Have you ever heard the expression that someone “looks good on paper?” When it comes to our current, soon-to-be-official lame-duck mayor, Ron Gonzales, he looked quite good on paper when he first started his career as a politician. He served in the private sector working with schools; he was a smart businessman, a devoted husband, well-educated and the first Hispanic mayor in San Jose since 1850. But, after years in office, his career and life have taken a turn and he is now one of those politicians that look very bad on paper. Hmmm, let’s see—censured by the city council, arrested and charged with felonies, an affair with his 25-year-old intern and, now, a laughing stock. Need I kick the guy more while he’s down?
The reason I bring this up is I was browsing Wikipedia.com—the free online encyclopedia written by users that gives you the nitty-gritty on many places, events and people—and I decided to plug in “Ron Gonzales” to see how his life and career was described on virtual paper. It’s always entertaining to see someone’s life condensed into one page. After some facts and statistics about his education and his status as mayor, there is a section, “Censure,” that details the actions of the city council and the members who decided to slap him on the wrist. The next section, “Arrest,” lists, with applicable penal codes, the felonies which the mayor and his assistant, Joe Guerra, are accused of. In a following section, “Critical,” the very first bullet point concerns his affair with his intern. The most telling, though, is the “References” section, where almost every article cited has to do with the Norcal scandal and breaking the law.
How would any of us like it if our lives were condensed into one page? Would it be impossible to have a completely glowing record and to look good on paper? However, since Ron Gonzales has become such a cliché of a bad politician, I felt it was important to point out what the rest of the world sees when they view his life and career on paper, at least as far as Wikipedia goes. It says as much about our city that we elected him than it does about his disappointing career.
Now, in contrast, how would our current two candidates for mayor look on paper? Chuck Reed couldn’t be more impressive, with his many commendations and being well educated and having an impeccable standing in the community. There is no scandal or censure, no affair with an intern or lowlights to speak of. Isn’t that the way it should be? That’s not saying that Cindy Chavez’s life would look bad on paper, but she would and will always be linked to Gonzales and his scandal—which is enough for me to turn (or click) to the next page.
Your’re right that Cindy won’t get the chance to be Mayor, but you are wrong to imply she is only guilty by association. She has a very public voting record—one that not only supported just avout everything Gonzales jammed down the Council’s throats, but she also supported and defended him and lashed out at the Grand Jury. It remains to be seen if we will ever find out if she was criminally involved, but there is no question that she was closely involved in every Gonzales-driven scheme. There is also no question that she has carried Labor’s water even if it was not to the benefit of the City. She has worked behind the scenes to the point of manipulating city staff inappropriately to get her way. She conveniently cannot remember various meetings, memos, requests, etc. when the heat gets turned up. At least own up to what you do and stand by it. There is nothing worse than someone who wheels and deals and then plays dumb when they get caught.
Reed’s not perfect but he doesn’t have the scheming track record of Chavez. We can’t afford 4 or 8 years of a Chavez administration that would be no better than the disaster of the past 7 years of the Gonzaels administration.
#2—You really believe that Cindy didn’t know more that what she’s fessing up to? She’s never come across as naive to me.
IDEAS FOR MAYOR RON GONZALES:
HOW TO LOOK GOOD ON PAPER
When a job opportunity presents itself after leaving public office, one of the best ways to get your foot in the door is to submit a polished résumé.
Professional recruiters know exactly what to look for when screening applicants, so it’s essential that your résumé make a positive statement about you.
Kim Marino, author of Résumés for the Individual Leaving Public Office (John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1993), offers the following tips for crafting successful résumés:
1. Create a Goal
Create a goal and focus your résumé toward that goal. “Focus on where you’re going, not where you’ve been,” Marino said. The résumé should be precise and focused, highlighting the professional experience that contributes to your goal.
In other words, emphasize the positive, such as the economic benefits to others of the various proposals supported by the Mayor of San Jose to transfer hard earned tax dollars to your favorite groups, etc.
Teresa Hord, recruitment specialist for the U.S. Conference of Mayors, also prefers that résumés specifically state what job the candidate is seeking. “We don’t have time to be career counselors,” she said.
But Karen DeLavan, senior recruiting consultant for former politicians, said that flexibility also is important. “I would hate to see a specific focus limit people, with as broad a field as government service,” she said. DeLavan recommends that job candidates should be seeking new careers that “make things better for others.”
2. Highlight your Skills
If you are making a lateral move, write a functional résumé that highlights your skills. If you are trying to move up in the profession, organize your résumé chronologically to show progression, Marino said.
However, try not to make the résumé a rote recitation of the same information. And don’t go back any further than 10 years. “If recruiters see the same title over and over again, they’ll see you’ve done the same thing. If there’s something you’ve done that stands out from everyone else, highlight it. Create a separate category and list it,” she said. For example, Mayor Gonzales please do not over emphasize your role as Mayor for the past eight years, mention only your ”public service” and use other vague descriptions of your time at City Hall.
3. Include a Cover Letter
If you are faxing or mailing the résumé, include a cover letter introducing the résumé. A cover letter is not necessary if you are delivering the résumé in person, Marino said. “The Mayor needs to be sure to use proper spelling and grammar,” emphasizes Marino. It is highly recommended that David Vossbrink (sp?) be used to write, or at a minimum, edit your cover letter.
Hord recommends mentioning how you heard about the job opening in the cover letter. If you are responding to an ad, specify where you saw it. DeLavan said a cover letter can be a good place to expand on your experience and professional goals.
For example, a “former government official” can express an interest in continued work in the “public sector” for a few years and a desire to eventually work in the “private sector.”
4. Use Action Verbs
Using action verbs to illustrate experience is important, Marino said. “For example, a former government official may have made significant contributions to the field in the area of communication with the public, fiscal management, legal reasoning, relations with the press and other similar achievements. It also helps to include other interesting bits of information about yourself, such as provided emergency first aid, have an extensive stamp collection, play a musical instrument and instituted a specific program—action verbs are a strong way to make a statement,” she said.
5. Focus on Experience
Marino, Hord, and DeLavan agree that former government officials should highlight their motivational and inspiring leadership experience. Recent elected officials should also list any type of volunteer work on weekends, special affiliations to union or other such groups, fund raising experience and be sure to include a very brief history of any other jobs to show job stability, Marino said.
Finally, be prepared to challenge any negative information about your experience and qualifications as “pure political stuff” from disgruntled associates and former employees.
SG—Depends on the paper. As the ferocious blog last week on “THE Paper” generally concluded, the Murky News in past or present form, offers NO help in figuring out what’s going on in this make-believe city Balanized into neighborhoods. Their “even-handed” treatment of Reed and Chavez is so typical. Because she’s running for a job she thought she had a lock on, she’s promoted to being a “mayorial candidate” when, if they really got down to the details, she’s unbelievably unqualified. She’s a PLIANT shill for Terry Christiansen’s ongoing campaign to be the behind-the-scenes “architect” of the City Council. And the unions takeover of taxpayer dollars depends on folks like Cindy, a process omitted entirely from the Murky’s “investiga-
tions”. Zoe Lofgren’s influence in all this is never mentioned, though she’s the absolute head of the power wing of the Democratic party in the city and county. But the Murky has hardly ever met an incumbent politician it doesn’t absolutely swoon over. No details on that subject: it would mean losing valuable space for Fry’s and Western Appliance ads.
Funny to have to depend on details from Wikipedia to get the lowdown on your local politician. George Green
I was on that lame Mayorwatch and there is crying in a post about this blog violating its own policy on referring to candidates by things like their appearance etc. The posting they cited was one of Chavez eating a bunch of food and implying she’s plump. On Mayorwatch’s site though they let comments about Reed looking like Skeletor stay though.
Can you get any more lame than posting something like that as a complaint about SJI and then blatantly violating the policy yourself?
Not only that, I called the posters on it and asked why is it appropriate to refer to Reed as Skeletor and why shouldn’t I refer to Chavez as Jabba the Hutt, but they censored that. Funny in their blog post they state they have never had to censor. what idiots
Single Gal, are you in the fog? What’s the matter with you and your bloggers. I just got back from San Diego, and their politicians are very corrupt. The federal government is investigating the whole council and the mayor. Downtown SD is less lively and behind the times comparing to San Jose’s. You don’t realize how good we have it(downtown) here. Ronny gets credit for it. By the way, you ain’t single no more, Single Gal! So, stop playing with us.
Wondering –
If there truly is “no question” as to Cindy’s involvement in this “scandal” as you suggest, then why has she not been charged as a co-conspirator, or at the very least, for perjury? Do you believe the judicial system and the Grand Jury to be corrupt as well? I assume since you declare that there is “no question” about her involvement, that you have some shred of fact-based proof?
Please enlighten me as to how you have seemingly gained these wizard like powers to know everything about Cindy Chavez’s involvement. Are you Wondering the All-Knowing Wizard? If so, I suggest you also call the DA’s office because I am sure they will want to know your this information as well. I mean, their extensive investigation came up with nothing on her, so they should be ecstatic to know that you have information that will clear everything up.
When you are done with the DA, come back to the site and then maybe you can use your all-knowing powers for good, like telling me who is going to win the Superbowl this year.
9 – As I said, it remains to be seen if we will ever find out if she was criminally involved. As for her involvement in many behind the scenes manipulations, just talk to any former and current city staffers who interacted with her. I know, she is a nice person, but few city staffers trust her. And I am not just talking about the current “scandal.”
I never said the DA or Grand Jury was corrupt. Just because there was not enough criminal evidence (at the moment) does not mean she is clean. An elected official does not have to have abuse the system to the level of criminality but can still be guilty of conduct unbecoming a publi official.
You could ask Cindy about it but she will tell you she can’t remember, doesn’t recall, or ask why would she have done that. Bottom line, she has operated secretly, brokering deals in near-violation of the Brown Act (if not complete violation of the Act), drops last-minute memos on the Council that prevent public review and comment, etc. etc.
And yes, I know, she is a nice person.
#10 Won—very well said; I too have heard that there is a trust issue. Actually I’ve heard that one can potentially be stabbed in the back.
#9 Mark – Wondering has a point; a stretch maybe, but nevertheless a point.
A Grand Jury investigation is just that… a Grand Jury investigation.
Once that is complete and formal charges have been filed, it then becomes a Criminal investigation, broader in scope as to the search for evidence, number of people questioned and the breadth of questioning.
Is it not possible that during the Criminal investigation phase, information and evidence could surface that might lead to an ‘un-indicted co-conspirator’? Who knows what someone might say if they have an axe to grind, become frightened when questioned… or are offered a reduced sentence or immunity? Only time will tell.
Meanwhile this city needs to get as far away from this mess as possible and move on to doing the peoples business in the broad light of day.
Wow, Fed Up, do you know something I don’t know?
David –
Anything is possible. You are right on that one. I guess I may still be missing the point though. Is the message here that we should all feel to bash people like Cindy Chavez and any other elected official or public figure with opinions and third-party speculation, and then hope that they are proven correct sometime in the future by some potential criminal investigation?
It really begins to look like folks like Wondering are on a witch hunt. If roles were ever reversed, I hope that the general public is as understanding and open-minded of them.
Wondering: Still no dice on the Superbowl picks?
Oh well, like David said, on to new things….
Simply put, Single Gal. You’re on the same page that I’m on, Chavez is too close too Gonzales; if she’s as smart as she’s said to be, she should have distanced herself sooner. So, the safest bet is Reed. But, get ready for the dirt to be tossed, and as said a week ago, who threw the first handful, Cindy. Reed is probably ready, after watching what happened to Cortese, let’s just hope the voters are discriminating when they read the news coverage this time.
It is really too bad that people, who may have done no wrong, as in Cindy’s case, are guilty by association. She might make just as fine a mayor as Chuck Reed but she probably will never get a chance now.
Mayorwatch sure seems to be questioning Reed’s impressive record…as a republican. We all know Reed has voted against just about everything, but what has he championed through council, and what will the future of San Jose be under Reed. No scandals, so what. Where’s the vision?
Sounds like Cindy’s campaign slogan should be:
“At Least I Wasn’t Indicted!”
I guess some on this blog feel the only standard by which a candidate should be judged is whether or not their misdeeds rose to the level of criminal indictment.
Personally, I have a higher standard for myself and for public officials: Do the right thing for the right reasons. If you do that you won’t have to worry about getting caught in lies, dodging grand juries and DA’s, having to constantly change you campaign message, or having to lamely defend your bad decisions that have unnecessarily cost the public millions of dollars.
I know, it is too simple to work. So we’re back to Cindy who can loudly proclaim, “At Least I Wasn’t Indicted!” Pretty reassuring, huh?
Cindy could seek equal time for Democrats by adopting the slogan ” I am not a crook.”
#16:Nothing wrong with supporting the labor movement or supporting business per se; but I’d prefer all our politicians be pro-constituents, rather than pro-labor or pro-business. Cindy is clearly dominated by SBLC, not merely a supporter of the labor movement.
Further, one must realize that “the labor movement” is a different animal than the rank-and-file. The union bosses still draw a paycheck while their members are on strike. Witness the disastrous-for-the-rank-and-file retail clerks union strike in SoCal a couple of years back.
Cindy’s votes with Gonzo cost the people of San Jose milions and millions of dollars unnecessarily. The same cannot be said for Reed. His vote to shut down the Cisco investigation remains a big negative in my mind, though.
Speaking of Reed, where is the REED basher this week? Did Phaedra tell him to back off for a while because he was sooo embarassing to Cindy?
JMC #19,
After watching KTVU-2 10:00 news last night, the anti-Reed forces are busy filing a complaint against Reed claiming he had a conflict of interest when he voted for allowing gas stations to sell alcohol. Mohinder Mann was interviewed. Reed claimed it is a election season dirty trick by a Chavez supporter.
14 – I only talk about things I know and football is not one of them. My comments stand and are based on both first-hand experience and information from people whom I trust. I know which candidate I will support. You are free to make your own decision based on your own ifnormation. Oh, and good luck with your Super Bowl picks.
Interesting that only KTVU has picked-up the complaint story. It smells like the CamposPyle smear on Cortese during the primary. Maybe Chavez will claim plausible deniability on this one, too.
Apparently no depth is too low for a candidate or her supporters when they are desperate. Reed supporters beware—a wounded candidate can be more dangerous than one who is not.
#s 20 & 21:
I don’t have a TV, so missed KTVU story. Which anti-Red forces? Is the denial truly plausible? Did the Murky News pick it up? I’ll have to check.
Single Gal, yep, a whole lot!
Cindy is labors puppet, and I don’t mean the rank and file. She voted to keep “labor peace” a condition of the retail at City Hall. The area is an unkown in terms of customer base and anyone going in there is taking a gamble in the first place. She and labor have prevented commerce and inconvienanced workers at City Hall and others in that area. I was for her with misgivings, but still for her. After this debacle, i’m voting for Chuck.
#16 Native
<<< Since all Grand Jury proceedings and testimony are confidential I’m wondering how all this information gets out…>>>
1) A list of those questioned during the Grand Jury’s investigation was published in the Mercury News.
2) The transcript of those questioned was made public and available for viewing on the web.
<<< about “what Cindy has done.” >>>
The only two issues that I have with “what Cindy has done”:
a) she knew the Norcal contract did not obligate the City or the rate payers to higher rates; and b) she voted for $9mil or so as a gift to Norcal knowing it was not supported by contract.
<<<Seems as though if they had enough evidence to get Ron and Joe then if Cindy was just as involved they should have gotten her too but they didn’t. >>>
There is a big difference between involved, and “just as involved” or criminally involved.
<<<Oh! and by the way what is wrong with supporting the labor movement? >>>
Not a thing. . . as long as it is done in a legal and ethical manor.
If she felt that strongly about supporting higher teamster rates for recycling folks or Norcal subcontractor employees, she should have lobbied the City Council and staff include that in the original bid process. And if not, she should live with the language of the contract as written and agreed to.
As to the charge “guilt by association” is unfair and mean spirited; it’s the same logic used by parents to guide their children away from trouble and harmful relationships. No?
Since all Grand Jury proceedings and testimony are confidential I’m wondering how alll this information gets out about “what Cindy has done.” Seems as though if they had enough evidence to get Ron and Joe then if Cindy was just as involved they should have gotten her too but they didn’t. Oh! and by the way what is wrong with supporting the labor movement? I guess only if your a business person.
What is the basis for this rumor Single Gal? Are you cohabitating? Who is it? FF or RR.
Barnum:
How wonderfully elitist of you to refer to someone on a BLOG as illiterate. It’s the sort of language and message one might expect from a member of the Reed Lemmings Brigade.
So since you mention it, lets discuss justice. First, Chuck Reed lobs political grenades at Chavez and others all throughout the primary on Norcal. He and his minions says Chavez is as dirty as Gonzalez. He says a Chavez administration would be worse than a Gonzo adminstration.
For example, in June 2005, Reed told the SJ Merc that, shortly after an initial civil grand jury report about Norcal was released, that the issue was “going to hang like an albatross around Cindy Chavez’s neck if she’s going to run for mayor.”
However, a little over a year later, Chuck is all the sudden in the crosshairs of George Kennedy in a San Jose courtroom. In the grand jury transcripts, and again this is coming from your friends at the Mercury News, “Reed said he had heard a report in late 2002 that Norcal expected to be reimbursed for having its recycling subcontractor hire workers as Teamsters rather than as Longshoremen—with better pay and benefits—but he did not know how Norcal expected to get the money.”
Let me break that down a little more. Chuck lied about Chavez knowing about the deal before anyone else. Because it was Chuck Reed and Pat Dando who knew about it. I also know Reed knew how Norcal was getting the money. Why? Because Dando had told him Guerra had told her in the hopes the Administration could head off a potential problem by keeping someone on the Council informed.
Now as the story goes, Dando tells Reed, he of less than subtle Mayoral ambitions, and his consultant, Tricky Vic, about the deal. Tricky Vic tells Reed to sit on the information because Tricky and Chuck knew the potential legal and political implications such a deal would impose. Not to mention, the huge media fallout that would ensue, as it did, when the deal became public or the District Attorney decided to get moving on it.
So, using their best Rove deflection techniques, Chuck and Tricky Vic go ahead with their message, after sitting on it for a year, of “this (Norcal) is going to hang like a noose around Chavez’s neck.” They successfully get the fools at the Merc to buy into this nonsense and thats the message.
Now, while Chavez voted for it. Indeed, grand jury transcripts show that Chavez was damn near in the dark about the whole deal. Why? Because at this point, with one term nearly under her belt, Chavez had taken enough condescending crap from Ron Gonzalez and his people. As she starts to stand up for herself, Gonzalez shuts her out and calls her, in many private meetings, ” a disloyal and ungrateful _ _ _ _ _.” (you can finish that last word can’t you Barnum?)
In the end, was she smart on this deal by voting for it. Absolutely not, in fact, it was monumentally stupid. Did she have all the facts…I seriously f9&*()*ing doubt it and the grand jury backs me up on it.
Don’t believe me, go read the transcripts, go inside City Hall for a little while and ask some real insider and do some real research…
Reed knew about this shady deal TWO YEARS BEFORE ANYONE ELSE. He didn’t speak up, did nothing legislatively or politically to hamstring “such a bad deal for the city.” And folks, as a “well-known and respected trial attorney”(not to mention, a f&()&*ing ELECTED OFFICIAL) Chuck Reed knows full well that if he even SUSPECTS illegal activity, he is obliged to make do something to investigate the problem. But he didn’t and tried to place the blame on someone else. Wow, is that pathetic or what? But Chuck and Tricky Vic have been doing that all throughout their respective careers.
Don’t believe me, go “Google” Tricky Vic. My dear bloggies, you will be ASTOUNDED by what you discover. Go see whom Tricky has given money to, whom he votes for, the people he works for and the causes he supports—some of them are pretty extreme. This is the guy Chuck Reed gets advice from.. Wow, I gotta say, San Jose would be SOOOO LUCKY to have Chuck as Mayor with Tricky Vic as his consigliere. What a scandal free adminstration that would be my friends. (Note the heavy dripping sarcasm Barnum from this illiterate)
Now, back to my point. Throughout this whole Norcal scandal, Dr. No did nothing because he knew he would get something out of it—politically speaking. Now, suddenly, when there is some sunshine on this dog’s ass, he decries “dirty politics.” How deliciously ironic, don’t you think?
Barnum, you are welcome to call people you oppose in this race illiterates—or so the First Amendment says. But, as I have always said, your boy, Dr. No, lives in a giant glass house surrounded by boulders sitting on fault line .
Funny, is that the ground I feel shakin…
Employee, as a big Reed contributor, knows about the time Reed appeared at a city council meeeting as a county planning commissioner, for a chemical plant, who was his client.
Now Mr. Integrity has a problem
#29
If you are referring to #27; that’s not a fair label to put on those who speak so passionately about the candidate they love and support. They may be so overcome with emotion that it impedes their true capacity express themselves in a logical literate manor.
They may not create a good impression about those who support the Vice Mayor in this election; but they do have a right to believe what they want and express it as they wish.
In fact, they may not even know or care about the facts. They may hear only what they want and spew forth what they feel. And this is ok.
Downtown Brown: Huh? Spend a little too much time in the hot sun?
27 – Thanks for submitting basically the same post you and few of your pals have already posted over and over again. Most of your points have been refuted numerous times so I won’t waste time doing it again.
The one thing that clearly illustrates your ignorance of city government though is your cute, self-censored blather about a mayor not being involved in running the city on a day-to-day basis. That’s the way it is supposed to be!! Granted it did not happen during the wonderful GonzalesChavezBorgsdorf days, but in a professionally run city like San Jose used to be, the mayor and council set policy, the city manager runs the city on a day-to-day basis. So, I assume you believe Chavez will run the city like Gonzales and not let the professional staff do their jobs. There you have the difference in the mayor’s race. Chavez will continue to micro-manage the professional staff and inject politics into every decision. Reed will allow the professional staff to do what they do best—run a great city, and he and the council will set the policy.
Most of us know which way works best—we have the past 7 years as a text-book case of how not to run a city (the way Chavez supported.) Most of us would vastly prefer a return to a professionally run city and not one driven by politics.
Whoa, Downtown—Lighten up and ease up on the stimulants. First of all, your post was not even on the board when I wrote about illiterates (I was referring to #26 when I wrote that.) Maybe I should have said incoherent.
I don’t think you are illiterate. Ignorant maybe, but not illiterate.
I also think you need to expand your information base a little. You do seem pretty narrowly focused on one thing that appears to have no legs to stand on. But you are free to keep firing away and making your candidate look like some of her supporters should not be allowed to play with sharp objects.
BTW, not that you are interested in accuracy but I am not a Reed supporter. I do think he will do a better job of being mayor than your gal, but I have not endorsed, donated, worked for, etc. Reed. I’m certainly not as rabib for him as you are Chavez. I like to look at things rationally and make an informed decision. You should try it.
“Inside the Hall”, you are welcome for my repeated submissions…perhaps you will now get it. Because your boy “Dr. No” or “Dr. No-Vision” or “Dr. No Unless I Get Something For It” and lemmings clearly haven’t because they to keep posting the same smears against Chavez as they have throughout this whole campaign.
And if you can’t take hearing it, close your eyes or block your ears…I imagine you’ve been doing that since the Grand Jury transcripts hit the media (or have you been doing that all along?)
And btw, I have worked in a in four seperate city governments, NYC, Atlanta, Philadelphia and Seattle…not a single Mayor in any of those cities (not to mention the 10th largest city in America) takes a “hands off” approach…even with a city manager or adminstrator in place. For a guy “Inside the Hall” you clearly know NOTHING about how city governments work and neither does your boss Chuck Reed.
Because if he leaves it to his “vaunted” staff, like his ethically challenged Chief of Staff or campaign consultant, they will make the Gonzo years look like child’s play.
Okay kids, for those who are hard of hearing…let me explain something.
I have had to repeat the same thing OVER AND OVER again because its not getting through. Clearly you either choose to ignore the truth or, like the good lemmings you are, jump off the cliff cause everyone else is doing the same thing.
“Inside the Hall”, you work for Chuck directly or indirectly…that much is certain. So, if I repeat myself constantly is so that you can draw down the curtains and let the light shine on your boss—than so be it. What I think really bothers you is that we have revealed him to be the raging hypocrite that he has been and remains to this day.
The truly knowlegable people “Inside the Hall” have said the one constant about Chuck Reed is that he always says no…unless he gets something for it. His “holier than thou” attitude seems to have its place only when he needs it. But when he gets caught in his own lies, Dr. No and his minions, like yourself, go on the attack. Its typical Republican tactics…oh wait, I thought Chuck was a Democrat. Maybe I was confused by the whole conservative, pro-life, anti-working family stances he takes in the Council all the while taking lobbyist money like a drunken sailor on leave in Bangkok.
As to have Chavez will run this city, who the hell knows. But don’t you dare make attacks or disparagements or presumptions without looking at your own boy and his history—- cause its a hell of lot more checkered than Chavez’s. And Chuck has alot longer history in politics than she does….
Don’t believe me, ask for the grand jury transcripts…thats where the veneer starts to crack and it gets worse from there.
Wanna know what’s really original in this whole blog, “Inside the Hall”—despite your protestation to the contrary. NONE of you have refuted a word in a substantive fashion I have said,no matter how many times I repeat it.
Anyone wanna say why?
Oh wait, I have repeated myself again by asking that question, haven’t I?
“Inside” your boy, Dr. No, is Dirty …lift the veil, clean the window or get the smoke out of your eyes. I am sorry your boss lied to you—but it is what it is.
#8 Fed Up Blogger – SD is not as lively as SJ? Well, as far as nightclub shootings and cruising goes, then I guess you are right. SD did it right with their Gaslamp, Old Town, and new BallPark. They did all this with politicians worse than ours! Maybe they were lacking on ethics but at least they were able to get something done and done right. What has been accomplished here in the past 8 years?
Has anyone seen this news story from KTVU yet? You should watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dRTz7ukONM
Well, I told ya there was something Chuck was telling you…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dRTz7ukONM
Watching Chuck Reed claim innocent is like watching the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart beg for forgiveness after saying, ” I have SINNED AGAINST YOU…” for sleeping with some 22-year old ministry assistant. While I don’t see Chuck doing that (he prefers the $$$ actually), its the same kind of story.
And kids, this is NOTHING compared the Norcal deal. In fact, I imagine this is just the tip of the political scandal-iceberg for Reed. I know from experience that Chuck Reed has more hidden secrets and scandals than J. Edgar Hoover…
Can I get an AMEN from the congregation…
Lets all say it together: Chuck Reed lives in a big glass house surrounded by boulders on an earthquake fault line. And the ground is getting a little shaky kiddies.
Oh and David D. …. you have clue about how Norcal went down. I will say it again for those of you, like poor David D. here, who are clearly visually impaired.
The fact remains, Chuckie “Dr. No” Reed along with his Republican friend and colleague Pat Dando knew TWO YEARS BEFORE EVERYONE ELSE, decided to keep it to themselves and try desperately to hang Chavez with it. Did they stop it, protest in Council, prevent the vote from occuring through parliamentary procedure or even go to the Mayor and say it was a bad deal and that it shouldn’t go forward…No, dear friends, Dando and Dr. No did none of these things.
Why, cause Dr. No got something out of it.
Once again, don’t believe me, go read the Grand Jury testimony you uninformed Reedite…Dando sold Reed out, got caught lying about it and was desperate to keep it from being published. Tricky Vic and his “friends” in the trash business knew about it too…Norcal execs weren’t exactly quiet about it because they were so pissed at Gonzo and Guerra—and rightfully so. They grumbled about it in private circles…the same circles Chuck and Tricky Vic traveled in. They heard it, Dando heard it and yet they fiddled while Rome burned.
Ya know, I really want that kind of “hands off Mayor” who, according to a March 12th SJ Merc article says “I don’t want to be involved in running the city on a day-to-day basis.” ARE YOU F%#$@%#$ING KIDDING ME!!!! What the hell are you running for Mayor for then Dr. No.
You know who had that similar attitude my friends…Chuck Reed’s political heroes, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. BTW, did you know Chuck actually supported GWB…I kid you not!!!
Enjoy the “You Tube” clip…there is undoubtedly more to come dear bloggies…
Final Thoughts (I thought you Reed Republicans would appreciate the “Factor” reference);
First, to you Chavez people, stop calling Dr. No “Skeletor”…that just sounds f*&)*(&(ing stupid. And its mean, not politically related and f*(&)*(&ing; retarded.
Call him Dr. No like I do. Its fun and here’s why….
Thats all Chuck is, does or says in Council…unless there is something in it for him.
Like refusing to keep libraries open a few extra hours because it saved the City a few thousand dollars a year. Yeah, save a few dollars and forget communities and kids who use the library to study, learn and improve themselves. Wow, glad Chuck Reed was in on THAT VOTE to save the City from fiscal insanity. He voted against it because the citizens in his council district didn’t want to spend the money…oh, and Chuck got nothing for it politically.
Kinda like the Grand Prix vote whose cost was offset by the nearly $44million in estimated tax revenues the city received from it. Chuck voted against the Grand Prix because he got nothing for it…literally. He has said, of course in private circles, that if his district got nothing for it…he would refuse to vote for it. Screw the rest of the city and the revenues it added to city coffers. He didn’t want “any of his opponents, particularly Chavez, getting any credit for it.”
Don’t believe me, go ask the Chamber or the Downtown Restaurant Association or anyone else with a clue about how to spend money to make money!!!
And David D., you poor misguided soul, Chuck voted against Norcal because he did get something out of it—political capital. Chuck knew before anyone else and did nothing…so if you want to talk about criminal liability, step back from the ledge sport and ask your boy, Chuck, what really constitutes such a violation. He should know, he is such a “well known trial lawyer.”
35 – you missed the important made on this board today as stated in #34 “…Lighten up and ease up on the stimulants.” I’m concerned for your health—you’re going to blow a gasket or at minimum blow out your keyboard.
My experience is that when somebody screams the same thing over and over, they usually have little basis for their tantrum. Whatever shred of truth you might have is lost in your verbosity and nasty tone. You do not reflect on your candidate, Ms. Chavez, well. But that’s up to you. If it is your intent to push people away from Ms. Chavez, you are succeeding.
Oh, and don’t feel you have to respond. I can just read any of your previous posts as they all say the same thing.
#37, you should check out this news story, also.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4559458
Ty Rade, JMC, et al…I find it interesting that you or anyone of your fellow lemmings have YET to dispute what I have said. Oh I know why…cause you can’t defend it I imagine.
C’mon, be original and gimme something sport. Or is it that you have no way to defend your boy Chuck? Are you so afraid to even answer the question that you and John Michael O’Conner—an individual who has spewed such vitriol about Chavez in this race as to put guys like Rush Limbaugh to shame—come after others who dare to respond to your constant battering of Chavez.
Do me a favor, “Disciples of Dr. No”, cowboy up and gimme some answers to these charges I have leveled at Chuck—instead of accusing me of the very same thing you people have engaged for months in this race. That too is called hypocrisy my dear Disciples.
When you want to talk about issues, I will be glad too. Cause so far, and I will quote you chapter and verse if you like, all you have done is bash Chavez unceasingly. Don’t believe me, go look at the blog archives of over the last few months. You people have called this candidate and called her every single name in the book. Some of them I wouldn’t let my children read.
Now, because someone responds in kind, you can’t take it. You bash the person writing, you call them “extreme”, tell me “I am spending too much time in the sun (whatever the hell that means). But then, given the quality of Reed’s supporters on this, I am somehow not at all surprised.
Politics is a contact sport “Disciples of Dr. No”—if you are gonna throw bombs don’t be surprised when people respond in kind and with an equal or greater force. And if you can’t take the same kind of hits, then you really aren’t strong enough to stay in the game.
If you want to talk issues, lets do that—its one of my best skills. Lets talk about strong neighborhoods, economic development, a stronger transportation network that includes multimodal options or helping better link San Jose to the rest of the Bay Area…lets talk about ALL of that.
But, I imagine not one of you has the courage to do that. Why? Because you simply can’t—Chuck “Dr. No-Vision” Reed has talked about these illustrious “Reed Reforms” and yet has violated so many of them. (Its like being a marriage counseler but never having been married…your frame of reference is kind of skewed.)
Wow, in my book, they call that hypocrisy…
Now, if you want to continue to bash Chavez, go right ahead. But don’t be surprised when myself and others respond in kind and with alot more than any of you know about Chuckie. I and others will keep saying whatever is necessary, no matter whether we repeat ourselves or not, to make sure you understand your boy Dr. No is just as dirty…if not more so.
And like I said, if you can’t take the hits, get out of the game—but then, it will only prove how truly soft the Reed campaign and its message truly are in this race.
re: #40…
Has the Chavez campaign been sending out ‘scratch-n-sniff’ mailers?
40 – Discussing Chavez’ voting record is not bashing. Just because you can see no wrong she has done does not make discussing her record off-limits for others.
She voted FOR a gift of public funds of over $11 million in the garbage mess; she voted FOR a $4 million gift of public funds for the Grand Prix without benefit of full council or public discussion; she has voted FOR illegal EIRs that were not in compliane with CEQA; and the list goes on.
Stating her voting record for others to see may be uncomfortable for you but it is not bashing.
As for much of your other nonsense, few have called her any names on this site. Some have said she can’t be trusted but that is based on their experiences with her.
When you start stating the truth maybe others will respond.Until then I’d give it a rest.
#26 – “As a big Reed contributor”? That is too funny! As my father would say, i’m holding my nose when I go in the voting booth. But thanks, i’m still laughing!
Oh, great. The Illiterates for Chavez are back. Is there no justice?
I would hope Chavez’ sake that not all of her supporters are alienators like Downtown. As a casual observer of this site, I am amazed and appalled at the foaming tirades of some of these Chavez folks. Those for Reed come across as sane and rational and factual and the most rabid Chavez mouthpieces just yell and scream. If someone looked at this site for the first time and was going to make their decision on who to vote for in the Mayor’s race, they would think that Chavez is backed only by the looneytoons brigade of the Demo party. No matter how many times their arguments are refuted they come back yelling the same thing again.
There must be more rational Chavez supporters out there who can try and make her case. They can’t all be out of control spinners, can they?
It seems well past time to get a rational Chavez supporter to comment here. Otherwise the time has come to just ignore the current blathering.
43 – You couldn’t be more wrong—again.
NN.Sane/Ty Rade/Reed Disciple:
Here’s the deal for the umpteenth time:
First, I voted for Mulcahy (and would have for Pandori but Mike seemed more of a “Gavin Newsom kind of guy which I like for our city)…so blow out your ear about backing Chavez. My whole issue in responding to you “Disciples of Dr. No” is that I am sick and tired of the “poor, pity my candidate” routine you have engaged in throughout this blog. Starting with Single Gal/aka Pat Dando ghost writer, you have called Chavez every name in the book from a out-and-out criminal to, basically, a godawful (fill in the blank). Its been disgusting. So why don’t you and your boy, Dr. No, get off your moral high-horses and answer the questions I have been asking for WEEKS now.
Second, I have been in politics for a long time—in all likelihood, longer than you—and in every possible capacity. And do you know the one constant about an opposing candidate who started the mud-slinging (meaning your boy Dr. No, Pat Dando and the Chamber)—they are all the sudden stunned when the fire in returned with equal or greater power. Oh, they don’t mind castigating others but they sure hate when the proverbial stone is cast in their direction—particularly when they believe themselves to be “without sin” and able to cast such stones. (Or is that too deep a metaphor for you N Sane/Ty Rade.)
Third, the other constant is that the attacking candidate never answers the charges. Instead, they attack the messenger, call him/her crazy, irrational and an “alienator”. In doing so, they fervently hope to deflect the issues/charges before they build up to a breaking point and their flimsy message of “Reed Reforms” falls apart. Interestingly enough, its the same tactic Tricky Vic (the wonderful and crazy Republican that he is) has used in so many campaigns. I know from personal experience how effective the Republicans like Chuck and Tricky Vic truly are at such things.
Fourth, for all of my supposed “rantings, irrational, etc. behavior, you still respond by attacking me and never answering the questions about Dr. No’s own failings….so, do me a favor, I will stop ranting when you ask Chuck about the multitude of ethics problems he has—and not just the ones you have seen on TV lately. Trust me, there are ALOT more where they came from.dear boy/girl.
Don’t just ask him about the votes he cast to help clients—ask him about the interventions he has made with other government officials to help out his friends—when those things come out, I imagine you won’t be calling me (insert deflecting insult here/amateur psychological diagnosis here)…
Inside the Hall is not a Reed shill. His/her comments are reflective of the feeling of the vast majority of present and former City staffers.
It’s not that Reed is great, he’s just far superior to Chavez. The people of San Jose want a change, and Cindy is not the person to do it.
I don’t particularly like Chuck Reed, but he has my vote.
David D…if it makes easier for you to understand how dirty Dr. No is…I am sure someone could oblige you.
Again, not ONE OF YOU has bothered to respond to any of my questions and/or commentaries on Chuck? Better yet, have Dr. No get some courage and respond directly. But he won’t, cause Tricky Vic won’t let him off the leash. Kinda like Karl Rove and his lapdog, George W. Bush….but I digress.
Oh wait, inside of doing that…you attack me directly, call me shrill, blah blah blah. And yet, you still fail to refute any thing I said.
Watching you people go after me, instead of answering my questions, is kinda like a contract killer who believes in gun control. Sure he/she needs a gun to do their job but sure as heck doesn’t want anyone else to have the same power.
AGAIN WHY?????
And don’t give me that crap “Call It A Day” about just talking about her voting record. Thats a lie and you know it. Go back and look at some of the other commentaries…in some cases, they call her, and this is least of it, a criminal defendant. Funny, I think the grand jury sees it a little differently.
Your boy Dr. No and the “Disciples” like yourself have called Chavez some of the worst names I have ever seen in my fifteen years in politics and government. Its beyond the pale….and I worked in some of the toughest political arenas in this country. What you and Armando and the other Reed staffer can’t take is having it put right back on them.
I think what gets to you Disciples of Dr. No is that Chavez’s people aren’t taking it anymore. I imagine, as Chuck once said about her, “she doesn’t have it in her to go after me…”
Be careful what you wish for Dr. No…
48 -OK, as hard as it is to believe, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume you actually know what you are talking about. Why on earth would anybody even try to have a normal discussion with you when you ignore every response that is written.
Call it a Day raises factual information about Chavez’ voting record and you respond, “And don’t give me that crap “Call It A Day” about just talking about her voting record. Thats a lie and you know it.” Not much point in going any furhter with you when you don’t want to deal with facts.
Why wouldn’t folks call you a Chavez fanatic. You broadly label anyone who dares your question your grip on reality a disciple of Dr. No (very cute – must have taken you days to come up with that one.)
So, go on (and on and on) with your repetitive message. Ignore the facts you don’t want to hear and have a nice weekend. The rest of us will deal with reality.
And once again, “N Sane”…you ignore the one overriding question to focus on the personal. In doing so, you are using more expedient Why, because thats easier to do than to answer the questions about Chuck.
But it seems so easy to attack me than to ask Chuck: its called avoidance behavior—thats a real psychological term. I actually looked it up.
With avoidance behavior, we turn away from the things we don’t want to hear to avoid the painful truth and dealing with those issues. The best example of your AB is how you continue to respond to my posts by (a.) attacking me repeatedly for being irrational, etc.; (b.) avoiding answering any of the charges/concerns/questions/hypocrisy I have brought up on Dr. No.
At the end of day, I could care less about Chavez winning or losing.
What irritates me and the voters of this city is how you ( that is the Reed Disciples, campaign and/or city staffers, etc. including Armando is undoubtedly having some fun here.) are so angry at me or others for having the temerity to challenge you on behavior that you decry in others. Frankly, its stunning to me.
As I have said, N. Sane, I have clearly hit a nerve with you and the Disciples—why else would you bother responding under this or other names.
As to the “Dr. No”, “Dr. No-Vision” or “Dr. No Unless I Get Something For It.” monikers (you see how interchangeable it is). Surprisingly enough, it took no time at all. But I think, if you knew anything about Chuck, his record,ask staffers inside City Hall or know anything about SJ politics, you would understand how appropriate it is for him.
Frankly, its a moniker he brought upon himself. And its going to follow him throughout this entire campaign. Heck, and once a moniker like that sticks coupled with Chuck’s own ethical hypocrisies starting with his Reed Reforms…people are gonna have a tough time supporting him.
Ya see, people may not like Chavez for appearing to be to close to Gonzo—I don’t deny this. But voters, as I have discovered over the years, really, really hate candidates who hold themselves up as ethically pure only to find out their behavior was equally bad if not worse. Is the “Jimmy Swaggart” effect…see, if you decry sin in every form and then end up getting caught for that same sin.
Inside the Hall is Reed shill and we can even see Armando, who now has conflict of interest problems of his own by working for Reed, talking to him as often as possible about how and how not to post.
is this person/blogger downtown brown really an angry richard robinson…?
51 – Could be, but even Rich on his worst days doesn’t come across as angry, nasty, and unstable as DB.
Downtown Brown.
You state you were a supporter of Mulcahy, will you please site where you posted here prior to the primary in favor of Mike.
Next would you please site Cindy’s voting record on the Grand Prix, Fair Grounds, Tropicana, The Tent, Del Monte Plant #3, Norcal, IBM#25, NSJ, and the Ball Park. Please tell us if you feel she voted wisely on
these most important issuses. I have not decided on who I will vote for yet and I need the facts. If you want to convince someone that Ciny is the right person for the job, here is your big chance. BTW I voted for Pandori.
Downtown Brown is the same loonie toon that was posting before under a different name that also posts as a dumb-ass who can’t spell. It’s either Cindy’s rabid dog of a campaign manager or Phillip Bump. And what you are doing DB, is driving people away from Cindy. Calm down and respond to some of the things people have posted in a professional manner. You aren’t doing yourself or Cindy any good here.
#51 I wonder if this person is on the public dole. With so much experience in politics and time to blog and rant, he/she/it can’t be very productive at anything else.
Is this the best we can do? Every time somebody questions Chavez and her record her team fires back with some silly, unsubstantiated nonsense about them working for Reed. It seems Reed supporters shoot back with fact and substance and Chavezista’s fire back with vitriol and attacks. This whole “discussion” has lost focus. How about we get back on track folks and actually discuss the issues? Just a wild thought.
Employee. of course, is the guy Chuck gives the pint bottle to, after the day, to sweep up the floor. Hey Armando, does Chuck take it with cream and the C and H cubes, or did he promote you to sandwiches?
From District 4, we tried Aramando on sandwiches, he kept asking what mayo was.
Lets not forget we’re #10.
Fact, Chuck Reed does use surrogates do his dirty work for him. Milpitas City Council, Reed’s first campaign, and several school board races. It has been in the Mercury News and the Sun newspapers.
Fact, Aramndo Gomez is on the Milpitas City Council, yet participates in Chuck’s meetings concerning confidential negotiationswith the City of San Jose and Milpitas, thus participating in a conflict of interest.
Fact, Chuck Reed lied in a public meeting about his votes on a controversial proposal dealing with a rock quarry.
Fact, Chuck voted to benefit his client on a gas station deal and is now the subject of an FPPC investigation.
Fact, Armando Gomez is stalling on a request by a public citizen, not connected to any San Jose City Council campaign, for clarification to an email about a check to a garbarge company sent hours before the vote on the company’s contract.
Fact, Reed used his title as a county planning commissioner to advocate for a client before the City Council twice.
Fact, Surprised does not care.
59 – Thanks for trying so hard to raise the level of discourse on this blog.
Perhaps you could look up the word “coherent” and try applying it to your posts. If not, we’ll just have to chalk it up to another substance-less post against Reed.
Thanks for trying.
As Surprised shows, if Chuckie was carrying a bag of swag from some place, he would be telling us that Chuckie was appropriating it for a good cause. That is your typical Reed supporter, nothing matters.
61 – I don’t know where in your distorted view of reality you would possibly get the idea that I don’t care. Although typical of your type of posts—to make a completely fabricated statement based on zero fact—I was hoping for better.
If I didn’t care I wouldn’t bother trying to gather even a glimmer of information from this board. Obviously, this is not my primary source of information. Don’t know what yours is since you leave out details.
I do care and was hoping for a higher level of discussion. Guess I’ll have to look elsewhere for that.
Wow…I leave town for a couple of days and much to my “surprise” my questions are still NOT ANSWERED. Why? Because none of you “Disciples of Dr. No” have the guts to ask him or get him to respond directly—you continue to forget that, at the end of the day, your Tricky Vic Republican tactics make your boss and his client look guilty.
“Surprised” (yet clueless), the discussion has plenty of focus: and that focus why you can’t acknowledge that your boss/friend is one helluva dirty politician. And, as the evidence against your boss continues to mount, you all of the sudden want to discuss the “issues”.
But as a clear sufferer of avoidance behavior—you, like Employee, simply lack the fortitude to stand up and ask your boy/boss Dr. No how he can play “Mr. Morality” and then, when his own ethics problems come into the light, you act the victim and want to change the discussion. Jesus, that’s just pathetic pal. Not to mention, how you call me crazy and then all of the sudden you numbskulls all go “Karl Rove” psychotic on me.
Now, I will tell you again, I don’t give one damn about Chavez winning or losing. And no, I never posted about Mike. Why, I honestly don’t know…I guess I was too busy walking the blocks for him or other volunteer stuff.
But here is why I am going after Dr. No—and since you and your fellow Disciples have neither the reading ability nor reading comprehension skills, I will once again tell you.
Your boy Dr. No and Tricky Vic are the biggest hypocrites in San Jose politics. They have brutalized Chavez (using their beeatches at the Chamber like Pat ScanDo) from top to bottom. Meanwhile, when Chavez hits back, you weasels decry “dirty politics” and then play the victim.
I think you want to change the “focus” because you simply don’t want to hear the bad news, you are afraid to Dr. No about his own ethics and you lack the personal strength and conviction to stand up and recognize your boss is dirty.
And that is a real shame…
(Oh, and Employee, here’s an idea,go back to work on Monday and let the adults talk. You are clearly someone who prefers child-like, sad insults to answers, making personal attacks as opposed to giving some substantive responses to what everyone is saying about Dr. No.
Instead, you call me “loony”and “a dumbass who can’t spell” but what remains a mystery is why you fail to answer why your boss cannot simply acknowledge that he is unbelievably dirty. Actually, you sound like a Disciple who just doesn’t have the guts to ask your boss these tough questions. )
Wait; wait…. quick before Mayor Ron leaves office and his rubber-stamp changes her behavior, lets get a new bike path around the city.
It’ll “put San Jose on the map”, provide lots of jobs and oh yes, it’s a Green Project.
http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/10/mist-cooled-bike-paths-being-built-in-qatar/
Maybe Downtown Brown could even be a cheerleader for this. He’s a cornicopia of political expertise. What do think?
Cindy is a bright, articulate and politically savvy woman who cares deeply about neighborhoods, families and the people that support her.
She doesn’t need this DB kind of irrational, emotional ranting on her behalf.
Certainly there must be a well thought out rationale for the way she voted on key issues; and you would think that someone so zealously defending her would understand this and be able share it with us.
What happened in the case of Downtown Brown?
In defense of too much coffee in the morning, downtown brown:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4559458
Is it ethical to profit from your official votes?
Is it ethical to run a campaign on sunshine but not disclose who you work for and how much they pay you?
I wonder if a gas station with a car wash is worth more than a gas station with a mini mart?
Let’s see. Chuck attends a Republican bbq and says that he is looking forward to working with Republicans.
Let’s see. Chuck’s chief bottle washer, Armando Gomez, is refusing to clarify why hours before a vote on garbarge companies, a Reed staffer emails a garbarge company owner and says he can pick up a check.
Let’s see. Chuck employs a consultant that not only demands to be part of press conferences as a official spokesperson of the DA’s offiice, and he also tells candidates after 9/11 to wear phony firefighter outfits to get votes.
Let’s see. Chuck lies to a community group about a vote he made for a rock quarry.
Yep, those are all whispers allright.
Looks like Cindy has at least two solid supporters.
Too bad they can’t vote.
The names Downtown Brown and Reality Check do not show up on the voter registraion roll.
71 –
If “guilt by association” was not an accepted practice here, many on this blog would have to find something else to do with their time. (see Cindy Chavez/Ron Gonzales for reference)
If Downtown Brown was truly a Mulcahy supporter, they would not be trashing Chuck at all. They would be voting for him along with the rest of the Mulcahy supporters. Nice try at a cover.
Uptown Brown, go read the grand jury transcripts, the ethics complaints…what more proof do you need? He knew about Norcal—I already built that case. He knew something was wrong and failed to stop it—that, by the way, is, for a lawyer cause for disbarment, and for an average citizen, they call it a felony for failure to report a crime. He knew what he was doing last week when he cast a deciding to help out a contributor and a former client—how naive do you have to be to believe otherwise.
And yes, if you want to stop the “guilt by association” thing, lets do that. Lord knows, the Disciples have NEVER done that on this blog have they?
But, wait, you have … haven’t you? You and your friends have been desperate to attach anything negative to Chavez, whether its Gonzo’s activities, labor, the Norcal deal vote,the Grand Prix (which actually MADE money) or the Kennedy assasination, etc. You have made every effort to tear this woman down no matter what it took. And now you have the unmitigated gall to attack others for questioning the associations of your boss. Wow, more hypocrisy from the Disciples of Dr. No—why should ANY OF US be surprised. So, I have no problem stopping with the guilt by association questions as long you have the courage to do so yourself. But until then “Brownie”, I think if you choose to engage in that practice, I believe others should enjoy that same right.
And while I seem vociferous in my arguments, I think as a voter and someone who worked in this profession, I resent a guy like Chuck Reed claiming the moral high ground while he himself walks on ethical quicksand.
Downtown Brown,
You go on and on arguing with people and calling names. What is your goal here? With those tactics you will never convince them to vote for Cindy. On the other hand, I in #54 gave you a chance to answere my respectful questions. I have an open mind in this election and want to make the right choice, so before you go on and on with the others please answere my questions. Here is your big chance to get a Cindy convert.
Downtowner, I voted and worked for Mike with great pride. He is a great guy with alot of vision for the city. You may want it to be a cover, but sadly, its not.
However, since you missed what I said before,I will say it again : I could care not one whit about Chavez’s winning or losing. I want a fair fight and an end to bashing someone cause thats how you people have chosen to campaign.
You and others have gone after Chavez ten ways till Sunday—mostly with unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo. Don’t deny, you have been a part of it yourself.
Chuck and his friends at the Chamber bashed her as well. But now, as sunshine is shining on Dr. No’s happy tuckus, you and the Disciples go absolutely nuts.
And, if you actually bother to get your boy Chuck to anything BUT a push poll run Tricky Vic and a right-wing marketing firm…I think the results might astound you.
#58
I am not a Reed or Cindy supporter yet. I hope Chuck’s camp will not avoid the questions as Cindy’s camp has. Would you or other members of Chuck’s camp please answer the following, Why did Chuck vote to demolish all of the Del Monte Plant #3, rather than save the historic portion for housing? Why did he vote to end the Cisco investigation? Why did he vote to certify two illegal EIRs costing tax payers millions (Markovitz and IBM Buildings)? Why was he the only council member to vote against the new, clarified Historic Ordinance?
Downtown #35: You must have had WAY too many double espresso’s @ Starbuck’s is Seattle.
So, you are an EX-employee of 4 cities. Gee, I wonder why that is.
David…for the love of God, read my posts THOROUGHLY. I am not here to defend Chavez…jesus, are you just another Disciple who does the “hear no evil” “see no evil” “speak no evil” routine. Cause while you may accuse me of ranting, raving and general insanity…you still won’t ask your boy Dr. No why he can’t come clean with his record.
Uptown Brown (or wait, is that actually Chuck, Tricky Vic or good ol dirty Armando..)
You have all the evidence you need in the following posts. Unless you too are afraid to read them.
Let me do what you and your fellow Disciples of Dr. No fail to do…actually answer your questions..
Please clarify why this makes him “dirty”.
Go read #68, et al. or better yet, the actual grand jury testimony. He knew about it…you are terribly blind or simply foolish to believe he didn’t know. Even IF I take your ridiculous assumption that he had a “rumor”, Chuck had those rumors later confirmed by Pat Dando. Oh, and you know, Chuck uses that excuse alot…kinda like he did in the KTVU-2 interview last Monday. He claimed that he had only “heard that his client had involvement” in a particular issue before the Council that he voted on. As such as amazingly gifted trial lawyer and “moral center” of the SJ City Council, you would think he would immediately be concerned about ANY appearance of a conflict. But, the amazingly hypocritical Dr. No sees no problem. Why? Because Dr. No Unless I Got Something Out of It ended up getting a contribution from that same client—look it up my friend.
Don’t rail against Vic. He isn’t on the ballot.
Why can’t I rail against Vic? What are you afraid of? Labor isn’t on the ballot either and you bash them unnceasingly. Tricky Vic and his clients have benefited ALOT from you/your boy Dr. No being on the SJ City Council. He is a rightwing Republican serving a closeted Republican. BTW, Tricky Vic works with and represents some of the most right-wing, anti-gay, anti-family groups in the entire state. I think having a Tricky Vic as his main mouthpiece/puppetmaster should allow for some serious questions about the people Chuck associates with…after all, you have done that to Chavez for the last 22 months haven’t you Chuck, Tricky Vic or Armando…
Don’t tell me about Republicans. Reed isn’t one.
Oh, so Dr. No says. However, he is pro-life, anti-labor, anti-working families member of the City Council. He has said quietly to many in N. San Jose that he supported GWB in both 2000 and 2004. I bet if we pull Dr. No’s voting record in both elections, it will stun you. So, as my momma always said, “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…its a pretty good guess is not a f(*&)(*&ing; wildebeast.”
Don’t reply with unsubstantiated accusations.
Well, if you call Grand Jury testimony unsubstantiated…then my friend, keep paddling the river of denial. But you and I both know Dr. No, Tricky Vic and Armando are dirty. But when they get caught, they go on the offensive and attack the messengers…boy, how “Rovian” of them.
Go read #68 again…it might help.
Don’t try to psychoanalyze me based on web postings.
Again, why not? You Disciples have called me every thing from crazy, loony, etc. etc. I think a little psychoanalysis is good for everyone. I just think you Disciples of Dr. No need to understand you are suffering from avoidance behavior. So fight the AB disorder by asking yourself “Why can’t I come clean…”
Let’s see.
Armando blocks a citizen from seeing public records about CHUCK’S OFFICE returning a check to a garbarge company. Hmm, who hired Armando??? Did Chuck?? Hmm, who hired Victor, the sleaze captain who actually threatened Gill Cable with county action BECAUSE HE SAID CHUCK REED WAS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER. Hmm, methinks as usual, Chuck needs to stop hiring the janitor in his campaign hq to write his postings for him.
DB – SInce you have all the info that nobody else has and only you seem to understand what your questions are, why don’t you ask Reed yourself? We already know whatever answers are provided you will attack for one reason or another.
So why not leave everybody else alone, pursue your vendetta on your own, argue with yourself, and everybody will be happy.
Have a good journey in your quest for the truth as you see it. Don’t bother to write. We won’t miss you.
Sounds like guilt by association to me.
Link a man to someone else, then attack the third party.
Same as the picture morphing ads from five or ten years back.
You attack Vic, Armando, and Republicans. Then you say that clearly Reed is dirty by association.
The only claim against Chuck is that he “lied” to a community group. No citation. No mention of which group. No context. Just the accusation. Why not give the exact quote, and list all of the relevant votes on the issue?
Do you have anything to back that up so that people can view the specifics of your accusation?
“zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz”….oh, I am sorry, John Michael, did you say something…sorry, I fell asleep waiting for a more impressive response and/or answers to why Dr. No is soooo dirty.
Get back to me with a response…or you can just keep acting like the crazy bomb-thrower most in San Jose think you are.
Downtown-
So far, all you have done is refer to documents, and IMPLY that it proves something big. If there were a smoking gun there, you would actually quote it.
As to Norcal,
It was a bad idea.
Reed voted no.
The others did not.
That’s pretty clear to me.
Blaming Reed for how the rest of the council voted is ridiculous. There were not enough independent votes on that council for him to have won. (Chirco, Campos, Gonzales, Chavez, Gregory, Williams = 6.)
Reedite-
Your claim is that Reed accepts contributions from people whith busisness before the council. I’m not in favor of the practice, but I don’t see an alternative in this race.
I certainly haven’t seen Chavez recusing herself from votes on union contracts, for example.
People shouldn’t take money from special interests, pumpkin.
DB: Michael Mulcahy either never met you or he never saw the type of repetitive nonsense that you post on this blog. If he did meet you and you spoke as you do here, I’d have to seriously question his judgment in letting you work for him.
It’s easy to say stupid things under a pseudonym, though, isn’t it?
If you truly believe in what you post, when you awaken from your snooze,grow some cojones and use your real name.
Downtown Brown-
Your posts are long on innuendo and short on citations.
If you have actual evidence, it would be appreciated.
What there is is pretty limited. Reed heard some rumors about the Norcal Contract, and voted against it.
That’s it? The big scandal is failing to disclose the fact that he heard a rumor? By that standard, you wouldn’t have a politician left in the valley.
Please clarify why this makes him “dirty”.
Don’t rail against Vic. He isn’t on the ballot.
Don’t tell me about Republicans. Reed isn’t one.
Don’t reply with unsubstantiated accusations.
Don’t try to psychoanalyze me based on web postings.
Just tell me what exactly Reed did with respect to Norcal, and why that is a scandal.
JMC, again….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Sorry, are you STILL blathering on with personal attacks. I don’t think I am sleeping as much as you are boring me into slumber. And I don’t think using my real name is the issue here my little bomb thrower—unless you want to continue to deflect, deflect AND (wait for it…)deflect …like most of you Disciples of Dr. No choose to do here.
I eagerly await your next set of useless insults and, even more,useless bravada you crazy tough guy that you are…..frankly, its funny sparky.
Uptown, “clearly” you just don’t know the behin”behind the music” of what your boy Dr. No did with the Norcal deal or the vote on the gas station/mini-mart vote. So, I will tell you ONCE AGAIN for a ground-level perspective what went down. And, my dear Uptown, this isn’t speculation, innuendo or anything else. This is what happened—I know you don’t want to hear it or even have me quote GJ transcipts—but this is what it is.
First of all, nearly every contract involving city employees usually involves a union—sorry, much to “Republican In The Closet” Reed’s dismay I am afrain.. So, your argument is ridiculous on its face. Nearly every member of the Council would have to recuse themselves—except for the pro-life, anti-worker and working family, “Republican In The Closet” Chuck Reed. The difference is that Dr. No was voting on an issue, where a well-paying client had an financial interest and where HE had a direct conflict of interest—and he took a substantive campaign contribution from this fellow as well. In other words, Uptown, by law Dr. No should have recused himself. He didn’t and he broke the law. Don’t believe me, go read the statute on it…it shouldn’t be too hard to find.
Second, please don’t bury your head in the sand and ignore it. Chuck “Dr. No Unless Something’s In It For Me” Reed admitted he had known or heard about the Norcal deal TWO YEARS BEFORE THE VOTE EVEN CAME TO THE COUNCIL AND A YEAR BEFORE THE COUNCIL HAD EVEN HEARD OF IT (is that clear enough for you or should I repeat myself again.).
How people voted is irrelevant because he could have stopped the whole process in the beginning and looked more the hero—now, he just looks like the guy who said nothing to anyone on the Council, to the Mayor, to the DA (the most logical person) or the media for personal political and financial benefit.
Once again, he abrogated his responsibility to the voters of his district AND this city for political gain.
He said as much to the Grand Jury—for the love Pete, go read the transcripts for some proof or ask your boy Dr. No directly. Better yet, call Pat Dando at the Chamber—like I said,she was the one who told Chuck and Tricky Vic.
Even if he had only heard about he is morally, ethically and, yes, LEGALLY bound to report any perceived unethical behavior. But, in typical Chuck Reed behavior, he chose to ignore his moral, ethical and legal responsibilities for political gain. More to the point, the fact that he even KNEW should have caused him to go to his fellow members of the Council or the Mayor with his concerns. And yet he did nothing—wow, I think that Honesty, Integrity and Accountability slogan is starting to look like one big lie, isn’t it?
The real FACT is that Chuck Reed didn’t report Norcal because Pat Dando and Tricky Vic, his Republican consultant and mentor, told him not to because they knew the legal and political implications of going behind the Council’s back.
They also knew that if they could tie unethical behavior to Gonzo, it could possibly leak onto to Chavez. Unfortunately, as the voters have started hearing more about how ethically-tainted Chuck “Dr. No” Reed truly is (despite his wild protestations to the contrary), the less likely people will be to support him and you know it.
It looks like Reed is turning out to be more Green than Chavez. Even the Green machine Pandori and McEnery are backing Reed and it looks like Mulcahy and the Chamber is next.
Check out the thread at http://mayorwatch.blogspot.com/
Now if we get the council to maintain the parks an build us a few pools, we’re set.
Well, now we know, Downtown Clown must be the city attorney. Since DC seems to know everything about everything, including all the legal aspects, I can only assume we have unmasked him/her.
Either that, or he/she is a comedian. How else could one explain the laughable comment that “How people voted is irrelevant…” No rational citizen could make that statement with a straight face, so they must be going for laughs.
Stay tuned—I’m sure we will be blessed with another blast of hot air from Downtown Clown any minute.
Mr. Brown #86,
So you don’t like Mr. Reed. Can you enlighten us what is so great about Ms. Chavez?
Dear “Sad Justifier for Chuck”:
SJC, what do you think of that name..pretty clever right? Better than Downtown Clown, that’s just amateur my friend…you can do better than that…or is that expecting to much from a Disciple to be either original or creative—clearly from the debate the other night, creativity in message ain’t his strong point.
Now on with the fun and games:
Man, and I thought I was an angry guy…but you got me beat SJC. Or did I just hit another nerve with the Disciples and Tricky Vic/Armando/Dr. No to you to respond. But what continues to amuse all of us is that through all of these ridiculous personal attacks on my verbosity, sanity, lack of table manners, etc., you still can’t defend Dr. No and his dirty deeds it seems.
Let me explain something to you, poor misguided SJC. It is true that how people voted in Norcal is irrelevant. The reason is simple and since I have to repeat it for you AGAIN, here it is —Dr. No knew/suspected about a potential financial problem for the city with Norcal and failed to confront it all for political and financial gain. While Chavez, et al voted for it in a very stupid move, Chuck only voted against it because he knew or had a pretty good idea he was gonna benefit politically and financially from it.
At the end of the day, his failure to report this means he broke the law, violated the public trust and lost his moral standing as the “conscience of the SJ City Council.” And, whats worse, he knew TWO YEARS before everyone else my dear misguided SJC. You Disciples might call it the sin of omission which is invariably worse than the sin of co-mission because Dr. No’s sin is the prior bad act upon which all other bad acts were built. (Try that philosophy on your boss Armando, see if he understands that language.)
Mr. Pink, for the last time on this blog, I don’t give one whit for Chavez. I just want the Disciples of Dr. No to answer these charges, ask their boss/candidate about it and deal with it. But what bothers them the most is that they simply can’t take the same vicious tactics they have used on others in this race.
It seems to me that Armando, Tricky Vic and Chuck are alot more worried about what else may come out.
So if they want to stop the personal attacks and focus on making the city better, I will gladly do so. But it seems they won’t and they can’t because they know the following:
1.) Chuck Reed has NEVER had any vision on this Council. He says NO to everything unless he gets something for it. Want an example, in a June article in the Mercury News, Chuck Reed voted for a bill in a closed session in the Council. He did so, in direct contravention to his calls for an “open council”. But you know why he did … because it was a bill HE was sponsoring. The moral of the story: Chuck Reed lives by the motto: “Do as I say, Not as I do.”
2.) Chuck Reed is a hypocrite in every sense. He charges everyone else with being dirty and yet, in turns out, he is both a liar and dirty. He knew about Norcal, participates in conflict of interest votes before the Council, has, in effect, sold his office for political and financial gain…but I really don’t need to go on do I.
3.) Chuck Reed loves to tell people he is a Democrat. However, this is one of the biggest secrets Chuck keeps in the closet. He is the biggest closet, pro-life, anti-working family right-wing Republican despite his claims to Democratic leanings. He will be worse than Gonzo or Chavez because his “Reaganesque” hands-off style of government will leave our city in the hands of Tricky Vic and his ethically-challenged Chief of Staff Armando.
SMC, JMC and the rest of you disciples, its clear you can’t take what you have been dishing out. And until you decide to make this blog about what it should be,the future of San Jose, and less about me, the more likely people will take you seriously. Until you do, I will keep repeating how dirty Chuck is from now until election day (JMC’s weak-ass tough guy routine to the contrary).
The paper today said that Mulcahy endorsed Reed. Guess that you don’t have much faith in your “candidate”, Downtown Brown. You sound an awful lot like Reality Check too.
We definitely need to get DB back in to the residential treatment facility he escaped from and back on his meds ASAP.
Can we just substitute Reed for Kerry and Chavez for Clinton and get the same result here in San Ohaze?
Poll: In Match-up Between Hillary and Kerry, Most Democrats Would Choose
Suicide
Survey Spells Trouble for Dems, Pollster Says
A new survey of Democratic voters indicates that in a hypothetical match-up
between Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and former presidential nominee John
Kerry, most Democrats would choose suicide over either candidate.
The poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research
Institute, shows Mr. Kerry drawing 21%, Sen. Clinton 18%, and various forms
of suicide 61%.
“Throwing yourself in front of a speeding city bus” was the most popular
means of suicide at 22%, with “jumping off the roof of a really tall
building or bridge” coming in second at 17%.
According to pollster Rockwell Pritchard, the surging popularity of suicide
bodes ill for both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Kerry as potential presidential
candidates in 2008.
“It’s still very early, but even at this stage of the game the prospect of
one of those two being nominated shouldn’t be making Democrats want to kill
themselves in these numbers,” Mr. Pritchard said.
Reached at his home in Massachusetts, Sen. Kerry pointed out that while he
did not do as well as suicide, he still polled higher than Sen. Clinton,
adding, “That’s better than a sharp stick in the eye.”
But Mr. Pritchard was quick to throw cold water on Mr. Kerry’s upbeat
assessment: “In a head-to-head match-up, a sharp stick in the eye beats Sen.
Kerry by a two-to-one margin.”
Elsewhere, reacting to the Pope’s recent gaffes about Muslims, President
Bush said. “I guess I’m the only person left who’s infallible.”
Downtown…..
Some people who write are measured by what they have to say. The rest are measured by the amount of time and space they take up.
It is unfortunate that you can not find your way into that former group.
D Clown – You just refuse to answer a single question directly, don’t you. As has been said here before, there is no point in trying to answer anything you raise because you will not listen. yet you have not directly answered ANY question or request for actual facts. You spew nonsense about being attacked but you still avoid responding.
Someone asked you why don’t you ask Reed your convoluted questions and then report back the answers. You have ignored that just like you ignore every other question directed to you.
Since you are the poster boy for the avoidance behavior term you love to throw around, I thouhgt you might actually respond to some of the questions posed to you. Guess not.
Ok, launch your attack now telling us what you have already told us many, many times. I realize you subscribe to the school of “if I throw it against the wall enough times maybe something will stick.” You’d think by now you’ve nothing with enough substance to stick.
I supported Chavez in the primary and was leaning towards her in the general. Having read your constant attacks on Reed while providing little in fact and nothing of substance about Chavez, you are succeeding in pushing me towards Reed. Good job. Cindy should be proud of the work you are doing pushing people away from her.
SJC:
Sport, go back and read carefully…I know its hard, but focus for just a second and stop watching the “How to be a Disciple of Dr. No” indoctrination video. I was asking the questions about Dr. No and it was you who refuse to answer them.
SJC, you are so full of CRAP about supporting Chavez….so lose that nonsense. If you don’t believe me about Mike—than how can anyone really believe you about Chavez.
And its sad to see my man, Mike, is backing Chuck…maybe he can do what you and the rest of the Disciples of Dr. No have failed to do—ask him the tough questions. I imagine Mike Mulcahy certainly has more guts to at least try—which is more than I can say for you or the rest of the Disciples.
SJC, call me every name you wish and level every attack you want using whatever name you like or having whatever Council/Campaign staffer you want to swarm this blog and attack me. But you STILL can’t hit the mark my poor little Sad Justifier for Chuck.
And here’s the other thing Chunky, I don’t need to answer any questions about anything.
Why my little Disciple…for one, I simply don’t care about Chavez…what I care about (Again, for the THOUSANDTH time), is getting you to explain to me and others how your boy Chuck can take a moral high ground and yet be even more dirty than Ron Gonzalez’s or, gasp, the Terry Gregory’s of the world. Why can’t you see that in EACH ONE OF MY POSTS YOU TOOL!!! Oh cause you would rather deflect, deflect, deflect, oh, and attack (like Tricky Vic tells you too) DESPERATELY hoping that the subject will change. Well, newsflash, not only will this subject not change, but I can tell you its probably gonna get worse for your boy,Dr. No.
As to my “lack of facts”, I have cited numerous articles and CONSISTENTLY cited Dr. No and Pat Dando’s testimony before the GRAND JURY. Go back and read the post again…it might help. (BTW, how much is Chuck paying you to be his blog bitch…I know JMC isn’t getting paid, everyone in San Jose knows he is just a crazier right-wing bomb thrower anyway…)
For another thing, it gets old listening to your big ol mouth attacking me, PERSONALLY, on a constant basis when all I have really done is go after your boy. Why, because I don’t think you can really defend Dr. No for fear of knowing how truly dirty and unethical your boy has been over the years.
And SJC, you can keep calling me whatever you feel makes you and JMC feel like blog tough guys (btw, only Republicans really act like that in most cases.).
Frankly, I just really pity you Disciples…
The easiest way to shut up Down Town Clown may be to stop reading and responding to her/his rants. Every response we generate, generates another redundant rant in return.
#97 JMO
Amen!
Well…its a shame JMC and Lacking the Facts won’t stand up and be counted by asking Dr. No about his ethics problems which are only gonna get worse. But what else can we expect…I guess not much.
Have a nice day…..