This is the time of year when satirists rejoice, pundits celebrate and citizens head for their local vomitoriums. It is the final weeks before election, the “silly season”—that most frightening time of year when the airways crackle with attack ads, mailboxes overflow with disturbing missives, editorial writers pontificate, and parents shield their children’s ears from such trash. On a few rare occasions, it descends into farce.
Such is the case with a recent communication that I received from Larry Stone, our intrepid tax assessor and the politician most likely to pose with Dick Morris for a photo opportunity. He has asked me to look into my conscience and reconsider my support of Chuck Reed. Now I am an understanding man who wouldn’t take unfair advantage of a pretty good guy and one who I generally like. He is also doing a good job. But he has gone too far.
So when I picked my jaw up off the floor, I pondered whether to respond or merely suggest a moral conservatorship for Mr. Stone. The Mac won out. Now, let us look at this clinically. Stone is equating the fact of Chuck Reed’s reimbursement for expenses from the city with the corruption of the last eight years and, further more, finds it more offensive that a slew of indictments. In his mind, it is “outrageous” and redolent of “sleazy tactics,” and, hence, the only fitting punishment is a draconian action—a political decapitation, no less.
O tempore. O mores. O Larry.
This request comes from the political player most associated with Ron Gonzales’s scandal-plagued administration—a man who stood by the mayoral bunker on Santa Clara St. while the D.A.’s tanks were on the outskirts of the city. All the cronyism, the culture of deception, the embarrassments and incompetence of the past years fade into Stone’s delirium of partisan deception. Only one leader has been more responsible for the rise—and fall—of Ron Gonzales and his shameful era. Yet, silence has been his only response. Not once has Stone raised his voice or used his spell check to comment on the calumnies and crimes and grammatical errors of the past eight years. Of such blindness is true tragedy made. The sin of silence in times of moral crises is the most egregious.
Reed is the answer to the sins of San Jose—not the problem.
Hope everyone has read today’s strong Mercury endorsement of Sam Liccardo. It’s the best!
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/15674641.htm
Do San Jose a Favor: Pick Liccardo for City Council
So they sent in the big guns – Larry Stone – to try and persuade you to support Cindy? They are in worse shape then I thought!
Next time you talk to that guy, give him some fashion advice too, okay?
I’m sure that in a few minutes, RC, RR, DB and the usual suspects will bombard this list with all of the reasons that Chuck Reed is pond scum and we should all put blinders on and vote for Cindy. Stone Cold sums it up: “like the $11 million, like the $4 million, her saying one thing and doing another, her last minute memos that spit in the face of the public process, etc.” Reed made a horrible mistake but it pales in comparison to the taxpayer’s money that Ron and Cindy wasted.
#2 and #6:
Well put. But you forgot the billion dollar Cindy Hall. I mean, City Hall.
Before I get “Reality Checked,” I know, the actual price tag was $499,000,000.00, but I’m counting the financing, the vindow vashing machine, and the staff time spent fetching lattes from the nearest coffee house because there is no onsite Starbutts.
Tom I was agreeing right along with you up until your last sentence.
Reed is nothing more than the lesser of two evils and is hardly the holy redeemer you make him out to be.
All of these notables throwing their support behind Reed is the same blind good ol’ political boy concept that put Angelides up against Arnold instead of Westly, a guy who actually had a chance of beating him. The local political machinery refuses to take a detour and demand better and use their influence to get a qualified person like Pandori in as mayor. It’s not impossible. But it’s typical of the legions of Casper Milquetoast leaders in this town past and present to cultivate mediocrity. That’s why this town puts people to sleep and gets no respect.
Sure, let’s put Mr. Dyanamo in the mayor’s chair. ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Maybe there’ll be enough excitement in four years to snap me out of my coma.
Mark—Look at the list of usual suspects supporting Chavez. It’s much worse than those supporting Reed. I agree he’s not the holy redeemer, but he’s the only choice we’ve got. With him as mayor there is at least a chance that the wrongs of the past 7 years will not be repeated. With Chavez as mayor we know the wrongs will continue since she was an enabler allowing them to happen. She has shown us nothing to make us believe she would fix all that is broken. Reed has.
When will Reedimbursement release his list of charitable deductions he claimed on his income taxes?
If he has nothing to hide, why not shed some sunshine on his returns—-Is it a felony to cheat on your taxes?
Here is what Reedimbursement got with his lifetime membership in just one of the 25 organizations he joined on the taxpayer’s dime.
http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=mbr.levelc&cid=2344
He should report these gifts as required by law and he should give back all that he has received as a result of the taxpayers paying his way. He should then release his charitable tax deductions so that we all know if he used these reedimbursements on his taxes.
10. When will Cindy reimburse the city for abusing her own office holder account, and apologize for it?
Don’t worry, nobody seriously expects her to pay back for the Grand Prix, Norcal, Tropicana, etc., but an apology would be nice from Ms. New Found Ethics.
While we’re at it when will she admit that without the patronage of Ron Gonzales she would still be stuffing envelopes for Local 715?
In comparing bad decisions and worse processes, it’s reasonable to consider scale, impact and, most importantly, the opportunity to correct or redress a mistake.
What was the hard dollar cost of Reed’s mistake versus the magnitude of Cindy’s decisions? How many people or programs were harmed? And could it be fixed instead of burdening the City for years?
There’s a difference between disappointment and disaster.
Reed could have avoided all of this by applying the Four Way Test statement of ethics of Rotary International, of which I believe he is a member:
Of the things we think, say or do:
Is it the truth?
Is it fair to all concerned?
Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
Will it be beneficial to all concerned?
Larry Stone is a good guy and he feels he supporting the right candidate. Larry is not and I repeat, not labor friendly. So, even though I don’t agree with his choice, I respect his right to choose. Having said that, him saying that Chuck’s one misdeed is terrible and therefore makes him not a candidate to support is wrong. And RC/DB, I wouldn’t worry about Chuck’s tax returns until we see those two years of “missing checks”.
#9 I agree with you about Reed being far less of an evil than Cindy, but he is flat-out not a guy I could ever vote for.
I feel fairly confident that Cindy has made her own bed (the one she shares with Gonzo) and that she’s already toast. If she barely beat out Pandori in June then she has no chance in November even against Mr. Excitement.
When I think about this town’s future I can’t comfortably cast my vote for a wet noodle who has no plan for the next four years. So I’ll be writing in Pandori, the guy who not only had a plan, he wrote a whole book that contained his plan. Both of these jokers running in November need to know that there is a huge section of the community that can’t stand the thought of either of them becoming mayor.
Tom,
I respectfully disagree.
Chuck suffers from the same arrogance, lack of remorse and ethical blindness that Ron Gonzales suffers.
In order to change the culture at City Hall we need leadership that is inclusive and trusted. That doesn’t exist with Mr. Reed.
Certainly, ex-Mayors Norm Mineta, Janet Gray and Susan Hammer love this City as much as you do—and they support Cindy becasue they know she is trustworthy.
In addition, most of the major respected leaders in San Jose also support Cindy.
You are the lone credible endorsement for Chuck Reed—which is why some people would like to see you change. But I respect your decision, even if I disagree with it.
For two years many on this board have accused Cindy of everything from bad faith to illegal acts. But she has withstood the fire, her integrity is unblemished and she stands in a better position to unite all the elements that make San Jose a great city.
Finally, after the last eight years, San Jose needs a successful leader and we must all unite behind the next Mayor, whoever it is, for the benefit of San Jose—even as we reserve our right to disagree when warranted.
RR – Cindy’s integrity is “unblemished??” Not a single person that I know (many are Democrats) would agree with you. All of them have had negative experiences with Cindy, either on a personal level or through community groups. I know many people have had positive experiences, but many would argue the statment about her “unblemished integrity.” When someone tells you their position on an issue and then turns around and takes the opposite position, that is a blemish on their integrity. When someone says they will support you on a particular item and then doesn’t, that is a blemish on their integrity. Cindy has done numerous times. She will be unable to bring together those she has burned.
As for your illustrious list of former mayors supporting Cindy: Mineta is so out of touch with San Jose he couldn’t even tell you why he is supporting Cindy without reading a statement prepared by some staffer; Janet Gray is luke warm about Cindy and could go either way. Hammer seems to only support Cindy primarily because she is a woman. Quite a reason to endorse.
Anyway, I don’t make my choice based on who is or isn’t supporting a particular candidate. I base my decision on many factors, including trust, public process, personal experience, etc. Others should do the same.
Rich,
Most of the leaders in the region also endorsed Ron Gonzales for mayor, including Susan Hammer [1]. Why, and why did so few speak out against Gonzales at the first signs of trouble?
Both candidates for mayor are flawed. San Jose residents would be foolish to place any faith in the endorsements of our local leaders if we use history as a guide.
[1] http://www.smartvoter.org/1998jun/ca/scl/vote/gonzales_r/endorse.html
The consensus of SJI and public is we will be elect 1 of 2 flawed politicians as Mayor for at least 4 years so the Question is
Most of our city government problems and conflict of interest issues were a result of decades long culture of backroom deals, minimally following law or ignoring it when it is to politicians advantage. Questionable ethics and city government did not appear with Gonzales administration and will be with us in future unless we change city government policies and procedures not just the politicians
How do we improve city government and San Jose in the next 4 years and reverse San Jose’s long tradition of backroom deals that benefit the special interest groups and many times are to the determent of the public, taxpayers and our city?
Dear Tom:
Bravo for your comments!
Hey, I’m sure everyone read about the poor condition of San Jose’s roads. This is a clear example of how the current administration has run the city into the ground by placing ceremony before substance, and form over function. The Gonzales machine is about the politics of promotion. A bet was made 7 years ago that Team Gonzo could use our city as a platform for self-promotion, and that someday he could run for Governor. That bet failed (horribly), and guess what, we, and the next generation are the real losers.
This is why it’s so important that Reed becomes the next mayor. If it’s Chavez, it will be a continuation of the status quo.
Now if only the Mercury News would do a feature on how and why Santa Clara and Cupertino’s parks are so much better than San Jose’s.
Reed Supporter,
Pete Campbell
#18: The list of Gonzales supporters in 1998 is very not surprising. In 1998, many local leaders felt Gonzales was the one. I wonder how many of these folks today would even return Gonzales’ phone call?
So, Mark T #15: Would you continue on your course to write in Pandori if you knew for certain that it would propel Cindy into the mayor’s office?
The “missing checks” issue could easily be resolved, #14. Banks archive this material. It would cost some money, but the checks are retrievable.
RR #16 says “and she[Cindy] stands in a better position to unite all the elements that make San Jose a great city.” ALL the elements, RR? You mean all the labor unions, don’t you? Or maybe its the labor unions and all the other elements that contribute little but demand much.
How#19 writes: “Questionable ethics and city government did not appear with Gonzales administration and will be with us in future unless we change city government policies and procedures not just the politicians.”
Changing policies and procedures is not the answer. We have too many laws, policies, and procedures already. We need only ethical people of good will to hold public office. Human nature being what it is, however, we are doomed to have exploiters and lazy people in public office, as well as well-meaning, ethical, responsible, hard-working dedicated folks. Jeez, we’re getting Manny Diaz back perhaps. What does that tell you? Close the loopholes in term limits. Politicians are recycled more than old newspapers for Chrissake.
#16 RR
Where has Cindy shown remorse for the $4,ooo,ooo Grand Prix deal that was done without a public process, or the $12,500,000 gift to the Norcal Union employees without the consent of the taxpayers, or the $22,000,000 fairground lost law suit, or the $12,000,000 Tropicana ruling, or the $3,000,000 wasted on the lost Fox-Markovitz lawsuit. Any way you try to spin it, she has voted to waste at least $53,500,000 of our money, and never once did she say she was sorry. Not even after the courts said that she voted on the wrong side of the law. Where has she ever displayed that she can learn from her past mistakes? The courts recently ruled for the second time, that she voted on the wrong side of the law along with Chuckie Cheapskate, regarding the IBM#25 building. Will she take the lead and show us that she is a consensus builder and work out a win-win with Lowes and preservationists or just continue to vote on the wrong side of the law? I hear lots of talk from both Cindy’s and Chuck’s camps about how they can lead, here is a great chance for either of them to show us what they got.
#16 Rich – the endorsements of many like Susan Hammer and every other “major” democrat in the state is that they are sticking to party lines. Wow, that has done the Dem’s so well in the recent past!
I think that all of Cindy’s endorsement from those people and more than half of the current council is reason enough NOT to vote for her.
And please, please, please, do not compare Reed with Gonzales. This misstep by him is a drop in the bucket compared to Gonzales’s misdeeds. Pathetic that you would even try to tie them together. Oh, more like desperate.
#16 Richard
Is it unfair to assume that this is a ‘labor’ town?
… that labor votes Democrat?
… that the party backed each of those great ex-mayors?
… and that since the Party backs Cindy so should they?
#22—Exactly, “Cindy, just call the bank!” in today’s age it should be a no brainer to provide documentation of her two years of expenditures.
It is horrible the way the Council continues to insult the intelligence of San Jose Residents. It was disgusting to watch Cindy ask the Finance department leading questions yesterday in the Council meeting that only further proved Chuck did nothing wrong. Nora Campos put on a show in saying to Chuck “I’m glad you finally apologized” When every other charge on her district account is bottled water (request her records and you’ll see for yourself).
Cindy pulled this stunt out of desperation and for shock value. If Chuck actually did wrong, you would certainly see an investigation.
This Council is full of premadonnas who have no moral compas. They are petty and refuse to take a stand on anything. Cindy is the leader of this pack and that seems like something I wouldn’t brag about.
Tom, who can take Larry Stone seriously anyway?!?! His “Rain Man” like pursuit of baseball in San Jose is quite a joke. As well, holding the job of County Assessor and running a real estate development company seems to me quite compromising.
Two questions:
1.) Why won’t Chuck Reed release ALL of his taxes. Specifically where is his “Schedule A” form regarding “charitable contributions.” Please one of you Disciples or Mayor Tom (whom I like actually) give me a GOOD explanation why he failed to report this. And I will keep asking the question until someone gives me an answer. BTW, I already know the answer and I suspect the powers-that-be are looking into it as well. You all may not like the answer you get ….that is, if Chuck Reed has the honesty and integrity to answer.
2.) Can ANY OF YOU point to one specific examples—aside from your weak ass presumptions—that Cindy Chavez has used her office for personal gain like Chuck Reed has in the last three years? Please give me something or move on. Because NONE OF YOU have anything other than the speculative innuendo that Tricky Vic has been spewing for the last year in order to paint Chavez as the one who has taken $$$ from the taxpayers.
3.) Can any of you justify what Reed has done. I dare any of you Disciples to justify Councilman Reed’s illegal and unethical activities (and they are illegal). And please stop telling me that Chavez did the same thing—because you cannot point to ONE instance where that has occured, other than you all weakly speculating of some Chavez.
Cause I already know the answers for Chuck Reed…
Downtown Brown, you are mislead. If Reed’s actions were illegal, you know our blessed Council would take Immediate action against him. They would never let that opportunity slip by. The Mercury News reported Cindy taking out an add last month in San Jose Magazine out of her District budget and paying $1600. That’s one example. I’m sure there are many more.
Read the City Attorney’s memo from the Council meeting yesterday. Chuck Reed acted appropriately within his duties as a Councilmember and there’s a lot of hype that says otherwise but no legal action. Hmmm…interesting.
Thanks, DB. You save the rest of us from having to bother (again) with responses. Since you say you already know the answers then we no longer have to respond to you. Better yet, we no longer have to read what you write (most of us have memorized it anyway, since you haven’t said anything new in about 3 weeks.)
So ask your questions, provide the answers, and we can all move forward and actually have a discussion about how to make SJ a better place.
Thanks for moving us in the right direction.
Okay Downtown Brown, I have some questions for you. How come Chavez called the first Civil Grand Juries report, “a tabliod?” “It’s in the Merc.
How come Chavez danced around the question of why she joined the Mayor in WITH HOLDING information from the ENTIRE Council on the grand pix for several months? How come Chavez got rid of affordable housing requirements in high rise buildings just so labor could get the contracts, if she cared so much about the elderly, disabled, and low income citizens of San Jose? How come Chavez was quoted in the paper saying, “she was not going to distance herself from Ron. She was going to be asking him for an endorsement when he got back from his vacation? How come all of Chavez’s neighbors are furious with her for backing out of a promise to help them rebuild their streets? How come Chavez is being paid to be on the Rules Committee, anmd be IN THE OFFICE, , but has missed so many committee meetings, and is out of the office CAMPAIGNING instead? Is she reimbursing tax payers for collecting a pay check when she’s never there for District 3 citizens?
DB alleges that Chuck Reed broke the law. Is DB a lawyer or is s/he just slinging mud on behalf of Cindy, who has nothing going for her other than the fact that her rival stepped into a minor scandal.
If the DA files charges against Mr. Reed then I might take some of the ranting seriously. Otherwise, it’s just mudslinging.
Tom,
Your taxes just went up!
Boo
Thanks, Tom. You nailed this right on. Stone has been an apologist for his buddy Gonzales all along. Of course, he has personally benefited from that relationship as well (can you say Muirison Label??) As with all Chavez fanatics, they fear losing their slimy grip on city hall as they see their last hope (Chavez) flailing away in desperation to be able to deliver on the promises she has made to her minions.
If Stone had any shame it has been used up on his quixotic crusade to bring baseball here by standing in front a spring training ballpark begging for attention. His silence as San Jose was wrecked by the Gonzales brigade is tragic.
It’s cute how the Chavez lovers continue ignore the little things—like the $11 million, like the $4 million, her saying one thing and doing another, her last minute memos that spit in the face of the public process, etc. They are all over Reed for real and imagined sins but their gal is Teflon.
Reed is not the savior of San Jose, but he has a much better chance than the baggage carrying Chavez.
DB, is there a person behind those tirades? Or, is this one of those automatic e-mail messages that gets sent out like a recorded candidate asking for support? If there is a person behind the tirades, can you please get new information, or change the tape?
Anyone else see page 19A of the Mercury News today.
When will Reed release his charitable dedcutions claimed on his income taxes?
Gandalf and others: it is not the job of any supporter of a political candidate to present both sides of any issue. It is their job to support their candidate, and try like hell to ignore the negative stuff about their candidate. It’s the job of the other candidate’s supporters to bring out the negative stuff.
Too bad it wasn’t the job of both candidates to present to the voters their respective visions for San Jose, instead of the one-sided mudslinging we get bombarded with by each side.
And some people still wonder why so few vote?
Why shady deals to get things done?
Why the lobbyist to make a city run?
Where have all the good ones gone?
Sold to the highest bidder every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
Where have all the centrists gone?
Those who know right from wrong?
Where have all the good ones gone?
Bought by the Parties every one
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?
Tom,
I would like to start by thanking you for your continued support for Chuck Reed despite the enormous pressure you must be facing. Your loyalty will not be forgotten, should you ever decide to run for another office. You have my vote!
Larry Stone pulled some really rotten tricks on Supervisor McHugh during their battle for County Assessor. Secretly faxing over documents to the Metro, neglecting to mention that Supervisor McHugh is and always has been one of the greatest voices for constituents. I see he hasn’t changed his tactics, in his support for Cindy.
This smacks of pressure politics – no wonder good people don’t vote, or run for office. It is like HIGH SCHOOL – “You are either with us, or you are out”. GROW UP, PEOPLE!
Every time I’ve attended a debate between Reed and Chavez, her supporters pack the room, and make rude comments to those of us who support Chuck. Dirty looks, hushed whispers, and nasty comments are a staple of her campaign. Doesn’t Chavez realize that by packing these meetings, she is completely out of touch with the REAL PEOPLE? I have also noticed that the same people show up, and the same questions are asked, to ensure that Chavez gets to take a swipe at Reed. Talk about a fixed fight!
Have you ever noticed that Chavez supporters love to pass out news paper articles that are slanted against Chuck, but never pass out articles that include her wrongdoings. When I went to the Business Journal Debate, with the help of Labor, Chavez had staged a homeless advocacy protest. Now I don’t know about you, but I thought it was pretty transparent, given that these advocates were wearing “what’s your deductions” stickers, just above their Chavez Stickers. Of course, Phaedra Ellis-Thompkins, was wearing the same sticker. I wonder if Labor is reporting the cost of those?
I’d like to see more Reed Supporters at these debates. You have a lot of good points, and it is about time we gave Chavez a taste of her own medicine. Please try and attend some of these debates. You can go to Reed’s website, to see dates and times.
I agree with you Johnmichael. It really sickens me to see garbage like the ad in today’s paper. The hypocrisy of the Chavez campaign in putting this ad in today’s paper, makes me wonder how Labor has the nerve to scream about the San Jose Chamber of Commerce.
I am furious that so many citizens are being abused with lies, and misrepresentations, in an effort to help place themselves, or their candidates in office.
Shame on you Cindy!
The ad in today’s paper shows how low Cindy must go to win. The ad was misleading and misrepresented the things Chuck actually spent the money on.
If Cindy needs to play dirty to win, she doesn’t deserve to be mayor. More of the same dirty politics that we have seen from City Hall in the past few years. Come on everyone, let’s vote for more years of that!
The Chavez Trail of Slime continues in the mail today. She has nothing to offer of her own so her friends in the Democratic Party put out a slime piece on Reed. Gee, if only Chavez had something to offer us as why we should vote FOR her instead of against Reed. Since she doesn’t her tactics only come across as desperate and pathetic. Not much of a campaign platform.
I agree with you both. I think we voters need to organize a protest outside of City Hall demanding Chavez stops this smear campaign, and start earning her pay check by performing her duties as Vice Mayor in an ethical, proper manner!
Dragging citizens, churches, war vets, and non profits through the mud like this is horrible!
#41
I saw the ad on page 19 of the paper today and am wondering what was misleading?
Reedimbursement spent taxpayer dollars on political contributions, lifetime memberships, and other nonsense. Those are his checks, that is his signature, that is his quote, what was misleading?
When will he release his charitable contributions claimed on his income taxes? What does he have to hide?
The ad says “The Mercury News reported that, as a Councilman and candidate for Mayor, Chuck Reed was reimbursed…”
At first read, I would assume he was reimbursed with tax payer money for campaign expenses. That is not so and misleading.
Those are Chuck Reed’s checks and they are for legitimate community groups, organizations and events that he participated in as Council people should. If he did something illegal, where is the investigation?
What about the other Councilmembers who did the same thing? Where is Cindy’s big ad against them? She went down a few notches in my mind, which is pretty sad because I wanted to believe she couldn’t stoop any lower.
re #23 – as a taxpayer, I am much more interested in getting chavez’s explanations for her role in the backroom deals that gave away our millions on norcal, grand prix, etc. from what I have read, there has been no good explanation.
Of course, the usual braindead bloggers on this site (I am sure we know who they are) have to keep bringing up the 40k chump change which reed has already repaid.
I remain stunned by Chuck’s ReimbursementGate. So many reimbursements over so many years for so many improper purposes. On the other hand, it’s only one issue, ‘tho with multiple counts.
I fully expected Cindy to hit on it, as she did today in the full page 19A piece. Cindy’s supporters called the COMPAC piece in the primary which laid out 100% factual data a “HIT PIECE” So, by their definition, isn’t her full page ad with Chuck’s checks a HIT PIECE?
Of course not, in their view [chime in any time now, DB].
Neither were hit pieces, because they were all completely factual. But it’s more than a bit disingenuous for Cindy’s followers to whine and cry about the COMPAC piece, and then do the very same thing.
So, I will return to a theme I started on a day or two ago—can’t we hear SOMETHING about each candidate’s vsion for San Jose, instead of this consultant-inspired series of pointing out the opposition’s flaws.
Last time I looked, ain’t none of us free of flaws. So, now that y’all have exploited those flaws, spent a lot of money and time doing so, will you PLEEEEZE give us some of your vision on the issues? Where’s the beef? [who here is old enough to remember that ad campaign?]
And the pundits wonder why so few people vote.
46 – You won’t get any good explanation for Chavez’ penchant for giving away millions of public dollars because there is no good explanation. Why else would she base her campaign on attacking her opponent. If she had anything to offer don’t you think we would have heard about by now.
Her campaign braintrust have met and know that only by deflecting questions about her voting record does she have even the slightest chance to compete in this race.
It is unbelievable that in a city of almost one million people, we have dumb and dumber running for mayor. The couple of junior DA wannabe’s on this site who specialize in slimy campaigns are happier than pigs in slop (I know, given how low the Chavez campaign has sunk, it’s hard to tell the difference.)
Although Chavez and her mouthpieces refuse to answer any question having to do with city issues, I wonder how she will fix the worst streets in the nation. I also wonder how she provide adequate parkland for the massive developments she supports. I wonder
re: #16, 23, 46 and Cindy votes to give away $53,500,000.000 :
Don’t bother her. She’s busy adding $75 + $150 + 100 + $50 etc, etc, etc. . . .
Besides, Richard Robinson redefined $millions as “Chump Change” so we shouldn’t worry about the big bucks.
By the way, is there math competency exam for those running for Council or Mayor?
To all of you asking for Chuck’s tax returns all you had to do was go see them. They were on display for 2 days. If there was anything to the Chavez gang about the deductions don’t you think Barry Witt boy reporter would have written something by now?
Today’s ad on page 19a in the Mercury News says it was funded by the Chavez campaign, which is regulated by San Jose’s campaign finance rules.
Coincidentally, we also received a mailer today funded by the Santa Clara County United Democratic Campaign with the same graphics and checks as the Chavez ad in the Merc.
I suppose this qualifies as an independent expenditure in San Jose.
Looking at the contribution reports for the group, you can see many large donations, some as high as $30,000 from the South Bay Labor Council.
Makes San Jose’s laws on $500 contribution limits look silly.
#53 – Integrity includes the willingness to face up to your actions, apologize, and pay the money back; something I don’t see from Ms. Chavez, and her $1600 add in SAN JOSE MAGAZINE, with her name, address, and phone number at the bottom. And that is only what is reported in the Mercury News. I am sure there is more we would find, if the Merc were to take a closer look at Chavez’ office account spending. That is on top of the $4million Car Race she knew about and didn’t tell the Council, the $11 million for Norcal, voting to have the UNFOUNDED allegations against Council Member Cortese sent to the full Council to create a scandal instead of sending them to the Ethics committee or the City Attorney (not only that, as Chair, she had the responsibility to make sure Council Member Cortese’s rights were protected – from his comments, they weren’t; and she clearly didn’t act to protect his rights.),…. We could go on and on. That is a lack of integrity.
Well DB, etal. you can take a break. Now I understand why you are so desperate to bash Reed.
In a recent poll conducted by your favorite person, Chavez, your are lagging behind Reed by 11%. In a recent poll conducted by the Chamber, Chavez is lagging behind Reed by 32%.
As they say, “the people have spoken!”
#54
When will Chuck release his tax deductions he claimed on his returns?
#56
Laughable—Reedimbursement was up, according to him by 28 pts. He is now up 11 pts. according to Chavez. The Mercury News poll, I predict, will call it a dead heat.
Reedimbursement is bleeding badly right now—11 points before the mail piece and the full page ad that hit yesterday—get out the lifeboats because Mr. Integrity is sinking.
When will Chuck release his charitable deductions he claimed on his income taxes? What does he have to hide?
Yep, DB is the math genius. Millions and millions of dollars minus $40,000 is still millions and millions of dollars that Chavez has given away in public funds. Oh, I forgot. That’s OK because it wasn’t Reed.
RC – When will Chavez ever tell us what she will do as mayor? When will she tell us how she will fix all that is broken in SJ?
I know the answer is never, but would be interested in your spin (if you are ever allowed to write anything but the party line.)
As for Mr. Integrity:
Public votes vs. private gain are quite
different.
Furthermore, nobody likes a hypocrite.
Integrity = the quality of possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles or professional standards.
From what I read about Mr. Reed…
He lacks integrity!
“11 points before the mail piece and the full page ad that hit yesterday”
I would just like to repeat myself. You do not deserve to be Mayor if you have to win by taking out a full page deceptive ad on your opponent and sending out THE SAME ad through an “independant committee.” Independant? I think not.
#59
If you truly want details go to her web site—Where Mr. Reedimbursement’s site is full of flags and themes, Chaves’s site has details, specifics, and a road map of how she will lead.
There are detailed plans, ideas and insight as to what she will do and how she will go about doing it.
http://www.cindychavez4mayor.com
You drink from the same half empty glass that Mr. Reed drinks from. All in San Jose is not broken. I see the glass as half full, not half empty. If anyone with an ounce of sense did not see the Gonzo train wreck coming years ago and somehow looked to him or any other political leader for moral guidance then they had better wake up.
Chavez has been telling you and anyone who will listen how she would lead and what she will do, the problem is that her detractors are wanting to run against someone that is not on the ballot, Gonzales. Look at her positions, listen to the video’s on her site, go to a debate or community forum and open your ears and then you can then make an informed decision.
Name one item in either the ad or the mail piece that was deceptive? Those are Charles, oops, I mean Chucks checks, right? Those checks were reedimbursed by the taxpayers, right? That was Reed’s picture, right? That was the Mercury News editorial, right?
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/elections/15618847.htm
Back up your claim of deception?
I had a thought as I was beating on some hot iron today.
When I saw the full page add form Cindy’s committee, on checks from Reed, It occurred to me that This fellow Reed so much resembled Robin Hood in style.
My equation was, Reed was shareing the wealth from the same pot with the poor nonprofits that the Sheriff of Notingham and his supporters shared with the Garbagers, Developers and Race car promoters. He did it in day lite just like Robin Hood, not in the dark behind closed doors that has become the custom of our incrediblly funny Sheriff of Nothingham and his men and supporters!
As far as I’m concerned he didn’t give them enough, I wish Cindy had given the nonprofits the 4 mill and our Sheriff of Nothingham, had given them the 11mil. for that matter we’ed all be a hell of a lot better off if The Cisco Kid had spread the 1/2 billion $ spent on the Stainless steal silly hall, thruout the city.
Remember folks, Robin Hood was the good guy. History has a way of repeating it’s self don’t it.
What really make me beat on these here hot horse shoes with anger is that, when Robin “er” Reed gives my money away, it feels good, but when some rascal wabbit gives me a sucker punch and picks my pockets, it makes me want to join the
“Veterans of San Jose’s Ethics Wars”. Which started between The Sheriff of Nothingham and I, 7 years ago.
Leave the guy alone and let’s play ball!!!!
The Village Black Smith
#41: I don’t get what you claim to be misleading about Cindy’s ad on Page 19a of the Murky News 2 days ago. Please enlighten me, since I thought everything in it was accurate.
The problem I see with that ad is that it is exactly the same thing that the Cindynistas claimed was a problem with the COMPAC mailer about her votes.
I believe everything in both ads was accurate. So, the Cindynistas can’t have it both ways. If they TRULY believed the COMPAC ad was a violation of campaign laws, how can they do the exact same thing? I agree with Judge Ware—neither should be considered violations.
That said, I agree with part of #42’s post-please offer us something Cindy. I say that as well to Vic & Chuck. Pleeze stop this negative nonsense and pleeeeze both of you tell us what your vision for the next four years is.
I disagree with #42 that a factual presentation of what happened [Cindy’s votes for giveaways to NorCal and Grand Prix, her last minute memos to her colleagues and Chuck’s clearly improper reimbursements while piously shouting his holier-than-thou “Reed Reforms”] can be considered slime politics. The events themselves may be slime; but portraying slime for what it is is not slime politics.
So, we now all know that each candidate has warts. ‘Nuf said on the subject, methinks. Let’s get down to what Pandori did—lay out what you would hope to accomplish as mayor of San Jose, so that we may decide based upon your vision, not the dirt you and your consultants can dredge up about your opponent.
Too Pollyanna-ish of me to suggest this, I fear. But hope springs eternal.
JMC #64,
Was the Chavez camp outrage about the COMPAC funding or message? If it was the funding, take a look at the recent filing by the Santa Clara County Democratic United Democratic Campaign that is spending most of it money on Chavez [1], including the recent mailing.
A big chunk of money ($55,000) came from Indian gambling interests. Another large donation ($27,000) was from Alberto Torrico for Assembly. And still another ($50,000) was from Republic Holdings.
Once again, San Jose’s $500 contribution limit looks quaint when compared to the big money being collected by the various committees and spent on the campaign for San Jose’s mayor.
If the Chavez camp’s outrage over COMPAC is to be believed, shouldn’t they refuse the support of committees taking such large sums of money?
[1] http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/PDFGen/pdfgen.prg?filingid=1204602&amendid=0
When will the two candidates help us understand the rationale behind their voting records?
A N D . . . . .
Tell us how this ( their past voting record ) and their values and visision for San Jose are best for this City?
DB, RR, RC, and others are welcome to chimb in if you know something that the candidates are not telling us.
NO BASHING OF OPPONENT ALLOWED.
Just help us understand W H Y we should vote F O R one or the other.
I like you Johnmichael! I have some answers to your question below.
I know that Reed wants to shorten the time for business permits, put parks closer to people’s homes, clean up the environment, help small businesses grow, and thrive. I know he wants to put Pandori on a task force to help stop kids from joining gangs, and wants to hire at least 30 more Police Officers. He has supported the Network for a Hate Free Community, and attened two of the Board of Supervisor’s forums, to help calm the community, after two people of color were physically assulted. An eldely victim almost died.
He fully supports the Neighborhoood Watch Programs. Twice, he and Council Member LeZotte took money from their district budget to ensure that the program didn’t go under.
He is also an animal lover. He voted against using leg traps on wild animals in the hills, and voted for safe humane traps. He supports the spay/neuter program, and voted to fund and build our new spay/neuter clinic. He was the only Council Member to agree to open his community center to animal rescue groups, so they can conduct a safe, indoor pet adoption fair.
He is a strong advocate of education and will use his budget as Mayor to help fund many needed programs. These are just a few of the many things Reed will, and has already begun to do.
You see Johnmichael, when I go to debates between Chavez and Reed, when she’s not throwing punches at him, I get to hear his vision for San Jose, and how he plans to carry it out. I also get to hear his accomplishments. I have also followed both Reed and Chavez on the Council for the last six years, and I know where they stand on the issues.
I’m voting for Reed because even when he’s made mistakes he owns up to it. Chavez has not. 2 years of missing checks, withholding information from the Council on the race, and 200 purchases of flowers at $70.00 a pop, is way too much. A $1,600.00 ad is enough to feed a poor family for months, and saying one thing and doing another for 8 years now, is more than I can handle.
It just may be that when DB, RR, RC write, they are writing to the choir…. which explains why the messages is always simple, repetative and void of logic or common sense.
David D.
If there was a math competency requirement…Chuck Reed has clearly failed it.
Except, when he failed it—he still made $$$ off of it.
#67
Bridget—you got me.
Chuck is also for world peace, a chicken in every pot, dogs and cats getting along and for every employee to be able to be reimbursed for anything they want.
Chuck is an environmentalist who just happens to work for developers and is an all around great guy who donates to charity as often as he can.
What has this man done on the council? Name a project or initiative that he worked to get his fellow council members to support that had an impact on the residents of San Jose? What has he done besides vote no, point fingers and offer up no solution to the problem?
200 purchases for flowers, are you sure that it wasn’t 5000 purchases, or 20000? If you are going to make something up, at least make it credible. Back it up—Chuck’s reimbursements are located at:
http://reeditforyourself.com/
re #68 – Chuck Reed voting no on norcal, grand prix, new city hall, etc., and saving taxpayers money is plenty good enough reason for me to vote for him. I believe that Reed being labeled as dr. no by some on this site is a good thing. No to spending taxpayer money is how I see it.
I don’t need government officials who have grand visions of creating new social programs or gleaming new city halls. Those things usually waste public money.
I just want a government that will stay out of the way of free enterprise while enforcing a level playing field for everyone. In my view, Chavez and her labor special interests will do more harm than good to the economy. All you need to do is look at her voting record. That’s why I am voting for Reed.
RC, you seem to be great at directing everyone to the reimbursement section, why don’t you go look at Cindy’s? You’ll see what I said about her is true. It was two hundred, at $70.00 each. That would feed a lot of kids, buy school books, and help fund the Neighborhood Watch Program for several months.
Also, go to the City’s website and watch the Council Meeting. You’ll see the City Attorney’s memo, and see what a pathetic attempt at dancing around her mistakes Cindy tries to make.
I noticed that whenever anyone tries to bring up Chuck’s vision for San Jose, points out his voting record, or shows his accomplishments, the best you and DB can do is run back to reimbursements. Pretty desperate of you, don’t you think?
You guys don’t care who will best serve the City, you are being paid to monitor the blogs and continue to bring everyone back to the same old tired arguement. We all know it, so I’m going to make a suggestion to everyone who’s as sick of you, DB, etal., as I am, and it is this, I’m going to stop responding to your one sided remarks. I’m going to focus on discussions with bloggers who can do a fair compairison of both candidates without bashing either.
I think it’s about time for some mature, educated dialog on the issues, not the people. For example, why or why not should the Council have voted on the car race, new City Hall, and if it were you on the Council, how, or why would you have voted that way?
Hey Reality Check,
Why don’t you clear up the confusion. Was Chavez upset about the contents of the COMPAC mailer or its funding?
JMC:the big difference between the ad in the paper and compac’s ad is that CIndy’s campaign paid for it. The COMPAC ad was paid for in excess of the the $500 contribution. I do not think for may CIndy’s supporters the issue was the content as much as the hypocrisy of critiquing projects that they paid for and be clear advocates of campaign finance reform and then violating the law and refusing to comply with the law. It is is also dishonest to say that all of the money that goes into the party pays for Cindy. Folks are looking at the income and not the expenses. State races are a much higher prioirty than local races.
I always appreciate reading your comments. Though I am an avid CIndy supporter the ramblings of others all offended by the ability of someone else to see one side has turned me off.
Say goodnight, RC. The party’s over and all that will be left for you to do is to clean-up the mess you have helped create.
WIlll the last one out at the Chavez campaign office please turn out the lights?
Maribel #73,
What about the mailer that we received the same day the ad ran in the Mercury News?
Ours says it was paid for by the Santa Clara County United Democratic Campaign. If you look at their latest filing with the Secretary of State [1], a large percentage of their expenses are for the Chavez campaign ($128,680.12 total for the year).
I find the Chavez campaign outrage over the COMPAC mailer in terms of funding very hypocritical now that we see the Democrats have no problem taking checks for $50,000.
[1] http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/PDFGen/pdfgen.prg?filingid=1204602&amendid=0
Amazing. Now Chavez is getting money from Indian gaming interest. Bringing money in from sources outside San Jose, so she can owe more favors. Bay 101, and Garden City have been a favorite target for Chavez and her buddy, and mentor Gonzo. I wonder what she promised these PACs….
Reed refused the Indian gaming’s request to put a casino in San Jose. I’m sure they tried to sweeten the deal with financial support for his campaign, but Reed loves San Jose too much to turn it into another Las Vegas.
#75
No one can put an Indian Casino in San Jose, here is why:
http://www.abag.ca.gov/current_issues/Indian-Gaming/indexgaming.html
Nice try—Did you see the poll in the Mercury News today? I heard there was a M*A*S*H unit in front of the Reed HQ, they are trying to stop the bleeding….
Hey, Teach, I was just in Rome and visited a few “vomitoria”. Yet, my old “D’s” in Latin seem to haunt me. I’ll try to do better. Thanks, TMcE
#78
Can you show me what documents you are looking at where Cindy took casino money?
And are you sure Reed has not taken casino money? Why won’t he disclose who he met with in regard to a Casino in his council district?
hey rc,
let’s go out and have a drink to celebrate the poll results today. it may not mean anything but a near victory in a merc poll has to count for something.
another loony chavez supporter
It doesn’t matter.
Why is Chavez taking casino money?
Maybe Chavez is going to do them a favor here, with the card rooms. Maybe her Democratic allies are doing the casinos a favor somewhere else.
But the casinos don’t write checks because you have a nice smile. They write checks to buy influence, and apparently Cindy is selling.
LOOK AT REED’S AND CHAVEZ’S VOTING RECORD
It seems fairly obvious that these chavez supporters are trying to bring a lot of hot air into this site so that chavez’s poor voting is not discussed.
Without going into accusations and innuendos regarding who knew what and when and who was involved in which backroom deals, all you have to do is look at the voting record of the two candidates. Their voting record is not in dispute.
Chavez voted yes for the new city hall which has cost 500 million plus. I don’t know about you but I don’t really need a symbolic glass and steel dome next to a city hall just for looks. Reed, a.k.a., Dr. No, voted no.
Chavez voted yes to sue Santa Clara County on the new music venue. Reed voted no. The case was tossed out and the County countersued and won. Cost to taxpayers was 22.5 million.
Chavez voted yes to give Norcal an extra 11.25 mil which the city was not obligated to pay. Reed voted no.
Chavez voted yes to give the Grand Prix 4 mil even though the public only had days to review the proposal.
Chavez voted yes to taking over the Tropicana Shopping Center and other businesses by eminent domain. Reed voted no. The city lost the lawsuit that followed. Cost to taxpayers was 8 million.
Based on those decisions alone, Chavez should be fired only with the other council members (sheep/followers, but that is another story). What employee or CEO would be retained for having made such poor financial decisions with the company’s money.
But now Chavez is running for mayor and having more say over how taxpayer money is spent. Does that make any sense?
Based on her track record and her ties to Labor, the public should be very worried about how their money will be spent in the future.
Would any Chavez backer give me a reason to vote for her based on her voting record as compared to Reed’s.
RC #61 says: “If anyone with an ounce of sense did not see the Gonzo train wreck coming years ago and somehow looked to him or any other political leader for moral guidance then they had better wake up.”
Well your girl Cindy apparently didn’t, since she kept her political fortunes tied close to Gonzo until well after the bitter end. In fact, she was the last to leave the train—AFTER the wreck.
And now she’s trying to convince us otherwise. Revisionist history at its best.
Tom,
These last four weeks of the campaign are going to difficult for Chuck. If he’s going to continue to take the high road, be the gentleman looking to the future, he’ll probably loose to the “Swift boat-like” shots from the DNC/ Labor/ other interests.
Chuck’s mailer is well done. But will it reach voter’s who have trouble reading or just don’t bother? They may not be a huge percentage, but they are significant and will most likely vote on sound bites and impressions.
In the closing weeks he’ll have to put his opponent on the ropes with her voting record, support of Gonzales and what that has cost the City. . . .
. . . . In parks, streets repairs, libraries, fire and safety, drawing new business, etc.
. . . . How that total breaks down when divided by the number of households in S.J.
. . . . How that has impacted San Jose’s reputation and integrity.
Clinton put a finger in the face of FNN and asked the tough questions and told the truth. John Kerry, Murtha, retired generals and others are pulling no punches. It will be interesting to see what happens in the closing weeks of this race and how that impacts the outcome.
But you knew this, right?
Sorry, RC # 61: I took your challenge and linked up to Cindy’s website. It contained a lot of “breaking news” that was several months old, and a lot of feel good programs that had no way of being funded.
I saw nothing about how she would act to fix our crumbling infrastructure. There’s some bicycle guy who posts here now and then who doesn’t think roads that are literally crumbling is an important thing. I must disagree.
Government exists to pool resources to build and sustain the things that no individual or even a fairly large group of individuals can do. Stuff like roads, sewers, school systems, postal network, parks, libraries, hospitals…
Not a single one of those issues was significantly addressed in Cindy’s website. Most were not addresed at all. It was a bunch of feel good programs for non-contributors to be paid for by contributors, or for non-taxpayers paid for by taxpayers, if you will.
I believe that the people who show up at work every day and pay taxes have the right not to have their fillings jarred loose by roads so bad that those roads should be found only in third world nations. In the area with the highest per capita income and highest home prices in history, people who work for a living drive to work on roads not worthy for rural areas of places we are fighting in right now. That ain’t right.
Before we spend billions to support illegals, we need to take care of the infrastructure at home; just as before we spend billions on some foolish mission to wave a magic wand and turn a bunch of tribal Hatfields and McCoys (read Sunni/Shia/Kurds) into lovers of democracy, we need to ensure that kids get health care in the USA, that miners can go into the bowels of the earth in relative safety, and people who have worked hard all their lives are supported better than the welfare parasites who have never pulled a shift for three generations…or more, on the East Coast.
I’m sure than Cindy’s message resonates with all those who don’t have a job, and all those who do have a job with job rules such that they really don’t do much to earn their checks due to union work rules; e.g. Caltrans—a bloated bureaucracy that sends thousands of people out on the roads to mostly stand around all day. I’m sure her message resonates with both the rank and file and the managers of VTA, which seems to exist primarily to provide jobs at ALL LEVELS for otherwise unemployable people, but most particularly senior management.
RC, I accepted your challenge and waded through Cindy’s website. It overwhelmed the anger and disappointment I felt about Chucks huge ethical $40k lapse. It overwhelmed me against voting for Cindy under pretty much any circumstances.
Maribel#73: As I understand it, the same ad was also paid for by a demo. labor group. I’d bet they put it together and “licensed” the copy to Cindy
I want to be the first to express appreciation for effort and sacrifice DB must have undergone to clean up his act for posting on this board.
http://www.myspace.com/redsoxnationrules
MySpace Profile – TaKe yoUr 26 RiNgS AnD ShOvE eM, 24 years old, Male, LYNN, MASSACHUSETTS, US, YANKEES SUCK JETER SWALLOWS.
profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=46421313 – 119k – Supplemental Result – Cached – Similar pages
Tom—the plural is “vomitoria”
#88
Your right, that’s a lie.
I’ll you what is a political ruse, the big deal that the chavez backers are making out of reed’s council expenses especially when other council members have similar expense practices. I have not seen Chavez or any other council members reimburse the taxpayers like Reed has.
What about Chavez’s shameless act of trying to accuse Reed of knowing the secret Norcal pact. This accusation is from someone who is as closely connected to Labor Union as anyone and who is pretending to be ignorant about the issue. That’s just not a political ruse, it’s outright hogwash as noted in the Merc, the Metro and to just about anyone with an ounce of common sense.
Or what about Chavez saying she wants to lead a sunshine movement to have a more open government only after the Grand Prix voting debacle blew up in her face. Reed has been at the forefront of a more open government all along. He had proposed a rule in 2002 to make city staff report available sooner for the public to review, a proposal which was opposed by Chavez.
The gigantic elephant in the room is CHAVEZ’S VOTING RECORD WHICH SHOWS SHE HAS WASTED MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS. Any apology forthcoming from her for norcal, the grand prix, tropicana takeover, the county lawsuit, the extravagant city hall, etc.? REED’S VOTING RECORD SHOW THE TAXPAYERS COULD HAVE SAVED MILLIONS.
Chavez’s and Reed’s track record speak for themselves. Chavez changes history or acts only when it is politically in her interest. Reed has been consistent in his message of open government and fiscal responsibility.
When will the Chavez backers deal with the real issue and address why she should be mayor when her track record shows a consistent pattern of bad judgement when it comes to taxpayer money.
RR # 89—the voice of reason for a change on this blog.
#76, Look RC, Nobody ever said Chavez was bringing a casino here. Try reading what’s said a little closer next time. My question is why she’s taking money from them, through the Democratic Party so it can’t be traced to her? And why is the Democratic Party taking money from all these PACs for Chavez?
It’s pretty clear you are being paid by the Chavez campaign to monitor these bloggs, put out misinformation, and twist the facts. It’s getting boring and it’s getting old.
Tonight the political analyst on channel 11, said the Reed is actually 10% ahead of Chavez. He said that the Merc poll included a large percentage of people who didn’t vote in the primary and may not vote in Nov. He said that the majority of Labor households DO NOT support Chavez. He also said Chavez is not as well liked, or trusted as Reed.
Chavez is still considered by the majority to be no different than Gonzo. You Chavez supporters better hope that she is as clean as you think she is because if Gonzo goes to trial, he or Norcal just may blow the whistle on little Ms. Muffett. I guess it’s a good thing that the Council passed an ordinance to help them dump Chavez if she becomes Mayor, and is finally proven to have been as much a part of witholding info from the Council on Norcal, as she was in withholding info from them on the Grand Prix. I guess you’ll say that’s a lie too RC…..
Boy, it is getting a little shrill on this site.
Let’s go back to step 1. Cindy is a good person. 2. Chuck, who I do not support, will not lead the City into chaos if elected and is a good person too.
The poll shows the gap has narrowed. As in all elections turnout is the key, but Cindy certainly has a better “trend” with a month to go.
Clearly, the more people who vote, the better chance Cindy has of winning.
The Reed “Indian Casino” money is a ruse, it is a desparate attempt to inflame people who don’t like it. If Reed continues this line, he better damn well not have Casino backers or their cousins on his FPPC form somewhere.
The Chavez campaign has refrained from using inflamatory information that is not relevant concerning Reed, his consultant and his backers. That was Cindy’s decision, not her consultants and she should be praised for it.
The big Elephant in the room is still the question regarding Chuck’s finances. As long as he did not violate the law he is ok.
But his refusal to show his deductions, even after he made his taxes public, combined with the lack of a clear declaration that he did not deduct reimbursements to nonprofits from his taxes is casting a pall over his campaign.
Maybe it is part of his October Surprise to rehabilitate his honesty. But the longer he waits the less credible the denial.
However, if by some chance he did, even inadvertantly, deduct those reimbursements of taxpayer money—then by his own standards and previous statements he is duty-bound to withdraw and resign from office.
I am truly hoping this did not occur. I am hoping he can contain the damage to a lapse of judgement concerning the misuse of taxpayer money.
I don’t think Chuck is, at his core, a dishonest individual. I am sure he is very embarrassed by the entire situation, especially given his stated record.
But he is human and he did make a mistake. People will forgive the mistake as long as there is contrition.
As Ghandi once said, “A sincere apology followed by a promise never to do the act again is the highest form of contrition.”
I’m sure, in his heart, Chuck expects no less from himself.
#91 k.le re: your comment “… it’s outright hogwash as noted in the Merc, the Metro and to just about anyone with an ounce of common sense.”
Cindy is not speaking to those who read, have common sense or critical thinking skills.
She’s speaking to those who like the short simple negaive message…. a page out of Karl Rove’s book.
#90, In the debate at the San Jose Rep Theater, Chavez admitted withholding information from the Council on the Grand Prix, and said in the future she would not ask the Council to vote on such an important issue with as little as 24 hours again. So, try checking your facts.
#89, Richard you have been bashing Reed on your own blogg and blocking comments from Reed supporters, so I find it very odd that you are now playing both sides of the fence in your comments here. I overheard you telling one of Reed’s campaign advisors that, “I hope Chuck doesn’t end up in jail.” The only ruse I see being planted in the public is you.
I don’t think the public is as dumb as you think they are. Chavez knows that the Indian gaming interest PAC is putting over 50 thousand dollars into the very PAC she is accepting contributions from. It’s all about choice. She can care about who is filtering money into the Democratic Party, and refuse it, or she can keep right on taking it. Her choice is clear.
Your comment that Chavez isn’t running a dirty campaign is worth a good laugh. I didn’t see Reed put a full page ad in the Merc, send out mailers, after screaming about how badly the Chamber treated her. Talk about a desperate act and a ruse. I really have to wonder how people like you reason things out in your head.
The bottom line is this, 60% of voters don’t vote because they don’t feel heard by public officals, and they don’t trust them. Dirty campaigns filled with half truths, and hurtful attacks turn people off. Large amounts of money is filtered in to confuse us on which props to vote for or against. Something needs to change. I’m sure even you Richard would agree with that.
As to Cindy, you’re right, as a human being she is a great delight to speak to, but she is not the right person to become our new Mayor. I don’t want 8 more years of the same kind of over spending, and withholding of information.
Brigit,
Just for the record, I do not block pro-Reed comments from my blog—there have not been any pro-Reed statements.
BTW—NorCal and the Grand Prix were good financial decisions for the City. I’ve explained both to the math challenged on this board ad nauseum—but believe the myth if you choose.
The “people” are not being listened to is a crock. Politicians listen too much to the whines of the masses.
Survey’s show most can’t name their own City Councilmember. Now we are supposed to believe they are offended because they don’t get enough information from government.
They majority are not paying attention. Those who do are the people who actually vote, Mr. Reed won in the primary with less than 15% support of eligible voters. Not exactly a landslide.
If people are tired of “dirty” campaigns they can do something about it. They can inform themselves through the internet and by directly contacting the campaigns. Politics is a participatory sport.
The majority will not—they are too busy, lazy or don’t think it is important enough to matter.
Hence the system remains unaffected by their disdain for process.
Cavaet Emptor.
Bridget,
Yes, you obviously missed Mr. Robinson’s post (#49—Single Gal and Being Cheap) where he explained that all of us who didn’t agree with his logic were too stupid to vote. BTW, can someone email me instructions for making ice? Can’t find them anywhere.
Wow,
Who are you Chavez supporters?
What did she do or what does she promise to do for you?
I’ve been involved with my neighborhood assoc. for 6 years. We have had no help out of her office in all that time. She has her staff meet with us and has done nothing to help further our neighborhood causes.
She has taken credit for our hard work and now lists some of our results in her campaign literature as her own.
I have been a San Jose resident for 45 years. I have never in all my time here witnessed such a mess at City Hall. To excuse Chavez from blame is an absolute joke. How can anyone look at her history with Gonzo and not see that she is tied to his waist and in lock-step with all of his tomfoolery.
I was and will continue to be a huge Pandori fan. As nice as it sounds I’m afraid a vote for pandori is a vote for Chavez.
Reed’s margin is too slim for us to write in Pandori, David is a Reed supporter so buck up little campers and check the Reed box.
97 – Thanks for your input. I know many others who have had the same experience you have had. Perhaps, you bring a note of reality to the Cindyannas who can see no wrong done by their gal.
Granted, she is a nice person (that is always their argument.) Being nice has nothing to do with being a devious candidate. If we can’t trust now, based on her very public voting record, how are we going to trust her if she becomes mayor. Simple—we’re not going to elect her mayor. We can’t take that chance.
#95, Richard you are so much a part of the deception you are paid to spread, you seem to actually believe your own bull. I tried to post on your blogg and you blocked me.
Norcal, grand prix….Good financial decisions? For whom? Did you miss the part where Gonzo and Chavez are required to participate with the rest of the Council, or do you come from a country like Mexico were deceiving the people and other leaders is acceptable? I don’t think homeowners, renters, businesses, and landlords that got a rate hike on garbage hauling would agree with you.
The business owners of downtown would sorely disagree with you on who profited during the grand prix. Many of them were quoted as saying they lost money, and some even closed for lack of business.
Your buddy Chavez allowed her husband, son, pals like Nancy Pyle to sit up in luxury boxes at the race, and run up thousands of dollars on we tax payers for food and other goodies. It’s sickening!
Secondly, I contacted the Mercury News tonight, to check statements you Chavez lovers have been making. They verified that not only did Reed release his tax returns for two days, but that Chavez only released hers for two hours. (You still haven’t told me how she only paid $17,000.00 on a $160,000.00 income.)
People are not too busy, or lazy to vote, nor do they chose to spend time looking at a politican’s website, when they know their voting record. You can delude yourself into thinking you are the only one on the planet with half a brain, and I’m being generous here, but I can tell you this, I’d place my money on the intelligence of the general public over anything you have to say, in a hot minute.
Just so you know Richard, I have no intention of responding to any more of your comments and misrepresentations on this blogg. Too many of us are enabling you to spout your misconceptions by actually responding to you. My hope is they will start to ignore you, and may be you’ll take the hint and go a way.
#95 – Richard Robinson:
“The “people” are not being listened to is a crock. Politicians listen too much to the whines of the masses.”
Wow. I just cannot believe you said that. So, you think that Politicians listen too much to what the public says, right? And, how does your candidate, Cindy Chavez measure up to this “pearl of wisdom?”
What would you have them do? Sit up there in that $400 million tower and talk amongst themselves? Is that the advice Chavez was following when she met with Gonzo and the car race folks for a year, without including the rest of the Council?
What do you think of those ‘masses’ and their right to vote?
Considering that those “masses” provide you with a paycheck as a political consultant, and publicity from your occasional commentary in the Mercury News, I am just amazed to hear you say that.
I think you are wasting your intellingence on we pitiful masses on this blog. You should be out there helping Cindy get out the vote, because she will certainly need it. Maybe a good walk around the block would clear your head. After speaking to the real people, maybe you’ll see why Chavez hasn’t got a prayer of winning, because the “masses” are alot more intellingent than you give them credit for.