Who Reads This "Waste Of Internet Space"?

After recently being called a "waste of Internet space" on Phil Yost's blog, we got to wondering, who actually reads this site?!

Does the Mercury News? After getting the ball rolling about who the Merc would endorse, our local paper has delayed its endorsement announcement already by 2 days. At this point, we are wondering that the editors are wondering the same question we are: which way of NOT endorsing Chavez will they go?

Our pool has the possibilities as: 1) Chuck, 2) No Endorsement, or 3) Write-in Pandori.

In the meantime, to be fair, the Merc has provided a couple solid columns to review over the past 2 days.

Read about the candidates on "growth" here from today's paper.

Yesterday, the paper had a section with 5 questions asked of Chuck and 5 questions asked of Cindy. The answers reveal what we already know about the candidates' orientations. No biggie. However, we here at MW like this type of reporting from the SJMN. We challenge you to allocate space for more information that comes from the candidates themselves.

We'll keep you posted as things develop!

Makin' Somethin' Outta Nothin'

Much has been blogged recently about Chuck Reed's new smear tactic - going after tribal donations to the Democratic Party. Today the Mercury News wrote an article about the bru-ha-ha. Chuck has attacked the Dems for accepting $55K from tribal interests claiming that some of that money would be used by the party to go after him.

We've routinely discussed how this should be a non-issue given that as Chavez and local Dem leader Steve Preminger pointed out that "there's no local support for expanding gambling, city law already forbids gambling money in local campaigns, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proclaimed he won't allow tribal casinos in urban areas."

Nonetheless, Chuck has claimed that gambling interests "have been keenly eye the San Jose area for years." His support for this claim? "(H)e said he once got a phone call from a representative inquiring whether he'd be supportive."

Additionally, Chuck implied that gambling money is relevant because "city officials have for years been battling in court over efforts to regulate two local card clubs." Last I checked, Bay 101 was not run by an Indian tribe. In fact, if Indian gambling institutions did want to come to the SJ area, wouldn't they oppose card clubs like Bay 101?

So 1) Indian gaming cannot come to San Jose because it's against the law and 2) Indian gaming money has no relevance to the preexisting gambling institutions in the city. Wait a second... why is this smearing relevant? Reed even admits that he "couldn't cite any specific gambling issues on which they differ."

Nonetheless, Chavez has asked the local Democratic party to not use any of the gambling money on her campaign. Preminger said that the money would be passed to other counties in their efforts to support. Yet rumors are that Reed still plans on taking this issue to the bank during the stretch-run of the campain. MW has heard that Reed plans on sending out more hit pieces in an attempt to bring the Indian gaming money - which has now been refused - into the spotlight.

My guess is that the voters won't be swayed by these smear tactics. My guess is that the voters will be informed and educated and will know that this is baseless vice-baiting. The REAL question is WHAT WILL THE MERCURY NEWS DO? Remember only a few weeks ago when Cindy Chavez sent out a letter addressing her real role in the Norcal scandal? Phil Yost dedicated an entire column to picking apart this mailer. Will Phil provide Chuck's literature similar scrutiny or will the Merc continue to reaffirm what many of its readers already believe: that the Merc's commitment to its agenda overrides its commitment to objective journalism?

What Will The Merc Do?

As many of you know, this Sunday the Mercury News will announce its much-anticipated endorsement in the San Jo mayoral election. The Merc has conducted interviews over the past week of the candidates to help inform their decision.

The paper best known for not being able to tell the difference between Gonzalez and Chavez (you know not all Latinos are related) and being about as pro-"downtown business" as you can get (sitting on COMPAC's board) will almost undoubtedly pass on endorsing Cindy. The only real question is if they will pass on Chuck as well.

The coverage since day 1 has been slanted in Chuck's favor. But since recent revelations of Chuck's ripoff of over 38K dollars of city money, the Merc has chastised Reed quite a bit. The paper - sometimes referred to as McEnery's News - is now facing an interesting dilemma. Many Merc-loyalists want a write-in endorsement of Pandori. But would the Merc be willing to take an ideological stand at the risk of jeopardizing its political currency? I guess we'll all have to wait till Sunday to find out. The one thing that is for sure: Cindy's got about the same chance of being endorsed as Hillary Clinton does of getting Rev. Jerry Falwell on her literature.

Chuck's Ethics Train Derailed, Not Wrecked

Recently, this website has called for Chuck Reed to release information regarding his charitable donations. The fear that many had was that after Chuck E. Cheapskate was reimbursed with public funds for over $39,000 worth of political, religious, and personal donations, that some of these were later written off as tax deducations. Apparently, Cindy Chavez volunteers had been asking voters to keep this concern in mind while phonebanking.

We were wrong.

According to today's Merc article, the receipts were reviewed by the Mercury News one week and a half ago. Apparently, they were legitimate.

Chuck proceeds to call the previous questions raised about his deductions "a lie".

As my grandma likes to say, hold your horses there. Chavez volunteers asked voters to inquire of Reed why his full tax information was not disclosed. That sounds more like a request to clear up ambiguity than a lie. Chuck - you created this whirlwind of controversy by your ethical miscues. You cannot play the privacy card when you have abused the public's trust and later are asked to clear things up. You owed it to the public to make this information public. Now you've politicized it by calling your opponent a liar.

This issue was on a lot of people's minds. Look at the comments on our blog and your blog (San Jose Inside) for reference. The Merc wouldn't have printed an article about it today if it weren't something being buzzed about. True, you showed the Merc the controversial information. But you can't blame Chavez and Stone for the paper's failure to report that information.

Why didn't you send out a letter to the Chavez campaign explaining that the info had been disclosed to the Merc and there were no legal transgressions? She has written you letters. Yet you prefer to blast her campaign in the media after the fact.

Why didn't you at least explain this issue on your "Reality Check" section of your website?

The Reed drones seem to be claiming that this is a victory for his campaign. But in reality, this means that the Reed ethics train has not been wrecked... only derailed.

Merc/KNTV Poll: A Closer Look

We misprinted the results which were leaked our way as a 44-42 split. The actual results are:

42% - Reed
40% - Chavez
17% - Undecided

In other words, Chuck's lead is within the margin of error. These results starkly contrast the poll released by the Reed campaign in early August. That poll showed Reed earning 47% of the likely votes with Chavez only receiving 20%. This means one of two things: (1) Chuck's earlier poll was juiced as many commentors on this site and others have alleged or (2) Cindy is really building a lot of momentum. We here at MW suspect the truth is somewhere in between these two propositions.

Despite the statistical deadheat, Chuck has to be excited about the fact that he maintains a lead amongst more disciplined, likely voters. A large portion of Cindy's support comes from voters who did not vote in the first mayoral election (a demographic which she leads in 46-33). This demographic is generally less reliable. Cindy's gotta still be feeling the heat.

Though the majority of the electoral dialogue has centered around ethics, that issue still ranks only third in the minds of likely voters in terms of importance. But among voters who believe this is the most important issue Chuck Reed's strategy has paid dividends as he leads 58-30. Upon first glance, one might assume that Cindy's closing of the gap might be due to the affectionately called Chuck E. Cheapskate scandal. However, the fact that those who are voting based upon ethics are still favoring Chuck by an almost 2-1 lead suggests that either: (1) people aren't buying the Cheapskate scandal or (2) people haven't heard about it yet.

One of our favorite (and most talked about) themes here at MW is about Chuck Reed's possible closeted Republicanism. It is therefore worth noting that Chuck's largest block of support amongst demographic groups come from those who identify as "Republicans" and "Conservatives". 58% of Repubs are voting for Chuck and 59% of Conservatives are voting for Chuck.

In any case, the election is hot and close. The final weeks will be intense. We're trying to get you news as fast as possible so please keep sending us emails.

Reed's-Full-Tax-Disclosure-Watch: Day # 16

On September 20th, Cindy Chavez asked Chuck Reed to disclose his tax information. Chuck Reed responded by sharing bits and pieces. What inquiring minds want to know is whether or not Chuck wrote off any of his "charitable" donations and then proceeded to write them off for tax purposes.

Initially, most thought that Mr. Ethics would never do something so monumentally... illegal. But after the Chuck E. Cheapskate scandal, many of us are really starting to wonder. Chuck initially resisted disclosing this information based on "larger policy considerations". But now that only some of his info has been released, many are wondering if he has something to hide.

Nobody wants to create a Salem-like atmosphere. But when you've screwed up this bad, when you've used more than $38,000 of the public's fund, you've inherited the obligation of demonstrating that surrounding conduct was legal.

Step up to the plate, Mr. Reed and show us that you didn't do anything illegal... It's that simple.

More (on) Reed Reimbursements

The information about what exactly Chuck Reed was reimbursed for has been spotty at best. In fact, rumblings were that there was another story about non-check reimbursements that was to break soon. Rumors were that Reed also had a laundry list of expenditures made with his credit card that had not been included in the initial $38,000 tally.

Nobody has scooped such a story yet. Our friends at http://www.ReedItForYourself.com, however, now have a link to Reed's "City Credit Card Statements" and reimbursements. As was pointed out in our comments section when this website first broke, the ReedItForYourself site is run by the Chavez campaign. The site now includes a banner that reads "Paid for by the Cindy Chavez for Mayor Campaign". It is unclear if these credit card reimbursements are included in the initial $38K or if Chuck's debt to the city just increased. We'll keep you posted as the story breaks.

Now, the site also includes an excell sheet outlining each one of Chuck Reed's 450 reimbursements with financial details and characteristics regarding the expenditures.

Chuck Reed has since apologized about his usage of public resources for personal purposes. You can watch the clip of his apology at http://www.kron.com after clicking on the local news tab and selecting the appropriate clip inside the video box. In the clip, Chuck Reed calls the recent negative coverage of his reimbursements "Politics 101".

Meanwhile our friends at SV411 have returned from their 2.5 week hiatus with its first article regarding the Reed reimbusement scandal. SV411's brief story calls Reed's reimbursement of over $38,000 of city funds "creative juggling of 'job-related' expenses". Additionally, some minor flak is dished out to the Merc for "hyping up his minor misstep".

And what does Chuck's website say about the Chuck E. Cheapskate scandal in the "Reality Check" section usually reserved for disspelling negative stories? Under construction.

COMPAC Goes After Chavez With Push Poll

In what some are considering a quixotic quest, Pat Dando and COMPAC are reportedly coming after Cindy Chavez again. Emboldened by a recent decision by a federal judge, COMPAC is allegedly pulling out another "push poll" against Chavez.

A push poll is defined as a political technique designed to influence or alter public opinion by emphasizing a particular issue under the guise of conducting a poll. The tactic received national attention when Karl Rove employed it to strip John McCain of his momentum in the 2000 Republican Primary. There, the poll asked people if their opinion regarding McCain would change if they knew that he had fathered an illegitimate child of color. Political scientists consider this push poll to be the critical tactic that cost McCain the South Carolina primary and ultimately the Republican nomination.

Phil Yost's political blog discusses the issue peripherally identifying the push poll that is going around. We have received emails covering the topic reporting that COMPAC and Dando are behind it once again. We are unaware of what is being discussed in the call.

Push polling might not be a unique move by COMPAC. A push poll last May went out criticizing Chavez for her support of using eminent domain over the Tropicana Shopping Center. Many believe COMPAC was behind that call as well --- a claim that Dando denies.

Push polling has been condemned by the National Associations of Political Consultants. Many regard it to be a dishonest tactic. Only time will tell how the voters of San Jose will react to it.

Please email us or put up in comments any additional information received.

Antonio Villaraigosa Press Event

Details are yet to emerge but we have received information that Cindy Chavez and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa held a joint press event today in SJC. The press conference should be covered in the local papers tomorrow. We'll have details as they develop...

Who is John Salah?

John Salah wrote this pro-Reed letter to the editor today.

He donated $100 to Reed's campaign. (12/31/2005)

Dan Salah donated $500 to Reed's campaign. (1/10/2006)

Janet Salah donated $150 to Reed's campaign. (3/17/2006)

That's all fine and dandy: My only question is...

Why on Chuck Reed's contribution disclosures does it list John Salah's job as "Manager - Mercury News"?

Click here, download the pdf and look at page 38, row 4 to check it out for yourself.