Letter to the Editor: Campaigning Against Candidate is Not Dirty Politics

If you would like to blog on the site or send a guest article, column, poem, letter to the editor, pictures, or video, please email your submission to sheila.sanchez@patch.com. Thank you.

I talked to two of the potential who waited until the very last to pull papers.

I talked to one about his platform as I had not as then endorsed a second candidate. I talked to the other about filing so late in the game. She is a friend and I told her that and

I wanted her to know in advance that I could not support her candidacy and, in fact, would be campaigning against her, but never with malice. Don't real friends tell each other before, not after?

There were no threats; no screaming; no shouting. Just dialogue between reasonable people.

I suspect there are others who talked to candidates and the same could be said of their conversations. I also suspect that if you ask existing Council persons if someone talked to them before they ran – some threateningly – you will find that one or two of our Council people of the last decade were the ones to threaten those wanting to run.

At least one of those so threatened sits on the Council now. Fortunately they did not let the conversations, threats, or dissuasion deter them. Both of the potential candidates I talked to are strong, intelligent individuals who think on their own. My opinion would not have dissuaded either.

The Los Gatos Weekly Times did a disservice to the community by not following up on information they had that certain people did not conspire against one potential candidate.

The newspaper was given the name and a direct phone line to confirm or deny the information, but it did follow-up. Because of their article and the editorial, it gave the Council oligarchy one last chance to find at least a write-in candidate.

This election gives them one more shot to remain in power. Add the $20,000 that the candidates would have donated had they not had to pay for a campaign, and you’re well worth of $50,000 that would have gone into the community.

Do you think the schools could put that money to better use?

We will be changing back to better times in November.

Larry Arzie September 06, 2012 at 04:24 PM
Peter, you can be as outrageous as I am some times. So I will follow suit. The mere fact that you and the Weekly are blaming Jensen's and even Spector's camp ("clue as to what camp these attacks came from") is just as "hurtful, intimidating, threatening and false attacks" . The voting power appears to be changing on Council and I understand your camp is threatened, fearing development will come to a grinding halt, but you have nothing to worry about. If indeed Jensen and Spector get seated growth will continue, it is inevitable. No one, not even I, want growth to stop. Reasonable and planned growth following our General Plan and regulations are all you have to worry about. So tone done the rhetoric, please, and carry on the tradition of all camps working together.
Peter S. Carter September 06, 2012 at 05:12 PM
Dear M2BUZY and AR...how about identifying yourself. That is one thing my friend Larry Arzie always does. He has the personal integrity to stand behind his strong and heart felt opinions. Peter S. Carter 45 Broadway
James George September 07, 2012 at 12:06 AM
My opinions are strong and heartfelt. That is my name. If I spelled my birth name you still wouldn't know me. And I don't know your name either. Trying to intimidate people by saying you want to know their name to justify their opinion is pointless. It is still their opinion.
Peter S. Carter September 07, 2012 at 01:29 AM
The stated reasons for anonymous negative internet postings are a smoke screen for a lack taking personal responsibility. Anonymous criticism has nothing to do with whether or I know you or your victim knows you...it is about having the integrity to stand behind your words. The anonymous criticism and slander aimed at the two most prominent potential council candidates was, indeed, scurrilous, dishonorable & hurtful. No newspaper would print it without attribution. This website, indeed the entire internet, should not be a place for this sort of conduct. Peter S. Carter 45 Broadway
AR September 07, 2012 at 04:07 AM
> No newspaper would print it without attribution. that is interesting considering that the source for most of the criticism offered for one of the potential candidates was linked directly from the merc website, from an article that was distributed as part of their print edition, attributing public records. was that article false? was it slanderous? eventually you need to start supporting your claims. you have instead offered nothing but a detour into the nature of identity on the internet that has no bearing. there hasn't been any "dishonorable" behavior here. all that has taken place on this site is a critical discussion of the potential candidates, a tradition in any democracy. those who find it too difficult to endure should not seek office. as to the non-issue of identity, no one replying to you here has insulted you, defamed you, or threatened you. if that were the case, you would have a viable legal reason to have law enforcement subpoena our IP addresses from AOL and pursue the matter. if it would make you feel better, i can change my username to Samuel Winston, Pamela Cruz or some other common-sounding name and you wouldn't have any more of a handle on the veracity of my claim.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »