http://almanacnews.com/square/print/2012/05/04/the-north-peninsula-democratic-club-endorse-keith-for-board-of-supes


Town Square

The North Peninsula Democratic Club endorse Keith for Board of Supes

Original post made by Menlo Park Resident on May 4, 2012

Kirsten Keith beat out a heavily contested field to capture the prize endorsement of the North Peninsula Democratic Club for the District 4 seat on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. This seat has been viewed by many as a springboard for the 18th Congressional District seat currently held by Ms. Anna Eshoo of Menlo Park.

Ms. Eshoo is 69 years old. If Eshoo retires in 12 years she will be 81 years old and should Keith be successful in winning 3 terms on the Board of Supervisors she could be at the young age of 57 the successor to Anna Eshoo for the 18th CD Seat.

Many people view this as a two way race between the liberal Union Backed Shelly Masur and the moderate fiscally focused Kirsten Keith.
We shall see what happens

Comments

Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 4, 2012 at 7:04 am

"should Keith be successful in winning 3 terms on the Board of Supervisors she could be at the young age of 57 the successor to Anna Eshoo for the 18th CD Seat."

I wouldn't vote for Kirsten Keith to save my soul. The only person I am less inclined to vote for is the ethically challenged Kelly Ferguson.


Posted by Outisde Looking In, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 4, 2012 at 7:44 am

The article doesn't mention anything about Keith succeeding Anna Eshoo. However, if this is Keith's goal, then I think we can expect her to do what she is already doing, which is putting her political ambition before fulfilling her commitment to her community, as can be seen with her running for the board of supervisors before even completing a half term (two years) on the Menlo Park City Council.


Posted by not hank, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 4, 2012 at 7:47 am

[Post removed; don't speculate on other posters' identity.]


Posted by hijacked, a resident of another community
on May 4, 2012 at 10:43 pm

This post implies that Keith is an overly ambitious, which is ridiculous. This seat opens once every 12 years, so any viable candidate should step up. The truth is that Keith is a team player, she first pulled papers in 2002, but decided instead to support and walk for Jellins, DuBoc and Winkler: Web Link

The person that created this post is not a person that anyone would ever consider listing an endorsement from, and their slanted opinions should be ignored. The Almanac town square will continue to be a sewer until users are required to login before creating posts.


Posted by Freedom of Speech, a resident of Menlo Park: Stanford Hills
on May 5, 2012 at 6:05 am

It is so typical of those whose candidate is being criticized. If anyone dares disagree with their righteous view of their candidate Keith then the Almanac is remiss in its duties if it does not expurgate those errant opinions. Keith is extremely ambitious. She has been mayor for less than 6 months and on the City Council for less than 1 years yet she feels she is better qualified than those who have publicly served in San Mateo County far longer and who have accomplished far more than she. Keith is entitled to run and we are entitled to criticize.

I find it worrisome that some people implore the Almanac to vacate other people's first amendment rights. The Almanac is a forum for civil discourse. And people will often disagree. Rather than urging the Almanac to strike opinions that they happen to disagree with they should make a rebuttal.


Posted by First Amendment, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 5, 2012 at 8:08 am

I believe many people in this town rely on the Almanac to protect people's ability to express themselves with political speech with anonymity. People are far more apt to express critical opinions, which are necessary to a true democracy, with their identity protected. If the Almanac ever abandoned that responsibility, after inviting the public to engage in this manner, it would be a travesty, and do unrecoverable damage to many who have trusted in the forum to be the hone of free expression. Political figures undoubtedly will have their feelings bruised from time to time from commentary on the forum, but the public and that political figure is better served to know how they react to adversity and public criticism than not.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 5, 2012 at 8:34 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The First Amendment protects free speech, it does NOT protect or provide for anonymity.


Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 5, 2012 at 8:36 am

Hijacked:

if you're so concerned about people not using their real names here or being required to log in to post, why didn't you? Hypocrite.


Posted by Actions Speak Louder Than Words, a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on May 5, 2012 at 9:05 am

Hijacked:

I agree with Menlo Voter and Freedom of Speech. Based on these two posts, I think you're being hypocritical because your candidate is being criticized.

You are probably very close to Keith to write: "The truth is that Keith is a team player, she first pulled papers in 2002, but decided instead to support and walk for Jellins, DuBoc and Winkler." How do you know she "instead" decided "to support and walk" for Jellins, Duboc, and Winkler and that her intent was being "a team player?" Maybe, she didn't run because she didn't have the support she needed nor the experience for that office 10 years ago, so she didn't have a choice. Just like in this supervisor's race, she's not qualified for the job of being on the board of supervisors. However, if she feels she's entitled to run, I agree with Freedom of Speech, we're entitled to criticize.


Posted by First Amendment, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 5, 2012 at 9:27 am

Actually Peter Carpenter is wrong. The First Amendment protects a person's right to express political speech the way they so choose, anonymously or not. It does not require a protester sign their name to posters, signs, or flyers they would post or carry in a public park. It protects their ability to choose to identify themselves or not. To require self identification would compel speech and make people less apt to speak at all.


Posted by Actions Speak Louder Than Words, a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on May 5, 2012 at 9:36 am

Hijacked,

Wow! You're very critical of the person who started this thread and the Almanac- full of vitriol in your post, I think. But speaking of endorsements, I wouldn't be too quick to judge which endorsements to list. Keith lists Fergusson on her endorsement page, and that's definitely one person I wouldn't list!

Menlo Park Resident, who started this thread, is giving an honest view about Keith's ambition, so I'm not sure how this poster's opinion is "slanted" and why you think it "should be ignored." I think it's a fair assessment and that one that should be considered, especially in light of the article that you referenced, which shows Keith's propensity to look out many years ahead before running for office.

I'm glad Menlo Park Resident made his/her assessment and hope that the residents of Menlo Park will see Keith's ambition. Nothing wrong with ambition but not at the expense fulfilling a commitment and doing a good job in your current role. I don't see Keith as a particularly effective mayor, but maybe, it's too early to judge. But, her desire to run for the board of supervisors after such a short time on the Menlo Park City Council reflects her political-career ambition, so I don't think her focus is Menlo Park. I hope I'm proven wrong about her year as mayor, but somehow, I doubt it, since her year will be up close to the supervisor's election, if there's a run-off. If she doesn't win the primary, then she'll probably campaign for the likely winner, with her husband, to be a "team player." Let's just hope that Keith's husband doesn't embarrass her with another cell phone/campaign sign incident!


Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community
on May 5, 2012 at 9:37 am

Actions said. "She is not qualified for the job of being on the board of supervisors."

Fact: Congresswomen Jackie Speier and Ana Eshoo had ZERO political experience NO elected office before being elected to Supervisor of San Mateo County.

I've said this before it makes little difference who's running for Supervisor in San Mateo County as long as we elect by At-Large elections, Bill Nack and Shelly Kessler will impact the results....mailing list of 70,000 members plus spouses. SMC has about 100,000 people voting.


Posted by Actions Speak Louder Than Words, a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on May 5, 2012 at 9:48 am

Michael G. Stogner,

I agree with your assessment of Speier and Eshoo, which is why Menlo Park Resident's original post is telling.

I also agree with your assessment that at-large elections for the board of supervisors race is not a good system. However, I wonder if not having an at-large election in this supervisors' race may have been a favorable environment for Keith in this election. I don't know yet, but at least, I think at-large elections, especially in this case, helps us see how little support Keith has from her colleagues throughout the county. That's very telling, as well, since they have to work with her regionally. Having Menlo Park support isn't enough and doesn't reflect the entire county, and she would be representing the entire county.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 5, 2012 at 10:25 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The facts speak for themselves:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Not a single mention of anonymous speech. Lots of people try to read a lot of things into the First Amendment but in reality it is very clear.

And the Almanac has no obligation to protect anonymity. In fact the very best newspapers will not publish anonymous opinions or comments - for good reasons since such comments lack both source credibility and accountability.


Posted by First Amendment, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 5, 2012 at 10:47 am

Mr. Carpenter, you would do well to read U.S. Supreme Court decision Talley v. California, 32 U.S. 60, (1960) which expressly held that an ordinance outlawing anonymous political posting in California was a violation of the First Amendment. "States may not compel members of groups enganed in the dissemenation of ideas to be publicly identified." The Supreme Court continued, " fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussion of matters of public importance."

Talley is well settled law, upheld as recently as 1995. No one credibly challenges it anymore.

The Almanac has created a place for freedom of expression where people express themselves in the Forum a manner envisioned by the Supreme Court, and the Constitution. It might not comport with your personal code, but that underscores why the First Amendment is so essential to begin with. So no one person can dictate or intimidate how another person expresses themselves on matter of public importance.

The Almanac should be commended for bring a public space and protecting it in cyberspace.

The Alamanac has created a t


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 5, 2012 at 10:52 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

While " "States may not compel members of groups enganed (sic) in the dissemenation (sic) of ideas to be publicly identified." that does not state that individual have a right to anonymous speech - simply that the States may not prohibit such expression - a big difference.


Posted by First Amendment, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 5, 2012 at 11:14 am

The distinction you are attempting to make I am assuming is whether one has a right to anonymity when accessing a website run by a private company, as opposed to public entity. However, if that company holds out that site, in this instance, to be a public forum where individuals can anonymously post political views, they create an expectation and duty to those who use the site that they will protect those First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment is not meant for squeamish or gentile. It is the messy soil that liberty springs forth and blooms from.

The Alamanac should be commened for continuing to provide such a forum, even if it can be less than polite to politicians and poltical issues.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 5, 2012 at 11:55 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" they create an expectation and duty to those who use the site that they will protect those First Amendment rights."

That is an interesting assertion but there is no basis for it in the Constitution or case law.

The Almanac is free to do whatever they want - the Founders intended for the First Amendment to particularly protect the rights of a free press. Talley v. California has no applicability to private entities.


Posted by First Amendment, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 5, 2012 at 12:07 pm

Mr. Carpenter, an hour ago, by your assertion the First Amendment didn't protect anonymity in political expression either, because the word didn't exist in the text. Perhaps you should consult a legal expert on how duties are created, prior to expounding on California law.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 5, 2012 at 3:41 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"the First Amendment didn't protect anonymity in political expression "

It doesn't and all Talley v. California does is say that GOVERNMENTS may not prohibit anonymity in political expression - that does not grant blanket protection of anonymity.

Try being anonymous the next time you go through airport security or are stopped for a traffic violation and want to vote.

I certainly have freedom of speech but the New York Times is not required to publish what I say nor is it prohibited from declining to do so because I am unwilling to disclose my true identity.

I am open to anyone, preferably a real person with source credibility, showing case law which guarantees anonymity.


Posted by First Amendment, a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 5, 2012 at 4:20 pm

Nonsensical analogies don't add much to the conversation All the circumstances you refer to aren't even instances of political expression. As a result, the conversation has grown stale. Best of luck to you sir.


Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on May 5, 2012 at 4:37 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

As originally stated the First Amendment protects free speech, it does NOT protect or provide for anonymity.


I am open to anyone, preferably a real person with source credibility, showing case law which guarantees anonymity.

The Almanac, foolishly in my opinion, grants the privilege of anonymity and that privilege is, in my opinion, routinely abused by individual who have no need, except to keep from looking foolish, to use such anonymity. As stated by the Almanac "We prefer that you use your real name" yet the vast majority of posters ignore their host's request. Impolite at best.