Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Election 2012

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Editor on 11/01/2012 at 8:23 AM

Re: “An Express Endorsements Cheat Sheet

"An Express 'Pick your Poison', Endorsements Cheat Sheet".

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Mike Dar on 11/01/2012 at 4:25 AM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

He had flowers planted around vacant lots in Oakland and posted signs about "beautifying Oakland thanks to Ignacio DeLaFuente." a few months later, same vacant lots full of garbage, and weeds...wow they looked good for one week!

11 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by kimykali on 11/01/2012 at 4:06 AM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

After seeing Kaplan linked arm in arm with Quan as they tried to prevent the Oakland police from confronting anarchists and looters in downtown Oakland, I vowed to never vote for her again. Your hit piece won't change my mind.

14 likes, 26 dislikes
Posted by Charles Schwartz on 11/01/2012 at 2:07 AM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

Great work. The East Bay Express takes off the gloves and delivers the goods. And don't these 10 no-nonsense descriptors kind of remind one of Mitt Romney!?

21 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by David Cohen on 10/31/2012 at 11:22 PM

Re: “Endorsements Part IV: Vote Barbara Parker, Jody London, and Sheryl Walton

The money saved by closing Santa Fe flies in the face of reality and the inside deal Tony Smith gave his old employer Emeryville, this after London herself had approved over 2 million in improvemenets for the school. Do you understand any of the demogrpaphics of this district? We are seeing a new boom in young white families moving into Santa Fe's residence area and there are now no public non charters in the traditionally black areas of the district. In addition London has been totally silent on the cronyistic deal putting the Skyline principal in place, giving his cCal teammamte Russell White a $75,000 a year job as the head of the OAL, after two failed years as a walk on coach at Castlemont. Mr. White forfeitted all but two of his games for using ineligible players, and the interveiw system was rigged so that credentialed applicants were not in the final. This league is an important voice for minority students in the NorCal CIF, not a sinicure or reward for your failed buddies.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Earl Marty Price on 10/31/2012 at 11:06 PM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

De La Fuente's campaign or his supporters have mailed out a "hit piece" against Kaplan that shows her and myself and some other supporters dancing at her kick-off fundraiser and accusing her of partying while Oaklanders are "dying." He is the most sleazy, corrupt, discourteous and lousy politician I have ever encountered. Oakland deserves better and I hope he can find something other to do than bad deals (Oakland coliseum the worst case). Oakland deserves better and next Tues will prove it.

Karen Hester

32 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Karen Hester on 10/31/2012 at 9:51 PM

Re: “An Express Endorsements Cheat Sheet

This also needs to be revised a little bit!!

3 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by kunklejaney510 on 10/31/2012 at 4:01 PM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

I BELIEVE EAST BAY EXPRESS MUST HAVE MADE A TYPO ON THIS ARTICLE BECAUSE THEY DESCRIBED MARIO JUAREZ TO THE MAX, NOT DE LA FUENTE!!!!!

Mario JUAREZ has been dishonest, we all know hes shady as ever, hes a machine CROOK , hes the biggest hypocrite, he is the BAD DEAL, he bends the rules and he has never been interested in the job he does it for the money an for the perks that come with it, also his campaign person kathy neal has more interest in the job than him!!!

19 likes, 20 dislikes
Posted by kunklejaney510 on 10/31/2012 at 3:49 PM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

Ignacio De La Fuente is far from perfect, but he is the clear choice for Oaklanders who care about about public safety. IDLF introduced tough-on-crime measures including gang injunctions and youth curfews in October of 2011 only to have Rebecca Kaplan reject them. Kaplan is a former civil-rights lawyer, which may explain why she consistently votes to undermine the Oakland police department. The Oakland Police Officers' Association (OPOA) and Make Oakland Better Now! (MOBN) have both endorsed IDLF. Kaplan, on the other hand, has received NO endorsements from any credible law enforcement group or good government organization. For more on Kaplan's efforts to undermine law enforcement, read the following article: http://www.orpn.org/Kaplan_anti_safety1.ht…

19 likes, 42 dislikes
Posted by Andrew Hatch on 10/31/2012 at 11:57 AM

Re: “Endorsements Part IV: Vote Barbara Parker, Jody London, and Sheryl Walton

Jumoke is indeed the right choice: she's been an active participant in West Oakland's various community forums for well over a decade and helped create the WOPAC to advise the Redevelopment. It's curious that her opponent, Fuentes, should always shout out that "she voted to close schools!" when the closure of some schools was all anyone could do – and the entire Board did vote that way – if fiscal responsibility means anything at the Board level. Is he saying that he wouldn't have voted to close the schools on the list? And wouldn't have hired Tony Cook? What exactly does he stand for and how would he be any improvement over Jumoke's incumbency?

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Steve Lowe on 10/31/2012 at 11:37 AM
Posted by Judith Schumacher-Jennings on 10/31/2012 at 8:27 AM

Re: “How Well Do You Know Your Candidates?

Very cool chart.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jay Youngdahl on 10/31/2012 at 7:48 AM

Re: “How Well Do You Know Your Candidates?

Even the enlarged graphic is illegible.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Tim Rood on 10/30/2012 at 9:19 PM

Re: “The Anti-Endorsement: Ten Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote for Ignacio De La Fuente

I think that about covers it!

34 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by Pamela Drake on 10/30/2012 at 9:01 PM

Re: “Ignacio De La Fuente's Big Gamble

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Editor on 10/29/2012 at 9:54 PM

Re: “Ignacio De La Fuente's Big Gamble

This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Editor on 10/29/2012 at 9:39 PM

Re: “Ignacio De La Fuente's Big Gamble

I don't think is fare to blame De La Fuente for the violence increase in the Fruitvale district. To include his family and son issues with the law for short political gains is also not right. There is a national increase in crimes and violence and the main reason is the economy. There is also a correlation between violence and minorities (latinos and blacks) and that is the main reason for the violence in Fruitvale and other poor neighborhoods in Oakland. It is easy to be in politics when you represent rich neighborhoods and districts. If Latinos continue to elect De La Fuente (since 1992) to the city council is because he is giving back to his community.

2 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Hector Salgado on 10/29/2012 at 7:07 PM

Re: “Mercury Rising, Again

j messina,
Your description of what Prop 33 does is factually false.
Read the Proposition's language (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text…)

Most proponents of Prop 33 have thus far acknowledged that it allows insurance companies to raise rates on those who cannot show continuous coverage, in addition to allowing for discounts. They just emphasize the discounts it would authorize.

So the facts are simple. This is a deregulation measure that gives insurance corporations more power to determine how they calculate drivers' rates.

Another aspect of the Prop, which I wasn't able to fit in this article, is that insurance is a zero sum pool. If companies give bigger discounts to new customers who can show continuous coverage, they'll have to raise rates on other drivers to balance out the discounts. Who will they raise these rates on? Creating some winners in insurance via discounts by definition means creating some losers. Who will these losers be?

Posted by Darwin BondGraham on 10/27/2012 at 3:47 PM

Re: “Mercury Rising, Again

Prop 33 only eliminates the penalty for changing insurance providers. Arguments against this proposition mainly argue that it will create a surcharge penalty for first time and non-continuous customers. What they ignore is the fact that there is already a surcharge penalty for new and non-continuous users – so that is not going to change. It only eliminates it being imposed when you transfer continuous coverage from one provider to another, which is now used to discourage customers from switching insurance companies.

There is a similar and more severe surcharge penalty on home insurance policies – sometimes amounting to as much as 100 % increase penalty for new and non-continuous customers and even worse, some insurance companies won’t even sell a policy to new or non-continuous users at all.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by j messina on 10/27/2012 at 8:05 AM

Most Popular Stories

  • UC Berkeley Drops Health Coverage for Families

    In an effort to reduce costs, UC Berkeley has stopped providing a healthcare plan for the children of students.
  • Oakland Auto Dealer Got Big Tax Break

    However, One Toyota refused to pay a living wage to some of its employees, thereby violating a tax-subsidy agreement with the city.
  • Immigrants Are Not to Blame

    Undocumented immigrants are not the cause of crime and drugs in America. America is the cause of crime and drugs in America.
  • It's Official: Marijuana Is Medicine

    A series of papers in the Journal of the American Medical Association is starting to correct the shameful legacy of drug war politics over cannabis science. But a research catch-22 persists.
  • A Solution for California's Water Woes

    During the drought, the state has failed to safeguard water supplies and the environment, and now there's a growing call to finally fix California's archaic "water rights" system.

© 2015 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation