Want the news summarized?
Subscribe to The Morning Report.

Thursday, Aug. 14, 2008| Listening to the debate on KPBS, we were puzzled why Jan Goldsmith did not want to acknowledge facts or answer legitimate questions. Mr. Aguirre called it ambiguous ignorance and a lack of clarity of his platform. There were many questions Mr. Aguirre brought up that Ms. Penner did not want answered. Why did Mr. Goldsmith refuse to admit that his financial support comes from the rightest of the right-wing, the San Diego Minutemen, the Lincoln Club of San Diego County, and the Republican Party. If the right-wing organizations are his financial support base, Mr. Goldsmith should not be ashamed to say so. Why was Goldsmith embarrassed to say he was a staunch Republican like the writer of the previous letter?

Why did Mr. Goldsmith refuse to acknowledge that he promised San Diego municipal employees that he would drop the pension appeal if elected, thereby advocating for the Union leaders instead of the taxpayers, and burden the city with billions of dollars in debt? Giving up on appeal is not a good legal strategy, is not fiscally responsible, and is not a Republican ideal.

Why wouldn’t Mr. Goldsmith acknowledge that he hasn’t been a practicing lawyer since the 1980s? As a lawyer in the 1980s, did Mr. Goldsmith ever handle complicated litigation as a lead attorney? No one knows. Does Mr. Goldsmith not know that according to municipal code, it’s the City Council, and not a clerk in Mayor Sanders’ Development Services Department, that makes the decision as to where firearms are allowed within the City limit? Does Mr. Goldsmith believe that Countrywide did not commit fraud in regards to sub-prime loans? Aguirre’s platform is an open book. Why do the media refuse to get answers to these important questions regarding Mr. Goldsmith’s policy stances?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.