I was present at the first mayoral debate at the California Theatre last Thursday because I was interested to see how each of the five candidates would cope with the pressure of having to stand up to one another while answering some potentially difficult questions.
Here is my replay of the evening:
4:50PM – I walk into the theatre to try to get a seat. We see an open row and realize that it’s “RESERVED” for VIP board members. They would have been lucky to get the theatre 60% full and now they are saving seats. Great.
5:00PM – I settle into my seat and the program begins. Vintage Foster, the moderator of the debate, talks to us about “housekeeping,” gives us a “lets kiss the feet of our sponsors” talk, and then explains the rules of the debate. Oh yeah, and there are to be seven rounds of questions!
5:20PM – Round one begins. Did I mention yet that there will be seven rounds of questions?
5:25PM – Each candidate quickly starts to show their true colors. Pandori shows the fire and drive of a D.A. and is relentless on the mistakes of City Hall. Cortese is a little stiff but strong in his positions while glued behind the podium. Reed is fiscally responsible and sounds a bit like a disapproving parent. (But he is patriotic with his American flag tie!) Mulcahy (who looks a little like a Ken doll) is the glass-is-half-full guy with promise and business savvy. Cindy is nice and non-confrontational and wants nothing but good parks and safe schools.
5:35PM – Pandori rips the old regime at City Hall. Cortese rips his old regime at City Hall. Chuck Reed talks about how his district, North San Jose, creates all the money for the city.
5:45PM – Pandori starts firing off more shots at Cindy and Cortese. Only Cortese uses a rebuttal. Chuck Reed mentions how his district, North San Jose, creates all the money for the city.
6:00PM – Someone mentions scandal and Ron Gonzales. Cindy mentions how she wants clean neighborhoods and safe schools. Then she lets out a pack of white doves to show peace and solidarity.
6:30PM – Pandori fires off another round of ammo targeting Chuck Reed’s attempts to build a new downtown in North San Jose. Reed talks about how his district, North San Jose, creates all the money for the city. People now start to bow.
6:35PM – We enter round five and I think to myself, “There really are seven rounds?”
6:37PM – Pandori pulls out a pin on his grenade and lobs it into the other candidates, this time blasting Cortese and Reed on their ideas. Then he caps it off with: “and Cindy voted for all of those bad ideas!” Cindy turns the other cheek.
6:40PM – A full three minutes later, Cindy realizes that she has just been challenged but before she knows it, a “safe schools and healthcare” line from her cue cards just flies out of her mouth.
6:43PM – Pandori uses his last rebuttal card to rip the current administration for ineptness and scandal. Cindy starts singing “kumbayah” and attempts to hold hands with Cortese.
6:45PM – Vintage reminds Cindy that she still has two rebuttal cards left and “not to walk outta here with both of them”. Cindy holds the paper cards over a small flame to burn incense.
6:47PM – Vintage reminds everyone in the audience to not “run out” after closing statements so he can take care of a little more “housekeeping.” My friend says: “What, after seven rounds they are now going to make us clean up?”
6:50PM – Closing statements are given. All are pretty mundane and standard except for Pandori, who comes out with fire, passion and actually makes me believe he will make a change.
7:00PM – The candidates all pose for a photo, acting like they are all friends. (In Cindy’s world, I guess we all are.)
7:10PM – The debate ends. I leave. I was impressed by Pandori and actually pleasantly surprised by Mulcahy. Cortese and Reed seemed to be part of the problem and didn’t impress me in any significant way. And Cindy wasn’t even in the right zip code.
If mayor’s races were won by debate, David Pandori would be our next mayor.
Single Gal,
Pretty solid analysis, but it is only the “first” debate, we have at least six rounds, I mean debates, left—not to mention the housekeeping items.
If you were impressed by Mulcahy, you were looking and not listening.
I guess “nice” doesn’t make your zip code—and I thought Cortese, and especially Reed, made it clear they were not part of the Council “majority’.
Reed, in fact, made it clear no one agrees with him.
But these are minor points of disagreement, my compliment still stands. Great analysis.
Is the “McEnery curse: kind of like the Sports Illustrated cover jinx?
why are the men referred to as “cortese” and “pandori” but the woman is “cindy”?
Can we get around to some ideas in this race already? The “outside” candidates, who by the way are the very definition of “insiders,” have no solutions in this race but to toss blame around. Where’s the solutions? Create a City endowment? Wow, that’s revolutionary. Turn the lights off at city hall in the evening…pennies from heaven! They all tell us what they won’t do, but not what they will do.
Wait…they won’t let lobbyists or “special interests” run City Hall (sound like Arnold?). Yet, both candidates have chosen lobbyists to run their campaigns (Pandori with Ritchie Ross, and Prince DiNapoli has two: Eric Jaye and Lisa Poelle who was Calpine’s lobbyist).
The insdier candidates, Cortese and Reed have had almost 6 years to accomplish something…have you heard them brag about their records? Why is that?
That brings us to Cindy…Stop letting the boys push you around and put these guys in check already.
Instead of wasting ink on the candidates’ childhood memories, I would like to see the Mercury News print an article that asks each candidate the questions:
1) Name one major accomplishment to be completed in the first 100 days in office.
2) Name two additional accomlishments completed in the first year in office.
3) Name three more accomplishments completed by the end of the first term.
Once we have solid, detailed responses to these questions, we could start a real discussion about the future of San Jose and the differences between the candidates. So far we have been stuck on pretty trivial issues such as debate tactics, appearances, and personalities.
I was also at the debate at the beautiful California Theatre. Too bad Single Gal thinks being nasty and alienating folks is a show of strength and leadership.
Reality Check had it right, Pandori’s former council mates wouldn’t work with him because he pissed everyone off. Even when he brought something forward that on the surface looked good no one would bite. They all assumed he’d hidden something in it that would come back to haunt them. They partied all night long when he finally left.
It surprises me that he seems to think he managed to be successful at anything. The only folks downtown who like him are the few he pandered to. Most neighborhoods, like mine, were ignored and ended up disillusioned and left out. Pandori left the district to go to where being combative might be a great thing, as a litigator – not a leader. Since he left he hasn’t been involved in his own neighborhood nor anything to make the city a better place for others.
If he’s so hot to trot and thinks he can do such a great job, why didn’t he bother running for Mayor 4 years ago against Gonzo?
Chavez brings everyone to the table and hammers out agreements people can live with and that are supported by her council mates. She’s incredibly successful because she treats everyone with respect, and seeks input from a wide range of people. That’s why she has a long list of accomplishments.
Funny thought from the debate. Pandori took credit for “his” council’s vote on giving Adobe 35 million to come downtown.
Turns out he voted against giving Adobe money to come downtown!
Well, there are some Pandori haters out there and it’s clear they think he’s threatening their precious Cindy (nice job Dave, keep it up), the one who brings everyone to the table . . . to swill down Gonzo’s Kool-Aid!!!!
Yes Mark T. there are Pandori haters out there, but we don’t fear he threatens Cindy, we fear that he threatens the city.
Look at the facts: hated by almost everyone he served with on the Council, little if any respect within the DAs office, gone from civic involvement since he left the council and now his dialogue is about how everything is “2nd rate.” In case he forgot, he can’t take his ball and go home if he’s mayor like he did as a councilmember. He needs a majority of the council to do anything.
Let’s face it, if we want San Jose to be truly 2nd rate, then we should elect a 2nd rate candidate. Give us Reed or Cortese anyday over a crybaby.
Dear #3 and #9:
Your criticisms of David are silly.
Nobody likes him? Speak for yourself. You have to like the guy for his honesty and guts. You might not agree with him, but you know where he stands and what his vision for the City is. I don’t care if you like him or not, but you are listening and hopefully all the voters will listen to what he is saying.
You criticize him for being on the losing end of 9-2 votes when he was on the Council. If he was on the losing end of votes, perhaps he was just standing up for what was right. Should he just vote with the Majority to make friends regardless of what was the right thing to do? I wish more members on the current City Council would have stood up for what was right and shined the light on poor decisions.
You criticize him for not being able to raise money. Maybe, unlike Chavez, he doesn’t have anything for sale (votes on un-discussed pension plans and Grand Prix races, votes for development contrary to the City’s best interest, votes to stop investigations, etc). I support him, I hope he gets more money, but I am not at all dismayed that he is not getting huge amounts of money from special interests in $500 “increments”.
You criticize him for not running for Mayor earlier? The reason David Pandori was not in the race in 1998 is pure speculation on your part and is completely irrelevant. He’s here now, and if you don’t like the guy why are you criticizing him for not already being the mayor. Do you complain about small portions at bad restaurants?
Pandori is bitter? You say that like it’s a bad thing. Look at what the Council has done to mess up the City and lower the integrity of government. David Pandori is here telling us like it is. He’s not trying to be popular, he’s standing up for what is right, exposing bad decisions and poor planning and the influence of special interests at City Hall.
You praise Chavez for bringing everyone to the table. Someone should start looking at who is under that table.
Signed,
Not for Sale.
NFS, I could not have said it better myself. I am by no means decided on who I’ll vote for (I know who I will NOT vote for), but these people who are slamming Pandori and praising Chavez are clearly running scared after the debate and have an eerie tone that smacks of a Bush White House that will not tolerate dissent. If this is the kind of voter base that Cindy’s cultivating, then we all need to be very afraid.
I’d like to remind these Cindy-ites that Chuck Reed has been on the losing end of most votes on the council. I don’t hear them slamming him for being an outsider or a lone wolf or impossible to work with. Did any of these Cindy-ites ever consider that maybe Pandori has the conviction to stand up for what he believes, unlike ANY member of the current Council? Did any of them ever consider that maybe Mr. Pandori refused to compromise his standards to the lowest common denominator on the Council and that he stood up for what he believed in when he was a member of that body?
I’ll be quite happy to have a straight shooter who doesn’t sugar coat or otherwise disguise things when tough decisions need to be made, and who does it out in the open and not behind closed doors with some slimey accomplice like the still-unapologetic Guerra. Cindy seems quite happy with the current arrangement on the 18th floor. Where is her outrage? There’s nothing I’d like better than to see her smug confidence shattered due to her well documented alignment with the current Mayor and his staff.
Not for Sale should ask Pandori to tell it like it is in regard to his lobbyist campaign consultant Ritchie Ross. Here is a link to an article of how Mr. Ross does business:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/10/MN123533.DTL
Looks like someone needs to check their facts. It was Pandori in Oct. 1998 that kicked off the revitalization plans for the university and washington neighborhoods, not Cindy. For those of us that were at the meeting, we remember it clearly, it was a unanimous vote. Many of us still appreciate Pandori’s support for our neighborhood. It seems that your memory only goes back as far when Cindy took credit for the plans as they came to fruition.
Yes there is bitterness in our neighborhoods. We are tired of our council member pandering to lobbyist, spending money on car races, closing our community centers and in case you haven’t noticed, crime is up in the neighborhood. Yes Cindy is leading Pandori on fund raising. She started accepting money from lobbyist in July. Ask her to return the money including the bundles and let’s see who is in the lead.
After seeing very sorry excuses for Mayor candidate political debates they all get – F – Failing grade
Where is the political leadership that San Jose badly needs in our next Mayor? Lacking, as they childishly rant and attack each other.
Doesn’t play / work well with others – fits most of them, so are we are looking at more wasted taxes on city / county lawsuits and more scandals?
Let’s agree they all have great families and think each other are good people and get on with a real political debate about how as Mayor they will politically lead and work well with city government, community and other elected officials at county and state to deliver great city services not more cutbacks and closings.
The first decision Pandori makes is to hire a lobbyist, who usually gets paid only if he wins, as his campaign consultant and advisor. The way Richie Ross works is to charge nothing during the race, have a large success fee if his candidate wins, and then lobby that very same candidate on a host of issues while the newly elected official owes money to Ross.
Is this not a conflict of interest? Will Pandori disclose his “arrangement” with Ross? Will he tell it like it is? Remember, his first Mayoral decision was to hire a lobbyist to run his campaign.
Anybody But Pandori, and I am a Cortese guy for the record.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/story/7047779p-7995948c.html
Bored
On what basis are you saying no one liked Pandori? A lot pf people didn’t like Tom McEnery, but look at his record, he got results and sometimes people don’t like you for it because you ruffle a few feathers. Everyone likes Cindy, but what has she done?
Oh yeah, working for the DA to put away child molesters – its not good to be “combative” against the scum of the earth.
Its laughable how one person stands up for what is wrong with San Jose and they are labeled “bitter”. I’ll take “bitter” over “no backbone” Cindy any day!
Not For Sale are you really buying Pandori’s view of reality and rewriting history or just dumb that you believe that Pandori if elected will not owe people for his election, holds political grudges and will play the payback game and after the election will take special interest money to pay off his home mortage that paid for his campaign? He will probably hire Guerra since they think and act alike – another Gonzales wanna a be political payback Mayor
Look behind Richie Ross’s beat the drum old time religion reformer sideshow – Repent Sinners, Repent and see the angry political reality disaster show for San Jose if he is elected
Did anyone attend last night’s debate?
The Merc has a short article, mostly highlighting Pandori and Mulcahy’s negative tone.
Both should be careful, as there is a difference between thoughtful rhetoric and carping.
Pandori was noted for attacking police raises and Mulcahy for questioning building new parks and community centers.
In the past, attacking emergency services has been a nonstarter, as is questioning the wisdom of voters for providing money for parks.
In contrast, the paragraph on Cindy was completely positive—though because she did not make “news” by going on the attack it came at the end.
“Chavez looked to cement her connection to the neighborhood, reminding the audience of improvements to nearby parks, the new Horace Mann school, redevelopment in Japantown and conversion of some one-way streets to two-way, which neighbors like because it discourages cut-through traffic.”
Full story—
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/14258608.htm
Good analysis Single Gal – I too wondered about the “housekeeping” that was mentioned…
Geez, a few labor people must be on here to bash Pandori. Hmmm, wonder why a labor backed candidate raised tons of money…Please. She has had a lot more time to raise it too. Seems like she was having a fundraiser every night there for awhile.
Yea, I think that isn’t a bad thing that David was not the majority of council votes – more recently Reed and Cortese vote against the council – want to hold that against them? I think not. If you want status quo, please vote for Cindy. She is a nice person with a nice way about her but there seems to be much more under the surface there.
And those who voted against David’s propsals on the council because they came from him, I think that they have left the sandbox already.
Bored;
Way to elevate the debate over what is best for San Jose – calling David Pandori a “crybaby”?
I disagree with your opinion, but I defend your right to express it. It’s the American way. Some of the best parts of our US Constitution were drafted after one of the other founding fathers called to Thomas Jefferson “Hey, Sh*t for Brains”. Keep up the good work!
Sincerely,
Not For Sale
In her Commencement Address at the January Graduation Ceremony for the San Jose Conservation Corp and Charter School, Cindy Chavez announced that she is “…the smartest City Council Member…”, and when I thought she should be issuing a challenge to the graduates, she instead outlined her personal and professional achievements adding an- oh by the way- “…I’m running for Mayor…” at the end. I thought it was a shameless act of self promotion when the spotlight should have been on the graduates.
#21 – does the redevelopment in J-town that Cindy is talking about mean that the city wanted to expand Taylor to 4 lanes? Or does it mean that they have let the service yard on prime property do unmoved and undeveloped for 20 years?
And the conversion of the one way streets to two way was already gonna happen as soon at the Guadlalupe Expressway was completed.
I will give her the improvement to parks but it sure seems like she is taking a lot of credit for things…
Gary, #16—Didn’t Pandori leave office on December 31, 1998 when he was termed out. Wow, in October he figured out that those two neighborhoods (University and Washington) needed help. What was he doing the other 7.95 years he was in office?
Desperate people will do desperate things and that is why Mr. Righteous hired one of the biggest tobacco lobbyists in California to run his campaign, Richie Ross.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11470
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid:16033
Lobbyist campaign consultant who get’s paid only if the candidate wins so the lobbyist can lobby the newly elected official while still owed money—where is the outrage in that.
Go Larry Flores!
Here is the artrcle I referenced in my previous post—How will Pandori pay his Ubber Lobbyist campaign consultant?
Political consultants’ influence targeted
By Aurelio Rojas—Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, July 17, 2003
Legislation was introduced Wednesday that would prohibit campaign consultants from lobbying their political clients in the Capitol on behalf of business interests.
The two bills were sparked by profanity-laced outbursts that political consultant-lobbyist Richie Ross directed at top aides to Assemblywomen Lois Wolk and Gloria Negrete-McLeod.
Wolk, D-Davis, joined Assemblyman Dario Frommer, D-Glendale, in introducing measures that are included in recommendations made by a task force established by Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson to rein in lobbyists.
Ross is the only consultant in Sacramento who is also a registered lobbyist. But Wolk said Ross’ June 5 tirade is “only a symptom of broader concerns that certainly existed before.”
A growing number of legislators have complained of heavy-handed tactics by special interest groups since the enactment of legislative term limits.
“Many of us who are new to the Capitol have come in at a time when the informal rules of tradition and decorum have begun to fade, largely due to term limits,” Wolk said.
“We need to re-establish a code of conduct between members and those who are paid to advocate for particular issues.”
Wolk’s AB 1784 would prohibit a legislator from voting on legislation if that lawmaker had been lobbied by a lobbyist who had been paid to run the legislator’s campaign.
Frommer’s AB 1785 would bar political consultants from using their lobbying influence over current or former clients for two years.
Frommer summoned the memory of Artie Samish, a lobbyist who at one time was called “The Secret Boss of California”—an appellation he relished by posing for a national magazine with a puppet on his lap signifying his hold on the Capitol.
“Yet 60 years later we find ourselves in a very similar situation,” Frommer said, a reference to Ross, whose current and former clients include more than 20 legislators and state constitutional officers.
“The Legislature has been in the headlines again over the antics of lobbyists who seem to think they own this institution and are entitled to act in ways that are inappropriate.”
Ross denied breaking any laws, noting there is not “one piece of paper” in his Fair Political Practices Commission file.
“The irony is that Dario Frommer has been fined (twice) by the FPPC,” Ross said. “Wolk’s chief of staff is also a political consultant. Somehow, I’m the only one who sees this irony.”
Craig Reynolds, Wolk’s chief of staff, was one of the legislative aides who witnesses say Ross screamed at after Wolk and Negrete-McLeod would not support a farmworker health insurance bill Ross was promoting.
Reynolds has worked as consultant for former legislators, but he points out that unlike Ross he is not a lobbyist.
“You want real irony,” Reynolds said. “Richie Ross is the consultant who said John Van de Kamp would ‘drain the swamp’ (in the Capitol) if he was elected governor. Now that he’s a crocodile in the swamp, he’s not the least bit interested.”
Ross would not comment on the proposed measures. But one of his clients, state Sen. Dean Florez, said the legislation is not needed. California law already bars lobbyists from bribery, extortion or physical threats.
“What this does is try to legislate a backbone,” Florez said. “As legislators, we already have the ability to say ‘no.’ “
Florez said the legislation stems from a “blood feud” between Frommer and Ross that dates back to last year.
“Why don’t we apply the two-year limit on lobbying to legislators who leave the building as well?” asked Florez, D-Shafter.
Currently, legislators are prohibited from registering as lobbyists until after they have been out of office one year.
But Frommer said political consultants have great leverage over their clients.
“Political consultants know intimate details of a legislator’s life and in many instances those political consultants are creditors,” he said.
Assemblyman Keith Richman, R-Northridge, cited FPPC reports showing “a number of legislators have outstanding debts to political consultants that at times exceed $100,000.”
Richman said the proposed measures—which would require two-thirds votes—have bipartisan support.
————————————————————————————————————————
About the Writer
—————————————-
The Bee’s Aurelio Rojas can be reached at (916) 326-5539 or [email protected].
Not for sale,
Please tell me how your unfounded accusations of criminal activity by elected officials is “elevating the debate” about what’s best for San Jose.
Since you’re thumbing through your high school history book right now, look up the chapter on the presumption of innonce. That probably doesn’t apply to you because you know how things work. Right?
I have a funny feeling that if Pandori was successful in raising money, you wouldn’t be saying that his vote was for sale. Rather, you’d talk about the “great support” he has.
Answer this: is Reed, Cortese and Mulcahy on the take too? Collectively they’ve raised about $800,000. Surely their vote is for sale.
Everyone’s vote is for sale, right? Unless they agree with you. Then it’s called good public policy.
I am not going to bash Chavez but please don’t tell me that this campaign is going to be won by talking about our neighborhoods! Uggh.
Can’t she just say that neighborhoods will always be a priority for San Jose? “It’s my strength.” (I mean we are the biggest suburbia in the world…neighborhoods is the easy sell.)
Let’s move onto the larger issues at hand like the budget, crime, jobs, land use/economic development (etc.) of San Jose…
Although I have no idea of Mr. Pandori’s popularity with others at the DA’s office, were I to discover that he is indeed disliked—as has been reported by several posters here, that alone would not affect my evaluation of him as a mayoral candidate. From everything I’ve ever heard, our very fine DA’s office is den of ambition, paranoia, and envy. Emerging from within such an environment with few or no friends might actually be something to brag about.
That said, if “Bored” (#12) is accurate in saying DP has failed to earn the respect of his fellow prosecutors, then I find that very pertinent. Tell me more, please. If, after seven or eight years arguing cases, DP has still failed to impress his coworkers there should be examples aplenty (blown cases, significant procedural errors, etc.) to justify a negative assessment.
My only recollection of Pandori For the People is the strategy he used in the Danser case: meticulous to the point of monotony. But it was a strategy that worked: winning the people a conviction that stuck—against a popular judge, defended by a big bucks attorney, and to great notoriety.
Reason enough for plenty to hate him, I’d imagine.
Rich,
I had a different take on the Merc article about last night’s debate.
Cindy was relegated to the last paragraph because she pretty much said nothing of real substance, just the same old well-rehearsed “Cindyisms”.
I didn’t see Pandori as “attacking emergency services ” so much as questioning why gangs control certain neighborhoods while the city has failed to put more officers on the streets. That’s fair game in a political forum where three of the candidates are on the city council. To his credit Chuck tried to answer the question although his answer (other cities are also having trouble hiring officers) came up short in my view.
I agree with some of the remarks here that suggest Pandori will have to do more than toss bombs. It’s a good initial strategy to get noticed, but at some point he will have to offer a positive vision. He does have a reputation as a dissident and that’s not necessarily a bad thing when people don’t trust the current administration. But he’s got to show that he can do more than point out other people’s faults.
Mulcahy, while showing some guts for taking a stand against the $4 million Grand Prix subsidy, also made a beginner’s mistake by using the lights in City Hall as an example of government incompetence. The Merc explained that only the lights in the emergency stairwells are left on which are visible from outside. Maybe Cindy can loan Mulcahy a few note cards that she uses for her safety net. A little research is not such a bad thing!
#13 NFS, actually, I don’t know the man and have only seen the lack of successes following his term in office. So, no, I don’t dislike him.
There are a few folks I respect who like him very much, as a person. They say he’s not the ranting maniac who shows up in council sessions and on stage.
As to honesty, someone who would mislead the public into thinking he accomplished things when the reality is he couldn’t get a consensus if his life depended on it – well, I wouldn’t call that person honest. Honesty would be getting out on the table that his colleagues detested him, refused to work with him, and he couldn’t manage to gain support for anything. And, then telling us what changes he’s made which enable him to work with other folks and actually lead.
Honesty would be saying, yes, in hindsight I can see how voting against helping Adobe might not have been too smart.
I confess, he was honest last night when he indicated he didn’t know how many neighborhood associations there were until after he’d left office. Follow that up with more honesty about how not knowing about the na’s might have led to some of the problems he left behind for Chavez when he left office.
Honesty would be telling us he’s mortgaged his house to the hilt because he can’t get any support to run for office.
btw, I wasn’t implying anything when I asked why he didn’t run 4 years ago. I was simply asking a question – if it nags at you maybe you should ask him the question.
A person who attacks, gets the facts wrong, rewrites history, can’t get any support, was unanimously hated by colleagues – not so sure I would paint that person as a leader.
Maybe those are good qualities in a lawyer, certainly lawyers are known to coat the truth to accomplish their goals and attack others when needed. But in a leader? Think about real leaders, ones you respect and who get things done – what is it you like about them? Do you really appreciate the bully, do you follow them and support them?
Since I have only seen Mulcahy’s name in print and have never met him, I am not sure how to pronounce his name. I do know how to pronounce Reed, Pandori, Chavez, and Cortese. I should be able to pronounce a candidates name properly if I’m going to vote for him/her.
<barf> Pandori said nothing of substance, concentrating on attacks instead of explaining his own record or his own platform. And what made him unerring get out and stand in fromt of Chuck Reed every time he spoke? What kind of tactic is that? I didn’t learn that trick at campaign school.
I thought the refusal of candidates to answer direct yes or no questions was painfully humorous. Hang on to your wallets, taxpayers.
Cindy taking credit for Japantown is a joke.
What has she done?
The older section is coming unglued with lots of vacant storefronts. Does Cindy have a plan? Haven’t heard any.
The housing that is going in there was planned before she came into office and is happening because of the current hot housing market. There are opportunities to expand this development with parcels north of Taylor but has Cindy done anything? Not that I can see.
The missing piece that the city could contribute to japantown redevelopment is the corporation yard. Eight years in office and nothing much has happened.
They are planning on taking the recreational property of the Boys and Girls Club and turn it into high density housing without mitigating for additional park and recreation facilities. Who is the Council person who is going along with that without demanding anything? That would be Cindy.
The purchase of land for the expansion of Bernal park that came as part of the new housing plan occured before she took office under David Pandori. This was one of the very few additions to parkland in the District 3 neighborhoods and it was very expensive. Pretty good payoff for somebody who couldn’t get anyone on council to go along with him and not being able to get any help for his district.
How about the closing of San Carlos St with a deal supported by the neighbors because they trusted David that led to all of the streets being landscaped instead of the sorry state they had been in for at least 20 years. Pretty good for a guy that couldn’t get along with anybody.
The return of 2-way traffic is a cause championed by many district 3 council members starting with Tom McEnery. His proposal was supported by only one other council member (can you guess who that was?) but there was a promise at the time that it would be revisited when 87 was completed. Give Cindy credit for following through on Tom’s project.
13th st redevelopment? Guess who started the ball rolling by getting an initial plan requested by the city council? David Pandori. Pretty good for not being able to work with the council. There was no money for implementation then but when the city was flush during the dot com boom, guess what was on the shelf? That’s leadership for the future.
Also, when the city was flush during the dot com boom instead of making deals and getting downtown redevelopment going, Cindy supported the go-slow approach of the Gonzales administration. They brought in consultants and studied. They came up with a plan under Susan Schick that called for annexing most of downtown and filling it with a high-rise forest. That plan was dead on arrival and by then the dot-com parade passes downtown SJ by without leaving any benefits. You can blame RonGo but it might have been for useful to have a council member who shook things up. That sure wasn’t Cindy.
I posted a question a bit ago. Does anyone know who on the Board of Sups Cindy Chavez worked for? Her website just says “a County Supervisor”. What is she hiding?
AlsoSingleGal, your last paragraph just painted the picture of Ron Gonzales – one of Cindy’s mentors until recently…
AlsoSingleGal, Adobeguy
Tell me more about this bringing Adobe to downtown issue.
For what its worth, I thought single Gal’s analysis was pretty good.
Chavez hurt herself for choosing not engage on most issues.
Pandori started out strong establishing himself as an experienced outsider, although I thought he came across as overly negative by the end.
Cortese did pretty well on the issues, but was a bit uneven in his presentation.
Reed cemented himself as someone who would be good, fiscally conservative mayor if unspectacular.
Mulcahy’s was at times good, but his inexperience showed and he may have lost some ground to Pandori as the outsider.
To Richard Robinson #4, please state some examples to back your implication that Mulcahy does not have the same grasp of the issues as the others. This seems to be the easy, fashionable way to rip him (along with physical appearance). And it’s hard to argue with when its not based on substance. I saw the Cal Theatre debate. None of the other candidates went into any more depth on issues. These debates are sound bites and big picture.
Mulcahy and Pandori may not be as intimately familiar with the recent (behind doors?) goings-on at City Hall, because they weren’t there. That’s exactly why either of these two, strong, capable outsiders would be better than any of the other three. If you think either of them couldn’t step in and have an even better “grasp of the issues” within a month, you’re mistaken. But, Richard, please provide real quote comparisons, not vague insults.
And to Dan Sturges #33, turn on KLIV and listen to some ads. It’s mull-kay-hee.
For clarification, the last name here is Maden, with the accent on the “en”, not Madden as in John Madden.
These Richie Ross arguments are pointless. There is a big difference between taking money from a lobbyist and hiring one as a consultant.
Look like this old political hack hit a chord with Justin.
Why is it that we elect lawyers and actors as our politicians and later regret our votes?
Could it be that they can speak convincingly, makes lies sound like the truth, take credit for others or group efforts as if it was all their effort, rewrite history to fit today
Amen sister!
I have heard that at Ronnie’s last and final VTA meeting Cindy was sitting next to him doing her nails. Is that true? It was my impression that she was singing “John Brown’s Body” for Finfan.
Races are won not by who can memorize attack lines or who has the best stage presence but rather on a host of other realities, such as: who can convince enough of the population that they ought to invest in your campaign to get your message out—Pandori has raised a paltry sum of money and is going to tap his home’s equity to pay his lobbyist campaign consultant Richie Ross to slime the others in the race. He has raised so little money because not very many people he has worked with like him. Being Mayor or a council member means that even if you are the smartest one in the room you should not let everyone know it. Pandori was on the short end of more 9-2 votes when he was on the council not because he was stupid, it was because he could not get along well with others. In politics one has to take half a loaf every now and then and try for the rest of the loaf at a later time. Not Pandori, give him the full loaf or nothing. This hurt his district and it was no coincidence that his district, when he was on the council had the most neighborhoods with crime, gangs and blight. Cindy inherited this mess when she came into office and began to listen to neighborhood priorities and more importantly get the money the neighborhoods needed to make change at the neighborhood level. She was able to get along with her counterparts on the council and get things done. Pandori was unable to work with his counterparts and was relegated to the back bench and his neighborhoods suffered. He could have run in 1998 if his ideas were so great then or he had any type of political skill, but he did not because he could not convince enough of the population to invest in the ideas of his potential Mayoral campaign—seems like deja vu again. Pandori is bitter and it shows. Look at his campaign disclosure form and you will see hardly any current prosecutors he now works with supporting him financially, why, because he just can not get along well with others. Pandori is a like a prize fighter past his prime, groveling, begging for one more chance. Sorry David, your 24K raised and the 100K for your house ain’t gonna cut it. Sooooooo for all of those who listen to McEnery and look at his endorsement record remember this, Scott Mathieson (lost to Blanca), Tony West (Lost to Cindy, Lost to Manny), Kris Cunningham (lost to Yeager), All the bond measures A’hnold pushed this past year, Ross Perot, Ed Voss, Pat Dando (Lost to Ron and now is a lobbyist)….and now David Pandori (Mayor 2006). The McEnery curse will live on.
Reality check, Also single gal – In all kindness, we don’t need to know your name but if you are going to “dig into a candidate” – give us some perspective (or context) on where you are coming from. Otherwise you just come across as a hater – unless that’s the strategy you are going for. Just my 2 cents.
#45 Pat T – sorry to disappoint, not who you think I’m supposed to be.
But, I do find it interesting that Adobe and myself are being asked to go public while the Pandori crowd is not being asked the same thing.
Justin Schall, I mean Reality Check, please enlighten us what happen to the Dean campaign in Iowa. When it comes to lobbyist, the question is who receives the money and for what. Move On!
I can’t believe that people are maligning Pandori for hiring a lobbyist to run his campaign (and Mulcahy and Reed.) Who is “running” Cindy’s campaign either in front of or behind the scenes? Let’s be fair here. Oh, I am sure if Pandori gets elected there will be lots more card clubs and lobbyists due to Ross’s influence. Give me a break.
Let’s do some housekeeping.
Except for Mary Hughes, who consults for Cindy, every other consultant is a lobbiest.
Each has their own style and own geographic area of influence. Lobbiests are not inherently bad people, in fact, everyone who participates in government is a lobbiest by definition.
The problem stems from those who rail against lobbiests, only to have them run their campaign. Reed, Cortese, Mulcahy and Pandori are vulnerable on this issue because of they routinely use lobbiests as whipping posts in their campaign.
The key for candidates is to tell us how they say no to lobbiests when their issues/projects are not in the best interests of the City.
All the candidates, except Mulcahy, have said yes and no to lobbiests. It is inherent in the job of an elected official.
Ron Gonzalez said no lots of times to lobbiests. We hear how he said yes on some issues, but he and Joe Guerra often told lobbiests no—and in a very harsh tone.
I’d like to go on record that I personally like all the candidates. I’ve went to college with David P. and have known Cindy for years. David C. is a great individual, Chuck has a tremendous amount of integrity.
I don’t know Michael personally, but as he hired Lisa Poelle, he must be a great judge of character. Lisa is a longtime friend and a person whose integrity is unimpeachable.
But while I like all of them, I am not unbiased as to who I support.
None of the candidates are perfect, their records, decisions, personalities, friends, supporters, philosophy, appearance, finances and consultants are all grist for the mill. It is the heavy price they pay to play.
But let us not forget they are all human beings, they all care about the city, they all have positive traits and it takes a tremendous amount of courage to seek public office.
Four of them will lose, but that does not make them bad people.
I knew about the recent developments with the corporation yard. The problem is that the housing market is starting to soften now. Hopefully it will hold up long enough for a project to actually get built. It will take longer than the usual project because of remediation issues. This looks like downtown where they studied the issues until the market passed and nothing happened. Cindy should have been on this 8 years ago.
Mike Honda and Japantown? Never got near it.
I’m just a regular guy who is aware of a few of the accomplishments of Pandori during his tenure in district 3. One fellow here mentioned revitalization projects in other parts of the district.
I was just responding to the slander here that everything was a mess that Cindy cleaned up and that David couldn’t get anything done because people didn’t like him. I’ve heard the rhetoric in enough places that it must be one of the “talking points” of cindy’s campaign. I’ve pointed up some real accomplishments of David’s time in District 3 as has the other gentleman. Where are Cindy’s accomplishments? Give me some concrete examples.
My guess is that Cindy and her friends are pretty frustrated that many people in her district have fond memories of David’s tenure and know that there is much residual support for him in her own district so they are trying to spin a version of the past that isn’t true to turn the uninformed. Anything rather than admit that her career was launched by RonGo and midwifed by Amy Dean and that she was a 100% supporter of all of RonGo’s bad policies.
I don’t expect that she is in any way guilty of his personal moral failings but she saw them and never backed away from him. That is poor moral judgement. History will show that others had higher standards.
The credit for Japantown goes to Mike Honda. It was an effort driven by the community for over a decade. Interestingly Dave Cortese had to ask Cindy Chavez to include the Boys & Girls Club in the motion. See item 8.1 http://sanjose.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=511
AlsoSingleGal, Adobeguy
Share what you know about bringing Adobe to downtown. That was a long time ago.
Rich #59 great well balanced comments especially
But let us not forget they are all human beings, they all care about the city, they all have positive traits and it takes a tremendous amount of courage to seek public office.
Four of them will lose, but that does not make them bad people.
This can many times get lost in political debates and campaigns and is part of why San Jose is and will continue to be a great city.
Our many elected officials, business, community and neighborhood leaders really care about our city and even in political campaigns and emotional public debates respect other people and their opinions even if they do not agree unlike what we see in many other cities, states and our federal government which outsiders initially have a difficult time understanding.
Is our favorite Ken doll trying to rescue our ballpark from Fremont or is he looking to get DiNapoli family in on that “quasi-public funding” action?
http://newballpark.blogspot.com/2006/04/interesting-sighting.html
What was Mulcahy’s position on ballpark during the Big 5 debate? Oh that’s right, he had to excuse himself because of a “conflict of interest”.
Love My Nexis,
Thanks for re-printing that article. I hope you will keep that sucker fired up and continue to check facts.
I too would like to give Adobe Guy others the benefit of the doubt until they can explain where they got their information that Pandori voted against bringing Adobe downtown. Perhaps there is some part of the story missing from the Merc article? If so let’s hear about it. If not please don’t inject misinformation into these discussions.
It seems to me that the anti-Pandori (pro-Cindy?) partisans have made a sudden appearance in these parts. I take that as another sign that SJI is having an impact on local politics. All should be welcome, but no one should be allowed to make groundless charges.
Also, an aside to SingeGal, this was some of your best work yet…a good observational analysis of the debate.
In response to HoiPolloi, #35: David Pandori cannot take credit for 13th St. redevelopment. My neighborhood has been working on this since 1995, when Pandori was in office. I have been involved in this issue from the outset, and I have chaired the 13th St. SNI effort from its inception.
In the 1990s, while our councilperson, Pandori told us to seek Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money for street lighting and median improvements on Oakland Rd. by Highway 101. We spent a lot of time and effort on an $800,000 application, and it was shot down completely, without our getting a single penny, because the idea (Pandori’s) was poorly conceived and lacked the essential “leverage” of community funds, which, we of course, did not have. I give Pandori credit for meeting with us and for suggesting a solution, but it was a loser.
I—not Pandori—decided we residents needed to take a different tack and pursue redevelopment funding for the blighted street, whose major landmarks are liquor stores and autobody shops. We pursued it in the 1998 campaign, making a campaign issue about sharing redevelopment dollars in the neighborhoods, and Cindy Chavez backed it. That’s where SNI came from, as Chavez has mentioned repeatedly, most recently in Monday evening’s Northside mayoral forum.
We now have our lighting, our median improvements, and much more—thanks in large measure to Chavez.
Don Gagliardi gives a fine account of how neighborhoods can be effective in getting needed improvements – good job, Don. We nurture our tax base in North San Jose and Downtown so it can be the “cash cow” to help our neighborhoods – it is a strategy to remember. And Cindy Chavez deserves due credit. On the two way streets, 2nd 3rd, etc., Cindy finished a job that Susan Hammer and I tried repeatedly to implement – often we were the only two votes in favor. Compliments to Cindy, let’s give credit where it is due. Truth should not be the first victim of political campaigns. TMcE
Mal Content,
“No one should be allowed to make groundless charges.” I agree 100%. Unfortunately, these pages have been full of exactly that since its launch.
That’s a good standard, especially for the Lord Mayor.
Single Gal, love the play by play. Indeed, the format attempted to provide some opportunities for the candidates to differentiate themselves, but only a couple ventured out.
The challenge card format allowed for some cross-x, which is really needed, and has been lacking in the so called “neighborhood forums”. This is a model which should be used in future debates.
Going further, the format of asking candidates “specific” questions does not extend the debate. The same questions should be for posed for ALL candidates, so we can see specific positions on the issues, and where they diverge.
Unless the official “challenge card” format is adopted at all debates, it seems only one candidate will dare stand up and point out the inconsistencies in other candidates positions. Clash is needed, though many would rather sit back and not engage.
I read these blogs and threads so that I can learn about the various issues and candidates. But I’m even more confused now that ever because I can’t find any real reasons to be in favor of anyone running for mayor based on reading here. About the only thing that everyone seems to agree on is how soon does Ronnie leave. I did learn how to pronounce a candidate’s name without turning on KLIV. Thanks Al Maden is that pronounced like in Vine?
I hope “‘bored” is better informed in his day job than on his comments here. I think the themes I hit on my blog are consistent with the fact that City Hall has taken a disasterous turn away from the Council and the people of neighborhoods running the city to a DC model of lobbyists and special interests driving the agenda – it is a radical change during the Gonzales Administration. I take positions; I use my own name; I let the chips fall where they may. If any “charges” are groundless, please name them. Thanks for the comment, TMcE
HoiPolloi—
Where have you been lately? Here is the recent article depicting the revamping of the corporation yard in Japantown.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/13758582.htm
In your eyes Pandori’s claims to fame are: Bernal Park improvements, 13th Street improvements, and closing San Carlos Street. Wow, maybe he should run for President, not just of the United States but maybe the world.
You should add yourself to his endorsement list on his web site, oh ya, he doen’t have one because he does not have many endorsements and please write him a check, he needs it desperatly.
Where did Pandori lead and actually deliver on a citywide issue???? Tell us about how he will work to implement his agenda with a council that he does nothing but berrate as incompetent and clueless? He is unable to do anything but slash and burn—typical traits of his lobbyist campaign consultant Richie Ross. How is he paying for this hired gun to run his campaign? Again, his first Mayoral decision was to hire a lobbyist to advise him on his race—talk about hypocrisy!
Gary Reynolds—Did you not read the articles that have been made available so that you can open your eyes to the hypocrisy of Pandori.
Let me break it down for you—Pandori has been railing about lobbyists running city hall, which is nonsense, but hey I am not advising him—he then hires a lobbyist who usually works on a campaign for free or at a reduced rate with a massive success fee if his candidate wins. He then lobbies the newly elected official on any number of issues including support for big tobacco, Indian Casino’s and other worthy causes. You don’t see a problem with this—or maybe you do and just can not face Reality—Who is Jason?
Shelly Wolfe’s comment is right – if you are going to
Hey Jensen, and Adobe Guy, Check your facts. Who fed you this stuff about Pandori and Adobe?
David Pandori DID NOT vote against bringing Adobe to Downtown. David voted FOR bringing them into Distict 3, and of course, the rest of the council agreed.
S.J. GIVES ADOBE $25 MILLION
San Jose Mercury News
September 23, 1994
SCOTT HERHOLD, Mercury News Staff Writer
To almost universal hosannas, the San Jose City Council on Thursday night quickly approved a $25 million subsidy to bring the headquarters of Adobe Systems Inc. to downtown.
On a 9-0 vote, the council approved the 18-story structure on Park Avenue just east of the Guadalupe River. The 350,000-square-foot building is expected to house about 1,100 employees……….
Pat T.
Can you name one of the biggest lobbyists in California? Correct, Richie Ross. Who was the tatrget of a bill introduced in the State Legislature to prohibit being a campaign consultant and then lobbying those you get elected when they owe you money? Correct Richie Ross. Who is Pandori’s campaign consultant, er lobbyist……Richie Ross.
It has always been in this great city of ours that the rules do not apply to the Lord Mayor and his minions. Where is your outrage that of the major candidates, I include Pandori as a major candidate because he is gonna hawk his house to hear himself speak on TV in what will surely be Slime Everyone TV produced by Ross, where is the outrage that Pandori has a lobbyist running his campaign, Mulcahy’s campaign manager and blow dryer holder Lisa Poelle was a lobbyist for bankrupt Calpine, and Reed has Ajlouny, a registered lobbyist as his consultant—where is the outrage at that.
David Shannon,
You may be in luck.
Your councilmember Ken Yeager is running for Board of Sups. If he wins, District 6 will have an open seat as he would leave mid-term. Those signs in Willow Glen could come in handy! He should run for City Council.
Mulcahy for City Council, District 6!
Wait, Richie Ross is Pandori’s consultant. HAHAHAHAHA…this is classic. Richie barely has enough time to work with his Assembly candidates, lobby the Assembly itself and now takes on the figurehead of Tom McEnery. This is beautiful.
To begin with, Ross is not the great consultant anymore as he once was. He has lost his political edge and is more a liability than a benefit at this point. Helping Democrats win in California doesn’t drive Richie—only money does.
For any greater evidence of that, I point you to the disaster that was the Cruz Bustamante run for Governor. It was the biggest political blunder of all time and was generated by Richie Ross’ ego and tremendous dislike for everything Gray Davis (especially Garry South I suspect). But what Ross really did was ruin a great man like Cruz Bustamante’s chance to be Governor.
As it stands, we have two second-tier candidates running now (although I think Westly is really becoming a first tier in my opinion) all because of Richie Ross. Cruz should be the Democratic candidate for Governor right now. But instead of advising his client to stay above the political fray, Ross acted without regard for anyone save himself and his pocketbook by telling his client that he could actually win in 2003 political environment. A race anyone from the outside knew was an impossible one for Democrats—and it was a mood Ross helped to create.
So, we face an uncertain political campaign for a Governor against a wounded candidate like Arnold when we should be looking to measuring the windows for new drapes in the Governor’s office inside “the Building.”
The fact is, Ross has no more business in this race than does David Pandori or Tom McEnery for that matter. But like many before them, pride (and ego) will goeth before the fall.
I’m hopeful there will be more televised debates, so we can see the candidates answer the tough questions, such as where they stand on building new neighborhoods, and services to existing neighborhoods. They are looking to close my community center, and I want to know who’s bright idea that was.
Many of us can’t get to the debates, and having them on TV or archived on the internet is a great option. Get the message to the people I say!
Does anyone know of some upcoming debates which are coming up?
Bob T.,
Dave Cortese’s web site has a good calendar of upcoming events:
http://www.davecortese.com/site/UpcomingEvents.aspx
At the end of the day, we need to see who has the vision beyond their own council district. As a whole, the council has shown a disjointed vision for the City, proposing urban sprawl as a solution to the regions problems.
We need better long term planning for our City. They need to get beyond the scandals, and begin talking about real issues, not just how a councilmember filled a pot hole.
At the time, I thought Ron Gonz. was a great guy when he replaced my sidewalk, but his and the council’s long range vision has been disastrous. Let’s move beyond a neighborhood. Neighborhoods are easy, the 10th largest City is a Challenge.
Downtown Man # 67: Cruz Bustamante, a “great Man”? Puhhleeeze. A great opportunist.
“But what Ross really did was ruin a great man like Cruz Bustamante’s chance to be Governor.”
In that case we shall be forever grateful to Richie.
Anyone catch who was standing behind Cruz during his concession speech? There were more Indians on hand than were cast for the filming of “Little Big Man”.
Cruz. The quintessence of bought and sold.
Single Gal, I loved your recap (“lets out a pack of white doves”… fabulous!). I was there and we were obviously at the same debate. I won’t be supporting any of the current council members and was fully prepared to support Mulcahy (given it seems like every other yard in Willow Glen has one of his signs posted) but left much more impressed with Pandori (although someone needs to tell him not to look so dour when he’s not speaking).
Hey Dusty –
Get over to the Great Debate thread by Tom McEnery. They are talking why Cindy should be mayor because she filled potholes and did other things for the neighborhood. Tell them that Gonzales did the same for you and we can see how that turned out…
Wow, SJDowntowner, you’re crabby because Chavez did the job she was elected to do. That is meeting the needs of the folks who elected her, before you were grumping because you thought she’d done nothing.
Make up your mind. If the council person isn’t supposed to meet the needs of the community they serve – what are they supposed to do? If she had taken charge of the city and started pretending she was Mayor you’d be crabbing just as much or more.
For crying out loud, even McEnerey is giving her credit for a job well done.
#73 Downtowner, your new name is just Downer because you can only see the glass half empty as opposed to half full—Vision is great, but getting things done is what we need in our next Mayor. We clearly know who you are against, but be bold and unlike those who only post about what they are against and tell us who you support for Mayor.
I’m still confused as to why allowing beer sales at more gas stations is a good thing?
#76: Given the fact that people can buy beer at any grocery store or 7-11, I’m still confused as to why allowing beer sales at more gas stations is a bad thing?
Geez, I just make a joke about Gonzales and you guys are all over me? Are we a little sensitive that he is in Cindy’s camp?
I do not question the good that Cindy has done in the neighborhoods – I have received benefit of that. Reality Check and AlsoSingleGal are so ready to attack anyone who criticizes Cindy that you cannot have a decent discussion on the candidates.
I just don’t think that just because she has done a good job in the neighborhoods that I should ignore her shortcomings with all the crap that has been going on in City Hall: Norcal, Cisco, etc, etc. Translation: a good councilperson does not neccarily mean a good mayor. She did not take a stand on that stuff did not differentiate herself from Gonzales until recently. That scares me.
For the “record” – I am leaning towards Pandori but also like some things that Reed and Cortese are saying.
SJ Downtowner – Was it really a decent discussion on the candidates – or 1 sided blog with only SJI bloggers attacking on Chavez and saying she was Ron 2? Now you are upset when she leads communty city reform efforts and her supporters question the many SJI opinions or inaccurate comments which in now a political debate not the previous 1 sided conversation Why are all Big 5 or more Mayor candidates not allowed to write SJI Blogs only Tom’s favorite candidates?
#79
All of the Big 5 mayoral candidates have been invited to submit a post. I talked to Michael Mulcahy personally and Cindy Chavez has been invited on numerous occassions.
The invitation remains open to any of the 10 candidates…
#79 Try reading through what you wrote before posting – I had to read through it 3 times to figure out what you were saying… I think.
If you look up at the first postings to Single Gal’s column you can see Reality Check attacking anyone and everyone. So blame them for the “attacks” that are happening. I guess if I don’t agree with everything that Cindy does and says, I am “attacking” her.
And sorry, Cindy did not lead any reform. If you want to give anyone on the council credit for that, don’t you think that Reed and Cortese should get that.
Cindy’s “supporters” on here and not the kind that I would want to have. They are all attacking the other candidates, bloggers, SJI, anyone who disagrees with them in the least.
Let me know what statements are so called inaccurate and we can have a discussion on them if you can handle it.
It is laughable that CIndy’s Labor Army (CLA) have all received the talking points memo and have written the same thing over and over—talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. Nobody who knows anything about what has been taking place at City Hall can truly believe Cindy was a leader in censuring her mentor or in bringing sunshine to government. She did what she had to do when the floor gave out from under her—she became part of the majority and made it look like she had supported these things all along. Hardly the case.
Hopefully the CLA will get a new memo that will better serve them and they will be able to better defend their guru. Until then, I guess they will just have to resort to attacking others with falsehoods, half-truths, etc. Ah, aint politics grand??
OK,Ok
You have convinced me ! It’s time for a change.