Formulating questions and concerns: CCC-BOS Elections Crimes & Incidents, posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Apr 17, 2012 at 7:26 pm
After an embarrassing start to districts 2, 3 and 5 elections where disservices have occurred for voters, a) district 3 and 5 incumbents running unapposed and without majority support of voters, and 2) district 2, with voters offended by creed prejudice from district demoncratic clubs, voters within the majorities of those district's neighborhoods are now formulating questions for candidates.
Neighborhoods fully expect Mary Piepho and Federal Glover to hide from such questions that focus on the future of Contra Costa County. Further, Neighborhoods as the majority in district 2 are prepared to challenge Tomi van de Brooke on her role among consortium politics and hiding behind a message of creed prejudice.
Neighborhoods have their questions for the April 21 candidates evaluations scheduled for Tice Valley and have audit teams prepared for programs April 23, 26 and May 7. Thus, as you prepare for your April 26 program, do you believe that your questions and concerns will match the majority of voters in district 2? As you further cover the district 3 election, do you expect Mary Piepho to have any meaningful credibility among voters to warrant any ballot voting for her candidacy?
What if a majority voted for OTHER in all supervisor races; how would that impact your reporting?
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on Apr 19, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Hal, Hal, Hal,
Not sure what you are expecting –especially since you don’t show to these events.
Hate to break it to you, but for all intents and purposes District 5, (Federal Glover) and District 3, (Mary Piepho) do not have an election, therefore they do not have to campaign.
As always you want to give an appearance of what you or some fictitious “neighborhood consortium” - “audit teams” are going to do but in the end if falls flat. <Crickets chirping>…
How’s that been working out for you?
I personally agree with Tomi Van De Brooke and feel that Candice Andersen’s beliefs are what guide her in the decision making process; therefore her beliefs do have a direct bearing on her as a candidate. Try as you might you cannot get around that inconvenient fact.
Hal, once again you are out of your league and transparent in your aversion for Mary, Federal, and now Tomi.
Since YOU can’t vote “OTHER” in opposition for Mary or Federal, your rhetoric has no real meaning.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Apr 19, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Thank you, Gina, for your sponsored response.
We can now fully understand that creed prejudice and avoidance of voter issues will continue in your program on April 26. You are now challenged by what candidates believe:
Tomi believes she can hide behind her campaign of creed prejudice and not deal with primary issues of public safety, government communication, environment (planning) & infrastructure, traffic & transportation, and economic development & jobs development.
By contrast, Candace has stepped front and center to focus on the real job of being supervisor with full fiscal responsibility in delivering to the will and interest of district 2 voters.
Your political vaudeville no longer plays among the majority of district 2 voters and your sponsorship of attack brutality disqualifies you as a journalist.
So when this gig fails, what busines will you be in?
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on Apr 19, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Ohhhhhhh Hal, So predictable!
I see you are “making friends and influencing people” once again. What is it with you-anyone that disagrees with you and your wild theories suddenly becomes part of a conspiracy? Dude, you really need to step back a few paces. Not everyone is out to get you-and clearly you have a very limited view of politics and human nature.
Tomi has chief of staff on her resume so clearly she understands the job of a County Supervisor. Many would argue that Candace's experience is limited- She can’t get through a debate without mentioning Danville in each and every reply. Yawwwwwn.
You are going to remain frustrated until you come to grips with the fact that you are the odd man out.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Apr 20, 2012 at 7:06 am
Thanks again, Gina, for sponsoring an illustration of anti-social media in absence of journalism.
You will notice that Tomi's campaign is working very hard not to link her to Mary Piepho because Mary has been the antithesis of a representative of WE, the people, in the former district 3. Being chief of staff for Mary's antagonism and arbitrary disregard for communities and neighborhoods is not a resume that should qualify Tomi as district 2 supervisor. To distance herself, Tomi has become a "Berkeley Liberal" in the minds of district 2 voters as her campaign choses to attack the social positions of LDS, Catholic, CPC, and other conservative congregations that are more than 23,000 voters in district 2.
Come to think of it. If supervisor doesn't work out for Tomi, what business will she be in?
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on Apr 20, 2012 at 9:08 am
Once again Hal, you could not be more wrong. No wonder you are frustrated.
What I find interesting is how you keep repeatedly reminding everyone of your erroneous frustrations and your infatuation with Mary Piepho. She did more for Alamo and the region than the 5 prior Supervisors. Both polling and elections show that Mary Piepho was (is) extremely popular and well respected Try as you might, you just can't seem to get past that. It appears that progress and change are what bothers you.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Apr 20, 2012 at 10:20 am
Thank you, Gina, for bringing out the worse in your sponsored commentators.
Interestingly, as a correction, Mary lost the 2008 election in all but one Alamo region precinct and Republican Party polling illustrated a <23% approval rating in Alamo and SRV over the past two years. She won the 2008 supervisor election with 22% of the eligible voters. That is public record.
As your sponsored commentators tie Tomi to Mary in Town Square Forum commentary, such reminders to voters will impact Tomi's approval among voters in Saranap to Dougherty Valley.
But let's be clear, Tomi is a bright, cordial and capable individual that owes voters a view of who she is separate from her campaign's creed prejudice or her role as Mary's Chief of Staff. Voters have established the issues of this campaign as noted in my original posting and I fully believe Tomi has the capability to address those issues as the future of Contra Costa County district 2 on April 26.
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on Apr 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm
All of your ‘reverse engineering’ and fictitious polls do nothing to make your case. The facts and record shows that Piepho, handily won the 2004 and 2008 elections, which is why she holds her position today. Not only are your figures incorrect, but your polling is fictitious and your frustration transparent.
As far as “voter turn out” in any given election, your argument is totally irrelevant. Voter turn out is dictated by a number of issues, but of those none surround Supervisorial races. They are tied to Presidential Election Cycles and are affected by Primary, Special and General elections. Thank you once again for demonstrating your lack of political knowledge about such matters.
For the record; recent and professional polling shows an extremely high approval rating for Ms. Piepho. If you were savvy enough to understand, you might even come to realize that is why no one chose to run against her. Sorry to break that to you Hal. I know how hard you work on coddling your numbers and fictitious groups and acronyms.
Tomi and Mary are very different individuals. Both possess knowledge and experience to continue to lead the county out of the issues that former Supervisors (that you have supported and continue to support) have put us in. You on the other hand, tend to like elected officials that don’t offer much-that much is clear. The reality remains; nothing Tomi could do or say would change your limited view of things. You still don’t get it. Issues and personal choices define people and more importantly their decision making process…. and this directly pertains to your candidate of choice. If you want to lable that “creed prejudice” that is your right, as it is my right to not vote for people that are not aligned with my values. Furthermore it is Tomi’s right to point it out. You need to get beyond the childish behavior of “crying foul” and making assumptions when people disagree with you.
I would politely ask you to quit blaming my commentary on Gina or Mary, but I see your mind is made up, and you wouldn’t want to be confused with the facts.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Apr 21, 2012 at 7:52 am
Thank you, Gina,
There cannot be clearer examples of EMCEB sponsorship and protection of commentators that mirror your political and social positions. It is obvious that EMCEB sponsors attacks on any commentator that runs counter to your political and social subservience and that will be basis for political vaudeville by democratic clubs and other Tomi supporters on April 26.
It might be appropriate to note that the League of Women Voters and Orinda Association will conduct a full, fair presentation of district 2 candidates on May 7 in time for voters' consideration of their mail-in ballots.
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on Apr 22, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Attacking the very people that give you the space to post your perspectives now? Can you be any more childish? Hal, NO one is forcing you to post here.
Personally I appreciate the allowance of differing opinions. Ironic that you want to limit the message to that of your own views. You are really an interesting individual-So often feeling the need to define everything for everybody into your personal perspective.
But alas, the larger irony is your hypocrisy. YOU continue to accuse any one that has a differing opinion of the very behavior that you consistently roll out. Hal, there are a number of reasons you cannot see your own behavior...it's hard for many people to imagine going through life like that. If you were not so caught up in attacking others whom actually stand up, run for office, get elected and attempt to make thing better, I would feel some sort of pity for you.
In the meantime maybe you should reconsider some things. For starters, it is not nice to attack the editors and publishers who provide you the very forum that allows you to post here. Only a fool would do that. But then again, maybe I just pointed out another obvious reality....for most of us.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Apr 22, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Gina, let's clarify what your sponsorship lacks in fair participation in the news process. You sponsor specifc commentary supporting political positions that you fully champion. You sponsor attacks on commentators that challenge such sponsored commentary. What is offered in perspective in this exchange is "how will that sponsorship translate on April 26 questions?"
Likely your readers would want to know that answer after review of this and other exchanges on your Town Square Forum, don't you think?
Posted by Harald A. Bailey, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Apr 23, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Dear Gina and Jessica,
Thank you for Candidate Profiles that demonstrate consideration of issues important to district 2 voters, their communities and neighborhoods. In e-exchange discussions in the past hours, neighbors are now very interested in attendance at candidates' forums so more on-topic presentation can be heard and evaluated.