Pleasanton Weekly endorsements for today's state, local election Around Town, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Nov 5, 2012 at 8:47 am
For the 50% of you who haven't yet voted by mail -- saving that special privilege for Election Day today at the polling place -- many of us will be patiently joining you in lines that could be extraordinarily long. It pays to carry along your Sample Ballot to read once again before marking your ballot.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, November 5, 2012, 7:29 AM
Posted by PTown Joe, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2012 at 8:47 am
The PW's endorsement of Cook-Kallio is no surprise. Cook-Kallio is a far lefty and is there to do the work of the unions and her leftist compadres -- probably even more so than our current leftist Hippy Mayor. Since the PW has a demonstrated left-wing bias and has been a big union supporter, it should be no surprise they would endorse Cook-Kallio.
If you want unionized municipal workers to continue their raid on Pleasanton's treasury, if you want the city's finances to continue to weaken, if you want a continued war against non-union businesses, if you want a Mayor who is more focused on national issues than Pleasanton issues, then Cook-Kallio should be your choice.
If you want a Mayor who uses Pleasanton firemen to park cars at her campaign rallies, and conscripts her Fremont students to distribute her campaign literature (which is an education code violation), a candidate that repeatedly puts politics over integrity, then Cook-Kallio is your choice.
However, if you want responsible leadership and integrity, then Jerry Thorne should be your choice.
Posted by Larry, a resident of Livermore, on Nov 5, 2012 at 8:55 am
I agree with most of your recommendations, especially getting Pete Stark into his retirement home back east where he belongs. Eric is young, energetic, and I think Eric is someone that can work with the other party, unlike Pete Stark who is a partisan loudmouth hack. His own party knows Mr Stark has gone to the dark side, that is why they passed him over but they have to appear to be standing with him. Good bye Pete, take your money and run.
With that said, I think it's time for the people of Pleasanton to take over the local government from the existing party hacks like Cook-Kallio.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2012 at 11:35 am
PTown Joe said : "The PW's endorsement of Cook-Kallio is no surprise. Cook-Kallio is a far lefty and is there to do the work of the unions and her leftist compadres -- probably even more so than our current leftist Hippy Mayor. ....However, if you want responsible leadership and integrity, then Jerry Thorne should be your choice."
Thanks for your comments, PTown Joe. You helped make up my mind. I'm voting for Cook-Kallio.
Posted by D W, a resident of Livermore, on Nov 5, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Left-wing bias? Hmmm, then why is PW endorsing Prop 32, the scumbag amendment led by the most evil don't-care-about-any-lesser-people Koch Brothers? Remember, it's not the candidates one must worry about. It's about the donors behind each candidate and who they are, a lot of whom hide behind our patriotic flags because they really aren't, they're just self-centered. We need more teamwork and problem solving, not more self-centered, you're-on-your-own-even-if-you-can't-afford-it argue-and-stall-only egotism. I'm sick of government's reckless spending too, but do you really think that equally reckless markets have faces, minds, & hearts ? What a crock!
Posted by David, a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Why do you oppose Prop 37, what propoganda has persuaded Pleasanton Weekly to oppose a simple labeling measure to inform consumers of what is in their food? Don't buy the confusing rhetoric of the $45 million advertising campaign sponsored by Monsonta and other international corporations. It is a fundemental need within a capitalisit society to have knowledge of the choices we make as consumers. Do we really want our children to be science experiements? Please reconsider your position on this Prop, the moms and dads of Pleasanton support Prop 37!
Posted by jay, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2012 at 5:38 pm
37 is not a simple labeling measure. It is the birth of a new cottage industry for lawyers. It has nothing to do with food safety but rather a new profit center for the lawyers.
Get the lawyers out of this and then you will probably get more support; although there is no evidence that genetically-modified foods are harmful. Rather they help many countries feed their people that could not otherwise.
Posted by JD, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Why does a paper like this feel it is important to express their opinion on statewide concerns by only telling us what to vote NO on. I agree with the ones you mention, except 32. The paper should explain or at least title each prop/measure they endorse or do not. Simply stating to vote NO on all the rest is not the least bit helpful. I hope most of your readers do not vote blindly like that.
Posted by Larry, a resident of Livermore, on Nov 6, 2012 at 9:18 am
For the People concerned with what they are feeding children and themselves and think prop 37 is the answer. Do not feed, and do not eat, processed food, simple as that. Think People, it isn't that difficult. The 35 percent of the people that vote yes on 37, are the same people lined up at McKe D's to buy dinner for the family.
Posted by jay, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 6, 2012 at 10:30 am
The problem with 39 is the revenue that is collected goes to pet projects of the authors of the bill. The money collected from corporations does not go to fund priority items like education. If the authors really wanted to collect the tax for the corporations that may not be paying their fair share, they should have written an initiative that allows us to collect it and have the money go to the general fund. Instead this is a special interest saying they want outside corporation to pay their fair share but is rather a money grab for their projects. While the money goes to some alternative energy projects (which is not a bad thing), don't you think that education is a higher priority?
So I am voting NO on 39 but could vote for it if the money went to the general fund instead of special projects.