« Let It Be Some Other 'Asian' | Main | The big game at Arco Arena: 55-30 Republicans win »

April 17, 2007

Comments

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18062454/

Give me a break...as if it is as easy as Steve makes it out to be. What are his solutions for abuse of Prop 215? I would rather learn those than his over generalizing and labeling.

redperegrine

"Consequently, Janet is going to view every vote through the prism of re-election and how it will affect her chances of securing it."

Possibly true. Very sad.

Greenhut is just ticked because Janet didnt do what Norby wanted her to do. Kudos to Janet for standing up for what she felt was right based on the info she had and not being a Norby/Moorlach puppet.

Craig Alexander

Kudos to Janet for voting what she believes is right! It is probably good politics for her as well. However I would rather give her the benefit of the doubt and believe that her vote was also about her belief system not just "will this vote will hurt me at election time?"

Plus T Rack is right, federal law does trump state law when the feds have spoken on a specific issue and the feds have spoken a long time ago about this one. If people do not like the federal laws on this subject, Congress is the place to go to repeal those laws.

Also, somehow I don't think Chris Norby or John Moorlach are looking for puppets and I doubt any of the other supervisors would fit that bill anyway.

boosting your memory

Jubal,

The petition that former Supervisor Coad signed called for the decriminilazation of all drugs not just the DA's dreaded weed.

Art Pedroza

Jubal,

Did you try asking Janet why she voted this way? I did. She said that, as well all know, the federal government has not been playing along with the will of the voters on this issue, to say the least. That would be your boy Bush and his inept AG Gonzalez.

She also told me that a court in San Diego is considering a case that will establish a precedent in this area. It is wise in this case to wait and see what that court decides.

I did advise her to vote for it by the way, but Janet is her own person and she does try very hard to be fair and prudent on every issue.

As for Norby, he did not back Janet during her campaign. He went with a candidate who immolated and quite likely ruined his political career - Carlos Bustamante. I wonder how Bustamante would have voted? Didn't he tell the Libertarians that he does not support the medicinal use of marijuana? After his horrible loss he probably needed to use some himself...

redperegrine

Geez, Art. How long are you going to keep kicking Carlos?

Pedrozabot

I'm still trying to get over the fact that Art bothered to do ANY research before opinionating. That's so unlike him.

Still, Art, what do you expect Janet to tell you? The truth? "Well, Art, I'll tell you but no one else: I voted against even the Campbell compromise because I don't want to get tagged as soft on crime next June."

And didn't Art promise NOT to comment anywhere except on O-Juice?

Jubal

Art:

No, I didn't call Janet to ask why she voted as she did, and that's a fair criticism -- although I find it strange to be upbraided by you of all people for putting forth my view on why she voted as she did. And I still find it hard to believe political calculations played no role in Janet's vote. It's nothing intrinsic to her, but anyone in her position casting a vote on such a controversial topic will likely take into consideration it's impact on a rapidly approaching and tough re-election.

Finally, Bill Campbell's compromise allows plenty of room for a "wait-and-see" stance, since it just calls for the Health Care Agency to take a stab at a draft ordinance in bring it back in three months. Voting for that isn't the same as voting to issue medical marijuana ID cards -- although an opponent could fairly easily portray it as "voting for marijuana" in a hit piece.

Pedrozabot

Hey Art -- since you're so big on calling a person before commenting on their motives or actions, can you explain why you didn't call this person and get their side of the story before engaging in

this sleaziness

Sheesh

Art is such a slimy hypocrite. Why Janet Nguyen associates with the guy, I don't know.

Art Pedroza

Pedrozabot,if you knew my source for THAT story you would be shocked. But I promised not to reveal his name, so you will have to keep guessing.

As for Sheesh, how exactly am I a hypocrite? I am very consistent on the issues I believe in.

And yes Jubal, I don't always source everything to the extent that you do, which is why I was surprised you didn't just call Janet. Perhaps you are right in your conjecture, but I will go with what she told me until proven otherwise.

Pedrozabot

Pedrozabot,if you knew my source for THAT story you would be shocked. But I promised not to reveal his name, so you will have to keep guessing.

Convenient how you have sources you've sworn to protect whenever you try to smear someone, Art.

But my point in posting that was to make clear how you failed to do what you slam Jubal for not doing. You didn't call the party you smeared and ask for their side of the story.

And I think Sheesh's point is you are a hypocrite because you hold others to standards you won't apply to yourself.

As for consistency, how are you consistent, say, regarding Kellee Lanza?

Pedrozabot

And again, I thought you promised not to comment here anymore.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories