Well, it looks like a clean sweep for Chuck Reed in his quest to become mayor of San Jose. Yesterday, the Mercury News endorsed Reed and commented that his back-to-basics emphasis and antipathy to insider politics will strengthen the city. No doubt. What was a bit surprising is their additional opinion of both Cindy Chavez and Reed “that either could be a good mayor.”
That seems an interesting position when you consider the unrelenting and invaluable criticisms that the Mercury has leveled against the culture of corruption and malfeasance at City Hall—a corrosive trend that was abetted by most inside the municipal bubble. Indeed, without the aggressiveness of the Mercury editorial pages—while the news side slumbered—the many, many illegalities and miscues of the last half decade would not have been discovered and then properly fumigated They deserve great praise for their coverage. Cindy Chavez is a competent and decent person. Yet, in the most trying moments of public challenge to good government in San Jose, she remained a largely quiescent member of the council on this most important of issues; she led elsewhere. Her compassion toward the outrageous conduct of Terry Gregory was far beyond what human concern demanded and an egregious oversight in the preservation of good conduct and principled business dealings in our city.
As positive as the Mercury was for Reed, the Metro turned an endorsement of him into a savage attack on Chavez as an apparatchik of the Gonzales Administration and an enabler of the garbage, phone, and lobbyist scandals of recent years. They offer that they are greatly saddened to have to go against a “progressive Latina,” but her conduct leaves them no choice. With the earlier endorsement of the Community Newspapers of David Cohen, it’s a clean sweep for Reed. His record has clearly won him the support and grudging accolades of the many who failed to see the malicious and dangerous changes underway at City Hall. Reed had “that” vision that mattered quite early. It was a courageous and decisive action—the act of a leader.
Let’s not forget that the Metro editorial was quite critical of Chavez for refusing to speak to reporters from the Metro:
“In an echo of the failed mayorship of Ron Gonzales, Chavez has stopped talking to media that ask tough questions. The last thing San Jose needs is another mayor that refuses to talk to the press.”
Is the Mercury News now on the Chavez enemy list after the editorial endorsing Reed? The last thing San Jose needs is a secretive mayor who refuses to speak to the press.
http://www.metroactive.com/metro/10.18.06/chuck-reed-0642.html
There’s really no choice but to vote for Reed versus Chavez. However, Reed is supposed to be this “stand up kind of guy”; has he ever explained to the public why he voted to end investigations into City Hall misbehavior? Voting for Reed, to me, is more like voting against Chavez. If it wouldn’t elect Cindy I’d write in D. Pandori…
Newspapers endorsements are good but not a guarantee of being elected as many unelected candidates have seen
This election will come down to who can turn out their base voters and get them to send in absentee ballots or go to the polls to vote
South Bay Labor is premier get out the vote political machine in San Jose and has won many elections after the Merc and others have endorsed unelected candidates
Will Reed fail and Chavez win because many of Reed voters did not vote?
I was pleasantly surprised by the newspaper endorsements. This election sort of reminds me of Dinkins vs. Giuliani in 1993. In heavily Democratic New York, Dinkins should have been a shoe-in for reelection but he was such a lame mayor that Republican Rudy was able to win. If Gonzales had been a decent mayor, his buddy Cindy should have easily ridden his coattails to victory.
The Chavez campaign has appeared to be struggling for the past several weeks. Rather than running on a platform that shares with voters all that Cindy intends to accomplish, her campaign shows a pathetic impotence in trying to paint Chuck as unethical. Cindy needs only to look into the mirror to see what unethical really looks like. There is not a more classic case of the pot(ter) calling the kettle black.
I’m really hoping that the SJ voters are smarter than Cindy’s people are making them out to be. It’s disappointing to hear some reports that indicate the mayor’s race is a dead heat. It shouldn’t be. Cindy stood by Gonzo way too long and thus she has made her own bed. The choice is clear, and the reckless special interest party that’s been raging for the last 8 years at 200 E. Santa Clara needs to be over.
I believe that this is the first time in my life that I have voted for a candidate endorsed by the three local rags. My absentee ballot went in last wek.
However, the Fat Lady has yet to take the stage, let alone sing, so everyone who wants Chuck in needs to vote and make sure to tell all their friends who are pro-Chuck to do the same.
Truman/Dewey comes to mind.
Will Downtown Brown, Reality Check, South Bay Labor and Chavez supporters have last laugh on Reed’s over confident supporters who could not get Reed’s voters to polls because they don’t think their vote was necessary to win
What will be Merc headline Nov 8 ?
Reed wins Mayor by 1% or
Chavez and Diaz’s Upset Victories
This is going to get interesting. The truth is, 16 years of SoBay Labor Council stooges in the mayor’s office (Gonzo was really just an extension of the equally awful, if less criticized, Hammer regime) could be coming to an end. They won’t go down easy. Look for desperate, race-baiting low-end tactics from the Labor Machinecamp to try to sway final outcome.
Hopefully the headline / byline won’t be this:
How could 152,456 people be so dumb!
Chavez wins close race (byline)
#3, I would also be writing in Pandori if it appeared that Chuck was going to run away with this thing, but it has come down to a situation where every vote for Chuck is going to count. I’m a reluctant convert for Chuck, but it’s all about making sure Cindy doesn’t get in there and continue Gonzo’s deplorable legacy of deception, corruption, collusion and exclusion.
Like you, my vote FOR Chuck is more of a vote AGAINST Cindy/Gonzo. In the governor’s race, it’s no big deal to throw away my protest vote as Arnold is heading towards a decisive victory. I can’t support a wet noodle like Angelides, a product of a stupidly blind good ol’ boys and girls Democratic network. They could have supported Westly, the candidate who had an excellent chance of defeating Arnold, but they chose to stand behind a clear loser. I’ll probably vote Libertarian or Green or something as a way of showing my disappointment with the California Democratic party since any vote for Angelides will be put toward a lost cause. Voting for Arnold is out of the question. Not after he went and snagged the Ohio vote for that clown in the White House back in 2004. He did the entire country a disservice and failed to improve California’s standing with the Bush regime.
Locally, it’s time to put a stop to the ethical lapses that have defined the Gonzales-Chavez administration. It’s also time for constituents to demand that their council representatives start thinking for themselves instead of falling in line behind a horribly misguided mayor as they’ve been doing for the last eight years, except for Chuck. When you look at things that way, Chuck is the obvious choice for Mayor.
“They (the Metro) offer that they are greatly saddened to have to go against a “progressive Latina,” but her conduct leaves them no choice.”
I, too, have been disappointed by the vice-mayor’s conduct, though the source of my disappointment had to do with her squandering her natural political gifts and failing her constituency. Like so many who’ve come before her Ms. Chavez mistook her ability to play politics, as well as her comfort with the trappings of power, as a readiness for leadership. Perhaps this reflects what they teach these days at San Jose State. Nonetheless, as we all witnessed, when fate delivered to Ms. Chavez a situation that demanded leadership—a chance to make a decisive stand, she instead stayed the course, huddled with advisers, and engaged in damage control. Meanwhile, the city sank into crisis, important institutions were assailed, honorable servants were defamed, and the truth was dispatched to be cross cut and shred.
I, too, will be “saddened to have to go against” a candidate who possessed so much potential, but my disappointment has nothing to do with her racial identity.
One wonders to what degree the folks at the Metro would’ve been “greatly saddened” had Ms. Chavez been of European heritage? Probably safe to assume the answer as, not at all. Cindy Chavez is far more identifiable and credible—in appearance, culture, politics, and national origin—as an American woman than she is as a “Latina,” yet the Metro chose to identify her as if she were steeped in the culture of a foreign land. Gee, I have specific recollections of women who’ve served here previously as mayor, and I recall that much was made of their having brought a female perspective to the office, but I don’t remember anything being made of their ethic identity.
I guess their ethnic heritage had no value.
By its own words—its editorial angst—the Metro assigns special value to the color of a candidate’s skin. Well, well, well. Look at how comfortable—and so out in the open—something even as despicable as racial discrimination becomes when done under the banner of diversity. This is racism in its “progressive” form, clothed in warm and cozy layers of victimhood, resentment, and self-righteousness. No white hood and spooky eye holes for these modern day night riders; no, these are well-meaning racists, they favor a different, more socially-acceptable style. They embrace rather than segregate, though they don’t embrace equally. Of course that’s just another way to say discriminate, but it’s inappropriate to use that word for any practice that’s as ubiquitous as it is treasured in government, education, and journalism.
Metro “are greatly saddened to have to go against a “progressive Latina,” but her conduct leaves them no choice.”
I too am saddened to go against Chavez…not for those ethnic reasons. But I’m saddened that I cannot support a fellow SJSU alum who supposedly “represents” Downtown, where I live.
I am saddened that during the entire campaign not once did Chavez offer a clear and concrete vision of her campaign—though I think I once saw a rainbow and a unicorn in a thought bubble.
I am saddened that I’m forced to vote for the candidate who’s platform I don’t support. Then again, the candidate I should be voting for isn’t on the ballot. The only true leader of this city that refuses to grow up would be Peter Pan.
Can someone explain to me in what respect Cindy Chavez is a Latina, progressive or otherwise, except for her surname?
Did anyone read that letter to the editor today in the Murky News by Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, allegedly an “associate professor Stanford Law School Mountain View” [yes it said Mountain View. When did Stanford leave Palo Alto?]
Professor Cuellar opines that Chuck Reed was not censured by the council for his reimbursement-challenged behavior because he is white, while Terry Gregory and Ron Gonzales were censured/prosecuted because they are “people of color”.
Well, first, professor, to call Ron Gonzales a person of color is a MAJOR stretch. Does he know more than five spanish words? Gonzo is no more a person “of color” than I am.
Second, and this is critical when we realize Mr. Cuellar is allegedly a LAW PROFESSOR at a prestigious university, both Mr. Gregory and Mr. Gonzales are alleged to have broken one or more laws, while Mr. Reed was ethically challenged, but broke no law, even according to the Gonzales aparatchik Rick Doyle..
I’m very glad professor Cuellar was not one of my law professors, because with his poor understanding of legal distinctions, had he taught me, I may well have never passed the bar exam.
Professor Cuellar needs to put the race card he plays where the sun don’t shine
Finfan, are you OK? That post of yours seems so toned down.
Maybe if the subject latina was Blanca Alvarado you’d have had more of a fun time with the Metro’s comments.
Cindy has become a Mrs. Potter anyway and to her credit I haven’t seen much if any latina slant in anything she’s done in office. Ms. Alvarado, on the other hand, can’t see the forest for the trees when it comes to pushing a latina agenda above all else whether it’s sitting on the SJ council or over at the Supes’ gravy train.
Bottom line is, if even a progressive alternative paper like the Metro can’t bring itself to endorse Cindy, that speaks volumes about her ties to Gonzo and all of the ethically challenged behavior she’s supported and/or demonstrated for the past 8 years.
It’s being hammered into the electorate’s head from all angles that Chuck is the guy. Any wagers on the density level that the 11/7 results will reflect?
Tom, it is time that someone like Chuck assumes the office of mayor. We’ve had too many years of the Ron-Gone machine and we certainly don’t need four more. It gripes me that the half billion dollar City Hall will be an anchor around our necks for years to come, eating up resources that could have been used for basic city services… roads, street sweeping, parks, etc. I do believe that Cindy is “toast” in the upcoming election.
Mark T,
I must credit any decrease in my pugnacity to the Frustration Management classes I’ve been taking. Our class has been practicing truth suppression, embracing fantasy, and just saying no to reason. We hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and take massive doses of Valium. On graduation day the entire class will register as Democrats.
I only hope we graduate after the election.
Speaking of Mr. Preminger, the Metro this week has a followup on Mr. Preminger’s recent accusation Reed took gambling money from Michael Mulcahy’s investment in Game Too. From the Metro:
“Ironically, the biggest stakeholders in Game Too are actually people who gave generously to Chavez’s campaign—an inconvenient truth that Preminger either didn’t figure out or chose not to reveal.”
The same edition of the Metro also reports on Republic Holdings Corporation and their $50,000 donation to Mr. Preminger and $5500 to Ms. Chavez. Again from the Metro:
“A clue to this mystery could lie in the fact that Republic Properties, in partnership with Barry Swenson’s Green Valley Corporation, was selected by Valley Transportation Authority’s board to develop high-density housing on a San Carlos Street parcel owned by the agency. Coincidentally, Chavez chaired the VTA board when Republic was chosen over other bidders.”
See http://www.metroactive.com/metro/10.25.06/fly-0643.html
JMO, I read that ridiculous and outrageous letter from Mr. Cuellar and it had me fuming.
He can’t put the race card where you think he should. He’s already got his head up there.
If this is the kind of guy they have teaching law at Stanford, I’ll be sure to ask any lawyer whose help I might need going forward which school he graduated from. I don’t want to be paying anyone who studied under this Cuellar crackpot. Talk about being stuck in the belligerant chicano 70’s.
Finfan, I think you need to drop out of that class before it’s too late.
I guess there is no better reformer than one who has professed to reform after being caught.
As Harry Truman once opined, “When I found out all the newspapers in Missouri were against me, I knew I was doing the right thing.”
Has anyone noticed that Chavez’ most ardent supporter, Steve Preminger, is introduced as the chair of the Democratic central committee.
Steve’s day job is with the South Bay Labor Council? He is their community relations manager…how about full disclosure?
So Richard… are you suggesting that Cindy, like Harry Truman, has been doing the “right thing”?
What in your opinion are the 5 most important things that she’s done right since she’s been on the Council? …. and how would you rank them in decending order of value to the City?
I know I’ve been pretty rough on her, but maybe with your help that position will soften and I’ll be more understanding. Thanks.
#23 ABC. Before you put yourself in ICU with a head trauma, fill out your absentee ballot and mail it in. If you were to recover and find that Cindy was your new mayor and won by one vote, you might be looking for the Golden Gate Bridge.
Seriously, the Democratic Committee and Cindy’s labor support has been so preoccupied with bashing Reed that any focus on Cindy’s contributions have become blurred or forgotten.
Answering the question, (if he answers the question) would offer some insight into why he so vehemently supports her.
Assuming Reed wins San Jose will have a very interesting situation: A Democratic Mayor who did not have the support of the local party or any of the Democratic “old guard.”
In many respects a Reed win will be seen as voter rejection of the Preminger/Labor control of the Democratic party in this heavily Democratic city.
It could be the first of a big row of dominos to topple within the party.
#19, #22-
I think it’s fair to say that “Community Relations Manager for the South Bay Labor Council” is not your average day job.
It’s a reasonably impressive part of his resume, and says a lot about his perspective. It’s misleading to omit it.
It reminds me of when Bob Brownstein referrs to himself as the head of “Working Partnerships”. An interesting title, but not what he is known for.
Good one, Rich. Thanks for the new material.
Wow Tricky Vic –
Imagine, someone has a day job and volunteers as our Democratic Party Chair.
You interested?
Wouldn’t it really be newsworthy if he lived in Nebraska???
How about that for full disclosure?
I guess we could follow the slimy trail all the way to Bush Territory if you don’t disclose it yourself!
Do Democratic “Old Guard” politicians who for years mismanaging city / county government in back rooms and made hundreds millions of bad / questionable tax spending decisions – represent citizens / community interests OR their political careers and financial interests of themselves, public employee unions and corporate / developer supporters?
Look at where political contributions come from and who ( Pay to Play ) benefits – Follow the Money – for your answer
#18 Rich. Do you have a citation/source for that quote?
#20 David. You’re asking Rich to pontificate about Cindy’s accomplishments on this board????!!!!! I’m off to bang my head against a wall. Repeatedly. Over and over. Until the last few months of Rich’s numerous patronizing, insulting, grandstanding, ranting (that one’s just for you Rich) Cindy loving postings leave my brain and whatever comes next from Rich will seem like a new spin on this election.
Finfan
So your class is taught by a certain San Jose professor who taught the same class to our City Council
Ron told the Rotary he was looking for a job and was thinking about starting a blog but there was only room on the Interent for one former San Jose Mayor telling us how great he was as Mayor
# 12, FinFan:
I didn’t recognize your writing. I saw some RR overtones in there. In either case, I could not agree with you more. Your pointed comments deserve a larger media.
Although Cindy retained her maiden name “Chavez” I believe that was strictly for the purpose of tugging along the latin vote, much like a security blanket. Her actions and statements as a council member never reflected anything “Latina”
“A Progressive Woman who Lost Her Way” would have made a better, more appropriate headline.
#31,
Yeah, go ahead and impeach Bush, and do it as fast as possible.
Wouldn’t it be great to have President Cheney and Vice President Rice. Maybe she’d slip right into win in ‘08 against Hilary.
I love you “Impeach Bush” folks. Can never think one step past the bumper sticker.
Voting for Arnold is out of the question. Not after he went and snagged the Ohio vote for that clown in the White House back in 2004. He did the entire country a disservice and failed to improve California’s standing with the Bush regime.
#11 Marc T, I have to agree 100% with that statement. I voted to keep Davis, and for Arnold as a replacement. Overall, he has been a good governor, but helping George Bush is unforgivable.
If Arnold wasn’t such a “girly-man” he would have announced to the country in 2004 that George Bush is an utterly incompetent boob who does not even deserve to be a Norcal trash collector.
However, I am going to vote for Cindy Chavez. For whatever reason, I just do not trust Chuck Reed to do the right thing as mayor.
31 – You are certainly free to vote for whomever you choose, just as I free to think your logic is misguided. A vote for Chavez is a vote to continue the ways of the past (Gonzales.) Her tactics around City Hall are well known—her micromanagement of staff has helped bring morale at CH to its lowest point ever.
You don’t trust Reed to do the right thing, but you trust Chavez?? Please look at their actions and voting records. Good luck in the voting booth.
#33
I love you “Impeach Bush” folks. Can never think one step past the bumper sticker.
Versus those incapable of thinking at all?
I do apologize for being lazy. It is easier to write “Impeach Bush” instead of “Impeach Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Hastert, etc.”
After conviction, they will all be sentenced to go hunting, every day, with Cheney.
#31 What is it that you don’t trust that Reed will do as mayor? What is it that you trust that Chavez will do as mayor?
#35,
Its hard to say. Just a gut feeling.
For example, Chuck likes to say how he voted against San Jose using eminent domain against Tropicana, but in my mind, this was a prefect example of how eminent domain should be used. Tropicana has been a cesspool, low-life magnet for at least 25 years. San Jose had been working with the owners for years trying to get them to clean up the place. Yet, all the owners did was take every bit of city (taxpayer) assistance they could, and still did nothing to fix the place. It just sat there like a festering sore. So, after years and years of trying to get the owners to be responsible, San Jose took action.
Okay, Chuck didn’t approve of the action, and he voted against it. Fine, I can understand that, but what did he offer in return? Nothing. So, 5 years later, Tropicana is still rundown and sits there acting like a low-life magnet.
Then in last Sunday’s Mercury News there is an article on Chuck touring Tropicana, and quoting him as saying that he stands up for the little guy. BS. If Chuck was honest and competent he would have said something along the line that while, in his opinion, eminent domain is bad, Tropicana is a dump and the owners need to be held responsible for it. But he didn’t. He doesn’t give a crap about the “little guy”. If he did then he would be trying to help East San Jose residents improve their neighborhood, instead of voting to make it worse.
36 – Keep in mind that the action the city took was illegal and cost the city millions of unnecessary dollars. You think Chuck was wrong for opposing that waste of taxpayer money? If so, then I understand why you are supporting CIndy. She has a much better record of giving away millions and millions of dollars of taxpayer money.
As for Chuck standing up for the “little guy.” At least in this instance the “little guy” did not want to be taken over by eminent domain—so he did support them.
#38
Interesting, because if you’ve seen any of the debates (and Chavez has said it in EVERY debate) that Tropicana is now a great place where residents feel comfortable to take their families. So, which is it? Great or still a dump?
Clarification?
#23 ABC…
Interesting; no word from Rich regarding the question: “What in your opinion are the 5 most important things that she’s done right since she’s been on the Council? …. and how would you rank them in decending order of value to the City? “
Any thoughts as to why?
#39 David D. He’s probably still busy trying to find a source on that Truman quotation…
#38
Go see for yourself. It is at Story and King, right off of 101.
The shopping center across the street (King) has been redone by the RDA, and is very nice, but the Tropicana shopping center, which was the major emphasis of the project, is still rundown and seedy.
The plan was for the entire intersection to be revitalized, but because San Jose dropped the ball, it appears that Tropicana will continue to fester, and, like a cancer, spread its slime over to the redone shopping center and drag it down to Tropicana’s level.
More importantly, Tropicana is a symbol. A symbol of all that is bad about East San Jose, and the Story/King intersection. By allowing this symbol to continue to exist, San Jose has done a great disservice to all San Jose residents.
#41,
You need to ask Cindy, not me. It is true that the intersection is better now than it was in the past, and crime is down. The vote by San Jose council members in favor of redeveloping this intersection, along with the subsequent renovation across the street from Tropicana, is probably responsible. Also, local residents need to be given credit for their increasing participation in politics, and trying to improve their community.
However, the primary goal of the RDA project at that intersection was to replace the Tropicana shopping center, along with its blight and the lower quality of life that results from that blight. As we know, that did not happen due to the owner’s lawsuit, and San Jose not fighting it.
So, Tropicana remains, and its sordid history remains. My concern is that, over time, all the work and effort by San Jose, and local residents, will be undone by Tropicana. It has dragged down that intersection in the past, and there is every reason to think it will continue to do so in the future. The owners appear to be interested in extracting as much money as they can from that place, and spending as little money as possible to fix up Tropicana.
For whatever reason, the word “Tropicana” has become a generic term for the whole intersection. In my mind that is not right since it allows the owners to continue doing little to nothing to fix the problems they created, while getting free publicity that implies they have done something. Cindy should be more accurate if she is calling it “Tropicana”.
However, that is no reason to not vote for her. She did vote to try and help renovate the intersection, while Chuck sided with those who wish it kept dirty, rundown, and crime infested, or in Chuck’s word, the “little guy”.
#40 – Support our Troups – Impeach Bush, et al:
I just came back from the debate at Evergreen High School. It was a webcast, and the moderator said it would be on the web to watch if you missed it. I believe he said it would be on NBC.com.
Cindy said there, and has at every debate I have attended, that Tropicana is beautiful and renovated. She didn’t say the shopping center across from Tropicana; she said the Tropicana Shopping Center.
So here is my question for you: If the Tropicana is still ‘festering, like a cancer’, then why did Cindy say at tonight’s debate that the Tropicana is beautiful, crime is down 55%, that people are happy, and the children at the nearby school are now safe?
Did they find an answer for the Dayworkers problem at Story and King? That accounted for alot of the problems at that intersection. Did they find a solution to that problem?
After you watch the debate, I would really like to hear your thoughts on Cindy then.
I am really tired of the race card being pulled every time someone does something wrong. It is an insult to the many decent, educated, law abiding people of color in this country.
JMO, could you please explain to me why so many criminals use this excuse for breaking the law? I know my white butt would be in hand cuffs, if I pulled 1 tenth of the stuff at my job, Gonzo, Chavez, or Gregory pulled.
Secondly, I just came home from my 45th Mayoral debate. I have heard Chavez defend violating business owners rights at the Tropicana because neighbors wanted something done. In each debate Cindy claims that the shopping center is beautiful, the school nearby and it’s children are safe, and that crime has been reduced by some 55%. So, let me see if I understand this reasoning. She is allowed to invoke eminent domain, illegal or not, on business owners who were working with City Staff Members, who don’t listen to a dam thing they need or want, cost the tax payers 8 million dollars in damages, after the business owners won a lawsuit against the City. Is that really okay with you Impeach Bush? You are going to vote for someone who did that? Please, enlighten me on your logic here.
Tom, I think the Merc and the Metro’s endorsement of Reed was garbage. The Merc gave a sheepish endorsement, and the Metro did it out of revenge cause Cindy won’t play with them anymore. Both papers have representatives on the Sunshine Task Force. I guess they want to hedge their bets in case Cindy wins. I mean you don’t really want to anger the lady who might become Mayor do you? Not even if she held an illegal meeting in her home, wrote the Sunshine Reforms on butcher paper, violated the Brown Act, and pushed Reed’s reforms so far down in the trash, that her buddies at Norcal wouldn’t pick it up. Now would you?
44 – Wow. Interesting interpretation. You, and Cindy, still don’t see what they did was wrong. The court ruled against the actions of the city (as they have on numerous actions that Cindy has wrongly supported.) If violating the law is how you are determining your vote, then Cindy is your person. She has voter numerous times for illegal actions that have cost the city millions and millions of dollars—dollars that could have gone to city services but she ignored that and voted to approve anyway.
You might think of that as leadership, but I think of it as foolish and wasteful spending of MY money.
Hope you will reconsider your vote but you sound like you have made up your mind already—regardless of what the facts are.
#43 ABC…
Maybe he has been advised by council to quietly invoke the “I don’t recall.” strategy.
Wasn’t Richard that told this board that to answer simple straight forward questions could leave you in an uncomfortable situation?
Hmmm.
41, 42, 44… and Tropicana
Maybe Cindy is a lot smarter than we think…. voting to support RDA takeover of ‘Tropicana’ and loosing the suit.
She’s effectively given millions of City funds to the owners. And having been a key player in that, she has every right to take credit for any improvements to the area resulting from those funds.
See…. Cindy does do good.
fyi—the quote by Truman can be found in Merle Miller’s book and oral biography of Harry Truman.
I quoted from memory, so if it is not exact—please let me know.
#48 Rich. Thanks. I looked it up, it turns out you were slightly off on that quote. The full quote reads:
“When I found out all the newspapers in Missouri were against me, I knew I was doing the right thing. If they had been California newspapers however, I would have known I was screwed.”
I crack me up.
#44
In every debate I’ve attended between Cindy, and Chuck, all 20, Cindy says,” When I was growing up, my Mom always told me to stay a way from the Tropicana Shopping Center.” Now I’m just curious why her Mom would tell her that when Cindy grew up in Fremont? (Read her bio.) Long walk to east San Jose isn’t it?
In today’s debate, Cindy accused Chuck of being absent from the vote on the new City Hall. Chuck pointed out that of course he was absent, he hadn’t even been elected yet!
Cindy also tried to get us to believe that, at first she opposed the new City Hall, but was forced to just go along with it because everyone else wanted it. Okay now, that’s a bunch of bull. Cindy has NEVER followed consensus.
In last night’s debate, Cindy finally got nailed for taking tobacco money, and gambling money, lying about Chuck not disclosing his tax returns, and for out right lying about Chuck knowing about the Norcal deal before even the Mayor knew.
God she is so desperate to win, she has sold her soul, lies with ease, and actually thinks we’re buying this stuff. Come on Nov. 8th.
#49
In every debate I’ve attended between Cindy, and Chuck, all 20, Cindy says, “When I was growing up, my Mom always told me to stay a way from the Tropicana Shopping Center.” Now I’m just curious why her Mom would tell her that when Cindy grew up in Fremont? (Read her bio.) Long walk to east San Jose isn’t it?
You need to ask her about the specifics, but this is a good example of the wide-spread and well-known reputation of Tropicana, along with the Story/King intersection.
For those who see Tropicana a problem property, please consider:
The shopping center was not a problem when it was constructed fifty years ago. It was erected to serve a growing neighborhood, adjacent to a new development (Tropicana Village) that was, in price, style, and construction quality, almost identical to another built along the Cupertino border (Rancho Riconada).
Fast forward twenty years: both neighborhoods have been well-served by their shopping centers, but time has taken its toll and the stores look worn and outdated. Unfortunately, time has not appreciably increased the value of neighborhood properties. Stagnation has set in, and many of the more prosperous home owners have moved up and away, converting their stagnant properties into low-rent units. Not a good thing for those left behind—or for the shopping centers that served them.
Enter race politics and Joe McNamara, an egotistic, diminutive police chief who knew nothing about this town. Eager to demonstrate his liberal credentials and appease a Mexican-American community just beginning to feel its political oats, the chief issued a “hands off” the King and Story cruisers order to his officers. Overnight, the Tropicana shopping center, and all adjacent commercial properties, became inundated with thousands of young punks loitering, drinking, and brawling (the pandering media tried to equate this cultural bastardization with the Mexican tradition of chaperoned promenade). King and Story attracted troublemakers from all over Norther California and became, three-nights a week for the next two decades, a combat zone. Imagine what that did to the surrounding neighborhoods, the value of those commercial properties, and, most importantly, the interest of potential investors.
Meanwhile, out in Rancho Riconada, the cheap houses and outdated strip malls remained, but as a reasonably civilized neighborhood it was well positioned to reap the benefits of the property appreciation that would come in the 1980’s. With every doubling of values the socioeconomic class of the neighborhood changed for the better, as did the performance of the local high schools (which then, itself, became a value escalator).
Throughout these decades the Tropicana center still attracted its unique clientele. Newberry’s, benefiting from a demographic steeped in the tradition of the flea market, stayed open years longer than seemed possible. But, just when it appeared change was on its way, the government stepped in again. This time, instead of overwhelming the neighborhood with lowriders, the idiots in charge sent in an army of illegal aliens.
Now just where did you think these humble, less-than-minimum wage earners were going to shop? Here’s clue: they weren’t looking for Nordstrom. What they represented were new, exited customers for the shopping center’s old, dull shops and services. Thus, rents continued to be paid on time and ownership overhead remained low (customer expectations being more Tijuana-esque than Santana Rowish).
The way I see it, had the local government treated the area responsibly, and the federal government treated our border the same, market forces would have done their regenerative magic to the center years ago—at no cost to the taxpayer and without stepping on anyone’s rights.
#50 You need to ask her about the specifics, but this is a good example of the wide-spread and well-known reputation of Tropicana, along with the Story/King intersection.
Ask her the specifics? In a debate? The audience isn’t allowed to ask, or correct her. If we were allowed to, she’d be screwed! It is Cindy’s obligation to tell us the truth, not to lie, or change the facts to mislead us, or use concocted stories to con us into voting for her. Come on, she grew up in Fremont. She knew nothing about the Tropicana. She is only using that fabricated story about her Mom, so she can cover up the fact that she broke the law, and violated people’s rights, to excuse getting the City sued for 8 million dollars.
Look at how many times she’s gotten the City sued and used poor excuses to cover up her actions. It’s really frightening how gullible people like you are. It’s like watching a dysfunctional family covering up, and making excuses for why a family member drinks too much, lies, or steals. I do not want a Mayor like Cindy who lies, and convolutes the truth with homespun stories that are untrue. God, Ron Gonzales is looking better to me all the time! At least he admitted with holding information from the Council on Norcal. Chavez just LIES about it, and suffers from a strange form of memory failure called, “If I claim I don’t remember anything, people just might think I’m innocent!” OKay then….
P.S.
In today’s paper, Chavez yet again astounds us all with her claims of helping people keep their jobs in the card club, instead of owning up to her real motivation…. Helping Labor. Who takes 2 years to find a job in the field of gambling? She defends her Norcal deal on the 11 million the same way. Helping workers get a good wage. Do you guys know that a garbage hauler gets a very good wage already? More than most blue collar workers, I guarantee you.
In another article on the debate, she says she supports gay marriage, which I do too, but doesn’t own up to getting the City sued for voting to support the illegal marriages in San Francisco! She lied about Reed being absent from the new City Hall vote, (He wasn’t even voted into office yet).
Here are the facts; Chavez claimed that originally she opposed the new City Hall. She lied. She tried to slam Reed on two campaign contributors, but neglected to mention she took thousands from BIG stakeholders in a failed casino deal. (These big stake holders by the way, are retired firefighters who endorsed her.) She lied about taking the lead on the Norcal investigation. She voted to stop it, even after hundreds of citizens demanded to let the investigation go forward! Man, I could go on forever on her lies, but it just makes me sick!
Under the heading of “New Rules”; Cindy’s New Rules that is.
1) Definition of truth: “What my people want to hear.”
2) Definition of free press: “Those that love me.”
3) Tropicana Village: “I have roots there.” Oppps: that’s not right.
4) $11mil.: Chump change when divided among so many who can afford it.
5) $4mil: Don’t ya love the sound of those big engines?
6) $22mil: “The City and County have always had their little spats.”
7) $500mil for a new City Hall: We need someplace for that new Starbucks.
8) Definition of Fast Track: Full staff reports a few hours before Council votes.
9) About Gaming and Tobacco contributions: “Talk to my people.” Opps. Did I say my people? ‘They’re not my people; they just work for me.’
10) and my all time favorite… How to stiff a Grand Jury investigation without taking the Fifth Amendment: “I don’t recall.”
#52
WHEW! You need a chill pill! Not knowing who you are is spooky. You really should take your meds like the rest of us before blogging us to death.
We closet posters need to do a group hug.
D.O.A.
#61, DD
I was thinking more like:
Sneaky: Of or like a sneak (see below)
Underhanded: Not open or straightforward
Demeaning: to lower in status or character
Disrespectful: Showing lack of respect
Conniving:To pretend not to see something that is wrong or evil
Sleazy: shoddy, shabby, cheap, mean…
I’d like to share a story about Nora Campos visting an SJSU Organizational Theory class last week for the MA program in Public Administration. She spoke candidly about how “people of color” have been oppressed in San Jose politics and how the Mercury News has racially attacked her by putting a story about her containing her picture next to a negative story. Hmmm…sounds like an attack to me.
When asked about the election, she had no problem discussing how one candidate has vision and the other has none. She also spoke of the need to get rid of the “Old Guard” in San Jose politics, which she believes Reed represents.
She was supposed to be educating our future public workers and instead was pushing her political agenda. She mentioned Tropicana will be a part of her legacy.
This is one of the members of the Council who endorse Cindy, as she never lets anyone forget that 7 of them have. We should be afraid if Cindy wins. Many of those Councilmembers are full of their own egos and refuse to stand up for what is right in the face of their own agendas. When Nora Campos and Nancy Pyle brought false charges against Coretese, Reed was the first to stick up for him.
Cindy may be able to build concensus but there are times when people should be able to say “this is not right.” I don’t trust any of Cindy’s Council supporters to do this. San Jose needs a change
Elect REED for Mayor!
Frustrated FinFan,
It sounds like you have found the truth pipeline; keep it up…
Before I forget,
A very accomplished activist in the city of East Palo Alto by the name of Malcolm Hoover was asked by the Cindy camp to come down to San Jose and do a presentation reading to a group of children in our community. When Mr. Hoover arrived and asked where the reading would take place, Mr. Hoover was told that the reading would take place later and in the meantime he would have to handle the phones and campaign for Cindy!!!!
I’m surprised Nora spoke to a class at all. Her lack of brain power and lapdog mentality has nothing to do with her color or her gender. It has to do with not being very bright and being just another councilmember in bed with labor (figuratively and literally.)
She’s right about getting rid of the “Old Guard”, she just is confused about who the old guard is. Most of us feel the old guard is the led-by-the-nose councilmembers like herself who follow labor’s marching orders. The sooner she, Chavez, and the other sheep on the council are gone the better off we will be as a city.
The problem with the council’s action re the Tropicana was that they attempted to use eminent domain to take private property and give it to a white developer from Walnut Creek. Eminent domain was, since The Bill of Rights and at the time, restricted to taking of private property for a PUBLIC USE.
Shortly after San Ohaze lost, the Kelo (I think that’s the name) decision came down from the US Supreme Court, allowing the taking of private property by eminent domain and giving it to a private developer, under the guise that the taking was for a public purpose. I think it was WalMart, or some other big box store, so the public purpose was generating more sales tax revenue.
So, had San Jose’s case been brought six months later, it may have had a different result.
Most people ( I among them) believe the Kelo decision to be wrongheaded, and it evoked a firestorm in Congress, and brought California a proposition for this election, as well.
Bridget #49—sounds like Cindy is a “Nixon Democrat.”
I just read in the Murky News that San Jose First, which contributed $53,428. to Cindy, is a committee formed by 10 labor union locals to support Cindy. Yet their ID on fliers I have received alleges that they are a coalition of business and labor. Chuck should definitely file a San Jose Elections Comm. & FPPC complaint on that one.
In addition to her own $708k, Cindy got $341k from labor interests and the democratic party!! Jeez, whoda thunk a single candidate could spend a million bucks to be mayor of San Ohaze.
I watched part of that debate where Cindy accused Chuck of being “absent” from the vote re City Hall. She knew damn well he wasn’t on the council then, but she put out that misleading statement anyway. That’s the kind of mayor you want RR, DB, RC—someone who willingly, knowingly and repeatedly lies and misleads?
Soory, my naive gene just took over briefly, so I forgot that they all do that.
FinFan # 52 said:“Overnight, the Tropicana shopping center, and all adjacent commercial properties, became inundated with thousands of young punks loitering, drinking, and brawling (the pandering media tried to equate this cultural bastardization with the Mexican tradition of chaperoned promenade). King and Story attracted troublemakers from all over Norther California and became, three-nights a week for the next two decades, a combat zone.”
Sounds like downtown San Jose present day, but you can add gun toting hip hoppers to our downtown mix.
OOops—no more sweep—Chronicle endorsed Chavez.
John, check out the story about the $50k that Republic paid to the Dems after she helped get them the high rise housing deal on San Carlos Street. Link: CindyChavez.net.
Proposition 90 is significantly different than Oregon Measure 37 since Proposition 90 applies ONLY to FUTURE laws and regulations and no landowner would be allowed to challenge any existing regulation
Oregon’s Measure 37 did not include such language and therefore over 2,000 landowners challenged laws that had already been implemented seeking $5 billion in damages
“The costs related to new regulations will be minimal,” stated Leonard Gilroy, author, a certified urban planner and policy analyst at Reason Foundation “Local governments can exempt individual landowners from new laws by issuing things like conditional permits, thus restoring their property rights at little or no cost.
Proposition 90 does not impose any new taxes or costs, the government would only incur expenses if it destroys the value of your land with a new law and chooses not to give you an exemption.”
It Protects Homeowners and Property Rights and establishes reasonable property rights protections for homeowners and small businesses and would not cripple local budgets or undermine environmental and growth regulations.
“If the government wants to take your home they’ll have to pay you full market value for it,” declared Gilroy. “If the government doesn’t want to pay a fair price for your home, they’ll have to look elsewhere. Likewise, government shouldn’t be able to destroy the value of your land without compensating you. These are basic constitutional rights that Prop. 90 helps protect.”
Analysis of California’s Proposition 90: The Protect Our Homes Act, online at
http://www.reason.org/californiaballot/pb54_eminentdomain.pdf.
#63
I must say, I’ve always found it odd that women like Campos, and Chavez marry white men, and then bash white males. I also find it strange that they say they want equal rights for the people, but are the worst kind of racists themselves. What a way to teach our children acceptance, and tolerance.
I think you should report Nora’s behavior to the proper authorities at San Jose State. Wiggsy is the Chairperson of the Network for a Hate Free Community. Even though she supports Chavez, I don’t think she’d find Nora’s behavior acceptable, especially if it made whites in the class uncomfortable. Nora needs a reality check. She’s more white then most. She’s married to a powerful WHITE man, and acts white herself. Since she’s been in office, she hasn’t done anything that requires a brain to help her district.
Aren’t any of you concerned about the amount of money for Chavez’s campaign that is coming into this race, from out of state? What in the world is being planned for San Jose that we aren’t privy to?
You called Cindy Chavez “a competent and decent person.” Now let’s look at the record. Documentation on labor’s money trail, developer donations to Chavez’s campaign around the time of her VTA vote on the San Carlos project, reports on her committee absenteeism and scrutiny of other important issues are being catalogued at CindyChavez.net. Check it out.
San Jose – Capital of Silicon Valley Housing with development approvals bought by developer contributions
San Jose – should have a new city motto
For Sale to Highest Campaign Contributor
” a week before the election, independent committees had spent nearly $500,000—and they are continuing to raise money, unlike the candidates, who are forbidden to collect contributions after Oct. 21.
Last week, for instance, four real estate developers with deep interest in city land use decisions—Charles Keenan, Marbella Development, Ponderosa Homes and Shapell Homes—made contributions totaling $95,000 to the Democratic fund. That fund has reported spending $237,888 so far on behalf of Chavez.
Earlier, Indian tribes with casinos donated $55,000 to the fund, but controversy over those contributions forced Democrats to move the money to party organizations in other counties.
For instance, Republic Holdings, involved in a development project with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, has contributed $50,000 to the local Democratic party fund, called the United Democratic Campaign.
“It’s a Democratic county and a Democratic town, and we thought this would be a terrific way to introduce ourselves to the party and the people involved with it,’’ said Yvonne Ryzak, who speaks for Republic. “We believe that Cindy’s vision for San Jose is exciting.’‘
Coyote Valley interests
Of the four developers who gave to the Democratic fund last week, two—Keenan and Shapell—have property interests in Coyote Valley, which is a flash point in the ongoing debate about development in the south end of the city.
#52
The way I see it, had the local government treated the area responsibly, and the federal government treated our border the same, market forces would have done their regenerative magic to the center years ago—at no cost to the taxpayer and without stepping on anyone’s rights.
finfan manages to write a post without deteriorating into a racial rant, and this subject could very easily go that way. After all, a neighborhood does reflect its inhabitants. Of course, Tropicana is also an inhabitant of the neighborhood, even if the owners live elsewhere.
I have to admit that, overall, I do agree with his post. However, I think the fact the Hewlett-Packard, Apple, Tandem Computer, and other high-tech businesses were located in Cupertino had more to do with the good things that happened to Cupertino than anything else. Employees of these companies are generally better educated, and some want to live near their workplace. If East San Jose (ESJ) were to get a high-tech campus we would start to see the same effects and benefits in this neighborhood.
There is no denying that both the city government, and the county government, have both contributed immensely to the degradation of ESJ.
The county’s role in this mess was to buy the about to go out of business 60 acre Hillview airport in 1961, and then in the late 1960s triple the size of the airport right in the middle of an existing and growing neighborhood.
Now it is the responsibility of ESJ residents, the city government, and the county government to fix the mess that has been created by their predecessors.
The residents need to continue working hard with the SNI to clean up their individual streets and neighborhoods. Having a sense of civic pride is absolutely necessary in order to build a better community.
The county needs to accept the fact that they screwed up big-time by building the Reid-Hillview airport in the middle of a residential neighborhood, and close the airport. By using the 180 acres of RHV in an intelligent, neighborhood friendly manner the county can easily help turn ESJ into one of the better neighborhoods of the city. A 100 acre high-tech campus, along with a park, and limited housing would be an excellent use of the 180 acres.
San Jose needs to hold the owners of Tropicana responsible for what they have done with that shopping center. Whether the city uses eminent domain or something else I do not care, but that shopping center needs to be torn down, and rebuilt into a clean, modern facility that enhances the neighborhood versus dragging the neighborhood down.
Once all parties accept their role in this mess then we can start making serious progress in the rejuvenation of ESJ. And when that happens, everyone benefits.
#59 JWII
Persuasive: An essential quality in a Mayor.
Collaborative: Developing a consensus to move people forward.
Delegation: Sign of a born leader.
Team builder: Way to go Cindy.
This has to be our next Mayor.
Why isn’t the Merc reporting that Cindy has missed the last 4 Rules Committee meetings? Isn’t she still a Councilmember?
Please check out Cindychavez.net. I just went there and it is a factual account of Chavez’s time spent and votes as a Councilmember. It should be sent to the voting public and the Merc should be picking up on this stuff.
Hey J. O.
Why is a San Francisco newspaper endorsing a candidate for mayor for a city 60 miles away?
Who’s pulling those strings?
Did someone post San Jose on EBay?
JW II # 74: I know lotsa S Jay folks who read the Chron. I gotta agree with P.White #75 who said: “The SF Chron appears not to have done much heavy lifting on this one and put it together as a sop to labor.”
It’s not much of an endorsement. Looks like the Chron got a report from a SVLG event and endorsed Chavez based on that. It appears they didn’t even interview the candidates. If they did, then it’s even worse. It’s more like “endorsement lite.” The SF Chron appears not to have done much heavy lifting on this one and put it together as a sop to labor. Ah, journalism at its best.
The Chavez supporters should be happy that in the merc editorial endorsing Reed, in order to appear balanced, they threw Chavez a bone by including this sentence “If charisma and sparkling vision were essential, Cindy Chavez would be the choice.”
What a joke. Based on the televised debate I saw on Sunday, Reed came across as more direct and better informed on the issues. Chavez was more evasive, less informed, and seemed more intent on trying to sling dirt on Reed than spelling out her “sparkling vision” for SJ.
And in the merc story regarding the proposed restrictions for hours of operation for the two local card clubs back in 1999 which she voted against, there are these two Chavez quotes:
“The reason I voted against the action is that it didn’t include a long enough transition for the working people who were going to be losing their jobs.’’ and likening the restriction on gambling hours to “saying everybody who’s an alcoholic stops drinking at 2 a.m.’’ when bars must close.
Apparently, two years before the restriction took effect is not a long enough transition time. And the first thought she expresses is concern for the workers and not on the harmful effects of gambling on the community as a whole, especially the Vietnamese community.
I am not naive enough to believe that the Labor money pouring into her campaign will not have affect on her decision making, especially in light of her voting record. There is no doubt in my mind that Chavez would put the interests of Labor ahead of the interests of the city of San Jose.
The City of San Jose and the Mayor’s Canidates are nothing more than a sick joke. Do you really think that the candidates really care about the tax payers… Come on who gives a crap about all this stuff. Chavez can’t do or say anything without checking with Ron, or answer a simple question without having it on a script. Chuck is so stiff he should be the poster boy for Viagra, or Sex Wax Surf board wax. Neither of the candidates is worthy of the office and will not get my vote, I’d rather throw it away on someone like Andy Diaz. The debate was so messed up I wished that I had taped it to laugh at the promises that will never be kept a couple of years down the road. I think we will be in the same situation that Ron put us in but we will be deeper in the Poop than we were before. I have a feeling that the city will go bankrupt within 3 yrs at the rate they are going.
Chron’s endorsement reminded me of the KPIX poll in the primary when they left David Pandori off the survey. It just showed they don’t understand San Jose politics, although it probably hurts Chuck because all those SF residents are now going to vote for Cindy… Doh!
Today, Chavez hit an all time low. Holding a press conference to expose Reed for helping a young, immigrant employee get an education, is not only disgusting , it is unforgivable. That poor girl in Reed’s office will suffer horrible embarrassment, and humiliation because of this. I was told this young girl cried her eyes out half the day.
I am really disgusted and angry at the so call religious leaders that took part in this. Standing by Chavez side as she tore apart this young girl’s effort to become a better City employee, competent in the English language, and to support her child is despicable.
I can not believe winning is so important to her that she would sink this low. She is beyond pond scum. If she wins this race, I will be absolutely disappointed in the citizens of San Jose for voting for her.
Bridget #80: and the Cindynistas keep telling us what a NICE person Cindy is.
But I need more facts regarding the underlying issue. On its face, The Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary sounds far more a religious-oriented institution than say USF or Santa Clara University. The fact that a San Jose staffer travels all the way to Mill Valley to a theological seminary in particular to get a masters degree in theology (rather than a local non-theological university to get a masters in, say, public administration) is another red flag to me when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars.
I am also having trouble understanding how a degree in theology assists Ms. Nguyen in her job as a councilmember’s staff person.
Ya, the spin is she’s bettering herself, which is probably true; but it’s unclear to me how a theology degree helps her to supposedly learn english and help support her family.
So, someone help me out please and educate me on how studying theology on public money helps Ms. Nguyen be a better council aide. But please, no politically correct or Marin-County like pronouncements.
A lot of the comments above tell why I’m voting for Chuck who I do not think is a cutting edge thinker or consensus builder, two things that are important to me. The labor thing is what I don’t like about Cindy. They are too powerful and she seems like a shill for them. I don’t want to be told where to shop or what store I can have in my building. More than anything, I want an independent thinker, someone who is not going to be beholden to any one group. And that is what Chuck is, although as I said not a particularly creative thinker. And by the way, i’m really pissed at everyone who sends me all this crap and wastes all the paper.
JMO:
Here is how an MA degree in Theology helps the City of San Jose. Miss Nguyen’s degree is actually in Theology AND Intercultural Studies. So she wanted a religious based education that could also offer her a world view. She took classes in history, various cultures and communication—all very important for a job as a Council Aide. In such a job, you work with a diverse population who have different needs. Understanding various cultures gives you a good perspective. Not to mention, her English, writing and research skills were probably greatly improved. Those three things are SO important for an aide who is constantly speaking to others, researching policy and writing memos and articles.
Also, who knows why people choose the schools they do. Some choose SJSU because it is close and cheap, some drive all the way to Stanford because it is prestigious. Some choose schools because they offer very specific programs that are taylored to your academic needs. All these are good reasons to choose a school and any one of them could have been in play for Miss Nguyen.
SB #80: thanks for the additional info, but I remain skeptical of the choice of school, not necessarily all the courses.
To me someone who chooses a relatively unknown school a considerable distance away ( a tough drive at any time of day) chooses that particular school for a particular reason.
I am a catholic school educated boy frist grade through undergraduate. I know how even the liberal Jesuits, let alone the nuns in grammar schol, not-so-slyly slant things like, oh, history. Ever look at the differences in how catholic schools teach kids about The Crusades than public schools teach the same “history”.
“Theology and Intercultural Affairs” It’s just TOO Marin. You emphasiza “AND”. I emphasize Theology.
Did Ms. Nguyen benefit from this course of study? I hope so, indeed I assume so. But was it an appropriate PUBLIC expense? That’s the issue.
For all I know this could be an L. Ron Hubbard front; oops, it’s Baptist. Anyway, you get my drift, I think. I still have more questions than answers on this issue.
I have no question however that the way little Miss Pearl Necklace handled this was right out of Manny Diaz’s playbook—reprehensible.
But let’s look on the bright side—it has to have convinced a few more people what a sleazy administration she would lead should she become the mayor.
<a >authentic generic viagra viagra vs</a>