The Media’s Effort To Turn Stark’s Plain-Spoken Bluntness Into A Negative

ELECTION’S 12//CONGRESS 15/ANALYSIS | Rep. Pete Stark sat firmly in his seat at Hayward’s City Hall last April as the audience began ambling out the room following the first forum with his young Democratic challenger, Eric Swalwell. Earlier in the hour-long discussion, the irascible Stark had called the well-coiffed, somewhat squat first-term councilman both a “pipsqueak” and a “bush leaguer.” He had also quite infamously charged Swalwell with bribery and failing to vote in California. Both allegations were false, yet rooted in far more truth than certain media personalities would have you believe. Swalwell rose from his seat and offered his hand to the seated Stark, who accepted. From afar, the conversations appeared odd and less-than-cordial. Swalwell quickly and ungracefully wrenched his hand away from Stark and stepped back. His expression registered an odd combination of incredulous fear one might expect from a paddling surfer the moment after a Great White Shark has sunk its teeth into his thigh. A mic, still live before Stark, caught him mid-sentence saying, “…you’re a crook…” Later, witnesses reported Stark called Swalwell, “a fucking crook.”

Eric Swalwell

Seemingly everything Stark now says is labeled a gaffe by a small group of media members in the East Bay who, themselves, possess a noticeably thin skin. When did politics become the stuff of little girl tea parties and exercises in who can be the nicest candidate? This is a campaign for the House of Representatives, not a seat on the San Lorenzo school board, for crissakes! The hidden meaning here is rooted in a very simple observation, particularly in the race for the 15th Congressional District. In a campaign between Stark, an 80-year-old congressman who walks with the aid of a cane and hardly fills out his collared dress shirts and Swalwell, a perfectly fit 31-year-old deputy district attorney, is that the old guy is easily the most manly of candidates–in not just this race, but the entire Bay Area.

How did we get this way? A few weeks before Hayward City Hall forum, Swalwell appeared dazed and intimidated by a group of Hayward Democrats during a similar forum. Without the home-field advantage of the Tri Valley, he was timid and at one point forcefully told the audience he would draw up legislation to micro-tax financial trades. It sounded good, but as Stark pointed out, the legislation already existed and was much ballyhooed in the press. In fact, it was Stark’s bill. Afterwards, Swalwell bolted out the building as he did following a speech a month later at Cal State East Bay.

If Stark is a bully, then Swalwell is the nerdy kid quietly plotting an elaborate scheme for revenge, replete with schematics and neatly planned guidebooks to execute the adventure. Did Swalwell stage the latest blast against Stark’s alleged poor behavior written by the San Francisco Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci, as Stark’s campaign is asserting? According to other media reports, Former Assemblyman Alberto Torrico offered his endorsement to Swalwell. Out of honor, Torrico says he would call Stark to inform him of the bad news. Torrico’s version of the event as told to the Chronicle, indeed, give more than a hint to what he was up to. In turn, according to KGO-TV, Swalwell turned tattle-tale and alerted the media.

Alberto Torrico

It’s no surprise that Stark took a taunting stance and trash-talked Torrico. Marinucci, though, mischaracterized the incident and spun it to appear Stark had “threatened” Torrico’s family. Read the quotes. Telling someone they are crazy and facetiously offering to call help to protect their children is hardly threatening. Of course, unless the subtext of this conversation is, in fact, Torrico has a mental illness he’s not talking about, then it is not threatening, it’s funny. It’s trash talk and it’s what Stark does. Democrats in the East Bay have never complained when he reserves his best rejoinders for House Republicans and President George W. Bush. In fact, complaints of Stark’s alleged abhorrent behavior is a wholly Republican and Tea Party creation.

In the end, the real reason Torrico and a small band of local officials have bolted to endorse Swalwell is really the most interesting story in all of this. Torrico’s righteous indignation, probably brought on by his epiphany in Jesus Christ, is born from the fact he, like Swalwell’s other supporters are in some way or another dissidents recently ostracized from the Democratic Party in the East Bay. In Swalwell, they see the possibility of a path back. If Torrico was in good standing with the party, it is likely he would have applied for the appointment to Nadia Lockyer’s seat on the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. He didn’t since it was well-known Richard Valle has now gained the party’s imprimatur, instead. Others in the East Bay, however, cynically discounted Torrico’s interest on the basis of his well-known predilection towards making money over public service, at least, since the end of his run in the Assembly. Working in the private sector still makes Torrico more than $140,000-a-year working tirelessly on Oak Street.

Stephen Cassidy

Another Swalwell supporter, San Leandro’s Mayor Stephen Cassidy, a vehement enemy of working people in his city, is another case where Mr. Persona Non Grata sees a chance at redemption through Swalwell. Last week, Swalwell said he was proud to have the support of Cassidy on a thread on Facebook initially asserting Cassidy is a closeted Republican. It seemed to be an odd time back up your friend when, in fact, many are beginning to suspect conservative tendencies from Swalwell, as well. Then, of course, there’s former Alameda County Sheriff Charlie Plummer

In the meantime, the East Bay continues to rest in this bizarre bubble of weirdness, graft and arrogance. A brief moment in time when all that has ailed Alameda County has rushed through the body politic all at one in a mad dash through the pores of its skin. The ooze is visible and the stench is sickening. Yet, when it comes to choosing a congressman from this district, those issues do not pertain. Instead, conservative elements want you to talk about the perceived lack of comity from the swashbuckling, elderly man who metaphorically swings his cane as strongly as he did 40 years ago. When Stark, yet again criticized by the thin-skinned media, charged them in Fremont with asking “stupid questions,” he was right. I have yet heard a question from them wondering how either candidate is going to put people back to work.

S.S. Swalwell last month

But, guess what? While most of the 15th Congressional District still languishes in double-digit unemployment, one candidate thought it was wise last month to campaign in one of the symbols of the One Percent—a yacht bobbing in McCovey Cove during a recent San Francisco Giants game. Maybe that plays well in Dublin, but when regular people struggling in Hayward see that, it’s likely they will sound a lot like Stark and say out loud, “That’s fucking horseshit!”

Categories: Alberto Torrico, candidate forum, CD15, Charlie Plummer, congress, Eric Swalwell, media, Pete Stark, San Francisco Chronicle

84 replies

  1. Hey MW (me again…) I have an analogy for you. Not to say that you need one or don't get common sense – but maybe this will help.

    ***warning, football analogy***

    Swalwell is Tim Tebow. (this is the much hyped, much ballyhooed, new QB of the year)

    Tebow had four carries for 34 yds in the game the other night. that's comes out to what – 7.5 yards per carry? (it does, i'm just doing the math for you)

    So, that's all well and good but wtf, he was hired to be a quarterback not a running back…

    So Eric Swalwell was “hired” to be a city councilman and now thinks he should be hired as a Member of Congress?


    If you can show me something other than the completely ambiguous NEW IDEAS and NEW ENERGY balloon that they keep pumping full of hot air I'm willing to hear it. My guess – you can't think of one thing this kid will do differently than ol' Pete.

    oh 8:40am – Torrico has served Alameda County with distinction and should be commended for his contributions?

    without mentioning names – or circumstances – that's probably the most ironic/funniest thing i've heard all year.


  2. 10:45 AM, Hard to top MW's logic, but you seem to have found a way.
    “Tebow had four carries for 34 yds in the game the other night. that's comes out to what – 7.5 yards per carry? (it does, i'm just doing the math for you)”
    PS… Thanks for doing the math for all of us who couldn't figure it out. Pete could hire you as a budget analyst. Don't worry, he doesn't look too closely at details either.
    See the video of Pete working with details


  3. obviously the swalwell camp has nothing better to do than troll the blogs and reinforce negatives rather than clarify what it is eric stands for…

    oh, wait…sorry, I didn't mean to give you guys an impossible task.

    @10:45 – great point. shame that the majority of folks don't care about details.

    @11:21 – THANK YOU for just reinforcing the point of steve's article. wow, you're dumb.


  4. 2 days and still nobody thought my boat comment was funny…lighten up people!


  5. I agree. Tebow IS Swalwell. Neither have girlfriends.


  6. By MW:

    Including related to the comments of such characters 8:08 and 8:38, the supporters of Stark are getting desperate. In other words, they are scared stiff by the distinct possibility that he might now finally lose an election, and after all those years of easy and automatic wins.

    In fact the latest news is that now even Don Perata, and who for decades has been one of the most extreme examples of the Democratic Party's liberal Establishment, has come out in support of Swalwell.

    QUESTION: So why on earth would Perata OPENLY do that, and especially since he and Stark for decades have been insider members of the same “club!!!”

    ANSWER: Because Perata is deathly afraid that it would be extremely embarrassing to both the Democratic Party and also modern “liberalism” in general if the increasingly erratic, and probably also very senile, Pete Stark remains a member of Congress, and therefore continues to have a very public platform to spew his garbage and nonsense.

    And that is also almost certainly the same reason that certain other prominent local liberals, and including Ellen Tauscher, Charlie Plummer, and Greg Ahern, are no longer even pretending to support Stark and no longer even pretending that they want him to win his battle for re-election.


  7. Good God, MW's “facts” are, well, not factual. Perata and Tauscher were quite conservative Democrats, you know; both have also been out of office for many years. Plummer and Ahern are conservatives as well.

    One last thing: is MW actually leaning on the extremely ethically challenged Perata as a paragon of good judgement? Don's exactly the sort of politician MW obsesses over as a big, fat crook. Real moral rigor MW's exhibiting there.


  8. OK folks, how about a campaign theme song for each of the candidates.

    A appropriate song for Pete
    A appropriate song for Swalwell

    A little levity to the proceedings if you will.


  9. Don Perata doesn't care about the Democratic Party. Don cares about Don.

    There's an oportunity for him to unexpectedly grab some power here, and Stark wil be gone soon. That is all.


  10. “Swalwell's small band of political supporters have one thing in common. They're all exiles of the current East Bay Democratic Party structure.”

    Steve, you have no idea how right you are. I think it merits an article…


  11. 2:15, Yes, and hasn't the East Bay Democratic Party structure shown itself to be so wonderfully healthy over the past 12 months. Everyone agrees, the candidates they produce are stellar. The system works wonderfully.


  12. Small band of exciles? You dont know anything. You cant “excile” anyone from a party. Its like people in fremont saying oh we kicked him out of the party. We dont have membership cards. Anyone can belong.

    Just goes to show you how stupid Tavares is and how little he knows of politics.


  13. we should be able to exile you for not being able to spell.


  14. Golly gee almighty…

    More bad news for Pete Stark.

    Pete, who is a multi millionaire, is taking Social Security payments for his 3 minor children under the guise of being “retired”… or something.

    He makes about $200K in salary.
    His entire family gets top health benefits
    His wife is fully employed and only about age 45.
    He has a net worth in excess of $20 million.

    All his kids are in expensive private schools.
    Easily over $60,000 per year just for tuition.
    He takes tax breaks for his huge house as a Maryland resident.

    But now, he still takes more… Social Security payments for his children.

    Time for this triple dipper to be dumped.
    We don't need to be paying fully employed millionaire geezers for their school age children.


  15. Eric Swalwell knocked on the door to my home and made himself available to discuss any issues I had in mind. Never saw Pete Stark do that. BTW, while Stark's family taking SSI is not at all illegal, it is right up there on the moral compass with how Romney plays the tax code to his advantage, taking deductions that you and I could only dream of. Both the tax code and SSI are in need of some serious revisions. Stark has had his day, time for some fresh blood.


  16. I remember back in the early 90's when Pete held a town-hall meeting at Livermore HS, when Livermore was in the prior district bounndries.
    So Pete is asked by a constituent why he takes $5,000 from the UAW in a campaign contribution, then looking at this expense report, spends exactly that same amount of money to lease a Mercedes Benz from a dealer, who BTW happened to be non-union. Back then no Mercedes were being built in the USA.

    So Pete gets angry at the question and says he needs a big car and that its all legal. Acts like the question is a affront to his manhood.
    After all, he's always had a Mercedes, just now, he was caught paying for it, essentially with the UAW money.
    But of course, back then, Pete never had a real challenger, so he could act regal.


  17. By MW:

    In regard to the article that came out earlier today in the SF Chronicle stating that Stark, and who is evidently a multi millionaire, is collecting Social Security checks for his minor children, even if it is legal (I have no idea as to whether or not it is legal) it is still as sleazy as can be.

    In other words as a multi millionaire, AND WHO FURTHERMORE AND IN ADDITION IS EVEN ALSO COLLECTING A LARGE SALARY AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, even if it is legal it would still be as sleazy as could be for him to try to play all the angles on something like that.

    And also, he is a member of the Demagogue (and also Charlatan) Party, in other words the group whose leaders are always looking to raise taxes on ordinary Americans.

    Since he is a member of the Demagogue Party, in other words the group that pretends to be on the side of the ordinary working people, as a member of that group he should basically be practicing socialism, and which certainly does not openly stand for the poor and the middle class subsidizing and supporting the rich, ALTHOUGH IN REALITY A LOT THE VERY SLEAZIEST PARASITES AND RIPOFF ARTITS DISCOVERED THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO PULL OFF THEIR SCAMS IS TO PRETEND TO BE LIBERALS AND TO BECOME HIGH RANKING AND POWERFUL MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, AND SUCH AS DIANNE FEINSTEIN AND NANCY PELOSI DID.


  18. Steve Tavares, I'm fairly disappointed with you my good friend. You have hit the mark every time, but with Stark, you fall short. I appreciate loyalty as much as the next guy, but you've got to move on. Stark is old news. He took out an incumbent as a young man, and he's now living that dream himself.

    He's 80, Steve. 80. He can barely operate and function. If you talk to any local Democrat, even those that support him, they will tell you that they wished he hadn't run. It's unfortunate but true.

    And you have done a huge disservice by going after Torrico. Mr.Torrico is a great man. In fact, he's supported Stark for over a decade. The notion that he was “exiled” is comical. He was not exiled from the Democratic Party. He helped create the Democratic Party. There was barely a club before he got elected to Newark Council and helped organize the local area.

    Any one of us should be able to call up Mr. Stark and tell him that we don't support him, or take objection to his views, without having to live through one of his psychotic episodes.

    You are really starting to dumb down the nature of the conversation, Steve. Please don't do that. We already have low enough standards around here, as you have effectively pointed out with your reports. Please don't set the standard so low that we are now supposed to idolize wacky hair-brained old men who shoot from the hip and act like a maniac.

    You may not like Swalwell, but he has every right to run and challenge a seated incumbent. He's smart, and he's resonating with voters.

    Mr. Stark's service is appreciated, but his time has come and gone.

    That being said, you should not be romanticizing Stark's nutty behavior, as if it's something we should all aspire to. Unfortunately, that's exactly what you've been doing.

    Please don't lower the very standards you have set by defending Pete Stark's absurd and foolish behavior.

    You are way better than that, Steve. Way better.


  19. Swalwell “has every right to run and challenge a seated incombent.” He also needs to be scrutinized just as Stark is. Pete obviously has a record of having ruffled feathers. He also has a record of having delivered effective policy advocacy, appropriate votes and good service for his constituents.

    It is a dangerous game Stark haters are playing, with votes on the future of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other important programs due to happen right away in the new Congress and a crazed Republican Party looking to steal the money from these beloved programs and hand it ALL over to Wall Street. Bipartisanship with these extremists? No, thanks!

    We notice that no Swalwell supporters have come up with a policy reason why this very inexperienced leader would be a better representative of our region in Congress. No commendations for what he would be likely to do with his power.


  20. I think there's something to be said for someone who says what's on his mind instead of saying what will make him look good. Someone who says what he believes instead of shilling for votes.

    I haven't liked everything that Stark has said, but I know that everything he says, he means. And that's rare, especially in a politician. He seems more concerned with doing what he feels is right than looking good to reporters and getting on TV–something that can't be said for most people in politics, and certainly not his opponent.

    I don't think Steve is trying to glorify the rude things he's said recently. Those aren't something to celebrate.

    But whatever you have to say about Stark, he shoots straight and has a low tolerance for bullshit. That's rare these days, and I think it's sad. I think that's what Steve is trying to “glorify.” I agree.


  21. 6:69 you hit the nail directly on the head. VERY VERY well said.

    Ryan B


  22. 10:17 pm, nice try, but not quite.

    There's a difference between being a “straight shooter” and an “idiotic maniac”.

    Stark has been in Congress for over 40 years.
    That Institution rewards seniority. Stark has been passed over for key leadership positions, positions that were rightfully his. That means leadership and his own colleagues have no respect for him or his ability. He's seen as a loose cannon here and in DC. That's bad for business.

    He should not have run. Plain and simple. Just because he made a critical error in judgement by deciding to run again, doesn't mean we all have to fall into line and support him.

    Everyone keeps saying Swalwell has no experience. Well guess what, neither does Ro Khanna. But for some reason that prick thinks he's next in line for Stark's seat.

    Let's hope Erik wins.


  23. By MW:

    Stark, and who is eighty years old, seems to be suffering from periodic bouts of extreme senility.

    (NOTE: Those who suffer from senility do not always act senile all the time, but are sometimes very erratic and sometimes affected in the extreme by their environment. For instance, I knew one older person who whenever he sat at his kitchen table, and where there was plenty of light and where the shape of his chair basically forced him to sit up straight, was sharp as a tack. However, whenever he sat on the couch in his living room, and where the light was not very good, and in which the couch, and which had seen better days, sagged, and as a result his body slumped a bit, was far too stupid to comprehend anything. In fact whenever we visited with him in his house for a few hours or more, he displayed that phenomenon every single time whenever he would move from the living room and its couch to the kitchen and its chair – or go in the opposite direction, in other words from the kitchen and its chair to the living room and its couch.)

    But getting back to Stark specifically, at this point probably the only things he is good for are: one, serving as a bad example, in other words to illustrate the type of conduct to avoid; and two, and due to the fact that he, and altho evidently he is a multi millionaire and also still receiving a large salary, is still collecting Social Security chaecks for his minor children, hopefully serving as stimulus for more investigative reporting that would also uncover more of the truth about some more of the hypocrites, windbags, phonies, and parasites in high ranking positions in government.


  24. It's amusing and revealing that Swalwell supporters are unable to explain what he would do while in office, other than not be Pete. Pete, who has been a certain vote for policies his constituents want. With even more important and volatile votes than usual due to happen very early in the next Congress, I'm mad that people would mess with my future and the future of my country by failing to think this decision through.

    A brief analogy: Elvis Costello is one of my favorite musical artists. He's had a long, rich, diverse career which reflects a deep maturation of his artistic knowledge and expression. Costello also has the reputation of being not very nice at all, a jerk at times. Why would I allow his behavior in private to be a major factor in whether I wish to continue to enjoy his music?

    In this very liberal part of the country, I don't want people in Congress who are ready to get along with House Republicans who want to destroy the foundations of our middle class, and are having quite a bit of success doing so. I view these Tea Partiers as unpleasant, immoral people who mean to do me harm. They don't want bipartisanship, and neither do I.

    The fight happening right now about the shape and scope of government, and how we will reduce and eliminate our Federal budget deficits as we did recently under a Democratic President, is a fight that needs to happen. My support for Swalwell and other Blue Dog Dems recedes as they display unwillingness to take on this fight.


  25. 9:18 Big difference between Elvis Costello and Pete Stark. Elvis is still willing to get up on stage in front of a audience. In other words, face the public.

    Between now and November 6th, Elvis has 14 public events where he is going to be on stage with a public audience

    Contrast that with Pete Stark.
    Between now and November 6, Pete Stark has said he is unwilling to appear on stage in a public forum or debate.

    When asked why, Pete yells at reporters, then jumps into the “get-a-way” car.


  26. Elvis faces a self-selected audience of worshipful fans. If people came to a show and heckled Costello, they would be tossed out of the building and the press would agree with their treatment, writing little or nothing about it.

    These days, if five people out of hundreds of thousands of District constituents were to show up at a Stark event and keep shrieking their factually incorrect nonsense, as Pete faced over and over again duing the opposition to federal health care reform, the press would write about how much trouble Stark was in.

    I think we'll see 100 posts on this thread without one Swalwell supporter explaining why we should trust Eric with our futures. How will he vote on the most important issues? What would his policy advocacies be? A look at his website tells us he wants to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. That seems worthy of scrutiny at least as much as Pete's willingness to put himself before a press crew that no longer pretends to be impartial.

    I disapprove of and am made concerned by some of the things Stark has done during this campaign. He has given himself self-inflicted wounds and made targets his enemies can shoot at. None of that overcomes the need to measure this choice carefully.


  27. August 14, 2012 8:23 PM,

    I haven't come up with my favorite songs to summarize the candidates in this Congressional race, but I just heard one which summarizes the Romney/Ryan ticket and those who support it pretty well:

    “Tomorrow Belongs To Me”, from Cabaret.


  28. I have to say that the premise that Torrico “supported” Stark is hilarious…if anything you couldn't shake torrico's fat ass from Pete's coattails.

    I can't think of anyone that would readily accept that losers endorsement. Torrico is a has been and his attempt at 15 minutes of fame by jumping on eric's ship of fools was nothing more than a temper tantrum.

    I just took a look at eric's issues page – what a flipping idiot. Here's some free advice Eric, look at the average age of voters in the district then TRY to have an out of body experience and see life through their eyes. Cut Social Security and Medicare? Well…you just lost my vote, my wife's vote, and most of our neighbors.


  29. Pathetic quote in the Chronicle today from Pete's campaign manager.

    Keeps referring to Swalwell as “young Swalwell”..
    She does it twice. Does she really think readers can't see what she is trying to do?

    How about Pete Stark, back in 1972, when his opponent was 80 years old, also refering to “young Stark” in a dismissive tone.
    One thinks that someone other than Pete is running the show, and that he is too out of touch to even know what the public is seeing.

    I might also add that labor leaders like his current campaign manager Cornu, have had cake-walk campaigns for so long in Alameda County, that they are out of touch with the general public.
    Regular folks in the public don't lap up hack slogans and start clapping every time you use such phrases.

    I'd rank Pete's campaign up til now as a D- … and not getting better.


  30. 11:01 am: you obviously have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

    Pete Stark has “coat tails”? You would think so, after being a 40 year democratic incumbent Congressman. But he doesn't have shit. If he did, he wouldn't be in this mess.

    The fact is, that old man never did anything to help anyone. Never lent a hand. Never helped get anyone elected. Never jumped in the ring to help any of his friends that were being challenged. Never even helped the Democratic Party.

    Now he's in the fight of his life, and he's wondering why everyone is jumping ship. Even those that have “endorsed him” aren't doing a heavy lift, because they know he never lifted a finger for anyone.

    No coat tails. No political capital. No chits left to cash in. That's usually how it goes for selfish, spineless cowards.


  31. I have been a Pete Stark fan since he was one of the few Democrats to stand up to the hideous Ronald Reagan and his destructive policies in the 1980s. We need more members of Congress like Stark who aren't afraid to speak the truth.


  32. Dear 7:59:

    Your ego should be topped off after your tirade espousing your so-called “insider” knowledge. I might not be an insider but I pay attention and do my homework.

    Go to FEC.GOV and, plain as day, in 2010 – EVERY SINGLE DISBURSEMENT from stark was to candidates or committees to HELP DEMOCRATS across the country. That's $80k in contributions which took me all of 4 minutes to find – maybe if you weren't so busy trying to pass yourself off as an expert and did some basic research you MIGHT learn something before proving to the rest of us that YOU'RE FULL OF HOT AIR.

    Uhmmm….using the word “NEVER” is a tad overly dramatic. (but, you're a drama queen so i'll give you a pass)

    Your second point about “everyone is jumping ship”…uhmmm…EVERY single elected Democrat with any CLOUT has endorsed him. Both federal senators, both state senators, the local state assemblymembers, all the members of congress from the bay area… please, stop me if I'm overstating here…

    *cough*cough* who doesn't know what they're talking about?

    between you and MW I don't know who is dumber or lazier. I know we accept all comers to the party but you two should be banished for your stupidity.


  33. By MW:

    To 9:32AM,

    So Stark has managed to get some pro forma, lukewarm, and perfunctory endorsements from his fellow Democrats, and just as those two bit political hacks also pretended to believe that Nadia Lockyer was the best qualified candidate for the seat on the AC Board of Supervisors, and therefore they, and including both Willie Brown and Jerry Brown, endorsed her.

    And let's not forget that when Jim Jones, and later of Jonestown infamy, was first starting to have his credibility attacked, he was able to get various old time political stooges, and such as for instance the liberals on the SF Board of Supervisors, to unanimously pass proclamations declaring him to be a wonderful person.

    In fact, Harvey Milk even wrote to President Carter asking that Carter force people to stop making insulting remarks about Jim Jones, since it had been “proven” that Jim Jones was a wonderful, extremely honest, and totally trustworthy person, and including since the SF Board of Two Bit Jokers and Political Hacks had unanimously passed a resolution praising Jim Jones to the skies.

    And prominent Democrats, and including Dianne Feisntein, “knew” beyond a shadow of a doubt that such sleazy crooks, embezzlers, and money launderers as Duane Garrett and Kindee Durkee were extremely honest and totally trustworthy, and until a few years ago they probably also “knew” beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bernard Madoff was the epitome of honesty and integrity.

    In fact in such sources as Wikipedia look up M. Larry Lawrence, in other words the guy who was dug up out of Arlington National Cemetery, and who was also referred to by such names as M. L. Lawrence and sometimes just as Larry Lawrence. His primary sponsor for the position of US Ambassador to Switzerland was Dianne Feisntein, and since she “knew” that Lawrence was a person of great integrity.

    In fact when they first started to discuss appointing Lawrence to be the US Ambassador to Switzerland, I then phoned such agencies as the FBI to inform them that Lawrence was a sleazeball (and I gave specific examples of Lawrence's sleaziness), and that caused Lawrence's main SF lawyer to make threats against me, and including since he “knew” that I was engaging in illegal conduct by making disparaging remarks about as fine and honest a person as Lawrence.

    In other words, Lawrence's SF lawyer believed in the liberals “improved” version of “free speech,” and just as Harvey Milk also did.


  34. that made absolutely NO sense. I think you win the contest for being the dumbest. the other guy wins for laziest.

    hahaha. you need help. seriously.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: