Home > Uncategorized > Here come the candidates, Part 1

Here come the candidates, Part 1

It’s that time of year again. We’re gearing up for election coverage in October and we want to provide as much coverage as possible regarding the local, state, and regional elections.

I’ll post the specifics as they get confirmed by Mardi and me. Here’s what we have so far:

Thursday, September 30 at 5 p.m. — John Shoales and Dave Mullinix discuss Proposition 22.

Friday, October 1 at 5 p.m. — Rosemary Wilvert and Mila LaBarre argue for a “Yes” on Measure H in SLO.

Monday, October 4 at 5 p.m. — Jan Marx, candidate for SLO mayor.

Tuesday, October 5 at 4:30 — Dan Carpenter, San Luis Obispo city council

Tuesday, October 5 at 5 p.m. — Paul Brown, candidate for SLO mayor

Wednesday, October 6 at 4 p.m. — Kathy Smith San Luis Obispo city council

Thursday, October 7 at 4:30 — Andrew Carter, San Luis Obispo city council

Thursday, October 7 at 5 p.m. — Sheriff’s candidate forum (Cortez is confirmed)

Friday, October 8 at 5 p.m. — No on Measure H (San Luis Obispo)

Wednesday, October 13 at 5 p.m. — Tom Watson, Republican for Congress.

Thursday, October 14 at 5 p.m. — Paul Teixiera, candidate for District 4 county supervisor.

Tuesday, October 19 at 5 p.m. — Mike Zimmerman, candidate for District 4 county supervisor.

Tune in! Call in! Be sure to vote!

  1. Russell Hodin
    September 22, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    Let’s get A.G. mayoral candidate Tony Ferrara on the show so he can be grilled about his commitment to the oversight of the operation of the Oceano sewer plant. That’s the job of a Director, isn’t it?

  2. goodhelp
    September 23, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Here’s a standing question for all city/county office holders and candidates:

    Call it “Buy SLO First.”

    What plan do you have to require all government purchases come first from SLO city/county sources, then state, then US and then overseas suppliers? This would cover all (bids) physical equipment, office supplies, computer systems, etc. It would also include all non-tangible services: software, accounting, management, etc.

  3. September 23, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    Can anyone give one reason someone should vote for Ian Parkinson over Joe Cortez for Sheriff?

    There are so many negative things associated with Parkinson, and he judiciously avoids giving straight answers to straight-forward questions, often avoids the media, and refuses to debate Cortez in a real debate. What’s going on?

    Everything tells me Parkinson is little more than a hopeful, ladder-climbing politician, eager to hand out favors to anyone who feeds his political ambitions.

    I don’t know either of the candidates personally, but there are so many red-flags surrounding Parkinson, that I truly cannot see any advantage to voting for him.

    Joe Cortez, on the other hand, has continually been open and straight-forward, not shying away from public scrutiny, answering questions, appearing honest and down-to-earth, with law enforcement credentials that seem to make him an ideal candidate for Sheriff.

    Am I missing something?

  4. voicewr
    September 23, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    Grieve me though it may to agree with you, yes; the CHP…and a surprising number of other folks charged with law enforcement have been recruited as budget warrior-surrogates for Sacramento. You hit the nail on the head. But what can be done to keep us from sliding into a feudal system where each jurisdiction we cross shakes us down for a tariff, a contribution to the ruling lords?

    To start with, most of us are members of the auto club, which employs lobbyists to represent members’ interests in Sacramento. We can contact them and express our concerns that Californians have been subjected to a huge tax hike in the form of doubled fines, and those don’t include the layers of court and administrative fees tacked on to those fines. We can also file administrative complaints against individual officers when they appear to be engaging in selective enforcement clearly intended to enhance revenue. Ask the officer–politely–if your ticket will help alleviate the budget crisis…and if the answer is anything close to yes, take that to court and tell the judge.

    We can also stage informational rallies in parking lots, at special events, and even set up booths next to the CHP at the Mid State Fair. Oh yes, we can also call and write our state legislators.

    The trouble with democracy, is that the eternal vigilance required to keep the tyrants at bay takes time and effort…the apathetic need not apply. But the price of doing nothing can be a great deal more inconvenient.

  5. philochs
    October 1, 2010 at 1:03 am

    Jeff Bliss needs a new schtick oher than being a GOP apologist. Embarassing defense of Whitman’s faux pax regarding her maid today.

  6. chrisinpaso
    October 1, 2010 at 3:31 am

    The October surprise comes a couple of days early. So far we have a theatrical appearance by Gloria Allred (you may remember that she tried to blindside Arnold Schwarzenegger with allegations of sexual assaults shortly before an election). Ms. Allred supposedly even has a “smoking gun” in the form of a letter from the Social Security. You can find it at http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_16217161?source=rss .

    If anyone who is now willing to damn Meg Whitman takes the time to read the letter, they will find that it is harmless and that her husband did the only thing he could do with the letter. The letter is the typical form letter sent out if there is a problem in processing social security data. The letter states on the first page various reasons for a problem. Among which are: “Name changes”

    Dr, Harsh, Meg Whitman’s husband, apparently passed the letter on to the housekeeper and asked her to clear things up.

    What else should he have done. Read the 3rd paragraph of the letter:

    “This letter does not imply that you or your employee intentionally provided incorrect information about the employee’s name or SSN. It is not a basis, in and of itself, for you to take any adverse action against the employee, such as laying off, suspending, firing, or discriminating against the individual. Any employer that uses the information in this letter to justify taking adverse action against an employee may violate state or federal law and be subject to legal consequences. Moreover, this letter makes no statement about your employee’s immigration status.”

    In fact, the letter indicates that Dr. Harsh, Meg Whitman’s husband, followed the instruction nos. 1 and 2 on the second page of the letter:

    “1. Compare the information shown above [on page 1] to your employment records.

    2. If the records match, ask the employee to give you the name and Social Security number exactly as it appears on the employee’s Social Security card. (While the employee must furnish the SSN to you, the employee is not required to show you the Social Security card. But, seeing the car will help ensure that all records are correct.)”

    Now look at the hand written entries on the second page of the letter above the instructions. You see that the entered last name in block 4 is “Diaz”, although the name on page 1 of the letter, i.e. the name on record at the Social Security Administration is “Santillan”.

    Unless the Social Security Administration pursued the case further, the entry of the name “Diaz” seems to have satisfied the Social Security Administration. We don’t (yet) know what followed. The matter was likely resolved, or there would have been subsequent letters. If there are any, so far Ms. Allred has not seen fit to release them.

    According to press reports I have heard today, it seems that according to both sides, Meg Whitman fired the housekeeper when the housekeeper informed Ms. Whitman in June that she was an illegal alien. There is no indication that Ms. Whitman had any reason to suspect otherwise beforehand. If Ms. Allred had anything better than the 2003 letter, she probably would have used it by this time. In any event, the letter from the Social Security Administration with the handwritten note is worthless as evidence of any wrongdoing by Meg Whitman or her husband.

    It will definitely be interesting to see how the story develops. So far it seems that the real scandal is that Ms. Allred, who is known to have good contact with Jerry Brown and is a leading figure in Democratic politics in L.A., was trying to blindside the Meg Whitman campaign and play the California voters for fools.

    We have serious issues in this State, and such a sleazy stunt by Ms. Allred, which we can presume was coordinated with people close to the Brown campaign, only distracts attention from the mess this State is in. The voters will hopefully know how to honor the Democrats for thinking the voters to be such sheep.

  7. californiawiseguy
    October 1, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    Meg Whitman gets caught with her pants down in public and leave it to Chris in Paso to get all phony indignant and act like this is a Jerry Brown problem. I don’t have much use for Gloria Allred, but it’s absurd to suggest that Jerry Brown should be responsible for her actions.

    If Chris wants to play his two-bit lawyer act again, why doesn’t he make sure Whitman takes the polygraph test as she said she would? Chris, how about you put on a cheap, shiny suit and start pounding a table and demanding that Whitman take the test.

    Does ANYONE think Whitman will stand by her word and do the polygraph test? I’d say that its about a thousand to one odds against her taking the test.

    Look at Whitman’s record. It’s all about kissing up and trying to be part of the Billionaire Boy’s club. Look at her record at Ebay, changing the rules to favor the biggest companies at the expense of the the small fry business people who pioneered eBay. She got on a train that was running, rode it until she had milked it for every cent she could squeeze out of it, and then, right when ebay stock was about to drop precipitously (where it has stayed) she got out, pocketing her millions upon millions.

    Meg Whitman is a phony, shilling for the same line of crooks that gave us George Bush and Dick Cheney.

    Jerry Brown is about as real as it gets–no bait and switch there.

    • chrisinpaso
      October 2, 2010 at 4:34 am

      Californiawiseguy: As usual, you have nothing of substance to say. Go read the SSA letter of 2003. Then come back and counter my points.

      But no, you can’t be bothered by the facts or, for that matter, the law. By-the-way, do you have a J.D.? How many years have you practiced law? I rather doubt that your professional qualifications come close to mine (two law degrees from top universities in this country and Germany, roughly 25 years of practicing international commercial law).

      After a couple of years of reading your contributions, I have yet to find anything of substance in them. Your rantings are typical for the radical left. No facts. No logic. Just emotional venting, and a complete inability to deal with reality. Based on past experience with others showing the same symptoms, the reason for your hostility can be most likely be found in a great feeling of frustration in life. It’s ever so much easier to blame the “fat cats”, i.e. successful people for one’s own failings than to look in the mirror. Simply stated, Sir, your arguments are founded only in the base emotion of envy.

      • californiawiseguy
        October 2, 2010 at 6:08 am

        Chris, there you go again, trying in vain to impress us with irrelevant legal “credentials” that are worth next to nothing in this context.

        Unfortunately for you, wisdom and common sense, grace and morality are not things that you can purchase at a law school.

        And in case you haven’t noticed, we are not holding legal proceedings here. Nor have you offered any legal information that one couldn’t find in a simple internet search.

        In case you haven’t grasped it yet, being a good lawyer involves more than just repeating information from a legal text book. But as you know, there are and will likely always be people who will pay good money to bad lawyers.

        As far as what you’ve posted on this forum, all I see is complete foolishness, fear and insecurity and a penchant for promoting violence. Your godless advocacy for physically torturing people is only one piece of “evidence” to support my “case”.

        And explain to me why you blame Jerry Brown for the mess Meg Whitman is in? Or, if you would rather I use a “legal” term, please provide us the “evidence” to support your accusations against Jerry Brown.

        Furthermore, why in heck would you read my contributions for “a couple of years” if you never found “anything of substance in them”? Perhaps you simply found them entertaining?

        By the way, can you give me one reason why I would “envy” you? Do you have any “evidence” that I “envy” you or any “fat cats”?

        Your assumptions about my motivations are simply more foolishness on your part. Perhaps it might be because YOU worship money (and don’t have faith in God) that you can’t imagine someone not being in “envy” of Meg Whitman.

        I admire people for their honesty and service, not their money and selfishness.

        Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman are both well off financially. I have no envy toward Whitman, but I do have admiration for Jerry Brown.

        You accuse me of not providing you with “anything of substance” in my statements on this forum. I think you take that view because you personally do not place much value on morality and spirituality.

        But let’s turn the table for a moment. How about YOU tell us what, if anything, of “substance” you have accomplished with your postings on this forum.

        Sure, you lay out some facts once in a while, but nothing much more than anyone with an internet browser can come up with.

  8. marilyninslo
    October 2, 2010 at 7:31 am


    I will try to call during one of the segments if I am not working, but there is one topic that you may consider bringing up during the interviews with some of the candidates.

    As you know, SLO still ranks as the third most expensive city to live in based on median income and median home prices. I talk to young people who were born, raised, and educated in this county and they are feeling very frustrated that they are not able to find jobs, let alone have the opportunity to buy or rent a home. Many still live with their parents or in groups. The tourism and wine industries are bringing a lot of money in. So are the college students who come from out of the area. Where exactly is that money going? I know there has been a lot of effort placed on developing commercial real estate, including the future project downtown. It seems those projects are benefiting mostly larger businesses who hire locals for cheap or minimum wages. I met a young woman a few months ago who had graduated with a degree in architecture but was unable to find work, so she was working at one of the downtown restaurants. It seems unfair that in a county so affluent and so bursting at the seams with tourist money that such industries will not pay a bit more money to their employees and will not contribute to the betterment of the quality of life of the residents.

    The question is: are the candidates trying to work on ways to create affordable housing for locals and create a more livable environment for SLO residents? We need to build more houses and small businesses versus the mega businesses that are everywhere now. Can we explore the concept of community in our county where architecture and neighborhood structure is such that they encourage sustainability and community living. There remains a rift between the locals and the “visitors,” and I can sense a lot of resentment building among the young locals. Those visions will take a long time to implement but we have to start somewhere and build for our children and their children.

    Maybe that is not even an item on the agenda, but maybe it should be?

  9. October 5, 2010 at 4:28 am

    Here’s a long-time political columnist, often sympathetic to “conservatives”, clearly explaining why voters should NOT trust Meg Whitman to be honest or capable as California governor:


    Even hardcore Republicans should now be able to see that Meg Whitman is a phony and has no business being top political leader of our state. She is dishonest and has no political experience and, of course, is now an infamous hypocrite who shows no shame.

    Anyone who would dare think of voting for Whitman MUST read that column.

  10. October 6, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    More solid evidence of Meg Whitman’s hypocrisy and dishonesty and clues that she is eager to be a tool for the Wall Street and military industrial complex business interests that want to continue ripping off the common citizens as they continue their campaign of death and destruction throughout the world:


  11. chrisinpaso
    October 6, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    californiawiseguy: What’s your explanation for the fact that AT&T gave money to both the Whitman campaign as well as the Brown campaign? The donations show that Bown has heavy support from the Hollywood, the land of make-believe, while Whitman oviously has a great deal of support from the business community.

    Your rant about big business again demonstrates ignorance about economics. Why don’t you try getting by for a month without using any products of big business? You can start by shutting off your electricity. Eat only what you grow. Stop driving. And, of course, don’t use any medications or medical services. Of course, if you are employed at a corporation, you can take a month off.

    The California economy is in terrible condition. It will only get better if entrepreneurs, both big and small, decide that California is a good place to invest. The business environment in this state is burdened with high taxes and excess regulation. Our great weather does not offset that.

    For others who might read this string: The decision between Broan and Whitman is really quite simple. Who has a better chance of making this state a good place to do business? Jerry Brown and his radical leftist buddies such as Allred or Van Der Hout (the radical immigration lawyer representing Nicky Diaz who also acted on behalf of Lynne Stewart, the lawyer conviceted helping funnel messages on behalf of the terrorist blind sheik), or Meg Whitman?

  12. October 6, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    Chris, the difference between you and me is that I HAVE gone a month without electricity, not driving, with no medications or medical services, and eating what I’ve grown during that time. And you know what? I enjoyed it!

    And maybe that’s why I’m not a frightened, insecure fear-monger who is constantly reaching out for Corporate Tit, whining and crying the whole time. I realize that the corporate tit you suck on is dried out and poisoned, rotting your body and your mind. It’s polluted, tainted, and stale.

    It’s time for American’s to realize their own strengths and abilities.

    Meg Whitman doesn’t know anything about politics and will get her butt kicked in Sacramento just like Arnold, another Republican who thought all the world can be run according to a corporate/fascist paradigm where the rich keep getting richer at the direct expense of those most in need.

    Meg Whitman takes credit for successes at eBay. What B.S.! She got on a train that was already successful with a trajectory that was assured way before Whitman got on board. What Whitman did to eBay was ruin it in the long run, by changing rules at eBay to benefit corporations selling stuff there, at the expense of the smaller business people who built the brand. She sold out the little guy as much as she possibly could, tarnished the brand, cashed out, and got out, just before the stock value dropped by half. She pulled her same phony “Meg is your friend” schtick that she is pulling now in her quest to be President of the United States. (Everyone can see she views this “governorship” as nothing but a stepping stone.)

    Meg Whitman will sell her grandmother to the Taliban if it means her getting a good shot at becoming President.

    She is being promoted by interests that are intent on ripping off every taxpayer cent they can in California in the next four years and then turning the Governorship over to a Democrat who will b e blamed when he/she discovers there is absolutely NOTHING left.

    What I can’t figure out about Chris is whether he is so foolish to actually not see what a phony Whitman is, or Chris understands things and is either being paid or otherwise gaining personal benefit for being an outspoken apologist for corporate criminals and fascist political causes.

    I can certainly imagine that guys like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney could find it cost-effective to encourage two-bit, angry, down-on-his-luck military-brainwashed (I lawyers to shill for them in small communities throughout the nation.

    Read Joseph Conrad’s novella “The Secret Agent” and you will realize my idea is not at all far-fetched.

    As far as I can tell, Chris in Paso has been remarkably consistent in promoting every fascist cause that crops up in the mainstream.

    Could Chris In Paso literally be some sort of modern Manchurian Candidate, set to go off on his fascist apologetics when he hears certain words like liberal, peace, compassion and God? Chris spent considerable time in the military and it is a FACT that the military conducted mind-control experiments on U.S. soldiers during the decade that Chris served.

    In any case, only fools and fascists will support Meg Whitman.

    I’m voting for one of the nations most honest, straight-forward and skilled politicians who says what he means and means what he says, over and over again: Jerry Brown.

    Jerry Brown for Governor!

  13. October 6, 2010 at 7:11 pm

    It is California’s environmental regulations that have preserved the health and lives of millions of people and created an business climate that continues to grow business as well as attract them from other states.

    What we are seeing is that the regulations in California are repelling the most problematic and troublesome businesses, while at the same time attracting some of the very best and most progressive and those that will likely grow and thrive in the coming years.

    California attracts progressive thinkers, bright people who realize that they love California and don’t want to foul this nest, even if it means paying a little something to keep it clean and healthy. People want to live in California. People throughout the world want to live in California. Why? Progressive ideas and a reputation for having a good, healthy environment and respect for nature. That is a HUGE asset, but one that is difficult for any one corporation to monopolize. So, the corporate whores who don’t even live here, strive to rape our land, deplete our natural resources, with no respect given to the environment as a whole. They want to take our resources and krap in our nest and move on when the wells have gone as dry and tainted as their morals.

  14. October 6, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    Oh, Chris, let me try to answer one of your naive questions and educate you on the realities of modern politics. Big corporations frequently contribute to BOTH candidates (Republican and Democratic) during run-off elections for governor and other offices. This happens ALL the time. The amounts donated might be different (and there’s ways to hide that), but its a way for the corporations to hedge their bets, using the record of that donation as a potential wedge to get some face time with either candidate who wins.

    Did you really not know this? Or are you once again simply throwing out information and questions to purposely mislead readers? Again, Chris, this is not a courtroom with sequestered jurors. When you throw around complete B.S. on his forum, anyone can step up and point out, time and again, exactly how and why what you offer is total, self-serving B.S. Time and again!

    Case closed!

  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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: