Why did CA dems roll over on Shelley?

I know I'll get some dumb ass troll answers, but I can't believe the party is so stupid they didn't see the potential damage of letting Arnold pick the secretary of state who will run his next election.

I am getting sick of these pansy ansy dems here. Do they not care. Ahnold want to deliver the state of California to the Repubs. He's an ass, all the way. I hope to God Shelley doesn't resign. I hope he stays and fights them trolls. We must never let the Constitution be changed to allow non-born American's in, I don't care who it is, the answer is no. Now you got me steaming again.

naturalized citizens to run for President: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.2:

against Shelley. The slime. I'll vote Green before I vote for Bustamonte's son. Bustamonte, who backed Lieberman, couldn't even name any of the other Presidential candidates a year before the election. He said he didn't know who they were. He's an idiot and his son probably is too.

if he had not resigned? It seems at this point is was a matter of resigning or just finishing out his term.

after GOP re-rigs voting machines.

He abused his staff and was not kind to his supporters. Simple as that. I have no knowledge about the criminal charges but I've heard too many supporters tell me stories of his antics to subordinates. It's not one or two stories. I don't like Shelley.

You need some perspective on this.

We have been led into this politics of personality which distracts us from how these gusy decisions affect our lives. Does it ultimately matter than Clinton smoked pot but didn't inhale or Bush snorted coke? Or who served in the military or who didn't? Kerry was a war protester, but you wouldn't know that from his desire to continue the Iraq war, and for that matter, there are conservative vets who are greater hawks and liberal vets who are greater doves. Their personal lives are only of value as gossip and propaganda.

Fix his abuses, admonish him, fine, don't support him for future office, whatever, but his resignation puts fair elections in jeopardy in California and it is suicidal to think the whole state and country should be punished for one man's sins.

The reason for Kevin resignation was simply lack of money. His defense fund was very low. The party didn't want to touch him, because his reputation was already ruined by Arnold and his buddies.

Arnold and the Republicans have been planting dirt on him, since he ordered the removal of the e-voting machines due to security problems. The Republican money-machine wants the e-voting machines back, before the next California election. They want to make sure Arnold is reelected. Diebold is in their pocket. THE BIG BROTHER and CRIMES OF THE RIGHT books, both written by author HOPE NEWMAN expose the real facts behind the compassionate conservative $$$...

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

You should email the Chron with that one - why aren't they investigating that?

This is in response to the Chron's new target of Eileen Hansen, but it perpetuates the pattern of ignoring serious problems on the side of the conservatives (of which Gavin Newsom is one) and overreacting to minor ones on the progressive side or just inventing them where no ethics violations exist. (It is not an ethics violation to donation to a fellow democrat , for instance)


Dear Editor,

In an editorial smearing Eileen Hansen as a candidate for the Ethics Commission in SF, the Chron says that "Mike Garcia served with distinction". "Scandalous" is more appropriate.

The Chron complains about a couple of legal campaign donations by Hansen to fellow Democrats while ignoring controversies concerning Mike Garcia's term, like when he
" demanded that members of the commission staff destroy documents disclosing $185,732 in spending relating to Mayor Gavin Newsom's swearing-in, according to a complaint by two city employees." See the link below for more details.

http://sfindependent.com/article/index.cfm/i/012104n_ethics

Ethics chief, destroyed docs & allegations
By Adriel Hampton | Staff Writer
Published on Tuesday, January 27, 2004

The director of The City's Ethics Commission demanded that members of the commission staff destroy documents disclosing $185,732 in spending relating to Mayor Gavin Newsom's swearing-in, according to a complaint by two city employees.

Documents included in the complaint show large payments under the heading "San Francisco 2004 Swearing-In Committee" to more than two dozen individuals, most of them salaried employees of Newsom's mayoral campaign and several who now work for the new administration. They also show a $54,000 payment to Newsom's mayoral campaign.

Sutton and Partners, the law office that handles Newsom's financial transactions, said the documents were incomplete invoices accidentally sent to an Ethics Commission staff member who has a name similar to that of an attorney in that office. Upon learning of the mistake, the law office requested that the commission dispose of the document.

According to the complaint -- which was filed Friday with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force and in which the city workers are claiming whistleblower protections -- Kevin De Liban and Oliver Luby of the Ethics Commission staff believed the documents might have legal significance and "evidence of a violation." Therefore they defied repeated orders to destroy them.

"The Ethics Commission retention policy forbids the destruction of a document with legal significance, even if its legal significance has not been established," the complaint reads.


Dani Weber
709 S. Eldorado St.
San Mateo, CA 94402
650-533-6134