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.

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.

Im ready to "move forward" by making a "change". I have tremendous respect for Jerry. It is time to see if Pleasanton can actually be a forward thinking community. Jerry, you have my vote .

I agree! Jerry you have my vote, too!

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

D.W.=another bitter union thug loser. Tell us again how unions are not selfish and are looking out for the good of all voters, not just their fellow union thug members.
Hilarious....don't you have picket line to stand in at Raleys tonight, scaring old ladies into not shopping there? Yes, you're quite the humanitarian........

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.

I am on the fence on 39, can someone tell me why it is a bad prop?
I am about to go vote, so please give me your input asap.

So far, I plan to vote yes on 32, 35, 36 but I am on the fence on 39.

I plan to vote no on everything else except measure I (which gets my yes vote).

I am undecided on 39.

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.

Thanks Jay, I voted already, followed your advice on 39 and voted NO.

You are right, education should be a priority over green energy projects.

There is a 4th candidate for city council according to my ballot: Mike Harris. I'm curious why he wasn't he even mentioned?

Sam,

How long have you had your mental disorder? Have you sought professional help?

Brian

Mike Harris dropped out - too late for ballots to be updated:

Web Link