Home > Uncategorized > The March to November 7th

The March to November 7th

We’re starting to ease into our political coverage and we’ll be heavy on candidates and issues during October. I’ll try my best to use this blog to highlight upcoming shows so you don’t miss the good stuff. We’ll also run regular open lines to give you a chance to comment on anything related to local, state and national elections.

Here are some shows already scheduled:

Monday, October 2 (4:05 to 5) Ellen Bearud, candidate for Atascadero City Council

Tuesday, October 3 (4:05 to 5) Mike Brennler, candidate for Atascadero City Council

Wednesday, October 4 (4:05 to 5) Andrew Carter, candidate for SLO City Council

Thursday, October 5 (4:35 to 6) Dave Romero, running for re-election as mayor of SLO

Monday, October 9 (3:05 to 4) Sam Blakeslee, running for re-election for state assembly

Wednesday, October 11 (5:05 to 7) Supervisor debate between Rodger Anderson and Bruce Gibson

Thursday, October 12 (3:30 to 4:30) Robert Cuthbert, Democrat for state assembly

Thursday, October 12 (4:35 to 6) John Ewan, candidate for mayor of SLO

Friday, October 13 (4:35 to 6) Christine Mulholland, candidate for mayor of SLO

Thursday, October 19 (6:05 to 7) Sharon Berry, Democraqt for Congress (AG/N. County)

Tune in, call in and be sure to vote!

Advertisements
  1. JerryDinAZ
    September 22, 2006 at 2:18 pm

    I AM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!
    HERE IS MY PLATFORM.
    ·Cut Aid to Arabs in West Bank and Gaza
    ·Send troops to borders North and South and Insist Canada participate (Don’t want Mexico)
    ·Surgical Strikes on Iran’s Leadership
    ·Resolve to indict the ACLU as a criminal and subversive organization
    ·Profile passengers at Airports and and other public transporation areas
    ·Infiltrate Mosques and deport radicals
    ·Freeze Government hiring and institute a 10% pay reduction on all Federal Civilian personnel
    ·Eliminate existing Congressional Pension Plan & substitute Social Security Plan for the Politicians
    ·Eliminate the Agriculture Dept.
    ·Eliminate the Dept. of Education
    ·Create a Flat Tax
    ·Create Social Security Private Accounts
    ·Withdraw from UN, and kick the un out of the US
    ·Establish Term Limits for the Senate/House (this includes staffs)
    .Eliminate political nepotism
    ·Provide million dollar life insurance policies for Servicemen killed in combat
    ·Enforce the ban on political donations from the NEA and other similar radical Organizations
    ·Create a Congressional White Caucus if the Black Congressional Caucus stays in existence
    ·Eliminate all federal funding for Organizations that utilize affirmative action
    ·Eliminate Tenure Status at Federally Financed Education Facilities
    ·Insist that the losing side in Law Cases pay all court costs and winning side legal fees
    ·Eliminate contingent legal fees
    ·Must have picture ID to vote and use purple ink like Iraq
    ·Force illegals to register and get a work permit. Pay taxes or face deportation
    ·If Indians want all those computer jobs – they must move to USA to take them
    ·Drill for Oil in Anwar and off Florida coast. Expand exploration. Build more oil refineries
    ·Heavy funding for alternative energy sources reseach
    ·Enact a Balanced Budget Amendment

    VOTE SMART…YOU MAY NOT GET ANOTHER CHANCE

  2. Rich from Paso
    September 22, 2006 at 5:48 pm

    Jerry,

    Things I think need fleshing out:
    10% flat tax, 10% national sales tax and a repeal of all other individual taxation

    The government hiring freeze should be in all areas except the military. Furthermore, we need a 1 year budgetary freeze, to include emergency spending bills, except in cases like natural disasters.

    Term limits: Not more than two terms for Senator and 6 2-year terms for Congressmen. Additionally, all congressional races will be taxpayer funded. Senators get $3 mil and Congressmen get $2 mil. The Presidential candidates get $5 million. All forms of individual, corporate and special interest campaign donations are forbidden. You want to contribute? Pay your taxes.

    Things I disagree with:

    Eliminate the Agriculture Dept – Don’t understand that one; you’ll have to explain

    ·Eliminate all federal funding for Organizations that utilize affirmative action – Are you aware that the US military uses Affirmative Action? Are you going to eliminate the military’s funding?

    Create a Congressional White Caucus if the Black Congressional Caucus stays in existence – Why do you even care about that? These guys are generally a joke.

    Insist that the losing side in Law Cases pay all court costs and winning side legal fees – If you don’t do anything about the inequity of representation, then the poor and middle class will never sue because they can’t retain the Johnny Cochrans and Mark Shapiros that the rich can. If a poor person loses a just case due to poor representation, then you are doubling the injustice done to them. I am in favor of a civil grand jury to decide if a lawsuit has prima facia (i.e. on the face of it) standing to go forward. This means that a reasonable person’s common sense tells them that there is a case that needs to go forward. This would reduce the number of frivolous law suits.

    Resolve to indict the ACLU as a criminal and subversive organization – The ACLU isn’t known as the Atheist, Criminals and Letchers Union already for nothing.

    Anyhow, nice start and it is something to work with. I am interested to hear from Bob on what he thinks. Honestly, I think that if Bob and I sat down we could hammer out a deal that would create positive and bipartisan change. What do you think, Bob?

  3. JerryDinAZ
    September 22, 2006 at 6:20 pm

    OK…IT’S A DONE DEAL! RICH IS MY CHOICE FOR VICE PRESIDENT.
    WOW! WHAT A TICKET! EXCEPT FOR THE BJ’s IN THE OVAL OFFICE WITH A GOVT EMPLOYEE…WE MAY BE AS POPULAR AS CLINTON! ( THE MALE ONE)

  4. Rich from Paso
    September 22, 2006 at 7:34 pm

    (In a Kerry sing-song voice) I gladly accept the nomination as Vice President of the United States. If you have any problems with President Jerry, come see me and we can work them out.

    Notice I have gone back to lower case? My voice was getting hoarse from all of the shouting. I am a kinder, gentler Rich from Paso.

  5. Anonymous
    September 22, 2006 at 8:17 pm

    Jerry

    You and the rest of the third reich, er, excuse me, neocons could never in your wildest dreams be as popular as Bill Clinton. And Jerry, you seem to be really hung up on oral sex – about 90% of your last postings mention them. Whats the matter, haven’t given one in a while?

  6. Rich from Paso
    September 22, 2006 at 8:40 pm

    Oooohhh!! Why you so mean?

  7. Rich from Paso
    September 22, 2006 at 9:10 pm

    And what is with some liberals who have almost a pathological need to label, slander and smear? Nazi references? Neocon? Receiving BJs? Is that even necessary? To top it off, you are the type of people that are the first to cry foul when you feel that a “neocon” has smeared or slandered you or someone you support. Say, why don’t you complete the trifecta and say “shit” and “fuck” every other word? You are just as profane. Do you even know what a neocon is or what a nazi is? Please try to refrain from defining by example (i.e. “you are” type of response). For the record, there is nothing new about my conservatism. I was a Reagan Republican and have been conservative since the 3rd grade, so I have been a proud, staunch conservative forever as far as I’m concerned. I feel that I am more “centrist” than anything else.

    Additionally, people who are in public office to be popular are chumps and dangerous to America. The hard, unpopular right thing to do is more valuable to our way of life than the easy, pandering, popular wrong thing to do. I would never seek to be as popular as Clinton, because Clinton had to do nothing, policy wise, to offend the vast majorities of Americans to get that popularity.

    In the future, why don’t you show a little backbone and put a name to your diatribes if you wish to be taken seriously.

  8. JerryDinAZ
    September 23, 2006 at 5:16 am

    CLINTON WAS A LITTLE SUCESSFUL (IF YOU CAN CALL IT THAT) BECAUSE FOR 6 YEARS ALL HE DID WAS PASS REPUBLICAN LEGISLATION…LOOK IT UP! DO YOUR HOMEWORK ON YOUR HEROS…WE DO!

  9. Dave Congalton
    September 23, 2006 at 7:41 am

    Nice try, Jerry, but 50 years from now — hell, FIVE years from now, Bush 41 and Bush 43 combined will never be the President that Clinton was. Even when he was distracted in the Oval Office, he was still giving us a great economy and doing more to protect us from terrorists than 43 could.

    By the way, Rich, how come W. never went after the terrorists who blew up the Cole? Why did Bush ignore the issue of terrorism altogether prior to 9-11?

    Hell, even Jerry could do a better job than that!

  10. JerryDinAZ
    September 23, 2006 at 3:15 pm

    Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 20-21, 1999. N=904 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample)

    “Do you think history will remember President Clinton as a highly respected leader or as a president under the cloud of constant scandals?”

    Respected Leader: 20%
    Under a cloud: 68%

    hmmm great way to be remebered eh? Will it change? Not while the slime ball is alive…Death may improve his ratings some…
    next?

  11. Rich from Paso
    September 23, 2006 at 5:13 pm

    Let me clarify something for you Dave: Bush did get the bombers of the USS Cole. They are part of the 14 that were kept in the CIA prison system. That group also includes an operative responsible for the African embassy bombings. Clinton failed to even try to get those guys prefering instead to blow up a Sudanese asprin factory. He could have had bin Laden if he had any testicles. And where is your outrage over Clinton turning a blind eye to the corporate corruption that occured during his watch? Clinton’s justice department prefered instead to play truant cop for Castro and kill American extremist’s wives and children at home. Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphia and others were allowed to run wild during Clinton’s laissez-faire “tech boom” days of the late 90’s. I know your response is that they were truied under Bush’s watch so it’s his problem. Just like 9-11, Bush is just cleaning up Clinton’s neglect. Clinton is going on Fox News Sunday and try to convince the world that he actually tried to do something about terrorism. He neds to do this because his legacy depends on all of us forgeting about stained dresses, bin Laden coming to prominence during his watch, ClintonCare and his other fiascos. Well, the proof is in the pudding: where Clinton ‘tried”, Bush is succeeding.

  12. the voice of reason
    September 23, 2006 at 5:14 pm

    Rich
    I wasn’t trying to smear you – I actually like and respect your opinions. Jerry is just so over the top that he needs to be taken down a notch. He is the one constantly referring to oral sex, not me. You’re right (far right, actually :)I will post with a name from now on

    Jerry – nice citation. Unfortunately, it was incomplete. here’s a link:

    http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm

    read ALL the polls, not just the ones by FAUX news

  13. Rich from Paso
    September 23, 2006 at 5:42 pm

    I know you were talking about Jerry, but my point remains the same. I appreciate people’s points of view with out all of the Nazi this or Hitler that or any of the other vile slurs that people place on the other side. I’m just seeing more from the Liberal side than I ever heard from the right.

    As for me bieng far right: I’m only far right because you may be far left. I’m a centrist, actually, which makes me far right from your vantage point. 🙂

  14. Rich from Paso
    September 23, 2006 at 8:47 pm

    Any time all you liberals are ready to throw George Bush some credit for lowering gas prices after you blamed him raising them, I’m all ears.

  15. Dave Congalton
    September 23, 2006 at 10:16 pm

    Jerry,

    Citing a FOX NEWS poll from 1999 means nothing.

    I’m talking about the long term historical view. Clinton will be remembered and rated high than either Bush.

    Rich, answer Clinton’s specific challenge. Please detail all Bush anti-terrorism activites from January to September 2001. Not his CIA or the FBI, but specific policies of the Bush administration. I suspect it will be a very short list.

    Bush administration CUT money from anti-terrorism activities in the first 9 months. Asleep at the wheel.
    Snoring.

  16. Rich from Paso
    September 23, 2006 at 10:33 pm

    Okay, Dave, there you go again making 8 months equal to 8 years. If Bush was asleep during his eight months, then Clinton was comatose. The first 2 months of Clinton’s administration saw the 93 WTC bombing. Sure he got the guys that rented the truck, but who paid for the truck and the explosives and the living expenses in the United States for the terrorists? We’ll never know. Clinton could have fought the War on Terror on his watch and I would be first in line to go “Yeah, that’s my president! You go boy!” But alas, he didn’t. He didn’t address terrorism during his presidency. George Talent and Sandy Berger both stated that Clinton ignored them when it opportunities came to kill bin Laden. The administration didn’ want to kill bin Laden fotr fear of derailing the Istaeli-palestinian talks. And what a great job he did there. Israel and a free Palestine living in peace side by side. Oh that’s right. Not even Clinton could convince Ehud Barak to give away Israel for peace. Great legacy. So why, if Clinton was such a great terrorism fighter, did he leave it up to Bush to bring the embassy bombers to justice? And why if he was so efficient at fightign those terrorists didn’t he set in motion the operations to bring them to justice? And the Khobar Towers bombers? What of them? Clinton is a chump when it comes to fighting terrorists and he is desparate for all of us to think that Bush and Clinton had equal opportunities to stop 9-11 when Clinton was in office for 8 full years, (that means he had 2920 days to stop terrorism) whereas Bush had 270 days or less than 10% of Clinton’s time. I’ll answer you specifically on what Bush did in those 270 days in a bit. I will also compare that with what Clinton did his first five years in office so that we have a truely accurate comparison.

  17. the voice of reason
    September 23, 2006 at 10:35 pm

    hmmm – gas prices dropping right before a critical midterm election. I’ll give him all the credit he deserves.

  18. the voice of reason
    September 23, 2006 at 10:41 pm

    Rich
    all you need to do is read Clarks book Against All Enemies. He seems to spell it all out very clear. Seems pretty credible too. Oh, but
    I’m sure you’ll have some kind of reason not to believe someone who was actually there fighting terrorism. You obviously know more than him.

  19. JerryDinAZ
    September 24, 2006 at 4:46 am

    WAIT! I FORGOT…WAS CLINTON IMPEACHED? COULDN’T HAVE BEEN IF WAS SO GREAT…RIGHT?

  20. Bob from San Luis
    September 24, 2006 at 6:04 am

    JerryD: Yes, Clinton was impeached; as for him being “great”, how would you measure that? Approval ratings in polls, maybe- look at this and tell me how “great” President Bush is, when viewed by his approval ratings, he can’t even muster more than HALF of the polling numbers Clinton did, right after his impeachment hearings! Look, I don’t think Clinton was “great”; he did embrace many Republican plans and put his stamp on them and got them passed (NAFTA, Media Deregulation to name two) and I don’t think anyone who is a “centrist” could ever call Bill Clinton a “liberal” or a “progressive”, but damn, at least he could muster up an occasional veto, and he had the testicles to actually fire some of his people. How many people has Bush fired? How many vetoes in how many years has he issued? It will be interesting to see how history judges both Clinton and Bush 43, but, just as it is important to be in control of counting the votes, it is advantageous to the one to write the history. One little “snag” on writing the history of George W. Bush’s presidency will be either going ahead without all of the information that this administration has “classified”, or waiting until it can be declassified by future historians, so a true accounting of all of the secrets this administration can be unsealed.

  21. JerryDinAZ
    September 24, 2006 at 7:32 pm

    NEWSFLASH! WASHINGTON DC
    PSYCHICS IN SANTA CRUZ CALIFORNIA SAY THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT AND WORLD LIBERATOR IN HISTORY…DEMOCRATIC SENATORS TRY TO FORCE THROUGH A BILL THAT WILL MAKE FORETELLING THE FUTURE A CRIME OF TREASON. THE ACLU HAS BEEN HIRED BY THE PSYCHICS

  22. the voice of reason
    September 25, 2006 at 1:12 am

    Jerry
    Your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent(even for you!!. At least try spell checking and grammar checking what you post. That last post didn’t even make any sense.

  23. Dave Congalton
    September 25, 2006 at 3:04 am

    I don’t understand how Republicans can be so delighted that Bush’s approval ratings are now at 44%.

    44%?????????

    Can’t we set the bar a little higher, people? After all, this is the President of the United States we’re talking about.

  24. JerryDinAZ
    September 25, 2006 at 3:48 am

    SURE VOICE OF REASON (NOT!) I CAN DUMB IT DOWN FER YA! I DO IT FOR DEMOCANTS ALL THE TIME.

  25. Rich from Paso
    September 25, 2006 at 5:11 am

    Is that how you define a successful leader, Bob, by the number of people they fire? Clinton could fire everyone in his cabinet three times over and it wouldn’t make him a good leader.

  26. Bob from San Luis
    September 26, 2006 at 5:59 am

    lseRich: So by your standards, Bush can fire no one and that makes him a better President? Maybe you want to measure an administration by the volume of legislation passed? By that measure the Bush administration should be far ahead with a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress, every single proposed bill should have been passed. Perhaps you want to judge a successful presidency by the number of other countries that willingly follow our lead? Countries that believe we will do the right thing? Or do we want other countries to believe that we will “take” ( like in Italy ) anyone we wish, spirit them away to some secret prison, not charge them with a crime, torture them if we feel like it and then let them go without so much as an apology for getting it wrong when it is finally determined that we got the wrong person, or the person we took didn’t have any connection to what we thought they had done? Maybe we can judge how successful future presidencies are by the sheer number of people who have been tortured during a particular administration.

  27. Brett
    September 27, 2006 at 2:22 am

    HMMM, LET’S SEE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WERE BROUGHT AGAINST CLINTON FOR LYING UNDER OATH IN A CIVIL MATTER THAT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK EVIDENCE AND WAS LATER SETTLED BEFORE BEING HEARD ON APPEAL. http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

    AND LET’S CONTRAST THAT WITH CURRENT PRESIDENT BUSH WHO ALONG WITH HIS ADMINISTRATION LIED TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THE THREAT IRAQ POSED TO THE UNITED STATES AND ORDERED THE UNITED STATES MILITARY TO ATTACK A SOVEREIGN NATION.

    HMMMM. THOSE ACTS ARE CERTAINLY OF AT LEAST EQUAL VALUE. SO JERRY WHEN DO YOU GO TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND START DEMANDING IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT.

    I’M WAITING JERRY. OR ARE YOU, AMONG OTHER THINGS, JUST YOUR TYPICAL HYPOCRITE.

  28. Rich from Paso
    September 27, 2006 at 2:28 am

    I was wondeing how long it would be before you brought up the “torture” red herring. And, lo and behold, you provided the answer.

  29. JerryDinAZ
    September 27, 2006 at 3:25 am

    WELL AT LEAST BRENT HAS SEEN THE LIGHT OF TYPING IN CAPS…MANY COPY ME. I TAKE IT AS A COMPLIMENT.
    OK…IMPEACHEMENT?
    CLINTON -1
    BUSH -0
    PRESIDENTS IMPEACHED -2
    PRESIDENTS NOT IMPEACHED -42
    HMMMM…SEEMS RIGHT, GIVEN THE FACTS. CUZ…THE SPIN STOPS HERE!

  30. Bob from San Luis
    September 29, 2006 at 8:10 am

    JerryD: You are aware that an impeachment is simply and indictment, right? The impeachment is brought by the House of Representatives, and then moves to the Senate for a trial. So what happened to that “trial”? Oh yeah, he was acquitted. That means not guilty.

  31. Rich from Paso
    September 29, 2006 at 3:17 pm

    Doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, just means he wasn’t convicted of it.

  32. Bob from San Luis
    September 30, 2006 at 4:05 am

    Rich: Or, perhaps, the evidence wasn’t compelling enough to warrent any further action? Perhaps the Senate had the wisdom to determine that no action in this case was the best course of action? Maybe cooler heads prevailed and the gravity of their actions called on them to do the right thing.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: