Reed Endorses Pegram

Mayor Chuck Reed officially endorsed District 9 candidate Larry Pegram today.

“Larry does not shy away from standing up for the residents of the district over special interests,” Reed is quoted as saying in a campaign press release that came out this morning. “I need his help at City Hall in the difficult budget years ahead.”

In the endorsement, Reed made a point to mention that he believes Pegram’s history as Christian conservative leader and head of the Values Advocacy Council would not be a factor if he is elected to San Jose City Hall.

“After many conversations, I am convinced Larry will focus his efforts on fixing the City’s fiscal problems and will not use the position of Councilmember to advance a personal social agenda,” Reed writes.

“Larry Pegram understands the fiscal crisis facing the city and the difficult fiscal reforms that will be necessary to regain control over sky rocketing employee costs.”

Pegram, who along with Reed contracts the services of political consultant Victor Ajlouny, has been hitting the campaign trail hard since the beginning of July.  He’s been making appearances at nearly every community event, city council and committee meeting in San Jose, pushing his “Pegram Principles” platform of fiscal reform.

Pegram has also been speaking on his adamant support of a ballot measure that will limit outside arbitrators.

“I realize there will be a backlash from the police and fire public employee unions,” Pergam said in a July 26 press release, “but we can no longer enter negotiations with the threat of arbitration as the elephant in the room. This initiative, if passed by the voters, will allow the Council to set reasonable parameters for our negotiators to work within.”

Other Pegram endorsers include San Jose District 1 councilman Pete Constant, Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage and Morgan Hill Vice Mayor Marilyn Librers.

Pegram’s challenger for the Cambrian neighborhood race, redevelopment official Donald Rocha, is also racking up endorsements.

Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith, San Jose City Councilmember Ash Kalra, State Senator Joe Simitian, former San Jose City Councilmember Linda LeZotte, have all announced they are backing the Rocha campaign. He has also been endorsed by former State Assembly member Jim Cunneen, a Republican.

Rocha got 43 percent of the vote in last June’s primary election, with Pegram coming in a far second in the field of six candidates.  Former District 9 candidates Jim Cogan and Robert Cortese have also officially endorsed Rocha.

The general election for the San Jose City Council District 9 seat will take place on Nov. 2, 2010.

100 Comments

  1. ““After many conversations, I am convinced Larry will focus his efforts on fixing the City’s fiscal problems and will not use the position of Councilmember to advance a personal social agenda,” Reed writes.

    I don’t believe that for one minute.

    • I agree with you. Who would believe that? Politicians (and almost everyone else) use their position to advance their agendas. In some sense that’s their job. It’s the reason most people vote for them. They’re as “human” as the next critter. But unfortunately they have to position themselves on an imaginary left/right axis and constantly ask themselves if they are sitting in the correct place on the high-wire. How Pegram will “fix” anything worries me. I just can’t trust anyone who receives orders from a gaseous male vertebrate of astronomical heft.

      • “Politicians (and almost everyone else) use their position to advance their agendas.”

        So you would agree, then Mr. Jefferson, that Mr. Rocha will also bring his agenda to the job.  What would that be—more of the same bureaucratic labor-above-all agenda that got us into the trouble in which we find ourselves as a city?

        Mr. Rocha is a part of the problem.  I am far more concerned that he will bring a business as usual attitude to the council than I am that Mr. Pegram will bring his religious views to the council.  However, I am hopeful that Mr. Pegram will keep his personal religious convictions to a minimum when he is acting as a councilperson on behalf of all the voters.

        No more incumbents or their lackeys!

        • JMO,

          I can’t tell you how disgusted I am with the outcome of this D9 election. We had several pretty good candidates who lost to these two. The voters cast their votes for two people they knew instead of for those who would do a good job. “Unknowns,” rarely stand a chance because the media doesn’t bother to cover them, and people rarely attend forums to meet them. They are too lazy to truly educate themselves before voting, if they vote at all.

          Pegram was once a cop. I assume he IS getting a pension. The kind of pension you’re all pissed off about. I doubt he’d be taking a hard line on pensions, if he were still on the force today.

          The same goes for Pete Constant. He gets disability, owns a photo business, and draws a paycheck from the City as a Council Member. He, like a few other candidates, duped the POA twice into endorsing him, and now he is fighting to take a way their right to binding arbitration.

          They both, Pegram/Constant, ignore the fact that the POA has only used arbitration TWICE in 30 years! It’s easy for Pegram and Constant to spout this dribble about getting rid of binding arbitration when their financial future is secure. I also doubt that Pegram or Constant will waive their Council salary even though they have other monies coming in, in an effort to save the City money.

          Also, I don’t believe for one minute Pegram has the professionalism, integrity, or good sense to leave his religious beliefs outside the Council office. I think he’ll use that title, “Council Member,” to get exactly what he wants.

          I have met him. I was on the Mayor’s Transition Committee on Public Safety with him. He was pushy, rude, intolerant, only came to three meetings,and didn’t listen, or respect other people’s opinions, or viewpoints while he was there.

          He is one guy among many who will NEVER get my vote.

        • “Mr. Rocha is a part of the problem.  I am far more concerned that he will bring a business as usual attitude to the council than I am that Mr. Pegram will bring his religious views to the council.”

          Exactly.  The former is a real threat to the well-being of our city, while the latter is a trivial annoyance, at the very worst.

        • Kevin,
          Do you know, or have you even spoken to Don Rocha, or Larry Pegram? If not I suggest that you call both of them and meet with them and give them the opportunity to present their reasons for running.

          I have an appointment with Rocha on Tuesday to ask him some hard questions on the issues and about his positions on our current City’s difficulties. If he isn’t or doesn’t answer me with honesty, and if he can’t convince me he is in this race for the right reasons, I won’t be giving him my vote either.

          I already know Pegram, have worked with him on city issues regarding public safety, have followed his politics during and since his Council term in D9, and know his positions on the issues. He WON’T be getting my vote. 

          As voters, we have a responsibility to do our own research and educate ourselves on the candidates running. Allowing the media, gossip, or personal agendas to take the lead in decision making is just not a smart practice when it comes to voting. You don’t have to agree with someone running to vote for them, but you do need to at the very least, research them.

        • > He was pushy, rude, intolerant, only came to three meetings,and didn’t listen, or respect other people’s opinions, or viewpoints while he was there.

          Interesting, and a bit surprising.

          He spoke of you in only the most admiring and complimentary terms.

        • > Also, I don’t believe for one minute Pegram has the professionalism, integrity, or good sense to leave his religious beliefs outside the Council office.

          In the breast of every liberal beats the heart of a religiophobe.

        • I also liked some of the “also rans” who didn’t make the run off.  The truth is that its hard work getting elected and the only way a newcomer can make it is to personally walk the precincts.  Not one or two, not a couple of rally kick offs and volunteer days, but personally walking the precincts and talking to anyone who will listen, and actually stopping to listen when someone wants to tell you what they think (take some notes, send thank you cards, etc.)

          The old methods are the best methods.  If people don’t already know you in the district from your long history of involvement (picnics, block parties, neighborhood association, etc) then your starting with one strike against you.

          Since this is your district Kathleen, why didn’t you consider running yourself?

        • Blair Whitney,

          “Since this is your district Kathleen, why didn’t you consider running yourself?”

          I’m proud of the work I do, and no one controls my pocket book, or my beliefs. wink I’m not a politician, and never want to be. I’d rather work for change and help people without holding an office that corrupts you.

        • Judge Mental,
          “He was pushy, rude, intolerant, only came to three meetings,and didn’t listen, or respect other people’s opinions, or viewpoints while he was there.”

          The truth is what it is.

          Just in case you missed it, Pegram has now distanced himself from Prop 8, and the Values Advocacy Council. Yep, a man of conviction only when he’s not running for office….AGAIN.

        • ‘Just in case you missed it, Pegram has now distanced himself from Prop 8, and the Values Advocacy Council’ 
          I noticed that too Kathleen. Formerly, his pictures and messages were ALL OVER the Values Advocacy Council (VAC) web site. So, is it a show of shame that he removed himself? Is he trying to get over on the voters? Has he decided he doesn’t have time for both pursuits? Interesting questions to ponder. I would have thought if someone was truly proud of their associations and affiliates, they would not work to create distance.

          But what do I know? I’m no politician, for sure.

          Tina

        • Tina,
          You are a pretty smart woman. You work hard in our community and have for years. You ask some very valid questions and you aren’t wrong to wonder why he has suddenly backed a way from the group he ran/runs. If you read IA and the article above, the answer is very clear, he doesn’t want his stand on gay marriage or porn filters interfering with this election. I would have more respect for him if he just stood by his beliefs period. Instead he’s already putting on a dog and pony show for us.

          Look, I don’t care about his position on gay marriage. He can believe what he wants to, but his behavior when I worked with him, and his attitude toward others leads me to believe he is the wrong choice. I also don’t believe he gets the concept of valuing others opinions, or teamwork.

            People need to look at his past Council voting record. And then look at how he is distancing himself from his beliefs. That is what we’ll get in D9 for a Councilperson if he is elected.

      • >  I just can’t trust anyone who receives orders from a gaseous male vertebrate of astronomical heft.

        And from whom does your candidate receive orders?

        From trust fund children at the Sierra Club who think that humanity is just livestock who need their habitat managed by superior intellects such as themselves?

      • Politicians (and almost everyone else) use their position to advance their agendas.

        That is why a responsible politician does not endorse a religious psychopath, and member of the lunatic fringe.  Chuck Reed needs to immediately submit his resignation for gross incompetence.

    • Suppose Larry Pegram is elected, and he does occasionally use his position to grandstand against gay marriage, or some other Christian conservative hobbyhorse?  So what?  He might get Pete Constant to agree with him, and be out-voted 8-2 on the Council.  Big deal.

      Whereas Don Rocha has the potential to team up with profligate spenders like Nancy Pyle, Madison Nguyen, Rose Herrera, Ash Kalra, and possibly Xavier Campos, and thus really do serious and potentially irreparable harm to the city of San Jose.

      • Kevin,
        “Suppose Larry Pegram is elected, and he does occasionally use his position to grandstand against gay marriage, or some other Christian conservative hobbyhorse?  So what?  He might get Pete Constant to agree with him, and be out-voted 8-2 on the Council.  Big deal.”

        It is a big deal if you want to rid City Hall of special interest. Or does hatred of special interest only apply to Union lobbyists?

        • Does a person have to have no particular socio-political ideas & beliefs at all, in order to run for office without being derided as in alliance with “the special interests?”  And if so, why would such a person even bother to choose to run for public office?  It hardly seems likely they’d be interested.  Merely being a conservative does not mean that Mr. Pegram is in cahoots with some vile cabal of “special interests,” as you seem to be implying…but even if he were, his position on gay marriage is perhaps 1/100th as important as his position on the dominant fiscal issues that face our city.

          I don’t object to the SBLC because they are union activists.  I object to the SBLC because they want ever-higher pay & benefits for an ever-increasing pool of municipal employees, and the fact that we can not afford to continue pursuing that policy is the single most important issue this city faces in 2010.  And its one where Larry Pegram is right, and Don Rocha is wrong.  Gay marriage (in so far as it comes before the City Council as an issue) is a mere triviality by comparison.  Perhaps we should base our decision on who is best to represent District 9 on the City Council by their position on the human rights crisis in Darfur, or stem cell research?  On second thought, who the Hell cares?!?

  2. It is so good to see God’s will in action. Mr. Pegram will bring family values back into our city. He is not afraid to speak his mind on the sins of homosexuality and that marriage is sacred between a man and woman. He will not be afraid to speak out on the immorality of abortion which is running rampant. He will bring Christian values back into our government and schools. I applaud Mayor Reed for his choice.

      • Remember Kathleen, “Where there is no leadership the people fall, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety. (Proverbs 11:14)”. Mr. Pegram will be a good leader for all of us.

      • > Matthew,
        > Thank you for proving my point better than I ever could~

        And your point is what?  That you need to marry someone of the opposite sex and stop having abortions.

        I don’t know why this was so hard for you to prove. 

        Everyone knew this until some deranged narcissists decided to try to re-wire humanity.  They should have stuck with something simple like assembling doll houses or Lionel train sets on Christmas morning.

        • Judge Mental,
          First off, let me say that I respect people’s right to disagree with gay marriage, and to oppose abortion. I honor and respect their right to their religious beliefs. I would also go so far as to say that I understood the intention behind wanting to protect children from porno in libraries. I don’t want children harmed by that either. But where I disagree with these folks is their methodology, and in the actions they take in shoving their viewpoints down our throats. To spent hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to deny any group their GOD given human and civil rights is not acceptable to me on any level what so ever.

          Secondly, we are talking about a campaign for City Council, not debating religious issues. We have two very different candidates here that, I personally, must chose between to represent my district. I’ve got to tell you that it is not an easy choice for me. I am sick of choosing between the lesser of two evils. I don’t honestly know if I can vote for either of them given both their backgrounds, and their positions on the issues.

          I can say with absolute certainty that it will not be Pegram because I have seen how he works and I don’t feel he is someone who has anyone’s interests but his own at heart.

        • > But where I disagree with these folks is their methodology, and in the actions they take in shoving their viewpoints down our throats. To spent hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to deny any group their GOD given human and civil rights is not acceptable to me on any level what so ever.

          Presuming that you are talking about Proposition 8, your rhetoric conveys completely inverted logic.

          Throughout human history and across every culture, marriage has virtually always been between persons of the opposite sex because marriage was about procreation.

          Only in recent years have deranged nihilists mounted an absurd attack on marriage and raised the preposterous notion that it could be between homosexuals, animals, icons, spiritual proxies, or whatever.

          This preposterous notion is what was being shoved down the throats of society.

          For the benefit of dimwits and to shut off the anti-social nihilists, Proposition 8 proposed, enacted, and formally established the historical, traditional, and customary definition of non-polygamous “marriage”.

          Proposition 8 simply imposed linquistic clarity and stability, because that’s what people wanted.

          It did NOT RATIONALLY deny any group their “GOD given human and civil rights”.  This is buncombe.

          Homosexuals can have any kind of relationship they want, but if it is with another person of the same sex, it can’t be called “marriage”. 

          If they want to call it a rutabaga, arugula, or bop-she-bop-she-bop, probably no one will care.  If they want to call it Coca-Cola or iPhone, or iMarriage, they’ll probably get a trademark infringement lawsuit from Coca-Cola or Apple.

          A definition CAN’T be unconstititional.

          If a gay federal judge says that it is, it is obvious that he is using SOME OTHER notion of the word marriage than that PROVIDED TO HIM by the majority of California voters.

          Proposition 8 was about resolving any ambiguity in the definition of the word “marriage”.  If the clarification resulted in a definition of marriage different from the one the judge had in his mind, then the judge is wrong. 

          In a rational judicial system, such a judge would be declared incompetent and booted off the court.

        • The problem with the entire Prop. 8 thing is that “mariage” is primarily a religious institution.  The state should never have become involved.

          All folks, gay and straight alike, should be able to enter into civil unions where everybody has the same rights and obligations.  If they ALSO want to enter into a separate agreement called “marriage:, they can do that @ the venue of their choice, with the person of their choice; but “marriage” would have no civil rights or obligations.

          Equal protection and due process should be the hallmarks of civil unions only.  Rules of marriage are not the purview of the state, and could vary by denomination.

        • I was speaking with my son last evening.  He put itin a way that makes sense to me.  Marriage is a religious rite, not a constitutional right.

          Neither of us has a problem with gay unions, no matter what they may be called. But lots of folks do.  So solve the problem by having everyone enter a civil union, from which their legal rights and responsibilities flow.  If they want a religious right as well, that’s between them and their religious leaders.

        • JMO,
          I agree with your son. Marriage/Civil Unions, whatever you want to call them have no place in government. Long before the government and religion interfered and made marriage a source of revenue, and a religious platform, people jumped the broom in front of God, friends, and family.

          Back then this method of commitment wasn’t seen as “living in sin,” so why should it now? MONEY and power is why of course!

      • Matthew doesn’t actually speak for Mr. Pegram, so his remarks prove very little, other than that Christian rightists will be voting for Larry Pegram…and I think we all knew that was true already.

        Can someone please explain why having a fiscal liberal on the City Council is more desirable than having a fiscal conservative?  I mean, virtually every person who posts at this site seems to be closer to Larry Pegram on the issues that actually face San Jose (I suspect most would describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal).  His positions on gay marriage, abortion, etc., are of no substantive consequence to the business before the City Council.

        • The two main reasons why so many say they dislike Christians are 1) Christians turn to religion for answers to their problems and 2) they try to foist their religion on others.
          Well that pretty well sums up my view of big government liberals. They reflexively look to government to solve every perceived problem and they insist that I join them in their causes. But unlike the polite church recruiters who occassionally show up on my doorstep, these fanatics won’t take no for an answer, get angry when they realize I’m not a “Believer”, then use the power of their church to force me into compliance. 
          Given the choice of having to deal with Pegram’s polite, civilized religion or Rocha’s ruthless, machinelike one, I’ll go with the former and vote for Larry Pegram.

        • > Well that pretty well sums up my view of big government liberals. They reflexively look to government to solve every perceived problem and they insist that I join them in their causes.

          Well said, Galtie!

          Take a bow.

          It probably won’t be long before the Church of Statism puts your postings on their “Index” of banned writings.

        • Thanks VL,

          I appreciate that. In a way though, I think you and I are among a dwindling minority who are trying to keep alive a dying language. Our words are incomprehensible to the multitudes whose official language is Newspeak.

  3. It should be obvious to everyone by now that CH should be laser focused on common sense fiscal conservatism and nothing in Rocha’s political DNA suggests he has a fiscally conservative bone in his body.

    As for endorsements…

    Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith
    – Got Schwarzenegger’s endorsement.  ‘nuff said.

    San Jose City Councilmember Ash Kalra
    – Union sock puppet.

    State Senator Joe Simitian
    – Global warming lunatic.

    San Jose City Councilmember Linda LeZotte
    – Another green zombie.

    …have all announced they are backing the Rocha campaign.

    Rocha’s an RDA guy?  We need less, not more RDA.

    Pegram’s the guy.

  4. I also support that Mr. Pegram is against the city of San Jose allowing marijuana sales for supposed medical reasons. I read Mr. Pegram’s platform and he is firmly against the “marijuana dispensaris” that Mr. Oliverio is pushing. If sick people need medicine, they can get a prescriptiion and go to a pharmacy. Mr. Pegram is absolutely correct in his stance against “medicinal” marijuana.

    • Matthew, pray tell, which local pharmacies sell marijuana to the sick people who use it as medication?

      I know of pharmacies that sell codine, oxycontin and all sorts of dangerous and addictive drugs, but none that sell the comparitivly benign and medically effective drug marijuana.

      Pegram’s social agenda on issues such as medical marijuana are exactly what will propel Rocha into office despite Rocha being the labor-supported candidate. Silicon Valley voters have a long history of rejecting far-right candidates like Pegram, even if it means holding their noses and electing yet another union tool.

      While people are concerned about pensions and arbitration, I suspect even more want government to get off their backs, out of their lives (and bedrooms), and to stop trying to legislate morality.

      I’m just glad I don’t live in D9. Those voters face a real Sophie’s Choice!

      • Reader,
        Very well said! I couldn’t agree with you more! If the Civil Grand Jury was asked to investigate the foolish spending of our City Council, and the ridiculous and outrageous business unfriendly ways our City conducts itself, I think we’d find out where the problems we are currently facing truly stem from!

        I don’t know a single person who thinks the way our tax dollars have been or are being spent by government is responsible. Things need to change and we voters need to vote accordingly. Stop voting for politicians seeking higher office and vote for those who really want to affect the change we need. Stop voting for them based on your own personal views and get real for once. Single issue candidates got us here and will keep us here! We need to demand more from these folks, and start holding them accountable for their actions.

      • There are very, very few family-owned & operated pharmacies left in Santa Clara County (and probably the USA as a whole, alas – the last one I specifically recall was in downtown Los Altos, and I couldn’t swear its still in operation), but assuming any are left in this county (probably), it would be really cool if one of them announced they were going to stock marijuana (presumably just one strain) for medical use on the premises.  I have a hard time believing a reputable pharmacist wouldn’t be able to make that product available on his premises…which would seem a step up from the ridiculously inefficient “dispensary” model he have now.  Even if he was in violation of an ordinance, wouldn’t people demand the ordinance be changed?

        But that’s just a pipe dream (ahem).  Non-corporate pharmacies are like an artifact from the 1970s, and none of the very few (any?) that exist locally are going to rock the boat in that manner.

    • I disagree with Mr. Pegram’s position on marijuana dispensaries (I intend to vote “Yes” on Proposition 19, and believe all persons over the age of 18 should be able to purchase marijuana at their local 7-11), but once again, this is a minor issue.  Its not going to determine the quality of life in this city.  Don Rocha as another ally of the SBLC-backed big spenders on the City Council, however, is a potentially disastrous outcome.

    • Gee whiz Matthew. I think Pegram should fire that Ajlouny guy and hire you as his publicity person. You’re doing a bangup job. Keep up the good work! Maybe go by “Matt” though. “Matthew” has sort of a sensitive, liberal ring to it. You don’t want people to get the wrong idea do you.

  5. Say goodnight, Larry. A Reed endorsement just about guarantees defeat. Good thing since Pegram and his religious agenda have no place in city government.

  6. While its true I happen to agree with Larry Pegram’s position with respect to Proposition 8 (and rumor has it that Mayor Reed does as well), I like to think that if I did not, I would still be broad-minded enough to realize that Larry Pegram is a far superior candidate to Don Rocha.

    The bottom line is, it doesn’t really matter what a City Council candidate thinks about gay marriage, abortion, the Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, or the recent health care bill passed in Washington.  Most voters seem like they will treat those sorts of high-profile, media-driven issues as litmus tests for local races, and that’s unfortunate, because if they do that in this district, Don Rocha will clearly win.  Yet its Larry Pegram who advocates the actual policies of fiscal sanity that this city so desperately needs (as noted by Mayor Reed), while Don Rocha represents ever higher salaries & benefits for the public employees who pay dues to the SBLC, and the whole cozy, club-like, more-than-a-little-corrupt atmosphere that pervades politics across San Jose, and the rest of the county.

    Yeah, Rocha is the candidate most people here would prefer to see elected to Congress…but he’s not running for Congress.  He’s running for the City Council, on a program that might as well be formally entitled “More Of The Same.”  Social liberals who care about this city’s fiscal house being in order should just hold their noses and vote for Larry Pegram, because in a 2010 San Jose city council race, fiscal issues are the ONLY issues that matter.

    Sadly, I fear more of us care about feeling good about ourselves, by voting for someone who’s “progressive,” “gay friendly,” “pro-Choice,” or whatever, then they do about helping to contribute towards solving the devastating fiscal crisis that our city finds itself in the midst of.  I can only hope (and yes, pray) that I will be proven wrong.

    • Kevin,
      I agree with you Mr. Pegram will be fiscally conservative. I believe and hope Mr. Pegram will use city finances to provide social services through faith based church organizations and the Values Advocacy Council, who will more efficiently spend the money from the city on providing a social network.

      • Good advice, M. Pegram should funnel city money to his own right wing organization. Certainly a great improvement for those of you who think city funds are being misused. Why not have him start off with a conflict of interest and possibly an illegal one as well.
        Unbelievable.

        • For the record, I’m neither hoping, nor expecting, that Larry Pegram would intend to funnel municipal funds to the Values Advocacy Council.  Sheesh, Matthew!  Are you working for Rocha?

        • Our country was based on Christian values which is what Mr. Pegram represents. Since when is it politically incorrect to support a candidate who believes in these values and is guided by a higher moral authority? I am not going to apologize for my support of Mr. Pegram for these reasons.

        • Matthew,
          “Our country was based on Christian values which is what Mr. Pegram represents.”

          Our country stole America from the Native Indians and beat them into Christianity. Some legacy to relate yourself to huh?

        • Kevin,
          You are too kind and loving for me to believe that you really think like that. Beating people into believing your way and murdering them when they won’t is just plain wrong.

        • There isn’t one single nation on Earth who’s territory is inhabited by the people who lived there originally.  All nations are founded on conquest.  Pretending there is something uniquely evil about the USA, Western civilization, White people, Christianity, etc., is as silly as it is boring.  We’re just like everyone else…only a little better at winning our wars.  If other people could have colonized us, you can rest assured they would have.  The Turks and Mongols both did conquer large sections of Europe, at one stage.

  7. > Educate yourself on the history of Unions before you speak.

    Perhaps you should educate yourself on something OTHER than the history of Unions.

    Unions are a temporary phenomenon.  When they succeed too well in acquiring unsustainable pay or privileges for themselves, they ultimately kill the business. 

    Politicians like Obama can do heart transplants or transfusions of public money into zombie businesses like General Motors, but ultimately, General Motors is going down.

    There are probably more ex-union workers in the private sector than there are employed union workers simply because unions have killed so many businesses.

    The public is getting very angry about the abuses of public employee unions and there is going to be a price to be paid.  That gravy train is going to come to an end.

    Enjoy your swill while you’ve got it.  SBLC is going to be a four letter word in the election.

    • Visualize Liberty,
      “The public is getting very angry about the abuses of public employee unions and there is going to be a price to be paid.  That gravy train is going to come to an end.”

      The public has been duped into believing the enemy is Unions when in fact the real culprits sit back laughing at us all. Tax laws protect huge corporations from paying taxes here, while they are outsourcing jobs to foreign countries, while the dollar shrinks.

      Our government and our businesses have sold our county out for profit. Lobbyists are well paid to ensure the rights of big business is protected while you toil at your underpaid job, and small business dies on the vine.

      Retail stories train their managers in what to say when the Union knocks at their door. They fear Unionization because they don’t want to pay you a fair wage and part with the billions they earn in profit.

      “Enjoy your swill while you’ve got it.  SBLC is going to be a four letter word in the election.”

      You are so blinded by your own rage that nothing penetrates your own perception of the facts.

      There are two sides to every story, and then there’s the truth.  My truth differs from yours, and that is an okay thing.

      • Kathleen:

        > Retail stories train their managers in what to say when the Union knocks at their door.

        Yeah:  “Not interested.  Go away.”

        Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

        By the way, Kathleen, what’s a “scab”?

        • Visualize Liberty,
          You can come back with all the smart ass remarks you want, but the truth is what it is. We don’t agree on this, it is as simple as that. You vote your way and I’ll vote mine.

          As to your question: A scab is a crusty formation that forms over an injury to protect it. It is also a slang term used for someone who is a non-Union member who crosses a picket line to work for a company who is in conflict with Union employees. Since you consider yourself so well informed on Unions, I’m surprised you had to ask…

        • > A scab is . . . someone who is a non-Union member who crosses a picket line to work for a company who is in conflict with Union employees.

          So, does the Golden Rule apply to scabs, or are unionists allowed to hate scabs?

          I assume that your candidate does NOT want the vote of scabs.

          Likewise, I assume that your candidate does NOT want the vote of “people who force their morality down your throats”.  So, the votes of Christians who vote for your candidate will be rejected.

          Similarly, your candidate does not want the votes of homophobes, so all those who voted for or supported Proposition 8 should takes their votes and shove it.

          And, of course, your candidate would NEVER ask for or accept the votes of racists, and since a person can only be a racist if they have power, and only whites have power, only whites can be racists, and so whites should NOT vote for your candidate.

          And, as we all know, racists includes Tea Partiers, so your candidate would NEVER pander to the Tea Party vote.

          So that leaves only blacks, Asians, and Hispanics to vote for your candidate, so long as they are not scabs, homophobes, tea partiers, or force their morality down your throat.

          But blacks and Hispanics voted for Proposition 8 in far greater numbers than the electorate at large, so blacks and Hispanics are likely homophobic and were sneakily agreeing with those who were trying to force their morality down your throat.  So, your candidate should courageously and forthrightly reject the votes of homophobic blacks and Hispanics.

          So, I guess that leaves your candidate with a clear choice: focus on scab-hating, non-homophobic, tea-party-snubbing Asian voters.

          By the way, has your candidate taken a position on whether the Vietnamese district of San Jose should be “Little Saigon” or “Saigon Business District”?

          If I had to guess, I would suspect he’s down to: scab-hating, non-homophobic, tea-party snubbing asian voters who support the “Saigon Business District”.

          Is your candidate the one running under the “Unify San Jose” slogan?

        • Visualize-
            While I don’t like your candidate’s stance on social issues, I have to give you an A+ for your deconstruction of some of the arguments made against him.

        • VIsualize Liberty,
          I guess you haven’t been reading my position on these two candidates have you? They both stink!

  8. If the moonbats want to make this election a contest between Christians and the labor unions, I’ll buy that.

    The essence of Christianity is “the Golden Rule”:  do unto others as you would have them do unto you, live and let live, you are responsible for your own salvation.  I can live with that.

    The essence of unionism is narcissism and exclusion:  YOU can’t work here, because ALL the jobs and ALL the money goes to US.  And if you don’t acknowledge our right to control your job and your pay, we’ll call you a scab, slash your car tires, and maybe bust your kneecaps. 

    Unionism is inherently a phenomenon of a selfish minority, because unionism would make no sense if everyone were in the union.  Unionism REQUIRES that some workers be unemployed or underpaid so that a select minority can be overpaid.

    Union city workers are overpaid, and in order for them to be overpaid, employees of private employers have to be UNDERPAID (overtaxed) for what they do.

    So, go ahead.  Make the election about the Golden Rule in public policy versus special interest narcissism. 

    It makes it easy for me to decide how to vote.

    • Judge Mental,
      Lucky for you this isn’t a Union debate. If it were, you’d lose because if it weren’t for Unions you’d still be working for even worse crap pay, in really horrific conditions. Unions ensure jobs stay in the US, unlike private sector workers who have zero control over their jobs being sent overseas, while their companies reap MILLIONS/BILLIONS of dollars off your back.

      Educate yourself on the history of Unions before you speak. Even your private sector job enjoys the benefits afforded you by the Union struggle of the past and present.

      By the way, I like your name, it is very fitting..

      • > Unions ensure jobs stay in the US,. . . .

        Do you find that you are having more and more trouble finding union workers in the US to make this stupid and absurd claim to?

        Unions are screwing American workers bigtime and forcing zillions of jobs overseas.

        “Unions” are just proxy organizations for the neo-Bolshevik ruling class.  The neo-Bolsheviks only want an angry and alienated “working class”.

        With one hand, the Ruling Class promises pie in the sky to “workers”.  And with the other hand, they screw the workers to make sure they’re always angry and alienated.

        The Ruling Class invented the global warming hoax, and used it as pretext for mammoth energy taxes and oppressive environmental regulations.

        Manufacturing REQUIRES energy,  so the energy taxes and regulations (cap and trade) are crushing US manufacturing and forcing them to go off shore.

        And when manufacturing jobs go to China, poof go the union manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

        In case you haven’t noticed, union LEADERS are in bed with the global warming schemers and they are actively working together to shut down U.S. manufacturing and eliminate UNION manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

        (“Green jobs” is just an empty slogan.  Solar and wind power are only two percent of U.S. energy consumption and will never be much bigger.)

        So, no.  You’re dead wrong.

        Unions are NOT keeping jobs in the U.S.  Unions don’t care squat about “workers”.

        Unions are simply a Ruling Class proxy to gain control of the government’s workforce and ultimately control the government from within, and really make elections meaningless.

        • Code word alert! Add “global warming hoax” to the growing list, along with “Obamacare” and “ruling class.”
          Time for a new memo, kids.

        • Judge Mental,
          Perhaps you might consider putting all this outrage into something productive? Ever thought of starting a company to help employ those who have been out of work for two years now? Or would you rather just blog your opinions to the world so that you can believe you’re making a difference?

          I would love to put your salesmanship to good use for the non-profits I VOLUNTEER to raise money for! Let me know how I can reach you. I can get you started immediately.

      • K, you are stuck with the “history” of unions…ancient history.  They were necessary 75-100 years ago.  They are now the problem.

        Thankfully they have nowhere near the clout they had 30-40 years ago—the UAW that destroyed the US auto indistry and led to the Japanese automakers taking over with a superior product built by non-union workers here in the USA.

        Union workers make up, what, 10%-12% of the total US workforce.  In Ca they control government jobs, which is why we are in such a fiscal mess.  They refuse to allow merit pay increases.  If you just live another year, your “entitled” to a raise, according to union rules.

        Sadly, prior adminsitrations at all levels have given in to the in contract “negotiations”, which have many cities and counties, and the state itself, on the brink of fiscal collapse.

        • No, that is not the unions’ fault.

          But we’re talking about the fiscal health of city govt. here, and much of the cause for the structural deficit is union members’ unsustainable wages and pensions.

          The unions were just doing their job.  Our “city fathers/mothers” of past administrations were not doing their jobs with the welfare of the people in mind.  And now we are reaping what they have sown.

        • JMO,
          Agreed. Having said that, regardless of how many times you have brought up eliminating wasteful Cultural Affairs positions, or cutting the fat, it seems that Union haters on this blog ignore the facts.

        • JMO,
          We can agree to disagree on this. I find the focus on Unions to be nothing more than a way to ignore the real enemy before us.

          After all, we wouldn’t want to hold the overpaid CEOs, banks, and government overspending accountable or responsible for our present economy! Surely the government didn’t enrich the banks that screwed us all from home loans to credit cards, and are now leaving millions unemployed and destitute! Nah, it is the Union’s fault! Right? wink

      • I fully support unionization within the private sector, but public employee unionization has gone too far.  The wage & benefit packages have become excessive, particularly with respect to early & lucrative retirements.

        • Kevin,
          FYI: The City Council approves ALL contracts wages, and benefits. And yes, the City Council has gone to far in laying the blame on Unions for this mess. The truth is that they NEVER have saved a nest egg for bad times, they overspent on stupid useless things, and they have yet to take responsibility for their part in this.

          The lack of revenue is the true culprit here, not the Unions. Try to start a business here and you’ll see why everyone goes to other cities like Campbell, and Santa Clara. I think you just might have a change of heart once reality bites you in the rear. The fees, policies, taxes, permit costs, etc. will set your head to spinning! Yet they offered BIG business like Tesla, and the Grand Prix a great deal! I guess small businesses are a thing of the past here in SJ..

        • Oh it’s those evil politicians to blame.  Wait, wait, it’s a lack of revenue.  No wait, it’s..

          ..it’s really simple.

          1.  Unions put the democrats in office.
          2.  Elected democrats plow money back into the unions.
          3.  Rinse and repeat.

        • I’m aware the Council must approve all municipal employee contracts.  Which is precisely why I want Larry Pegram on the Council, as opposed to the SBLC-backed Don Rocha.

  9. “After many conversations, I am convinced Larry will focus his efforts on fixing the City’s fiscal problems and will not use the position of Councilmember to advance a personal social agenda,” Reed writes.

    In a city that has welcomed and considered candidates of every stripe, it is only for the devout Christian that an assurance of objectivity is a recognized requirement. Multiculturalism has reached the mountain top, and the bleating flock best be ready for the quick trip downhill.

    • “In a city that has welcomed and considered candidates of every stripe, it is only for the devout Christian that an assurance of objectivity is a recognized requirement.”

      +1000

  10. Having city ordinances and charter matters on the ballot should increase both quantity and quality of turnout.

    The medical marijuana issue will pass, but maybe not in every district of San Jose, so it might make a nice wedge issue (think Prop 187 and Wilson).

    Neither is an outsider, but each represents a different stream in our political culture.  My preference would be for a non-city employee (retired or otherwise) but that appears to not be possible with the run-off choices.

    I predict this fight will get expensive and dirty, with most of the hits coming from independent expenditures (soft money) with no ties to the individual candidate (“its not my fault if someone doesn’t like the other guy”).  Pay attention to the contribution records and special attention to who pays for the hit pieces mailed the weekend before abstenee voting starts.

      • Kevin,
        Thanks for the 411. Forgive me if I don’t buy into this though, I’ll just consider the source you are getting your facts from.

        Any way, it still doesn’t change the fact that Pegram was on the Council before and made bad choices, is rude and intolerant of others points of view, and is now side stepping his Values Advocacy Council warriors to win the D9 seat. And by the way, gay marriage benefits DID come before Council and will again once it becomes legal. Can you guess which way Pegram will vote even when it becomes LEGAL?

        • Kevin,
          One thing that troubles me around election time for Mayoral or Council candidates are that people whom blog on these folks do so without knowing these folks or ever having met them. All candidates put what they want you to believe on their websites. The media endorses their pick, and trashes people they hate to get their candidate elected. You guys buy into it.

          There’s nothing like attending forums, debates, and meeting them face to face to know what they’re about. Try it and then come back and discuss them intelligently because I didn’t see you in any of the candidate forums I attended.

        • I don’t really have a problem with the way he’s apt to vote on such a proposal (its the same way I’d vote, were I in a position to do so), but even if I did lean in the liberal direction on such issues, I still think I would see the principle fiscal issues which this city faces (where he essentially wants to at least hold the line, if not roll things back a tad…while Mr. Rocha very probably does not), as about 100 times more important than his stance on how municipal benefits packages should play out with respect to gay marriage.

          Also, I think its reasonable to assume that if he says he only worked for the SJPD for five years, then that statement is correct.  You seem to be implying that such a claim in unreliable, in that it comes from his site, which strikes me as a bit odd.  I mean, how many years do you think he was a San Jose police officer, and on what basis would you make such a claim?

        • > There’s nothing like attending forums, debates, and meeting them face to face to know what they’re about.

          Well, that may have been true in ancient Athens, but the political fixers have long since perfected the techniques for controlling forums, and “debates”.  This is especially try of moderated media debates.

          In recent elections the so-called Presidential debates have become such a phony sham of biased moderators and loaded questions and “display behavior” that all they convey anymore is who is a good actor as a candidate, and how willing his campaign is to do something devious, manipulative, or deceptive.

          Good grief, how much more biased can a Presidential debate be when the debate MODERATOR has written a book on one of the candidates and stands to profit if that candidate wins.  I’m taking about Gwen Ifill and her role in the 2008 Presidential debates.

          One of the most reliable and useful sources of information on candidates is what their enemies and opponents say about them, and then, how much integrity and honesty those critics themselves have.

          There’s an old Texas legend that says that Lyndon Johnson suggested to his campaign manager that they start a rumor that his opponent enjoyed sexual congress with pigs. The campaign manager reacted in shock: “Lyndon you know that’s not true.” “Sure,” Lyndon is alleged to have replied, “I just want to make him deny it.”

          So, when you listen to a “debate” and one candidate accuses the other of “not caring about the children”  or maybe of “having sex with pigs”, what have you learned?

  11. 1) Low city tax revenues is #1 budget problem

    ” If the Civil Grand Jury was asked to investigate the foolish spending of our City Council, and the ridiculous and outrageous business unfriendly ways our City conducts itself, I think we’d find out where the problems we are currently facing truly stem from! ”  –  Not enough San Jose businesses and jobs so not enough city tax revenue is main reason why we have budget deficits Due to San Jose Council being business unfriendly (i.e. unreasonable pro union ) city policies so our tax revenues go to other cities not SJ

    If SJ had tax revenues per person of other cities there would be not city budget deficit

    2) 10’s billions city taxes have been wasted on non essential city spending and tax subsidies is # 2 reason for city budget deficits

    I don’t know a single person who thinks the way our tax dollars have been or are being spent by government is responsible. Things need to change and we voters need to vote accordingly.

    3) Council is controlled by special interests or professional politicians selling their vote to get campaign contributions to get elected to next political office Council does not have elected representatives interested in public interest or what is best for San Jose residents and businesses

    “Stop voting for politicians seeking higher office and vote for those who really want to affect the change we need. Stop voting for them based on your own personal views and get real for once. Single issue candidates got us here and will keep us here! “

    4) Council is almost never held accountable by public / voters for special interest votes but always rewarded by special interests

    “We need to demand more from these folks, and start holding them accountable for their actions.

    5) Who is in Council – City Manager city government that is supposed to be the counter balance to Council political self interest and special interest politics while being accountable to public ?

    San Jose City Manager/s and senior management sold out the public for their own self interest by not doing their city charter “public interest defined jobs” and went along with special interest politics so they could receive their excessive pay, benefits and retirements

    • The budget mess is a spending issue, not a revenue issue. San Jose budgeted general fund revenues increased over 68% between 1998/1999 ($623M) and 2008/2009 (1,050M). That’s over 5%/year during a time when inflation was running about 1/2 that. All while the city was busy “cutting” millions of dollars of programs.

      Would it be nice to have tax revenue per resident similar to some of our neighbors? Sure. Would the city be better off today? Probably not, since the budget grows to consume all available revenue.

      Whose fault is all of this? Yours and mine, for allowing it to happen. We are the electorate, let’s make the elected officials do our bidding.

      • I agree with everything you said EXCEPT the revenue part. Other cities around us aren’t in this mess. Why because they value business, especially small business, and are business friendly. San Jose is not.

        “Whose fault is all of this? Yours and mine, for allowing it to happen. We are the electorate, let’s make the elected officials do our bidding.” Exactly!!!

        • Au contraire, mon ami! Other cities are in this mess, too. Palo Alto’s budget cut 21 positions. San Francisco fired everybody to rehire them at reduced hours/benefits. Oakland laid off police officers. Santa Clara County closed a $200M+ gap. The city of Santa Clara has consumed their emergency reserves and has a hiring freeze.

          I’ve never met a politician who wouldn’t spend every penny you gave him, then ask for more.

        • These blanket statements about “never met a politician etc” are silly.  Pat, if you had been elected to city council, you would have been a “politician” too.  So all of a sudden you would have been the one exception to all politicians spending every penny?  Or you would have gone bad the minute elected. 

          The issue of course is that once you get a group of elected officials together that all have varying priorities, it is quite hard to agree on who should sacrifice theirs.  Are you telling me if elected, you would have asked for all funding that benefits district 8 should be cut?

        • Pat Mon, Aug 09, 2010 – 3:46 pm.

          I agree with everything you said EXCEPT the revenue part. Other cities around us aren’t in this mess. Why because they value business, especially small business, and are business friendly. San Jose is not.

          “Whose fault is all of this? Yours and mine, for allowing it to happen. We are the electorate, let’s make the elected officials do our bidding.” Exactly!!!

          SSorry, this is my post. I accidently put Pat’s name on it!

        • Pat,
          I’m not talking about government overspending here; I’m talking about revenue. The Mayor continually refers to loss of revenue for our budget mess, and then claims employee wages must be lowered to fix the budget.

          He also says that Binding Arbitration must be altered because arbitrators give big awards and then take “our” money and run. Well, the City is always the first to call an impasse. So, how does this get hung on the Unions? Easy, political strategies are being used to turn the blame around on employees. 

          While what you say is true about government overspending, our City is the biggest most shameful mess when it comes to how it treats business. These other cities work with business, unlike SJ.

          If any one entity needs to change its practices, it’s government! You and I cut out things to meet our financial needs, and we save for the future. Not government, they spend and then point fingers elsewhere. And where exactly do they point them, at the least able to defend themselves, the poor, the disabled, the elderly, and employees.  So much for them taking responsibility for their mistakes. Like you said, they need to work with employees, not make them look like villains.

        • Politician,
          You make a very valid point here, not about Pat so much but about politician’s period. That is the bad part about being an elected; you never get to do what you started out to do, or serve the people who put you in office. Too much BS and too much politics!

    • City Hall Insider,
      I agree and applaud your efforts to educate us, but I fear your commentary will fall on the same deaf ears mine has. Our government and special interest groups have done an EXCELLENT job of scapegoating our Unions, so that they can continue on as always.

      It won’t be until something major happens to them personally that these Union haters will wake up and see the light. It is an unfortunate thing that has been done to our workers, our Fire, and Police, but this is what the public wants because they’re either to blind or deaf, or both to really look at the facts.

      I can’t wait to see whom they blame once they succeed at destroying Unions. It will be an interesting thing to see.

  12. It is simplistic to say budget deficit is only spending issue ( ie city employee pay, benefits and retirements )

    ” The budget mess is a spending issue, not a revenue issue. ”  NO, it is BOTH wasteful and unnecessary tax spending and lack of adequate tax revenue

    as well as

    3) special interests spending and policies,
    4) no political accountability to public only to special interests
    5) failure of City Manager/s and senior management due to self interest to do their jobs as charter says they should

    as Pat adds 6) yours and mine as voters allowing it to happen

    So what steps are needed to fix special interest control city government and lack of public / voter accountability ?

  13. ” I’ve never met a politician who wouldn’t spend every penny you gave him, then ask for more. ” 

    Agree as do most taxpayers   That is why voters turn down many taxes but most San Jose ” tax increases”  don’t require voter only Council approval since they are city user fees, licenses, administrative fees, permit or business charges or many other names used for required city government revenue payments

    San Jose property, Sales and other business tax volume is lower than other cities due to less businesses and jobs per residents

    San Jose is business unfriendly with higher tax rates and cost of doing business

    The result is many businesses relocate or starting in other cities instead of San Jose because of very high Council set business taxes /fees and historically difficult and unpredictable city permit and approval processes

    San Jose budget deficits are higher percentage of city budget that most other cities and getting worst because of less tax revenues due to very high tax and fee rates

  14. He can try and run from his background but it won’t work. Once a zealot, always a zealot—and zealots on either side do not make good legislators.