McNerney back in Washington after election results give him 1% edge over opponent State, National, International, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Nov 29, 2010 at 7:09 am
Congressman Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton) returned to Washington this morning for the final session of the 111th Congress and prepared to start his third term when the new 112th Congress is seated in January.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, November 29, 2010, 5:41 AM
Posted by Neutral, a resident of the Ironwood neighborhood, on Nov 29, 2010 at 7:09 am
Now that he has lost three consecutive races for congress in 3 different districts maybe he will give up. This marked Harmer's third congressional run in three separate congressional districts.n He previously lost congressional races in California's 10th district in 2009 and Utah's 2nd district in 1996.
Just pondering, wonder if his acknowledged LDS Mormon religion was a benefit or problem in his political career? Or perhaps his ties to WaMu and the federal bailout funds he received in his severence package did him in?
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 29, 2010 at 8:20 am
"Just pondering, wonder if his acknowledged LDS Mormon religion was a benefit or problem in his political career? Or perhaps his ties to WaMu and the federal bailout funds he received in his severence package did him in?"
I was planning to vote for Harmer because I do not like the job McNerney is doing (especially his agreement with the national healthcare stuff) but once I learned more about Harmer, I decided to vote for McNerney.
Harmer's religion did not bother me, but his views on social issues did - he is too extreme (some call that conservative, I call it plain backwards thinking). I overlook the social issues if I am getting a true fiscally conservative person, but Harmer, as much as he criticized the bailout, happily enjoyed his bonus (yes, a taxpayer financed bonus)... fiscally conservative? no, he only talks the talk but in the end it is just that: talk. Actions speak louder than words, and the fact that he worked for a bank who was the recipient of bailout funds and happily accepted the bonus speaks more than all the speeches he made about how horrible tarp was!
How was he able to run for two separate districts? Did he move?
Posted by Chet, a resident of San Ramon, on Nov 29, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Jerry has been doing a great job working hard for us all in Congress. We should all be very proud we have Jerry again going back to Washington D.C. where he will be hard a work for all of us in District 11.
An endorsement by the tea party is not a good thing, perhaps Harmer learned that a little too late. Even states like Delaware refused to vote for the tea party person, and even in Alaska (Palin land), Miller, the tea party favorite, lost to a write-in candidate! This should be a wake up call to republians: extreme candidates, tea party types that appeal to the base only will NOT be all that successful. Again, look at what happened in Alaska! The GOP retained that seat because a normal republican ran against the tea party backed MIller. I am almost positive that had Miller ran against only the democrat, the Alaska seat might just be democrat right now!
Posted by mike marcuse, a resident of Dublin, on Nov 29, 2010 at 8:42 pm
So, from the web link, it appears Harmer made a living helping WaMu collect on credit card debts (interest-upon-interest-upon-interest), and made a pretty penny so doing. What a guy! Maybe there's a new position for him with another bank to sue foreclosed upon families? Hope the carpetbagger enjoyed his junket to DC; it's about as close as he'll ever come to holding legislative office It isn't a matter of his religion -- he lost in Utah, too. He's a one-trick ideologue who marches in lockstep with Republican talking points.
Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Nov 30, 2010 at 9:07 am
Lib bandwagon jumpers and tea party haters: It appears the tea party did very well this election cycle, thank you. You Dems did such a bang up job that you lost the house to more conservative candidates, knocking your idol, Pelosi down a notch in the process.
Of course, it appears Calif. is a lost cause, bucking the trend of common sense found elsewhere across the U.S. Congrats on you state incumbent victories---I'm sure you're looking forward to a few more years of the status quo, or worse. The only thing that can spoil your victory dance is the state filing for bankruptcy, invalidating all those lucrative union contracts and undercutting funding for your favorite social engineering projects.
You all must be so proud of what you've accomplished.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 30, 2010 at 1:14 pm
This was not a republican victory at all. The Senate is still in democratic hands, and the tea party backed candidates who won did so because the democrat alternative was not good and the state was fairly conservative (Kentucky, for instance, where Ron Paul's son won).
Given how Obama is viewed negatively, the republicans should have been able to take over both the senate and the house like in 1994 but did not do so (then again, in 1994 we did not have the tea party extremes involved)
Ask yourself this: if the tea party movement is so strong:
1) why didn't O'Donnell win in Delaware? Could it be because she is just another Palin (unqualified but gets the base to follow her, for reasons difficult for the rest of us to understand)?
2) why didn't Miller win in Alaska? He was backed by the tea party and Palin but lost to the write-in candidate.
3) why did Sharron Angle fail to win against unpopular Harry Reid? (I think her extreme views and tea party affiliation had something to do with that)
California was not the only place where republicans lost (Delaware also did not get a GOP person on board), or where the tea party is viewed in not such a good way (Alaska, Palin land, elected a republican but NOT the tea party favorite Miller)
I am not a fan of Obama or Pelosi or McNerney but the alternatives the republicans came up with were simply awful. Now in 2012, I hear Palin will run? Does the tea party really want an Obama second term? I sure hope not, because as an independent and not loyal to one particular party, I am hoping I can vote for the republican presidential candidate, but if that candidate is Palin or some other extreme like Huckabee, forget it: I will have to vote for Obama, or better say: against the extreme right wing.
Please understand something: The "base" of the GOP will always vote republican no matter what, so there is no need to "get their vote" with clowns like Palin, Harmer, O'Donnell. However, independents like me will never vote for such candidates.
You need more than the votes of the "base" to win an election.
Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Nov 30, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Resident-you effective discounted the entire Republican takeover for the same reason the Dems didn't win Kentucky. When there are hundreds of posts up for grabs, did you really expect victory to be defined by nothing less than a clean sweep?
You may be the only one with that expectation, but good for you for thinking the Dems were that vulnerable.
If you think the good folks that lost in Alaska, Delaware, etc. were clowns, I can only imagine that flattering labels you would attach to such fine upstanding politicians as Chuckie Rangel, Chuckie Schumer, Maxine Waters, Babs Boxer, etc. God help us if that's the kind of representation we deserve..............
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Nov 30, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Barbara Boxer is not a good representative, but she is definitely better than Fiorina. Did you know that Fiorina said that, given the opportunity, she would vote to undo Roe v. Wade? I am sure that as a guy, you don't care much about women's rights, but....
And what Fiorina did at HP says it all. I am glad we do not have Fiorina in Washington (didn't she defend Palin in 2008?) Come on, no matter how conservative you are, you have to admit that Palin is a joke! (and a quitter too, she can't even claim as qualification her governorship since she quit half way!)
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 1, 2010 at 8:23 am
"When there are hundreds of posts up for grabs, did you really expect victory to be defined by nothing less than a clean sweep?"
Yes, I think that if the GOP had put good candidates out there, we would have seen something similar to what happened in 1994. The tea party, imo, hurt the republicans' chance to succeed in an election where democrats were very unpopular.
Enough about that, though. It is official: McNerney won, and I am happy we do not have Harmer in Washington.
Posted by Independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 1, 2010 at 11:21 am
I have to agree with Resident. I too am independent and would have voted Republican for governor, senator, and representative if GOP had better candidates. What Repbulicans need are middle of the road, middle class candidates that aren't rich business people or career politicians and radically right.
Posted by Chet, a resident of San Ramon, on Dec 1, 2010 at 10:51 pm
We are thrilled to have Jerry McNerney elected again to represent us in Washington D.C. We sure hope he can keep some of the GOP wingnuts in check for the next 2 years. Thank goodness we had such a nice clean sweep in this election in the Tri-valley and Walnut Creek area. Congratulations are in order for the smartness of the voters.