“Cortese ‘not afraid to say no'” to special interests, thundered a polished mailer from the Dave Cortese San Jose mayoral campaign. That might seem like typical candidate-speak, but the mailer actually quotes the Mercury News beneath the daily’s blackletter logo to add a layer of impartiality to its claim. That’s odd considering Cortese’s buddy system with labor is just one reason why the daily has instead gone all-in on Sam Liccardo. As it turns out, the daily never said that, Cortese did, and it was Cortese quoting Cortese, courtesy of the Merc, which published a quote that was subsequently edited. The mailer actually omitted the critical pronoun/verb contraction that began the sentence. Through the magic of political consulting, "I'm not afraid to say no" became “Cortese ‘not afraid to say no’.” Did Cortese mislead voters?
The county supervisor said he uttered his fearless boast in the presence of Merc scribe Mike Rosenberg while speaking with a resident by phone. Cortese says his mailer was essentially repeating the paper’s own words verbatim. Merc editor Bert Robinson called the mailer “misleading, and deliberately so,” suggesting that the campaign was “lying with the facts.”
"It's misleading," Robinson told Fly in an email. "Cortese copied the headline accurately. But removed from the context of the article it accompanied, it makes it look like we're the ones who are saying he's "not afraid to say no." In fact, it's Cortese who says that—as the article makes clear, it's his quote. He's used our headline in a way that obscures that fact. So it's misleading, and deliberately so. A former reporter at our paper used to talk about politicians 'lying with the facts.' This is a good example."
Working with hotshot San Francisco-based consulting firm Terris Barnes & Walters, as well as campaign manager J.R. Starrett (a former field organizer for Hillary Clinton’s 2007 presidential run), Cortese says it was a joint decision to frame the wording as such. However, he adds, had the paper not used his own words in a headline, he wouldn’t have gone ahead with the meta-quote. “I would agree that that would not be something that I would approve or sign off on, and, honestly, I don’t think anyone on our team would do that,” Cortese says.
And that, kids, is how you split hairs.
This is the full inside spread of a recent Dave Cortese campaign mailer.
He certainly was afriad to say no when Xavier Campos asked for his support… so he decided to endorse him!
Is it necessary to smear people like that? Get a life.
Elected officials deserve some smearing when they break the public’s trust. It comes with the job. There are corrupt politicians in the South Bay who would like to operate with nobody watching them, and the people deserve a right to expose them for their crimes.
Hasn’t Liccardo already proven himself to be a Liar , a Cheat and a thief , just like his papa Reed ?
Cortese has proven himself to be a total union lackey with his endorsements of Patricia Martinez Roach and then Xavier Campos who are arguably the absolute worst politicians/candidates in San Jose history. Cortese sold out for the money what a shame.
Smearing someone, to me, would be lying about their record. I am simply stating facts…. http://xaviercampos.com/endorsements/ .
picking and choosing your facts is the republican way!!
What does that even mean – picking and choosing facts? The fact that Cortese, who is in a runoff to lead our beloved city, has endorsed one of the most corrupt politicians (Campos) and who has close connections to the most corrupt politican (Shirakawa)…is a legitimate question that you have an inability to respond to.
it means you are throwing a hissy fit over irrelevent issues lol how about reeds lying lol who huh what
Is who sits on the City Council really an irrelevant issue?
How’s that a smear? Cortese was afraid to buck labor support so he pandered and endorsed a substandard candidate (Campos) rather than face the wrath of Struthers at a Starbucks.
I guess its time for Campos to get a job. Maybe he’ll do it without stealing pensions or screwing up votes inadvertently like he did last week. What a joke.
what is it with you and the camposes josh? hate them that bad huh? Ya we know how much you hate them….no big secret there mister fair and balanced reporter!!
call the cops….oh wait there are none hahaha
San Jose inside…. We all know you are a Liccardo supporter. Liccardo lies all the time yet you do nothing. Because you are the mercury news… A biased paper tag
Amen to you Chris We all know the Murkey New and SJI are bedfellows and are just starting the smear Dave reporting. Sam is the biggest liar of them all other than Chuck. The three other chuck clones are not far behind.
Anyone else amazed, flabbergasted, or trying not to throw up in their mouth a little that the Mercury News actually accused someone else of “lying with the facts”? Oh, wait I get it, the difference is that they lie in spite of the facts.
I would put a lot of stock in what MN Editor Bert Robinson has to say, because when it comes to being “misleading, and deliberately so,” he’s definitely an expert.
Wow! The most bias, slanted lying group is now sniveling about something in print being misleading. What a bunch of clowns!!
When I look at Liccardo and and Cortese I see two guys that went to Bellarmine High School, and then took divergent paths. Cortese went to UC Davis and then to Lincoln Law School here in San Jose. Liccardo went to Georgetown University and then to Harvard Law School.
No offense to Cortese, but he’s gone from the penthouse to the outhouse when it comes to his educational career.
The smartest guys don’t always make the best mayors, but it’s clear that Liccardo is the smarter of the two.
What a shame, are these types of comparisons Liccardo supporters are making now? Educational institution as a measurement of qualification and intelligence? Desperate.
You know what’s desperate? The notion that there’s no difference between graduating from Harvard Law and graduating from Lincoln Law. The standard of admissions for Harvard is obviously much higher. And yes, educational institutions are a good indicator of qualification and intelligence, especially when you are comparing two individuals with similar backgrounds, like Liccardo and Cortese.
I didn’t vote for Liccardo in the June election.
Both of these guys went to Bellarmine. It’s not like either of them were disadvantaged. If Cortese had gone to high school on the East Side and then had gone on to Lincoln Law School, I’d take my hat off to him. However, from where he started to where he ended up, I think anyone would say that he’s an underachiever.
So since you’re bashing other people’s educational choices, where did you get your law degree from?
There are two people now running for mayor, and both of them are lawyers. This is strictly an apples to apples comparison.
I like your use of the term “educational choices”. Do you think that Cortese’s choices were limited by financial concerns?
Since you asked, I never took the LSAT, because I never had an interest in applying to law school. I’m also not running for mayor. So if it makes you happy, you can say that I’m dumber than Cortese.
The law school question keeps coming up and I keep asking folks who think it is an issue to consider that there is a state bar exam that all aspiring law school grads must take and pass to earn the status of “attorney.”
So exactly what difference does it make where one went to law school?
Many Lincoln students and graduates are folks who went to college and have entered the workforce or are business owners who after being out of school decide to return and pursue a law degree while raising families and continuing to work AND managing to finance the endeavor – (Lincoln is not cheap.)
To say those persons (and Cortese may be one – I don’t know for sure if he is) are “underachievers” really comes from a skewed and uninformed prespective of real life.
If the choice of law school made by the respective candidates was the only criteria available upon which to base my vote I’d vote against the Harvard guy every time. Government at every level is infested with the elitist, politically correct graduates of this leftist institution committed to the socialist brainwashing of it’s students. Enough already.
Cortese didn’t have daddy’s silver spoon to go to high end schools like Liccardo did. Liccardo never earned anything in his entire life. Just a spoiled baby
Cortese came from one of the most prominent and wealthy families in San Jose, if you think it’s worth bragging about how much less privileged he is than Liccardo then you don’t know your own candidate very well.
Cortese did come from a Privileged family , but unlike Liccardo did not just live off the family name and Money . He made his own way , where as Liccardo is still o the teat
If Cortese really was more hardworking and self-motivated than Liccardo, why did he end up in Lincoln Law while Liccardo went to Harvard?
Chris,
Dave Cortese was the son of a state legislator who went to a prep school. He came from a family of wealthy landowners. Look it up! If you think he’s some middle class regular Joe, then you’ve made some false assumptions. He had the means to attend a school like Harvard, just not the hard work and intelligence.
Did you mean to say the biggest liar of the two?
a friend of mine went to Berkley Harvard and UC Davis Law School and is now in the State assembly and is still in his 30’s…..blows Liccardo out of the water if you asked me….talking like Liccardo is Top Shelf lol…..he owns the mess that is the City of San Jose and it is time to turn the page.
Maybe Liccardo just had more money?
Glad to see the San Jose Inside post Dave’s mailer! Good PR for Dave! More exposure to Dave and all the good he has done! He is most qualified after all. Yeah! Go Dave!
Were I to base my assessment of Georgetown and Harvard on Mr. Liccardo’s performance as a councilman and the ideas he’s forwarded as a mayoral candidate, there’s no way I could make a case they were better than UC Davis and Lincoln Law School.
Bike lanes? Really? In a city where commuters already suffer with heavy traffic, brutal fuel costs, and horrible road surfaces, this idiot sacrifices traffic flow for bike lanes.
Have you read his “solutions” regarding public safety? I use quotes because the man doesn’t have any solutions, only a functional vocabulary and his own arrogance. Read it in his own words, where he recommends:
— “restoring community policing” by keeping officers in place longer — an insult given the scarcity of manpower. San Jose would have to double its force in order to free up beat cops for such time-consuming programs.
— using computers to improve deployment. Better to try to use a computer to feed a family of four on a buck-fifty a day. Four cops per district is starvation policing and he thinks a computer is the answer.
— partnering with school districts to reduce truancy and gang recruitment. How can a PD with one-third of its beats empty (beats that were, by the way, drawn up using a computer), partner up with anyone? By the way, SJPD once created such a program (without any ivy league imput), back before Boy Wonder was born (with a silver spoon in his mouth).
Were Mr. Liccardo a candidate for hospital administrator, he would promise to provide better medical treatment at a cheaper price by laying off one-third of the doctors and making up for their loss by using a computer program to better schedule them. And were he such a candidate he would not get the job because his ideas are stupid. But he wouldn’t offer such banalities to a real employer; he offers them to San Jose voters because he thinks they’re stupid (a belief common in his native Saratoga).
San Jose needs cops. Hiring cops is really tough to do. Retaining cops was once something SJPD did better than any department (including the FBI), but Chuck Reed “solved” that. Calling off Reed’s war against SJPD is the most responsible “solution” any mayoral candidate can offer but Liccardo can’t do that: he’s not his own man and he’s not San Jose’s man. He’s just some rich folk’s idea of an electable persona — a smile, a head of hair, and a smooth line of bull, more committed to his political backers than he is a city that is just a stopover on his political journey.
What the story says to me is that Cortese or more likely his handlers believe that he won’t be elected if voters believe he is incapable of saying “no”. So at this point, it seems like everyone believes that the voters of San Jose want someone that is capable of saying “no”.
So you may get what you wish for, but only if Cortese manages to convince voters he’s something other than what you think he is.
Perfectly stated !
“So you may get what you wish for, but only if Cortese manages to convince voters he’s something other than what you think he is”-S RANDALL
That statement says it all. I would rather go with someone who I THINK would do a great job, foster a cooperative atmosphere with Public Safety regarding pensions and labor costs, bring a broken City together and ignore the foaming-at-the-mouth Reed/Liccardo supporters than with someone who is a PROVEN liar, enemy of the public employee and their families, clueless automaton. And by the way, anyone who would stoop so low as trying to minimize someones education is classless and tasteless.
It is no secret that this garbage forum has shown its unwavering support for the dismantling of SJFD and SJPD, and is the electronic mouthpiece of the San Jose Mercury Fishwrap.
Really, what lies has Liccardo told? I doubt he’s done anything as blatantly misleading and feckless as quoting himself and attributing it to the Mercury News.
Frankly, I’d rather see someone from the campaign say is simple as this:
“you know what? it was a mistake and we’re pulling them and we’ll put them in the recycle bin…
we’re sorry.”
Then move on and talk about the many issues that have turned San Jose from one of the safest big cities
to one with increasing crimes of all sorts, limited resources and a “bully” Mayor that insists he knows what’s best
and doesn’t like to follow the community’s input -even if some have more expertise than the city staff,
Hell, sometimes the current Mayor violates the Brown Act which shows he’s not even willing to listen to people,
much less follow their advice.
I’d like to know the broad strokes that each candidate would bring to the table and as many specifics as possible
over the next 4-5 months.
I was not minimizing Cortese’s education. I was comparing it to Liccardo’s. That is neither classless nor tasteless.
No offense, but why is it that public safety people seem to want to bully people that don’t have the same point of view?
“No offense to Cortese, but he’s gone from the penthouse to the outhouse when it comes to his educational career”
Yeah, thats not an insult….maybe YOU should run for mayor…you certainly have THAT qualification..
Your earlier response about Cortese’s law education was nothing but classless and also tasteless.
Let Dave Win! He will make sure that people like his friends Georgey Big Daddy Shirakawa and Xavier Steal Elections Campos will have jobs for years to come. He is the man of the people who will create jobs for felons!
GO DAVE GO!
Crazy but when I first read the mailer I thought it was saying that the Murk was quoting Cortese. I had no doubt that the words came from Cortese. So…if there is any confusion here it is because the Murk, once again, is trying to stir up a bunch of lies to help their candidate. Luckily, not many people believe anything that trash rag publishes. Fight on Cortese!
What in the mailer made you think that it was the Mercury quoting Cortese? I can’t see a single thing in the mailer indicating that it’s Cortese’s words describing himself, not the Mercury News’ words.
18th Floor,
What is it, do heights make you dizzy? Dave Cortese’s “friends,” as you call them, are in reality two people who came into his life through the political process, two people whose entry into that process was not of his making. So what would you have him do now, run his campaign as if this city and county were not criss-crossed with political allegiances that sometimes feel more like anchors? That would be political suicide, which is apparently something that, when it comes to candidates not of your liking, you enthusiastically endorse.
No local politician has, in at least the last fifty years, had the power to keep stupid and/or unethical people out of office. San Jose voters, many of them themselves stupid and/or unethical, have repeatedly sent to the council and board elected officials whose characters were of the type that good people spend their entire lives avoiding. Yes, they’re bad company, but in politics, bad company comes with the territory.
Attempting to hang Dave Cortese for the sins of his fellow politicians is a cheap tactic, which makes me think you must do such things for a living. It is almost enough to cause me to go low-brow in my criticism of Mr. Liccardo, but given that the political ties most important to him are hitched to mystery moneymen from beyond the city’s limits, I am thankfully spared the temptation.
FinFan, Riddle me this… as you say “Dave Cortese’s “friends,”…are in reality two people who came into his life through the political process, two people whose entry into that process was not of his making” thus absolving Cortese of knowing them before their illegalities came to light… why would Dave continue his association with them and furthermore, why would he endorse Xavier’s re-election bid???? As a mayoral candidate, what message does it send to undecided voters that Dave would vouch for Xavier Campos’ of all people?!?!
SJC,
FinFan will see another one of his idols lose. First the Sharks, now Communist Dave is going to be sent home packing. It’s sad because I’m a Sharks fan too. But too bad for FinFan to see his beloved Dear Leader Baby Boy go home.
Great….a republican supporting Liccardo – a republican errr oops sorry a democrat lol. by the way how did YOUR idol Liccardo do in most districts? let me refresh your memory….if it wasn’t first, it wasn’t second lol and oh by the way from what i hear Liccardo is way behind in the polls….guess free campaigning by the merc is not paying off this time. See you in november!
The only polls which have been publicly released so far have included the entire slew of primary candidates, and those polls only look good for Cortese if you don’t consider that the supporters of the losing candidates are far more likely to support Liccardo than Cortese. Liccardo, Nguyen, Herrera, and Oliverio all stand against Cortese on the most polarizing issue affecting the City, Measure B, and have been highly critical of Cortese in the debates.
What did you hear and from where, Anthony? It is nice you can spout off imaginary polls but you can’t explain why Dave endorsed Xavier’s re-election bid. SPOILER ALERT: Corrupt politicians endorse crooks and liars. Look at the pension reform vote to know that the city is moving away from Labor even more than when Cindy couldn’t break 41% in her runoff with Chuck.
I heard somewhere…didn’t you? no I don’t think all of the other candidates supporters are going to support liccardo. how about an answer to a question on how well liccardo did in EVERY district as opposed to Cortese. chew on that…..
the 1%ers who control the San Jose Chamber of Commerce announced their endorsement of Saratoga Sam “Cheaties” Liccardo. It won’t matter, Fetch has reviewed two separate independent November 2014 SJ Mayoral polls that confirm a 20 and 23 point lead for Cortese. Ahhh, the smell of fresh air from the winds of change are beginning to lessen the wretched stench that has permeated SJ City Hall since the ascent of Reed and Liccardo – See more at: http://www.thedailyfetch.com/silicon-valley/#sthash.Grxe46Fr.dpuf
Your lack of intelligent, substantive criticism is revealed by your resort to silly name-calling. When all you have to say is “Sam’s a cheater from Saratoga”, you’re not very persuasive.
1) Sam has no history of cheating, only speculative accusations which were thrown out by the FPPC because they were literally based on nothing.
2) Is the fact that Sam was born in Saratoga really the only direct criticism you have of him? Are you that desperate? Should Barack Obama have not been elected to the Illinois State Senate after having grown up in Hawaii?
that wasn’t me bright eyes lol that was Fetch lol didn’t you guys (ya you guys) ask me where i heard that Cortese was up in the polls…..lol your lack of intelligent blah blah blah…..see you in november bright eyes
Isn’t the Fetch the same slanted blog that predicted a Xavier Campos win over Carrasco? How do they explain her ousting a sitting council member in the primary?
Dave Cortese has made huge errors in judgment when it comes to his endorsements and affiliations and those that have supported him in the past are being forced to look for a candidate with more integrity. I hope he pays attention to the public sentiment that clamors for pension reform and distancing from shady criminal buddies.
Pension reform was offered at the bargaining table and Reed and Liccardo made a huge error in judgment in not bargaining with the unions and instead chose to wreak havoc on the civic employee workforce. San Jose is like a barge adrift at sea and all that can be seen is the mirage that is Reeds pension reform. Who made the bigger mistake? We shall find out in november!!
Without taking sides for either Liccardo or Cortese, it is laughable that the Mercury is upset at something they consider misleading, and claims of misstated facts. The Mercury has been deliberately doing this for years. I’m surprised that The Fly gives the Mercury any credibility, when it was just a couple years ago the Mercury stole a bunch of Metro newsracks, and tried to throw them away in a dumpster behind the Mercury property.
Cortese is a fraud, liar and a cheater. People are fools to follow him. He states he supports SJPD but then unveils a plan to use county cops to replace SJPD officers. And then SJ POA endorses him? Do not vote for Cortese.
lol REALLY hahaha…..guess insideman can spin with the best of them. it’s called mutual aid buddy and the mutual aid is needed because of why?
Hey Anthony, why did Cortese endorse Xavier Campos in his reelection bid?
why are you still stuck on campos SJC,,,desperate?
Because it reveals a HUGE gap in Cortese’s judgement to have endorsed someone as shady and incompetent as Campos. It is pretty strong evidence that he took the money and ran (from labor) . If he can’t stand up to them and their warped agenda in a primary endorsement then how will he govern as Mayor?
Cortese showed he’s weak and more interested in becoming mayor than being a good mayor by endorseing clowns like Campos.
ok Liars and Cheats…..of which Reed and Liccardo are members of…..Cortese was campaigning and yes Labor is pissed off big time and yes labor is looking for allies to right the ship because if you haven’t noticed Reeds last term was Walkeresque so you can sit there and whine and moan about an endorsement or you can focus on november where the big boys will be playing!!
Anthony: Part of the problem with Cortese is that when he needed to take a stand against the criminal ways of his co-supervisor Shirakawa he became an apologist. When he needed to take a hard line on corrupt politicians and shady ways (such as the much investigated Campos) he chose to ignore it and endorse him anyways. You’re right, Labor is pissed off but Labor isn’t running for mayor, Cortese is.
It is becoming quite clear by recent elections and public sentiment that Labor is out of touch with voters in San Jose. Could one factor be that many city workers, Labor voters not actually live in San Jose anymore? They opted for the lush beautiful homes in the other counties and fight those atrocious commutes rather than live in the city they work in. I don’t fault them for wanting all the spoils of the rich but they shouldn’t complain and whine so much when they traded away their voting power in the city where it would make a difference for those spoils. No matter how many troops the unions send out each election cycle they are missing the one thing that really matters and that is actual voters. San Jose voters want pension reform. The union should hear that and look for a way to make that happen that doesn’t gut the workers or the city budget/services. Otherwise they’re not battling Reed, Liccardo or the Chamber, they’re battling the San Jose voter. Good luck with that (look how that turned out for Campos)
This is not battling the San Jose voter…..this is about fighting Reed and his allies failed approach to pension reform period no matter how hard the right (phony democrats of convenience) tries to slant the issue, and you are wrong in saying that NO city workers live in San Jose but good try fear monger aka Liar and Cheat
I didn’t say no city workers live in SJ, I asked if part of the reason that labor backed candidates and issues have lost so badly in elections could be that many of the workers who’s votes would support those causes no longer are legal registered voters in San Jose. You can call that fear mongering when in fact it is simply a reality of at least 30% of city workers & public safety who have moved outside of Santa Clara County for more prestigious homes in smaller less desirable housing markets.
I disagree with you about Reed as well because the battle isn’t with a lame duck Mayor or his policies (no matter how court challenged they are) they have been largely and by huge margins supported by voters. My point was simply whether the reform is legal or not the public voter has clearly indicated where their support is on the issue of pension reform. Unions should pay attention to that and work the solution that would make voters move back to being labor supporters.
Or they could ignore it and keep being slapped in the face every election cycle.
Guess we will find out in november than because i ain’t taking your word for it…Liar and Cheat!!
Murky News and SJI bedfellows? Have you OD’d on your “medical” marijuana?
The Mercury, on 6/19, had a headline that reads, “San Jose police substation set to open in 4 months”. This implies, at least to me, that things at the police department are looking better, and officers will now be staffing the substation. In truth, there will be no police officers staffing the substation. It will be primarily used to house a police academy and a few community service officers. Johnny Khamis is putting his own spin on this, and this headline is good for Sam Liccardo, who the Mercury has endorsed for mayor. I think this headline is misleading by the Mercury, and lying with the facts.
Johnny Khamis has now posted a link on his Facebook account to the Mercury headline reading “San Jose police substation set to open in 4 months”. Johnny states, “great article on the opening of the police substation”. He is lying with the facts, just as the Mercury lied with the facts regarding the substation. Johnny, and the Mercury, would like people to think this will be used as a substation, which it will not.
Wow November 2014 poll says that – you can look into the future?!?! Then tell me how Dave explains his endorsement of Xavier Campos’ re-election bid – as it surely would have happened by then.
There is no desperation in simply asking someone to explain an endorsement – so why cant you?
Did you say something? jk….why did Carrasco only receive support from republicans mostly? i think that is the real question you should be asking. Carrasco seems to be a solid person and it will be a wait and see effort with her, hopefully she will be able to help in rebuilding the relationship with labor and city hall. She seems to have the makings of a solid future mayoral candidate, hopefully she can be seen as a uniter and not a divider like has been the case for the last eight years.
She beat the incumbent with 54% of the vote in the primary (unheard of in San Jose!) so it is pretty clear that Carrasco has a lot more support than republicans because they are the minority in San Jose and particularly on the Eastside.
Campos supports want to minimize her but what does that say about their candidate is someone with as little backing, experience or support (as they’d like you to believe) can beat the pants off their guy?
She’s the best chance the eastside has for having a reasonable voice on the council. I hope she mediates the heck out of the labor & chamber issues. Tough issues, everyone is going to be unhappy but we need to minimize the pain to all sides.
Carrasco may or may not be an ally of the right wing, you guys just keep on hammering on endorsements and i’m just pointing out that right wingers and only right wingers endorsed Carrasco. It’s no big secret that not many right wingers exist in San Jose and that is especially true on the eastside. I see Carrasco as a possible uniter who won her seat fair and square who won’t be beholden to right wing idealogues like Reed and Liccardo – phony democrats.
I am challenging your statement that only right wingers supported Carrasco. That is simply not true. She had endorsements of very Democratic aligned young Latinos, former Union leaders in addition to education leaders and the chamber. Her final vote tally indicates she also had the vote of the primarily democratic voter in East San Jose.
I also challenge that “it is especially true” that many right wingers exist in east San Jose. That is an absurd preposition that needs some reasoning or fact checking. Voter registration and trends dispute that.
I get that Camp Campos and his supporters need to vilify someone (in this case republicans) for his horrible showing as an incumbent in what has traditionally been a strong hold for labor but the real reason is that he was a crappy candidate and a crappy City Council member. They should find better candidates, they should have dumped him after his cheating ways came to light with Shirakawa and backed another candidate. Cortese is damaging his credibility by continuing to align with Camp Campos and I am sure they’ll be a new batch of excuses in November for that election’s outcome that favors Liccardo.
Well we will find out in november……but Liccardo still has to deal with the strong candidate that is Cortese. Even with the free publicity that the merky news provides to his campaign, (talk about conflict of interest) i still say Cortese wins because the city is losing under this failed administration that IS REED/LICCARDO!!
There are 47 Republicans in Councl District 5. I’m pretty sure that’s not who elected her. Although I doubt any of those actually voted for Xavier Campos (to their credit).
I hope Carrasco can unite some of the council and the employees, i think she will too.
If Cortese was such a strong candidate as you insist, then how come he got FIFTH place in the last competitive mayoral election lol. If he was so strong, how come Cindy whipped him for the union vote in 2006? He is merely the default union candidate – nothing more….Did Cortese’s total this year exceed his and Chavez total in the first round in 2006? It is not strength to be the only union candidate running and getting only a third of the vote.
How come Cortese got FIRST place in the most recent election for Mayor lol you right wingers are trying at least lol the Right Wingers candidate ie: the 1%ers for Liccardo are just praying that Cortese loses but their prayers will not be answered because GREED (REED) is not the RIGHT WAY!!
> Merc editor Bert Robinson called the mailer “misleading, and deliberately so,” suggesting that the campaign was “lying with the facts.”
Holy cow!
I’m shocked!
Has this ever happened before in politics?
We need an investigation to get to the bottom of this.
I suggest a blue ribbon commission with Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.
By the way, does anyone know where I can get a copy of Hillary’s new book, “Hard Choices”?
I’ve heard that it’s just fabulous.
Finding any politician worthy of support in any race is difficult, and the current contest for mayor is no different. It is a race that, were circumstances different, I would likely skip when marking my ballot. But given the public safety crisis — in my mind the most perilous situation this city has ever faced, I have no choice but to vote for Dave Cortese.
Why? One need look no farther than the comments on this blog. Even if I accept the legitimacy of the criticism aimed here at Dave Cortese (and ignore the stunningly immature tenor of Liccardo supporters) I am left with choosing between a candidate who endorsed a scoundrel for reelection and one who endorsed, and exhaustively labored for, an unprecedented, blatantly illegal, and remarkably foolish charter amendment.
I choose Dave Cortese, the candidate committed to a workable solution, not a hardheaded agenda.
In terms of damage to this city’s infrastructure and future, Measure B was “the big one” that beat out the destructive calamity seismologists have long predicted. Want to have a vibrant downtown with a flea market police force? Well, unless your city has natural beauty, a one-of-a-kind cultural history, or a reputation for vice and sin — all things San Jose lacks, it’s not going to happen, and the tax base will suffer. Want local crime trends nipped in the bud, schools protected, and property to hold its value? Then you can’t skimp on public safety.
In his few years on the council Sam Liccardo has done more damage to this city than Xavier Campos could do in a century. The only thing that could possibly be more damaging to this city than Sam Liccardo, city councilman, would be Sam Liccardo, mayor. Xavier Campos may not respect the public’s right to fair and honest elections but Sam Liccardo doesn’t respect legal contracts. Xavier Campos may play fast and loose with charitable funds, but Sam Liccardo plays fast and loose with human lives.
This city has many times demonstrated its ability to survive lightweight embezzlement and dirty politics, but there is no way it can survive the destruction of its police department. Right now, courtesy of Chuck Reed, Sam Liccardo, et al, the police department is stretched (and stressed) to the breaking point. Staffing is at one-half of that recommended a few years ago by the police chief. Half! Nine hundred fewer officers to man the beats, fill the private security jobs (that keep school functions and places like Santana Row safe), and provide the vital services of a detective bureau.
Overtime cars are not a solution, they are at best a tourniquet; they will slow the blood loss but not save the patient. There is no help coming. The replacements promised have not materialized; the few who hired on are bolting; the veterans are aging — fast. Exhaustion is setting in, adding to the risk of insufficient manpower the destructive multipliers of human error, psychological inertia, emotional surrender. Someone is going to die. Maybe a lot of someones.
Does Sam have a charter amendment to “reform” that?
> I am left with choosing between a candidate who endorsed a scoundrel for reelection and one who endorsed, and exhaustively labored for, an unprecedented, blatantly illegal, and remarkably foolish charter amendment.
> I choose Dave Cortese, the candidate committed to a workable solution, not a hardheaded agenda.
Unfortunately, since this is not a video blog, I cannot see you, Mr.Finfan. So I cannot tell if you are saying this with a straight face, as if you expect anyone to believe it.
Has a Democrat/liberal/progressive candidate ever endorsed or supported a “blatantly illegal” piece of legislation?
Have Democratic regimes, populated with actual big-hearted elected Democrat politicians every engaged in actual illegal activities or policies, like oh say, using the IRS to harass political opponents?
Why should a candidate’s endorsement of an “unprecedented, blatatantly illegal … charter amendment” bother any one.
A phony issue.
Nonetheless, I dis-endorsed Cortese more than I dis-endorsed Liccardo.
Bubble Boy,
No video required. I’m serious, and I don’t give a flying &!#$ about what Democrats or Liberals or Progressives have done in other venues, I care only about electing a mayor willing to grab at that thread of a chance that our public safety services can be saved. Liccardo is not that man.
If you think the charter amendment is a phony issue than I will leave you to your big picture perspective and hope you stay safe from this city’s many small picture perils.