According to New Polls, Chavez Has An Uphill Battle
A new poll has been issued by the Reed camp and the mayoral election has appeared to blow open a little. Figures show Chuck Reed receiving 47 percent and Cindy Chavez receiving only 20 percent from the sample population that was polled. With this 27 percent deficit, Cindy Chavez will require a new strategy if she wants to stay in this election.
It would appear our dear old friends at SV411 have once again utilized their wholly objective reporting by stating that the upcoming election is nothing more than a technicality. And as much as it pains me to say that I agree with SV411, their claim doesn’t seem to be too far off. With the election creeping up, it will take a miracle for Cindy Chavez to get back in this election. But much to the disappointment of every San Jose media outlet, Chuck Reed’s Stanford band can’t come onto the field as they did in “The Play” just yet.
Accusations have been flying back and forth from both sides about the credibility of these polls. Reed’s political consultant, Victor Ajlouny, has been accused of juicing the latest polls to show Reed with a dramatic lead. And while there is a large group of people who believe this claim to be true, it would be pretty tough for Ajlouny to juice the polls so dramatically. So maybe it wasn’t just the polls that have been juiced by the Reed Campaign.
Recent Grand Jury testimonials have shown that Reed wasn’t as in the dark about the Norcal deal as he has tried to appear. The testimonials reveal that Chuck Reed knew about the Norcal deal as long as Cindy Chavez has. Some testimonials even suggest that Reed has known about the Norcal “scandal” for longer than Chavez has. The Reed campaign didn’t just juice the polls; they juiced the minds of every voter in San Jose. Perhaps this new information is the exact squib kick that Cindy Chavez needed to lateral past the Stanford band and into the end-zone. Whether or not things pan out for Chavez on this one, it’s clear that Mr. Ethical isn’t quite as squeaky clean as his campaign tries to paint him out to be. I guess you have to Reed between the lines to find out the truth about good ol’ Chuck.
posted by SJ Rookie @ 12:36 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Can't say anything bad about Reed, he didn't vote for the amendment that cost SJ residents an extra 11.25 mill., but Chavez did. Facts are facts and she can't hide from them.
Reed in 06!
Why does anybody reed sv411 or the metro anyway? I mean, I reed it from time to time to get my blood going because of the utter crap they post but who reeds that stuff and thinks for a SECOND that it is actual journalism? I find it funny that their little site criticized this one on grounds of objectivity. Come on! If you call yourselves journalists, you should be EMBARRASSED! Your agenda is so transparent in your pro-Reed rants...
Look at the most recent post!!! That is such GARBAGE. The point of the post is that Cindy was "chummy" with Norcal'ers because she referred to them as "Bobby" and "Mike". So the reasoning is that people who call other people named "Micheal" "Mike" must be chummy???? That is probably the dumbest analysis I've ever read!
How much of your time do you spend digging around trying to find absolutely meaningless crap like this to post? This type of b.s. journalism makes British tabloids look like the Economist.
Seriously, when all is said and done, I hope you all are truly ashamed of yourselves. The media is supposed to report facts. The media is not supposed to have an agenda. How the hell are people in this city ever going to get objective journalism in a city with this crap and the McEnry newspaper monopolizing SJ's print media sphere?
I have to add that SV411's journalistic ethics truly are questionable. One of my favorite things they do is analyzing something without giving its readers the opportunity to take a look for themselves. Take a look (www.sv411.com.) For example:
(1) Look at their commentary re: mayorwatch. They criticize it, yet give no opportunity for their readers to actually look at the site. That is bush-league blogging, IMHO. (Was it because SV411 traffic is so slow that they are scared of directing what few readers they have to MW?)
(2) Look at today's post. Again, they use a primary source to make an argument but don't direct readers to that source. (Go here if you want to check it out for yourself: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/15254156.htm.) Instead, 411 picks at the few nuggets it could find to continue its anti-Cindy campagin.
Look at Volume 7, p. 1290 (which is p. 149 of the PDF doc), lines 7-25.
There, Chuck states that he voted in favor of the staff recommendation to direct staff to negotiate a final contract with Norcal and bring it back to the Council.
Check out Volumes 8 and 9 for more of Chuck's testimony... It's an enjoyable read if you're interested in seeing how much Chuck truly did not know.
Larry, Larry, Larry. You accuse SV411 of "picking out nuggets" and then turn around and do precisely the samething in the passage you quoted; specifically, Mr. Reed voted in favor of a staff recommendation - this after having been on the council for about a month (via the occupation of a vacant seat). This was a rubber-stamp direction to the staff to go forth and do staffy stuff.
If that's the best you've got, then Cindy's toast.
JD-
I'm glad the Reed campaign has taken the time to respond to my comment.
My point in presenting the little nugget from the transcript re: Chuck's vote on Norcal was not to play the SV411-game of taking pieces of information out of context and attempting to cut an opponent down. My point was only this: in only BRIEFLY glancing at the transcripts I saw things (like Chuck's vote directing the staff to negotiate the Norcal contract) that were far more substantive than the abbreviations Cindy used to refer to Norcal officials. If Chuck's entire campaign is built upon ethics/open government, then why is he in the business of using his City Council voting powers for rubber-stamping in the first place? Maybe his hands aren't as clean as he advertises.
But, yes, you are right. I did throw out only a piece to the puzzle. I do not have time to sort through volumes of grand jury testimony. However, unlike SV411, I provided a link to the testimony so that others could check it out. Find the pieces of the puzzle that are relevant to your voting criteria. Hopefully, somebody, maybe the MW writers, can take the time to connect things for us. What we do know is that SV411/Metro and its pseudo-journalists have already shown that they are incapable of substantively addressing the complex web of issues surrounding Norcal as they prefer to report gossip and anecdote.
why isn't more being said about what was (and what WASN'T) in those grand jury transcripts?!
it seems like the smoking gun everybody thought would be found tying Cindy to Norcal was not found - much to the shock of the McEnry Newspaper.
in fact, the only real surprises from the transcripts appear to be that Dando and Reed knew exactly what was going on from the beginning. (call it a "rubber-stamp" if you like, but it certainly casts doubt on the "us-vs.-them" game Chuck has been playing regarding Norcal...)
i wish our newspapers gave us a little more fact and a little less fiction so that we, voters, could be a little more informed!
CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT MR. INTEGRITY HAS VIC AJLOUNY ON HIS STAFF?!! THAT'S DOWNRIGHT CRAZY!! AJLOUNY IS INFAMOUS FOR BEING ONE OF THE SHADIEST POLITICOS IN THE BUSINESS!!!
FROM HERE OUT, I'M GONNA POST "AJLOUNY WATCH" SO THAT VOTERS NOW WHAT KINDA GUY REED HAS HIRED.
IF YOU'RE A CHUCK REED SUPPORTER, GIVE HIM A CALL AND DEMAND THAT HE GETS RID OF THIS GUY FROM HIS CAMPAIGN TEAM. YOU DON'T WANT HIM ANYWHERE NEAR YOUR CITY HALL!!!
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE WAS PRINTED IN THE MURK-ERY NEWS SOME TIME AGO BUT IS NO LONGER ON THEIR SITE. IT TELLS A TALE OF VIC AJLOUNY SENDING OUT SHADY MAILERS... HMM, SOUND FAMILIAR?! THERE (LIKE IN SJ) AJLOUNY REPRESENTED A CANDIDATE WHO PRETENDED TO BE A DEMOCRAT... TURNS OUT HE WAS JUST A DEMO-RAT. READ ON!!!
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:k6DtjGLBMn0J:www.broward.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/7177576.htm+%22Victor+Ajlouny%22+Sunnyvale&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7
Larry - FYI, I ain't part of the Reed campaign. In fact, I don't even live or work in the Bay Area, however my job may yet bring me back to my hometown. I grew up in SJ and still have family there, and have been watching (via the online Murk) the absolute implosion of SJ city governance since Gonzo decided that Sunnyvale was too small-potatoes.
If ever there was an election that cried out for people not already on the inside it was this one. Instead, we get one person (Rufus) who knew more than he let on about NorCal, and one person (Chavez) who either knew about what was going on but did nothing about it in deference to her jedi master, or was too incompetent to see what was going on but voted for it anyway, again in deference to her jedi master.
If ever there was a good election to call for a write-in candidacy, this is the one. Unfortunately, all the good write-in candidates are all down in Texas running for Tom DeLay's congressional seat.
In any event, the fish rots from the head down. As Vice Mayor, an admittedly ceremonial post as was clearly demonstrated when they tried to "fire" Gonzo, Cindy was and is closer to the head than is Rufus. Her relationship with Gonzo should have DQ'ed her right away in the primary, but there was enough dilution of the vote courtesy of Mulcahy and Pandori and Cortese to make Cindy's hard-core supporters just large and cohesive enough to drag her into the general election.
Were I a San Jose resident, I would have voted for Mulcahy (as a fellow member of the BCP Mafia and a classmate of Mike) in the primary, but in the runoff I would hold my nose, close my eyes, pop a couple of Tagamets and vote for Rufus. And then pray that he doesn't eff things up any more than they already are.
Post a Comment
<< Home