Position


Newt Gingrich
Gingrich Communications
1425 K Street, NW
Suite 350
Washington, DC 20005

Mr. Gingrich

For years you have run a successful reading program in your home district encouraging young people to read, learn and grow. You commitment to educating people and exploring ideas is commendable. As an elected official I applaud this type of leadership.

So it was stunning to see you engage in uneducated, pandering rhetoric and stirring the pot of “Islamaphobia.” Let’s be clear – “Islamaphobia” is a misnomer for the ugly reality of bigotry.

Upon becoming Speaker of the House you proudly shared the GOP “Contract with America.” It seems lately you have forgotten the “real” contract with America you took an oath to defend: the Constitution.

Shame on you Mr. Gingrich, for suggesting constitutional freedoms should be based on the behaviors of foreign governments. As an American, the notion our constitutional freedoms should be subject to the whims of Saudi “reciprocation” is lunacy. Defending our constitution often means defending those we disagree with.

I serve on the board of SamTrans, the bus service in my county. Recently a well-known anti-Muslim group bought ads to run on the sides of our buses. More than 100 clergy leaders of various faiths sent letters condemning the ads and asked for a meeting with their interfaith council.

I was clear in my agreement with the clergy – the ads were hateful, based on mis-information, hurt members of the larger community and were on a personal level, repulsive.

But I reminded the assembly of my oath to protect the Constitution. As much as I wanted to “do something” to get rid of the ads – the protection of the Constitution and 1st amendment was imperative. Hard as it was, I defended the right of the anti-Muslim group to advertise their agenda of hate.

Shame on you Mr. Gingrich for equating Muslims with Nazis when exercising their constitutional right to worship in a privately purchased building.

We can never forget those who perished at the hands of criminal mad men on 9/11, but many choose to overlook a simple fact: if you are Muslim in Afghanistan or Pakistan, the body count is growing daily at the hands of the same criminals.

Does the name Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan sound familiar? This American Muslim soldier, awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star, is buried in the hallowed earth of Arlington Cemetery after being killed serving his country in Iraq. He is not alone. Many Muslims are buried in Arlington after giving the US their last full measure of devotion. Perhaps you can explain to their grieving families why you would lump them with Nazis, and scorn their constitutional right to worship. Instead of protecting the rights of these and other American Muslims you have chosen to demonize them.

Shame on you Mr. Gingrich for actually believing your vitriol is limited to a single project in New York.

Americans from Wisconsin to Florida, from New York to California and points in between are having their constitutional rights attacked. Most of these attacks come from small-minded bigots with supremacy agendas. Having a national figure like you leading the way turns debate into hate speech and violence. Do you recall the bombing by an alleged supremacist of a mosque in Jacksonville, Florida? Had the bomb been planted in a slightly different position, 60 worshippers would have perished in the blast.

Principled leadership is desperately needed to deal with uncertain futures in an uncertain time. You chose to take a path favored by only the lowest of politicians. The classic political strategy of telling the public “whom to fear” and “where to assign blame” is vile pandering to the basest fears and insecurities. It is sad to see a leader adding to division and hatred because it may simply further their political campaign.

Candidly Mr. Gingrich, between you and the radical terrorists we both despise, I don’t know who is doing more harm to America today.

Shame on you Mr. Gingrich.

On Thursday August 5 I spoke before the California High Speed Rail Alliance board to express 3 points:

  1. The phased implementation approach for construction of the system is critical
  2. Electrification of Caltrain is vital for the fiscal viability of preserving the route and right-of-way
  3. A short story of San Carlos and our grade separations.

San Carlos had a contentious campaign when grade separations were implemented.  Predictions from opponents were dire regarding our city character and the effect of  doing the separations.  Folks in favor looked to improve the miserable traffic flow and help economic development.  Almost a decade after the construction – what can we conclude?

  • Accidents of cars/people on the tracks have dropped to zero
  • Traffic issues are much better
  • Economic development (Home Depot and Lucky) were done as a result of better access
  • The “worst cases” did not come to pass.

To this day there are detractors of the berms, and they correctly point out “things we should have done.”  In hind-sight, improving the sidewalk conditions of Old County Road, under-grounding of utilities and better pedestrian access are all points of design and implementation which would have made this project go from “good” to “stellar.”  These are things the council is making progress on improving and I wish we could move faster in making those improvements.

In the discussions regarding High Speed Rail (HSR) there are opinions – and then there are facts.  One simple fact – a grade separation is not a death sentence.  In the San Carlos case it has meant greater safety, better traffic flows and economic development.  This can also be the case for the jurisdictions fighting hardest  and issueing ultimatums of implementation scenarios.

A final thought I offered was the notion of FUD: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.  When there is a vacuum of information, FUD will fill the void.  Some of the FUD we are hearing is politically motivated, some is because good information is not being put forward for the general public.  Political FUD is just part of the process and has to be addressed.  FUD resulting from an information vacuum is simply bad management.  Being more direct: the current PR firm in place has niether servered the public, nor the High-Speed Rail Alliance and should be replaced.

Why would the San Mateo County Supervisors refuse to give voters the option of changing the method of electing supervisors?  57 of 58 counties in California use a district-specific system, San Mateo County is alone in making candidates run county-wide.

The current system of electing Supervisors benefits incumbents, discourages political newcomers and fosters races in which no real issues are debated or discussed. The opportunity for legitimate candidates to mount a solid campaign is hampered by the high cost of running an expensive county-wide (as opposed to a district-specific) race.  The benefits of district-specific elections bring out candidates who are actually connected to their district and more competitive races giving voters better choice.

Among the reasons given by supervisors to remain in the current jurassic voting system include:

  • “We don’t want to be SF County”: Interesting objection, but dislike of a single instance is hardly grounds to ignore 56 other counties who have successfully implemented this standard.
  • “Democracy is Expensive”: The notion of putting artificial barriers to keep the process expensive only perpetuates the growing cost of campaigning.
  • “If it ain’t broke…”:  The Grand Jury and the Charter Review Committee felt the system was clearly “broken.”  After months of study, the conclusion was clear and and the question of changing the voting system ought to be put to the voters.

The debate on whether or not this change is right for San Mateo County would have been an important one to have.  We are living in extraordinary circumstances and need leadership who can stand up to the challenge of our demanding times.  Sadly, this debate is now moot and the lingering question remains whether the people of San Mateo County were served by this decision.  One would be hard pressed to say we were.

I’ll admit to being stumped as to why the Board of Supervisors voted 4:1 (termed-out supervisor Rich Gordon voting in the minority) against asking the public the preference of district vs at-large elections for supervisors.

Keep in mind, San Mateo County is the ONLY county in California with an at-large election. One would be hard pressed to say this is serving the public interest.

The vote was a repudiation of the recommendation made by the San Mateo County Charter Review Committee to alter the system in which the five full-time political offices are elected by placing a measure on the November 2010 ballot. – examiner.com

I’m looking forward to conversations with the supervisors in the coming days to hear their reasons.

As you get ready to head to the voter’s booth – here are my endorsements:

Federal Offices:

  • Senate: Barbara Boxer
  • House District 12: Jackie Speier

State Offices:

  • Lt. Governor: Gavin Newsom
  • Atty Gen: Kamala Harris
  • Assembly District 21: Rich Gordon

County Offices:

  • Supervisor, District 2: Carole Groom
  • Supervisor, District 3: Don Horsley
  • Assessor: Mark Church

State Propositions:

  • Prop 13: Yes
  • Prop 14: Yes
  • Prop 15: Yes
  • Prop 16: No (and still wish we could flog PG&E execs for this madness)
  • Prop 17: No (yet another insurance scam parading as “consumer protection”)

Next Page »