Sunday, September 24, 2006

Is Reed as honest as he says he is?

Well, imagine my surprise today when I read this in the Merc's "Internal Affairs" column:

Mayoral endorsement

IA must return to the scene of its own fumble in reporting the endorsement of the Santa Clara County Democratic Club in the San Jose mayor's race.

As IA reported recently, the club, which is not the same organization as the official Democratic Party, endorsed Chuck Reed. It also endorsed Cindy Chavez.

The club offered a dual endorsement -- both candidates are registered Democrats -- a fact not mentioned by Reed in the news release that was sent out.

Reed defends the news release. ``They endorsed me,'' he said. ``I didn't say it was a sole endorsement.''


IA exaggerated the extent to which the club had disregarded the official party line. Chavez enjoys the sole endorsement of the Santa Clara County Democratic Party.


Now, I have a question for all of you. How "honest" is it to send out this email:

Santa Clara County Democratic Club Endorses Chuck Reed

After a vote of their membership, the Santa Clara County Democratic Club endorsed Chuck Reed for Mayor of San Jose. They cited his "outstanding service" and "commitment to Democratic values" when they officially endorsed Reed.

Chuck Reed stated, “I am honored to receive the endorsement of the Santa Clara County Democratic Club.” Reed continued, “As a lifelong democrat and long time member of the organization, I am pleased to be their choice for next mayor of San Jose."


Honest, as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary is:

2. Not deceptive or fraudulent; genuine: honest weight.


Deceptive is defined as tending to deceive, and the definition of deceive is:

To give a false impression


You decide for yourself, my thought is that at best the email is misleading, and more likely it is deceptive, as the club endorsed both candidates. Reed's claim of being the club's "choice" for mayor gives a "false impression."

Just pointing out that honesty is more then words, it is about actions, and if you are running a campaign based on "honesty" you should make sure your actions are not deceptive.

18 Comments:

At 2:37 PM, Anonymous concerned dem said...

That sounds pretty deceptive if you ask me.

No question.

He loves pretending to be a Democrat!

 
At 4:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some campaigns have also asked the question of whether a candidate is healthy enough to be elected. i think it should be asked in this one, which was is in better shape to lead SJ in the long term? Cindy should release her health history. It's much more important than any tax returns.

 
At 4:22 PM, Anonymous d.h.k. said...

Yikes. Looks like Chuckie got caught in a lie. It is clear that this guy will do whatever it takes to win! Remember when the conflict of interest story first broke he lied as well! He claimed that he did not know at the time of the alcohol/groceries vote that there was a potential conflict when he had recused himself from Council votes twice already.

It should be no surprise that he's willing to twist and torture plain meaning in order to make it sound like he was the only endorsement of the Santa Clara Democractic Club.

 
At 5:42 PM, Anonymous jessica1 said...

I almost was going to write asking the editors to take down anonymous's comment for being offensive.

But then I figured you might as well leave it up there so readers can see how ignorant and moronic some of Chuck Reed's supporters are.

 
At 5:55 PM, Anonymous steve y. said...

Hey anonymous! Oh I get it! A weight joke, right? You're really funny!

Grow up.

 
At 5:58 PM, Blogger Bobby said...

Why on earth would ANY councilperson support a vote on allowing more alcohol sales at gas stations?

We don't need MORE places to buy beer, let alone at a gas station. It should never have passed.

 
At 6:11 PM, Anonymous George M. said...

Anonymous why is it so hard for you to address the issue which is Reed's dishonesty. Could it be that there is no defense?

 
At 6:34 PM, Anonymous l. fitzy said...

Chuck's campaign is a cloud of lies.

I'm a Democrat... but I'll pretend to be a Republican today.

I'm Mr. Ethics... but if you want to see my financial records to see if I've ever used my post as a Councilmember to financially benefit a client, then back off.

I'm for Measure A... but I don't support it.

I'm socially liberal... but domestic unions shouldn't be recognized by SJ.

What a liar.

 
At 8:46 PM, Anonymous Pat Wilson said...

SanJoseLady/Jacquie,

While we are discussing the meaning of deceptive, why don't you disclose that website was set up to attack Chuck Reed and that you are a member of the Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee? And what business does partisan politics have in our local government? Pete Constant is a Republican but he was clearly the best candidate for our district.

I am a life long Democrat and your actions sicken me. Rather than stooping to this below-the-belt Karl Rove style politics, let's weigh the Pros/Cons of these candidates like adults to see who can really bring a positive change to our city.

Pat

 
At 9:29 PM, Anonymous Ben Watson said...

Alright Pat, let's weigh the pros and cons of these candidates. Cindy has been honest about her tax returns and her involvement (or lack thereof) with Norcal. Chuck won't release his tax returns because he reimburses his own "generous" donations with the dollars of taxpayers. Reed also twisted the truth of the SCCDC dual endorsement and his knowledge of the Norcal contract. And now, it is clear that Reed had his own conflicts of interest on the council with his clients. Mr. Ethics is clearly everything but ethical, if you really consider yourself a democrat, you should be disgusted at the way Reed tries to claim he is a democrat when he brags about republican endorsements. And if you really consider yourself sufficiently aware of local politics, you better know that all elections revolve around party lines. But I must admit, I find your new pseudonym adorable, anonymous. Next time look at the facts before drawing attention to the chasm between Reed and Chavez. Until you can make a legitimate argument about the candidates, turn your computer off.
-Ben Watson

 
At 6:52 AM, Blogger SanJoseLady said...

Hi Pat/anonymous,

To the best of my knowledge this blog was set up to discuss the Mayoral race here in San Jose. There have been many issues raised here, and we will raise more.

In addition, maybe you missed this fact but both Chavez and Reed are registered Democrats, which would mean that being involved with a Democratic organization really wouldn't be all that noteworthy.

If you haven't by now realized that partisan politics have been alive and well in all races (partisan and non-partisan) in our city, then well, then maybe you need to read a bit more.

What exactly was below the belt in this post? The issue is that Reed is calling himself the the "honest" candidate, yet one can find instances of deception by him everywhere.

The mailers COMPAC sent out were right out of Rove's playbook, yet I don't hear your objection to their actions.

 
At 8:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You've got to be kidding me - since when does a candidate have to annouice an endorsement for their opponent? I have never seen a candidate do that. You guys are being hypocritical.

Chuck's release was 100% honest.

As far as Chuck talking of republican endorsements - since when is being bi-partisan a bad thing? After all this is a non-partisan race.

Someone mentioned Pete Constant, did antone notice how many democrat endorsements he, as a republican, had? Quite a few. And that's what made him such a good candidate, bi-partisan, community-wide support. Not to mention, take a look at Ken Yeager's mail pieces, he too had bi-partisan, community-wide support - and emphasized it in his mail.

And those who think that a tax return will note reimbursements...you are wrong they do not!

 
At 8:48 AM, Anonymous Larry Hughes said...

It doesn't sound like anybody said that Chuck needed to announce an endorsement for his opponent. He just needed to be honest about the extent and quality of his endorsement.

If you think his omission is so common and accepted, why did the Mercury News get fooled by his half-truth?

Endorsements are becoming more and more qualified these days. The Merc didn't allow candidates to cite their endorsement without reprinting the entire editorial. Context is important. It is deceptive to play up one type of endorsement as a completely different type.

Your political pragmatism reveals how sincere Reed's supporters believe in ethics. That type of ends-justify-the-means attitude is what got SJ into trouble in the first place.

 
At 3:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone think COMPAC's mailer's were "below the belt"?

And if so, specifically, why?

 
At 5:42 PM, Blogger SanJoseLady said...

Anyonymous...those who thought the mailers were below the belt include the San Jose Mercury News, many FORMER members of the Chamber/COMPAC, including Mike Fox Sr., and all who were endorsed by COMPAC.

What was below the belt? Knocking Chavez for the car races when Dando went before the city council in SUPPORT of the races, suggesting that Chavez, by herself, was responsible for the Tropicana mess (when in fact it was the majority of the city council), and well, you do the rest of the research for yourself.

Oh, and the fact that COMPAC claimed they were "issue" mailers, when they were attack mailers against Chavez was also a bit below the betl.

As a matter of fact there were few elected officials who attended the COMPAC barbecue. In addition, Congressmembers Lofgren and Honda made sure that COMPAC removed their name from their website and any promotions of the barbecue.

You know, if you read the paper every so often you might be able to answer your own questions.

 
At 10:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jacquie Heffner,

I hope you are not this insulting during your city commission meetings.

 
At 11:09 PM, Anonymous anonymous is getting old said...

do you think you're funny constantly saying "jacqui"? very very lame and annoying.

are you trying to intimidate her or something? say something substantive or say nothing at all!

just like a reed supporter: you got nothing to say about her comments. all you can do is try to scare her off.

 
At 7:17 AM, Blogger SanJoseLady said...

Anonymous....sort of funny that you think it is "insulting" to answer questions you raise. You also seem to think it is insulting to suggest that maybe you might want to read so that you can answer your own questions.

What is insulting to our readers is how little you are able to read for yourself, and how over and over you post half truths here. Our readers want more then your political spin, they want the whole truth, and you seem to think it is insulting to give the whole truth.

Keep on posting, and we will keep on correcting.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home