Thursday, November 12, 2015


ELECTION16 | If the Alameda County Board of Supervisors are not gods in the context of East Bay governance, they are surely the U.S. Supreme Court. It's almost a lifetime appointment unless you're caught shooting up methamphetamines. That’s why Bryan Parker’s challenge to Supervisor Nate Miley’s seat is so important.

Not since the early 1990s has any sitting supervisor been forced to actually campaign for re-election. Miley has served since 2000 after a stint on the Oakland City Council and Parker is an appointed Port of Oakland commissioner and former Oakland mayoral candidate who finished sixth in last year’s election. But, what makes Parker so credible is his ability to raise loads of money in an extremely large and diverse supervisorial seat.

District Four runs from East Oakland to Pleasanton with unincorporated Castro Valley sandwiched between. Parker raised over $300,000 for his Oakland race, but that campaign had a $700 per donor fundraising limit. Next year’s supervisorial race has a $20,000 limit. The sky could be the limit as far as Parker’s bank account is concerned. And Parker will need all of it not only to introduce himself to the entire district, but maybe reintroducing Miley to the same group under a very poor light. Because since Miley has never faced a formidable challenger, voters in his district may not know much about their long-time supervisor.

Miley is not viewed as a strong fundraising, but again, he hasn’t exactly faced the need to pass around the hat in the past. However, Miley has a loyal following and help from the local Democratic Party and other elected officials will come to his aid.

But, hold on. This could be a very dirty campaign and the battlegrounds will likely center around unincorporated Alameda County, including Castro Valley, and Pleasanton. The latter was only redistricted to Miley four years ago.

Parker may seize upon this fact and convey to Pleasanton voters that his ideology is more moderate than Miley, along with a greater focus on business. Castro Valley may also be problematic for Miley since a small uprising exists there constantly pushing him for greater representation. Castro Valley is not a city and as no direct representation other than Miley.

In addition, the likelihood of fireworks in this race is high. Miley is known as confrontational and abrasive at times, a bit like former Rep. Pete Stark. Incidentally, the consultant who led Eric Swalwell’s upset of Stark is now working for Parker and the candidate is already using rhetoric to describe Miley as old and out-of-touch with the district just like Swalwell used against Stark. Parker’s consultant, Lisa Tucker, also ran the brutal campaign last year by Bob Wieckowski against Mary Hayashi and has no problem advising her candidates to dive deep into the campaign gutter. If Parker slings mud, Miley might not be able to resist slinging it back.


By MW:

If I was running against Miley and if he started ranting and raving and yelling and screaming like a totally out of control maniac when someone said something he objected to, and as he sometimes does, I would then say to him, "Nate, are you on drugs?"

(Note: Miley is a law school graduate, While I do not know if he ever practiced law or even had a law license, however lawyers have far and away the highest rates of alcoholism and drug addiction of any major profession, and many of the lawyers who are alcoholics and/or drug addicts became such while in law school. In fact even if I was wealthier than Warren Buffett, if I had a child who wanted to go to law school, I would refuse to give the child the money to do so, since I would not want my child to become a drug addict, and nor would I want any future grandchildren to be raised by a drug addict.)

I saw Nate run the 5K race at the Ashland Cherryland FamFest in October. He was up early on a Saturday and finished with a good time. Not exactly what you'd expect from your hypothetical junkie MW.

After seeing an Elected MAC ballot item I think my pen will know which bubble to fill in on the supervisor ballot item.


Parker better watch out for the DA. She is probably going to slap some felonies on him like she does with everyone who is a threat to a supervisor or other elected official. Election rigging at its nastiest.

By MW:

Related to the post of 10:50PM, I would strongly agree that yes, we could normally expect Nancy OM's Demagogues and Alcoholics' Office (or let's refer to it as the "DAA" for short ) to try to invent and trump up something against anyone who had the gall and the nerve to challenge an insider in that sleazy organized crime ring that runs Alameda County.

However since Nancy OM and the DAA are right now trying to look like heroes on such issues as: one, human trafficking; and two, the balcony collapse in Berkeley that killed six people - that does bring up the issue as to whether the crooked lying lawyers in the DAA's office will right now be willing to totally risk their credibility by trumping up something against Parker.

In fact almost every single time a lawyer goes into court, it is usually absolutely impossible to check for accuracy every single statement the lawyer makes. So therefore the judge and the jury have absolutely no choice but to assume that the lawyer, the law firm that particular lawyer works for, and any witnesses and "experts" they present are at least occasionally telling the truth on at least a few of the items.

So if that law firm BASED ON ITS PAST CONDUCT has already earned a reputation as nothing but a sleazy organized crime ring of scumbags and professional pathological liars with law licenses, it will generally make it much difficult to get any respect from judges and jurors.

So let's see if Nancy OM's DAA's office, and which is basically betting the farm and its entire reputation on the Berkeley balcony case, is stupid enough to try to trump something up against Parker.

In fact, maybe the higher ranking lawyers in Alameda County's Demagogues and Alcoholics' office can discuss these issues at one of their periodic dinner meetings at which they get as drunk as can be and then talk about cases and also plan the future policies and strategies for their office.

And if Parker himself is NOT a lawyer, then if Nancy OM and her DAA's office try to pull anything sleazy, he should then scream to the high heavens about: one, the "standards" of lawyers; and two, the fact that lawyers have far and away the highest rates of alcoholism and drug abuse of any major profession.

By MW:

Referring to the above post of 5:44AM, plenty of people, and including many of whom are on drugs or who take drugs on and off, manage to turn in fairly decent athletic performances, and sometimes even fantastic performances.

In fact, many of them due to being on drugs or having recently been on drugs, perform at an even much higher level athletically than if they were not druggies. To give just a few examples, think of Jose Canseco, Ken Caminiti, and Mark McGwire.

However using the logic, thinking, and reasoning of 5:44AM, perhaps Nadia Lockyer could have "proved" that she was "not" a druggie by showing up bright and early to run a distance race, and especially if she had then turned in a fairly decent time. In fact, I have had two particular co-workers who as part of their normal schedule worked incredibly long hours, and including regularly working sixteen to nineteen hours straight, who were extreme drug addicts.

I seriously doubt they would have been able to regularly work such incredibly long hours if they were not on illegal drugs, and altho I myself have always refused to get involved in such a lifestyle. In fact decades ago I worked at a place at which a very high percentage of the employees, and who in the majority of cases were in their late teens and early twenties, were fulltime college students in addition to working for that employer. One of the employees who was also a fulltime college student told me that the only reason he was able to maintain his exhausting schedule was due to the drugs he regularly consumed, and he also tried to convince me that I also should start taking illegal drugs, since he felt that way rather than my working and trying to save the money to later go to college on a fulltime basis, instead according to him I would have had the endurance and energy to simultaneously go to school fulltime while at the same time working a lot of hours for an employer to make the money to support myself.

But l did later have a job that required sometimes working much more than forty hours per week during the busy season. And when one of my customers found out the extreme number of hours I had been working each week for the past few months, she refused to believe that I was not taking drugs. (She said her husband was a truck driver and that he had to work extremely long hours, and that the only way he was able to find the endurance to keep up his very tough schedule was by taking drugs However, and unlike her husband, I only had to work super long hours a few months per year, and rather than all twelve months a year and basically forever, so therefore myself and my co-workers could get to recover during the "slow season.")

To summarize, many of those on drugs can, and in at least some ways, perform at a much higher level than those not on drugs. However there are often very deleterious longterm effects, and such as for instance including eventually developing cancer and/or suffering an early death, in other words and as happened to Ken Caminiti.

Post a Comment