Voters all over the nation stood up against the forces of unethical government on Tuesday. The decisive wave struck here in San Jose with the rejection of Manny Diaz and the Gonzales-associated Cindy Chavez and the election of Sam Liccardo and Chuck Reed. The Jack Abramoff-connected California District 11 Congressman Richard Pombo was swept out of office, in what was thought to be a safe Republican seat, along with several of his colleagues in similar positions. The voters in besieged Ohio rejected the corrupt Ken Blackwell’s bid to become their governor, and in Florida, they firmly turned down Katherine Harris, the ethically challenged engineer of the 2000 Bush “victory” who wanted to be a U.S. senator.
Our city has suffered several years of backroom deals and political corruption under the current mayor and his associates. We followed the money to NorCal, etc., and didn’t like what we found. For six years, this country has endured a nonstop barrage of lies from the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress in justifying the criminal invasion of Iraq, torture, and a host of Constitutional violations. The Congressional lobbying scandals began with Jack Abramoff and, following the money, led deep within the heart of the Republican leadership. Although they were slow to react, the American people finally smelled a rat and “threw the bums out.” It’s about time.
So, now, will this strong message of revulsion translate into a new period of positive, open, honest government in San Jose and at all levels across the nation? Has it ever? Or will most people forget about it for another two years until the next election, or disaster, throws a wrench into the orderly progress of existence?
Somehow, I think it might be different this time—at least I hope so. Everything we believe in and the very glue that binds us together as a people are at stake right now. Most of us look at what government has perpetuated so far this century and the consequent negative perception of Americans in the world, and we don’t like what we see. We don’t like boondoggles like those in Coyote Valley and Iraq that make huge corporations and a few billionaires richer at our expense. We don’t like to be continually lied to by government officials who foment fear in order to obtain assent for what turns out to be political folly. We don’t like war, torture, imprisonment without trial and the government listening in on our private conversations.
What we do believe in is the wisdom of the Constitution and the rule of its laws and the liberty it gives to us to decide who and what comprises our government. If we remain vigilant and engaged and put our faith in that document carved from the good intentions of our sage Founding Fathers, insisting that its tenants are followed and enforced by our government, we wield a political weapon that will relieve us of those who attempt to steal our consent to govern with lies and corruption and keep them out. Wavering from this path is not an option. On Tuesday, we turned ourselves away from the precipice and we don’t want to peer over it again.
This isn’t a matter of political parties or ideology; our system is not predicated on these but rather on common sense and purpose of the people to democratically decide what is best for all of us within the framework of our trusted supreme governing document. That’s what happened on Election Day 2006 and it was a beautiful thing to behold—but it was only a start and we still have a long way to go. We Americans have learned much in this new century so far, but the most important lesson is that, like Paul Revere, we must remain ever watchful.
Napper #2
As the editor of this site and a member of its editorial board, I can tell you that our editorial policy includes local perspectives on state, national and international issues, as well as looking at local issues within a wider state, national and international context.
If you don’t agree with the substance of my column, you are free to present your contrary view below.
Dogonit Napper – you beat me to it.
Jack, I have a bridge for sale – bright orange and really cool.
Yes, there was corruption while the republicans were in power. However there were far more indictments for corruption during the Clinton administration. Cindy’s out. Thank God. However, Chuck ain’t no saint.
Why do people become politicians? There seems to be a ‘politician disease’ that leads a lot of them to corruption. You can hold your breath, with little risk of injury, waiting for the next bipartisan scandal…
1 second.. everybody quiet for a sec.. hear that?
You don’t hear anything? Neither do I.
Prior to the election the democratic party’s echo chamber (aka the mainstream news media) was all abuzz with a veritable drumbeat of stories about how this election would be one of the worst for fraud, disenfranchisement of minorities, vote machine tampering, etc.
Yesterday and today you don’t hear a peep about voting irregularities or disenfranchisement.
It’s so quiet you could hear a hanging chad fall to the floor.
So now that the democrats have won there can be no other explanation than in just 2 short years all the voting bugs have been fixed.. right?
Viva Fidel!
I guess the name should be changed to “San Jose Inside the World”.
How’s that work for you Napper?
Novice,
I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning, especially when it sticks and scorches the unsuspecting villagers.
Well done.
Napper, face it, you’re just upset that the Republicans (and their faith-based agenda) got trounced in this election.
Relax, the Dems will get their trouncing some other cycle.
But just to clutter up the site with non-SJ politics, here is what a friend in New Hamshire wrote to me in the wake of Tuesday’s election:
“New Hampshire turned itself inside out. We went from one Democrat statewide (the governor, who won reelection by a record margin——76% of the vote) to a 154-seat change in the legislature to a huge Demo majority, the first Demo Legislature majority since 1922; a flip in the Senate to a Demo majority, the first since 1911; a swing from a 5-1 Republican majority to a 3-2 Demo majority on the Exec. Council (California has no similar body); and both Republican Congresspersons were booted. Now, the only significant Republican strength is in our US Senate representation. Neither stood for re-election——they got lucky! Oh, and NH sent it’s first woman to Congress. This reminds me of 1974, the election wave in the wake of Watergate.”
And so it goes…the ebb and flow of political power…at least we have a chance of giving God a breather from running the government for a while…not that that was much of a problem in San Jose to get back on the subject at hand and the purpose of this site.
Novice,
Election fraud and dirty tricks were rampant, expecially in battleground states. However the margin of victory for Dems was overwhelming.
Also, Blogs contributed to instant reporting of potential problems, including robo calls in Virginia designed to prevent Democrats from voting.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/08/business/blogs.php
Were we not recently criticizing The Mercury because it’s editorial page seems to focus outside our community? I think this site would be wise to keep it’s focus on local issues, especially ones that are not covered by The Mercury.
THANK THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!
The people spoke and thank god they voted the right way!
Jack,
Good column. On-topic, and rant free.
I too hope that this time the politicians have received the message that its time to address real problems such as Iraq, deficit, immigration reform, global warming, etc., and not nonsense issues such as flag burning, gay marriage, religion intertwined with politics, etc.
Time will tell.
From the San Jose perspective Chuck needs to start coming up with substantive ideas instead of just voting no.
While constantly harping on bogeyman sound bites such as ethics, character, etc. pleases the masses, as Mayor he will need to actually do something, and passing the “Reed Reforms”, while symbolic, does not accomplish much, if anything. What’s next, a resolution saying motherhood and apple pie are good things?
So, the focus is now on Chuck to show that he actually practices what he preaches, and is not just another Ted Haggard.
Good news in San Jose, and anew bunch of crooks in D.C. Let the hearings begin!!!
Sometimes people have to reread the Constitution to understand the differant responsibilities of government and why Reps have 2 year terms. They are supposed to be close to the people and understand local needs and problems. So we have national pols endorsing S.J. pols without a clue to whats going on locally. Mike Honda endorses Cindy like he knows what is going on. Typical! The message is that we have some more house cleaning to do so we can get 6 good members and let’s get rid of Honda.
A new job prospect for RR, have a good day Rich.
Jack:
You’re falling into a journalist fantasy trying to find a linking trend where there is none. We have geographically-based representative democracy so people can vote LOCALLY. I didn’t vote for Reed because of the Iraq war. Nobody did.
Jack’s said – We don’t like boondoggles like those in Coyote Valley and Iraq that make huge corporations and a few billionaires richer at our expense. We don’t like to be continually lied to by government officials who foment fear in order to obtain assent for what turns out to be political folly.
Sounds like another of Jack’s progressive socialist rants to me
Glenn re: #14, I cast my vote for Honda with about the same amount of enthusiasm as my vote for Reed.
You are so right, I am sure Honda’s support was solicited, not offered. I really did not like what I saw of him on election night.
The game needs to be over for both Honda and Chirco next time around.
I never believed I could read screaming and yelling into the written word but boy was I wrong. The election is over and the yelling and ranting is louder than ever. I guess Chuck’s going to have to be able to walk on water now which many people thought he could do anyway. I wrote in Jack VZ’s name for mayor and was I ever disappointed when he didn’t make it. From what I read, Tom’s got a new job as mayor behind the scenes. Maybe Cindy should be on the transition team also. Maybe Manny could be in charge of media relations.
#12—Jack’s post rant free??? The entire post was a rant.
Thank you citizens of San Jose!!
We have longed for honest, ethical leadership at City Hall. The Gonzo/Chavez style of politics has been soundly rejected by the voters. City staff is anxious to get back to our work serving the great citizens of San Jose.
What’s with the rant bashing?
Anyway, glad to know Tom is along for the Reed ride.
“A LOOK INSIDE SAN JOSE POLITICS AND CULTURE” That is the heading under the banner at the top of this blogger page. Why then do you, Mr. VanZandt, go into a name calling rant about national politics? Is not there another blog to place your outrage? Please let us keep this spot for local information and not clutter it up.
Mr. Robinson,
I examined the report via the link you provided, and also looked through various news sites for evidence of the dirty tricks to which you inferred in your post. Other than the minor nonsense one expects from inept and slippery partisans on both sides of a political contest, I found nothing substantive of the organized, brazen efforts implied in your post (unless one considers jumping to conclusions and spreading self-serving rumors organized and substantive—a distinct possibility in your line of work).
So, I ask, where’s the beef?
Your post (#9) aimed to steal Novice’s thunder by contradicting the excellent point he made in his wry post. Fair enough, so let’s have it. Share with us all what it was that led you to believe what you no doubt want to believe: that the Republicans had in place the mechanisms necessary to steal a close election. It’s the least you can do; after all, it’s a very serious charge, one with the potential to discourage the impressionable from voting.
Mr. Robinson,
Is that the same report that Conyers had prepared by his own staff of Democrats? Very persuasive. I guess if Hillary’s staff releases a report suggesting she is a great beauty you’ll be first in line to buy her pin-up.
There have been a number of investigations into what you refer to as voter anomalies and thus far all they’ve proven is that there is as much disagreement about investigative methodology as there is about how to run an election (or even conduct an election poll). Two years after the election it is obvious that many questions will not be satisfactorily answered—everything from the voting machine shortages (assumed to impact Kerry supporters) to disenfranchised military voters (assumed to impact Bush supporters), but it is significant that in an issue so serious and partisan, I’m aware of not a single indictment being issued (even the JFK conspiracy folks got one of those).
Your ability to reach such an absolute conclusion on this leads me to believe that either you have sources I don’t or you’re very impressionable.
Oh, and about the “liberal media crap,” haven’t seen much media coverage of the indictments just handed down against the liberal group ACORN (for false voter registration in Missouri).
The Acorn indictments:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/15906212.htm
#19—Thank you, JohnMichael, for a minute I thought I was losing it!
I’m actually agreeing with #2 and found this editor pontificated more than RR. The writer has managed to jump from NorCal to Abramoff in the second paragraph, Coyote Valley to Iraq in the fourth, the Founding Fathers to Paul Revere. I wonder what Mr. Degnan, my English professor at SCU would say; he used a term I’ll always remember, gobbleegook and would advise us to simply say what we have to say and not embellish unnecessarily. So, let’s stay on track in Silcon Valley, write about that and our Paul Revere, Fallon.
Finfan is always good for a chuckle when he tells us about how little media coverage there has been on something, and then provides links to the media coverage.
I suppose you think this should be on the front page of every paper in America? Just like the coverage of Ann Coulter’s voter registration fraud??
#22 Richard
re: your comment, “the impressionable should probably not vote.”
I could not agree more; and in San Jose they did not… at least for Mayor.
RR-
About those long lines-
You’re assuming malice much too easily here. Democratic areas tend to have Democratic registrars. I can’t imagine a registrar of voters deliberately and illegally mismanaging an election so he can disenfranchise his own party.
It seems more likely that the cause is more mundane.
One possibility is that it’s easier to get poll workers in wealthier areas.
Another is that some registrars are more effective than others.
A third is that it’s just harder to run an election in working class areas.
For example, you get long lines when you underestimate turnout, and those underestimates happen in low turnout areas.
In parts of east San Jose, you might predict 20% turnout, but get 30% turnout for that precinct. The poll workers have to deal with 50% more people than they had planned on.
In Monte Sereno, you might predict 80% turnout. Even if 95% show up, that’s less than 20% above what was expected. Much easier to manage.
Fin fan,
First, the impressionable should probably not vote.
Second, isn’t it odd that we have been through three elections since 2000 and still have the same anomolies happening?
Read the Conyers report regarding 2004 and you find the same tactics being employed in 2006. This difference was that the vote was an overwhelming rejection of this President bloggers reported problems immediately via the internet, and many more people chose to vote Absentee to insure a paper trail.
Why did it take 45 minutes for a woman who kept punching the Democrat, but the machine registered a Republican, to get her vote properly registered? Why was there no reports of punching a Republican and registering a Democrat? Why were there press reports of long lines in Democratic Areas, but not in Republican—this isn’t Bulgaria—voting shouldn’t take 5 hours.
And don’t give me that liberal media crap, even FOX couldn’t find one.
The reason Allen, VA and Burns, MT did not ask for recounts is 1) they couldn’t win and 2) any investigation would have found they were not that close.
The good news is that we can now investigate these “anomolies” in the House under John Conyers and get it right for 2008.
Don’t get me wrong. I will oppose any stealing of elections for anybody. I used to laugh at the stories regarding 1960, not anymore.
Stealing elections is wrong for Republicans and it is wrong for Democrats.
Let’s get the system working right all the time for everybody. And let’s put those people who actively disenfranchise people through intimidation, false information, threats, intentionally and negligently removing their names from the voting rolls, and fraud in jail.
Then they can follow their fellow Republican collegues who are already serving time for criminal behavior.
Jimmy Olsen (#25),
I suspect it doesn’t take much to make you chuckle, or drool.
Your feeble attempt at contradicting my post demonstrates that you possess the kind of reasoning ability that would cause you to conclude that because there is a winner of almost every lottery, the odds of winning the lottery must be pretty good. PT Barnum loved people like you.
As for the particular story linked, yes I do think it should be widely reported, because that organization (ACORN) is operating nationwide and has been previously accused of illegal practices. And while you obviously had no objection to the unsubstantiated accusations leveled by Mr. Robinson, you are bothered by my citing an example of an INDICTED case of election fraud.
Small wonder you chose for your pseudonym that of an errand boy.
28 – First of all, I’m a cub reporter and a photographer. I realize facts often get in the way of your argument, but thought I would set the record straight anyway.
I didn’t contradict your post, I merely stated a fact. Again, I know that annoys you and throws you off your game.
You also, purely accidentally I’m sure, neglected to respond to your darling Ann Coulter’s voter fraud misadventure. Shouldn’t this be as big a story as you think ACORN should be?
As for your insults, I’ll just chalk it up to the source.
#22 Richard
Richard, on the subject of impressionable people and voting…
According to grand jury testimony the $925k and $900k payments made to Norcal were to cover past wage increase payments for CWS workers. Monthly payments of $200,000 were to cover the cost difference between Longshoremen and Teamster wages going forward.
Someone said this increase covered 50 CWS workers. If so, $200,000 divided by 50 workers is $4,000 per month, or $23.00 per hr wage increase.
If it covers 100 CWS workers that’s still $2000 per month increase or a $11.54 per hr increase.
Do you or anyone know how many CWS workers sort trash for the City?
Did the staff analysis and information given to Council before the $11.25 mil vote detail exactly how this money was going to be used and how much was going to how many for exactly what?
Richard, without credible analysis and sufficient detail challenged in the light of day, you are asking voters to be impressionable and accept as Cindy said, it’s the right thing to do.
And if impressionable people should not vote as you suggest. . . well, you get the idea.
Jimmy Olsen: First of all, I’m a cub reporter and a photographer. I realize facts often get in the way of your argument, but thought I would set the record straight anyway.
Finfan: Okay, now go get me a cup of coffee. And when you come back, show me where I’ve ever ignored or misused a fact. Oh, and don’t call me chief.
Jimmy Olsen: I didn’t contradict your post, I merely stated a fact. Again, I know that annoys you and throws you off your game.
Finfan: I’ll agree that you post contained an observation that was correct in the literal sense, but it was a distortion born of either malice or ignorance. You choose.
Jimmy Olsen: You also, purely accidentally I’m sure, neglected to respond to your darling Ann Coulter’s voter fraud misadventure. Shouldn’t this be as big a story as you think ACORN should be?
Finfan: Ann Coulter? I loathe her and all the rest of the right-wing entertainers. For a self-proclaimed cub reporter your instincts are terrible. First of all, Ann Coulter’s misconduct pales in comparison to that of the ACORN defendants (unless you’re overwhelmed by celebrity). Second, my political beliefs are not doctrinal, no matter how desperate you might be to render me guilty by association. Sorry, if you want to best me you’ll actually have to make your case.
Jimmy Olsen: As for your insults, I’ll just chalk it up to the source.
Finfan: Chalk it up however you like. If I insulted you it was because your comments were cheap.
Frustrated Finfan / Dale Warner have frequently attacked Chuck Reed and his political friiends so what do you thing about Mayor Reed?
RR#22 said: “First, the impressionable should probably not vote.” If that were the case, Richard, what need would there be for people like you?
jmoc #33
… or Karl Rove for that matter.
I know I’m chiming in late here—it’s been a hectic few weeks at work.
Just wanted to reply to councilman-elect Mr. Perry with congratulations—the best man got the most votes—as well as convey my concerns over the guy who placed 3rd.
I understand that you would choose not to comment on that situation Greg, but hope the outcome of the council race doesn’t mean you’ll have to put a metal detector on the door to the MS council chambers. WHAT were people thinking over there in MS last Tuesday?