Wednesday, October 11, 2006

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.

11 Comments:

At 9:20 AM, Anonymous d.h.k. said...

Yeah, come on.

Chuck made his bed, now he has to sleep in it.

 
At 9:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

gimme a break he did what the chavistas asked of him now lay off

 
At 10:13 AM, Anonymous sharky101 said...

No no no. If you screw up this bad, you can't cry foul when people ask to uncover the entire truth.

Chuck says he didn't want the "lunatic fringe" going through his personal affairs.

Well, you're a crook. You stole our money. And now we wanted to know how far you took your illegal actions.

Lunatic fringe, ha! We're actually called undecided voters. And we're going to determine the outcome of this election. (Excuse me, I was an undecided voter...my mind has been since made up)

 
At 10:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The worst part of the story is Cindy and her gang knew he released everything, he has said it a million times, and they continued to cry until the Merc finally called them on it.

 
At 10:21 AM, Anonymous mr mortar said...

Stop calling people who support Chavez "chavistas". You try to make Chavez supporters sound like Latin American guerrila revolutionaries.

 
At 10:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

where's ur apology?

 
At 10:43 AM, Anonymous phillip s. said...

Chuck sures likes this Indian gambling issue.

His point in the debate that art and education would suffer because of Indian $$$ was idiotic and irrelevant.

Let's review Chuck's electoral messages...

1) When Norcal was on the table...
ETHICS ETHICS ETHICS!!!

2) When his reimbursement scandal came out...
ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES!!!

3) Now that he thinks he has something to stick on Cindy...
ETHICS ETHICS ETHICS!!!

That's downright Reediculous...

 
At 10:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey anonymous...

How do you know Cindy knew that Chuck released everything?

Link?

 
At 10:56 AM, Anonymous the tiger said...

So it's not okay to call someone a Chavista because it's racist?

But it IS okay to be supported by La Raza - which is also racist?

 
At 11:40 AM, Anonymous d.h.k. said...

"La Raza" is racist?

What are you talking about?! La Raza means "the race" (i.e. people of Latino/Chicano descent).

So Latinos/Chicanos who endorse Cindy are racist?

Do some research before opening your mouth with hateful words.

 
At 3:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah come on tiger, that's like saying that it's racist that Chuck Reed is supported by the KKK.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home