. I remember one blog so bad that it couldn’t be printed. Whether you are a Cindy fan or not is no reason to use religion and that fine old hymn. I might even think you have reverted to your ideas about people of different races and colors which you have so often used. Cindy Chavez just happens to have a hispanic backround. No coincidence there is there.
Dan,
Don’t you guys ever get tired of impersonating wrestlers getting hit by folding chairs?
BTW, my take on #49 is that the song you need to play in the background whilst reading Rich’s post is Windy (Just sub a C for the W) http://www.elyrics4u.com/w/windy_the_association.htm
(Hope that wasn’t too racist for you Dan.)
BTW, it’s a good thing Rich isn’t on Cindy’s payroll! Can you imagine if he was? It’d be like NC-17 stuff.
Mr. Sturges,
What shocks me is that in not one of the three years you spent in the fourth grade did you learn to comprehend the written word. Nothing in my post suggests my trying to suppress Mr. Robinson’s opinion. Quite the contrary, I referred to his writing as “inspired” precisely because he made so apparent his deep admiration for Ms. Chavez.
As for my use of what you refer to as a religious hymn, that melody had its origins not in a religious hymn, but in ‘John Brown’s Body,’ a song of admiration. And that its soul-stirring tune goes so nicely with an inspired narrative is the reason it was used in The Battle Hymn, and why I thought it the proper accompaniment for Mr. Robinson’s testament to Cindy Chavez. Yes, I admit my post was meant to needle RR for what some might consider a little over-the-top gushing, but that you found my harmless post blasphemous tells me it’s time your electro-shock tech went a little easier on the voltage.
It sure would be good to hear about the mayor race from all parts of San Jose. Many of us regular bloggers live in Willow Glen or the Rose Garden. How about the opinions from those who don’t live with a couple of miles of “downtown.” Opinions from those living east of King Road, south of Capitol Expressway, (sometimes referred to as Santa Teresa) and north of Brokaw. Those are the ‘burbs where “downtown” may be not that beg of deal. Even you incognitos, maybe you could give us a hint in which part of town you rest your weary bones at night.
Hey Don #49 shocked! get over it! grow up, quit crying! get real! it’s politics not religion or race. R R’s #43 Cindy support reads like a political hymn , the music fits… just sing along?
now to rephrase RR#43:”
What Cindy has that no one else can match is a(big buck) core constituency that believes ( directs- worships ) her. She could (probably will) lose every debate, be attacked (not enough) by the Mercury News, (who?how long will they be around) and be assailed by (thinking voters and) every other candidate …but there are PEOPLE (BIG LABOR and DEVELOPERS -read- BUCKS) that will go to war for her (and fund her war chest).”
Lets face it BIG Money and Effective Organization directs who will be San Jose’s next mayor. Not sitting down for coffee
or worring about mockery.
Dan maybe Finfan can put that to music?
What could RR be smoking? Like all career politicians, Cindy has never had a real job. She graduated from Terry C’s poli sci class so he sent her off to the union to get a “job”, and being really compliant, i.e., having no ideas of her own, she was quickly put on her “career” path—representing union interests, backed with endless dough and countless feet. Cindy is a wonderful person to have a cup of coffee with? If you’re a sycophant. Find her nasty side quickly if you have a small downtown project that the planners want and her neighborhood groupies don’t. Like all career politicians, she licks the boots of patrons, practices petty revenges on anyone she has an advantage over, has a raging egomania, and not a single original idea. Hopefully the voters will get even with her for that Dumb Dome she delivered to the worker bees when the city could just have moved into Sobrato’s building—that actually looks like a city hall, not an architect’s ego.
And for a LOT less money. George Green
RR what a bunch of BS. Waste of words too. DENIAL v. REALITY
From San Jose City Government Song Book
after hearing Big 5 Mayor candidates
San Jose Voter – All Politicians Bring Me Down Song
(Adapted from All You Ever Do is Bring Me Down
By The Mavericks – Music for All Occasions)
I can
This used to be an interesting blog site, but seems to have deteriorated into a pissing match between a small group of super-heated egos who get off on insulting everyone and everything in site. Reminds me of the old men in the local social clubs my father belonged to before his high blood pressure finally got best of him.
When I was in junior high school, these types of disputes on the school grounds used to result in “SEE YOU AT BAKESTO PARK AT 3!”
So I’m thinking that the solution to this is to move to a “moderated” blog called “SanJoseOutside”. Anyone gets to submit articles for the primary post. Comments must stay on subject or end up in the trash. Criticism encouraged, bashing prohibited. Any takers?
Boys…, Boys!…, Stop it! You still have two months to go. If you don’t behave, we’re going to have to send you to your room until your learn some manners…
There are a few places in this thread where people are saying they see this coming down to Mulcahy vs Pandori. I wouldn’t mind if it did, but we don’t have the rest of the population of SJ chiming in on this blog.
There’s a lot of media advertising and mailers and mudslinging action to be had between now and June and don’t be surprised if Cindy with all of her labor money ends up on top. Not the outcome I want to see, but it was mentioned somewhere else on this blog recently that G.W. Bush is a lousy debater and look where he ended up.
Much as I don’t want to see Cindy win, it’s a sad commentary that it’s not going to be these debates that are viewed by a tiny fraction of the electorate that will be the deciding factor. More exposure means more votes these days when so many people are too busy to pay attention. The candidate who saturates people with their name is the one most likely to win, and Cindy has the dollars.
I don’t like it, but that’s the way it’s been working for quite a while now.
Boy, I can’t wait for the campaign to begin if this is the level of discourse we can expect.
finfan,
Love the hymn.
Watcher,
I prefer, with all its warts, uncensored blogs.
Gary,
The Children’s Health Initiative is a tremendous success. Cindy also received praise on this blog for her efforts to make downtown safer. She supported the police department and was a communications bridge to the community.
Cindy, like all elected officials, have to make tough choices. But her priorities are correct.
Fog—
You must be in one. It baffles me how people can call labor “the big money interest”, when their entire agenda is to empower working people.
While the people who have run this city for years—see welfare—I mean—redevelopment recepients—are labeled as the victims.
It’s a crazy world this town spins in. . .
George,
I too had Terry Christenson for a professor. I’m also still looking for a job.
Thanks Terry.
Rich
Rich,
I agree Cindy is a great person who cares about our city and so do the other 4 candidates.
Cindy has worked on programs for our children, but I really don’t think she is looking at the big picture. We are not giving the parks dept. the budget to maintain our parks. Why do you think the parks director left? Cindy’s decision to cancel after school programs at our community centers was not in the best interest of our kids. And where does Cindy stand on developer park fees?
Health insurance for all sounds like a wonderful pie-in-the-sky idea, but is this really a city issue? And we all know this has been so wildly successful in SF.
Cindy is also given far too much credit as a neighborhood supporter. Do your homework. It seems history is quickly forgotten. The strong neighborhoods initiative, Gonzalez’s pork barrel program that declares neighborhoods blighted so redevelopment money can be spent, has done wonders for our D3 neighborhoods, because we got the lion’s share of the $138 mil. This wasn’t because of Cindy, it just happens that most of D3 neighborhoods are covered the SNI program, and she takes credit for the projects.
Check your history, Gonzales did not just dream up SNI in 2000, it was based on the existing neighborhoods revitalization strategy. One of the last actions Pandori took as our D3 council member was to kick off the neighborhood revitalization plans for the university and washington neighborhoods. And he did it without calling the neighborhoods blighted or using eminent domain. As Pandori’s plans came to completion, Cindy of course took credit like any good politician would.
Nora Campos also noticed this pork barrel program and made SNI part of her platform when she ran for office or maybe Cindy gave her some advice. The SNI program is the real the driving force behind our mini-mayor problem.
If Cindy is really a neighborhood supporter, what happen with albertsons? And what is she doing supporting that ballpark next to delmas park?
Cindy also likes to tell the CSI story why she ran for the city council, because a bullet went through her window and landed in her bed. So what exactly did Cindy do to make SJ the “safest big city”? She has the support of the police officers asso., not just because she supports garbage and police unions, and not because she led any program to make SJ safe.
Another poster asked where has Pandori been? He has been prosecuting gangs. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has done far more to make SJ the safest big city.
For those of us that have around long enough, it is easy to see through Cindy’s platform. Sorry Justin, you don’t know SJ, go back to FL, but I guess you will not see this because you don’t read SJI because we are “a of bunch political hacks”. Next time use those rebuttal cards and tear up those lobbyist checks.
GR.
# 57: Ron Gonzales…..
Does anyone know which County Supervisor Cindy Chavez worked for after she graduated from SJS? Her website says, “She worked for a County Supervisor”. I’m just curious. Which one?
fitzgerald
You guys cant be serious. Is this BIG 5 for real? if it is then why don’t we just give san jose to a tv company so they can make us a show at 4:30 am?