Posted by Janet, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 4, 2012 at 9:06 am
Pete Stark has been ranked as one of the 10 worst members of Congress. He is so bad that his own Democrat party rejected him for a powerful commitee charmanship. They were afraid that Stark would profoundly embarass the Democrats. It is with that background that we see Stark endorsed by "The Amateur" President Obama and our own Hippy Mayor. Of course, we know why the Hippy Mayor endorsed Stark. She wants his seat when he finally recognizes he is senile, or he croaks, whichever occurs first. If Swalwell gets in, she would be locked out. That alone is reason enough to vote for Swalwell.
Posted by Warren, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 4, 2012 at 11:27 am
The only logic I've hear about voting to return Pete Stark to congess goes something like this...
"Sure Pete is old and seems to have lost it, but if you'll just vote for him one more time, then the party insiders will give you a good candidate next time, or when Pete finally decides to retire"
In fact the biggest supporters of Pete in this election seem to be two people who want to run for the office in two years.
One is Hosterman and the other is Ro Khanna.
Sorry you two, but if you wanted the office, then why didn't you face Pete Stark this time.
Remember, 40 years ago, Pete Stark did exactly that, and beat the then 80 year old tired incumbent. He didn't wait until the party insiders said it was OK, and he didn't wait until the incumbent decided he was too cooked to continue.
I for one, won't be deluded by this false "wait until Pete retires" logic. He is no longer capable NOW,, not 2 or 4 years from now.
Posted by Dave, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Jun 4, 2012 at 12:46 pm
It should be required viewing for all voters to see the debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters. If anybody that watched the debate and still could think Pete Stark is qualified to represent us, I hope they are in the minority. His outright untruths, which he was forced to apologize for under threat of a lawsuit, his arrogance and dishonesty were on public display during that debate. Since then, although asked to take part in several debates, has refused to saying he would only consider from "reputable organizations". To imply that organizations as the Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Asian Pacific Islander Public Affairs Association are not reputable only reinforce the fact that Pete Stark is unfit to continue to serve. Both other candidates, Eric Swalwell and Chris Pareja are worthy of consideration for the office. Pete Stark is not.
Posted by Suzanne, a resident of the Las Positas neighborhood, on Jun 4, 2012 at 3:01 pm
I saw the debate Dave referred to and agree that Stark needs to go. I am voting for Chris Pareja. He clearly "won" the debate at the League of Women Voters. With Swalwell we will get more of the same progressive policies. I hope that people will take the time to look at Pareja's positions on his website. I also attended a townhall with Stark where someone asked if there are any restrictions placed on what Congress can do. He answered that Congress can pretty much do anything. I guess he forgot about the Constitution he swore to uphold. Maybe he should read it sometime. As for Jeb Bing's prediction that Swalwell and Stark will be the top two contenders coming out of the primary, maybe he should do some old fashioned investigative journalism to find out what the voters are thinking about the race. But I guess that is passť. However, Bing covers himself when he says "barring a major upset". If Pareja makes it past the primary, Bing can declare a "major upset" or a "big surprise" when he reports that his assumptions proved incorrect.
Posted by Wiliam Tell, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 5, 2012 at 12:56 pm
I think it shows the Bay Area's commitment to "diveristy" that we've had a communist, athiest homosexual (who is now elderly)represent us for so long. Why would we want to put someone in place who would actually do something for our district?