You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Chuck Blair' tag.
Dr Shanks asks us how do we act when we are at our best? We are service orientated, ethical and he believes that in the city of Santa Clara we are better than most places but he admits it is a work in progress. Phew because as I listen to him via the streaming system the city had it makes me wonder if the people running for Santa Clara city council all went to the workshops he talks about candidates went to at the start of the campaign.
We all know that politics is dirty but here in Santa Clara this year it appears it’s dirtier than normal. Clearly the 49ers issue was at stake and as such who gets to sit on our council for the next few years. Dr Shanks clearly wanted to limit the discussion and to address the ‘hit pieces’ and to focus on how the candidates ran their campaigns.
The campaign between, Bouza, Kennedy and Emerson was very amicable and the candidates all spoke well of each other, same goes for Mathews and Lowery. Brian Lowery commended Mr Mathews for pointing out that there are rules that did not allow for his suit to be a deduction. He quickly addressed the fact and he reimbursed his campaign. Mr Lowery used his own money to fully fund his campaign – not one dollar came from an outside organization or individuals. He unlike Mr Mathews did not have money from other groups buying big postcards, making phone calls etc. I commend him for doing a grassroots campaign vs mega bucks. That to me is a person who clearly has our city at heart not the interest of other cities or other large groups. Touche to him – I hope he does well tomorrow. And how fair of Mr Mathews in pointing out this issue – I hope he wasn’t the one that leaked the story to Internal Affairs in the SJ Merc? That would be sad.
Dr Shanks reminds as that this event tonight is to clarify and set the record straight – so here are some questions still:
What is the story on the hit pieces Mr Blair’s supporters had put out on Jamie – Mr Blair said that they were not his hit pieces they were hit pieces by other interested parties and his supporters and went out without his knowledge or agreement. That those hit pieces were not authorized by him. He actknowledges that at his website but he says he would have done them differently. So even though he didn’t authorize them he admits he would have done them but in a different way. Good for him for being honest about how he would have done them had authorized them. However, remember the ethics program says that if there is inaccuracies or anything misleading the candidates need to correct that – he does not refute them even though Dr Shanks indicated that there were mistruths made regarding Ms McLeod’s voting record. After some prodding Mr Blair says he should Apologize – you got to watch the streaming and this little snippet it’s like seeing someone caught and trying to get out of a trap. Bottom line is the pieces were sent out – they were not sent with Mr Blairs approval and they are not factual. They were dirty hit pieces – will they harm Jamie – probably – boy I hate dirty politics.
The other issue is that there were automated telephone calls made by Mayor Patricia Mahan and Don Van Raesfeld. The city did not pay for the calls – but the calls did go out without saying who paid for those calls. So I can understand that people felt that they were misleading and it sounds like they are being investigated. There was obviously some issue regarding the phone calls being made out of State because when they are made out of State they are not regulated. What does that mean? The main issue is that they did not clarify who paid for the calls – so today as the school bell goes off, so to speak, they made a third call clarifying who made the first two calls supporting those three candidates. Wow what would have happened had they not have made that call? Apparently these three candidates were concerned that there would be a hit piece put out on them, according to what Mr Mathews says on line. Which makes me wonder what were they worried could be said against them? Hmmm very interesting. That the three of them amount to a full deck on city council? that the three of them all have connections to one major city family? That should Mr Blair and Moore get elected that with Mr Caserta sitting on council that Santa Clara would now have three employees of one Real Estate office on council? Wow I don’t know what could be said that is not already known by a lot of local residents.
Dr Shanks thinks this process is a work in progress – well I think a work in progress is a city council that is hell bent on stacking the numbers that is ‘a work in progress’ and I hope that the residents tomorrow when they go to vote remember it’s time for Change here as well as in the country.
©Letters From Silicon Valley 2008
Oh dear oh dear, here we go the mud is getting thicker in the campaign races for Santa Clara city council. Most of the mud flinging seems to be at Ms Jamie McLeod for her supposed record on city council. Wow freedom of speech really can take a twist at election time. I think we could call it freedom of verbal abuse. If some of the written ’shouting’ were to be done in the streets of Santa Clara we could expect residence to call the police and complain about it. But here in this fine country we can only be told it’s our first amendment right to freedom of speech.
Never mind, it will all end soon and we can get back to ‘normality’. But before we do that I have to write about the latest laugh I saw. One of my neighbors shared the republicans voters guide as per the California Voter guide printed in Torrance. It gives the following notice to voters:
“This document was prepared by California Voter guide, not an official political party organization. APPEARANCE in this mail does not necessarily imply endorsement of other candidates or ballot measures in this mailer. Appearance is a PAID FOR and AUTHORIZED by EACH CANDIDATE and ballot measure which is designated by an * (astrix).”
So guess who paid to be on this guide? Mr Chuck Blair – paid for and supported by the firefighters & police officers. This means that firefighters paid for it – I thought Mr Blair was a registered Democrat – what will his party think of this – oh maybe it doesn’t matter after all it’s non-partisan running for local government. Or is it????
In any case this flier certainly a little nicer than the ‘hate’ campaign that has been going on out their against Jamie. Mr Blair has sent a few fliers criticizing Jamie but still we don’t really know what his qualifications are for being our Representative on council are? All we know is that he “hates” her more than he cares to tell us about why he would make a good council person? Oh and we know that he is pro the stadium because it would be a good thing for Santa Clara but not why it would be a good thing. Attacking and misconstruing someones record is not the nicest thing to do.
I love the piece that the San Jose Mercury News did yesterday “ignore sleazy hit pieces, vote for Independent McLeod” page 14a. Even the editorial piece says that normally they don’t come out and speak on how to vote on local candidates – they felt that there was a need to say something about Jamie McLeod and the fact that she is not part of the Santa Clara political in crowd.
©Letters From Silicon Valley 2008
