3.8 MILLION VISITORS SERVED. EVERYWHERE SINCE 2009

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Alameda councilman eyes run for mayor: 'Don't know if I can win.'

Alameda Councilmember Frank Matarrese
ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL
Seemingly from the day Trish Herrera Spencer was elected Alameda mayor in 2014, the line of challengers seeking to make her a one-termer began jockeying for position. Nearly three years later, Councilmember Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft is a near lock to run for mayor next year, but speculation over whether Councilmember Frank Matarrese would do the same has been an open question until now.

In an email obtained by the East Bay Citizen, Matarrese signals he is close to joining next year's race. Except, he's just not certain about his chances for victory.

"As far as 2018, I stated that I want the job of mayor and am headed that way, but I don’t know if I can win," Matarrese wrote in a Sept. 17 email to Alameda housing advocate Bill Smith.

Matarrese acknowledged the email exchange, specifically his state of mind regarding mayoral intentions, but not the overall contents of the email, which included Smith's notes from a lengthy conversation with Matarrese over housing in Alameda. "My email yes, his not so much," Matarrese responded in an email.

But, the admission is rarely seen insight into a candidate's thoughts in anticipation of running for public office. In this case, his consternation may have merit, at least, strategically.

In a three-person race, with Spencer and Ashcraft, Matarrese's chances would appear to rest on whether he could expand his base of voters, which run along the center of Alameda politics.

Conversely, some observers believe a run by Matarrese would significantly hinder Spencer's chances of re-election since she gathers support from the same pool of voters, and likely hand the election to Ashcraft.

Matarrese's previous run for Alameda mayor in 2010 might also dissuade him this time around, as it nearly did before his successful 2014 run for the City Council. Matarrese also served as an Alameda councilmember from 2002 to 2010.

In the past he acknowledged great distress following the brutal campaign that was waged against his former mayoral campaign and others by a group closely connected to SunCal, a former developer of Alameda Point.

When asked last month whether he would run for mayor, Matarrese indicated his age, 62, and the fact that he just became a grandfather, might also be factors for not running.

4 comments:

  1. By MW:

    There are at least two factors that make Trish Spencer less than an automatic shoo-in to win re-election.

    Obviously she is far less than popular with a lot of people.

    But also: Back in the bad old days if a person already held the office, and therefore was the incumbent, it seemed the voters usually kept on just rubberstamping that person for still another term each time he or she ran for re-election.

    However for at least a few years now the power of incumbency has sometimes seemed to be somewhat less than before. Ask Pete Stark for details.

    And for instance the growing opposition among Democrats to just handing Dianne Feinstein another term is also an another example to the lessening automatic respect for incumbents.

    And in fact in the recent presidential election, Hillary, and who had been deeply and prominently involved in politics for decades was not merely Obama's heir apparent, but in a sense the "incumbent," however she could not come up with a sufficient number of voters to just rubberstamp her into office, and even though she was also running against a total outsider in politics who had never even been the mayor of a small town.

    But it could soon get even much worse for incumbents, and especially for older ones such as Feinstein. Specifically, last night I read an article on-line in which a particular guy, and who said he was a Washington DC area pharmacist, said that a lot of the prescriptions he filled were members of Congress, and that a lot of those prescriptions were for conditions related to Alzheimer's. In fact it was his opinion that a considerable portion of the members of Congress were not merely slightly senile, but that their minds were almost completely gone.

    Actually, that is a major problem not just among members of Congress, but for all sorts of people who are determined to hang on forever.

    For instance, William O. Douglas, the former US Supreme Court Justice, for years was absolutely determined not to retire, and the only reason he finally, and still very grudgingly, agreed to retire, was after years of being pushed to do so even by his fellow liberals on the court, and who had found his extreme mental disability extremely embarrassing. And over the last few decades Douglas was hardly the only USSC justice to continue hanging on, and for years, after becoming extremely senile, but merely just the most extreme case.

    In fact two of my friends used to work in a large office building that was loaded with federal judges, and according to them the minds' of some of the more elderly judges were not only fairly much gone, but that the mind of one of them (I won't mention his name) was so extremely gone that the court building basically served as his nursing home, and a major job of the US marshals assigned to the court, and who were supposedly there to provide security, was actually serving as his babysitters.

    AND THESE SENILE JUDGES WERE SOME OF THE GUYS WHO GOT TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION AND TO COME UP WITH RULES FOR ALL OF US TO LIVE BY. (Hopefully the clerks assigned to the more senile judges actually did most or all of the work, and then just had the judges sign the decisions.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. By MW:

    As though the traditional and establishment Demagogue Party, in other words the political party of Feinstein, Kamala Harris, Pelosi, and the Clintons, and so forth, did not already have enough problems, it is going to be extremely interesting in the next few years as more and more comes out concerning all of the ties and close links such sleazy Hollywood characters as Harvey Weinstein had with the very highest ranking members of the DP.

    For instance back when Al Capone was the head guy of the biggest and most powerful organized crime gang in Chicago, and while there were certain other organized crime rings he considered to be his enemies, and such as for instance the Bugs Moran Gang, however there were certain other organized crime gangs, and such as for instance the Gennas, that he more often treated as allies and business associates than as opponents.

    Similarly, the top leadership of the DP has generally been an ally and close friend of the very sleaziest elements in Hollywood. And also of course a major reason that such scumbags as Weinstein were able to get away with it for so long was that anyone who talked was harassed and attacked by sleazy organized crime and kidnapping rings that pretended to be law firms. (Sleazy law firms pretend that the kidnapping sessions they engage in are supposedly deposition and discovery. And of course the big boys of the DP pretended, and as long as those sleazy lawyers and scumbag law firms provided the DP with large election campaign contributions, that those scumbag lawyers and law firms were legitimate.)

    In fact, the close relationships the big boys of the DP had with the most powerful people in Hollywood reminds me of the close relationships the big boys of the DP had with Jim Jones (and later of Jonestown infamy) back when Jim Jones was still in San Francisco. The way it worked was when a bigshot DP person from out of state came to SF for a visit, one of the local DP bigshots, and such as for instance WB or SF mayor George Moscone, would then introduce Jim Jones to the visiting out of town DP bigshot, and then Jones and the out of town DP bigshot would each smile and gaze at each other with admiring eyes, since they both "knew" they were "wonderful people" since both of them were "liberals."

    And then we also had the NY Times, and that for years refused to print negative articles about Weinstein, but for decades has been emphasizing its commitment "TO ALL THE NEWS THAT's FIT TO PRINT," and which should change its slogan to ALL THE NEWS THAT WON'T EMBARRASS THOSE WHO PRETEND TO BE LIBERALS.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Personally, I would not contribute money to a candidate who states" I dont think I can win"

    ReplyDelete
  4. You lose since you said "I don’t know if I can win".

    ReplyDelete