Chronicle and Guardian agree on GaramendiBy Steven T. Jones
The San Francisco Bay Guardian and San Francisco Chronicle often differ in our political endorsements. We're a progressive newspaper and they're more conservative, particularly on economic issues. So it was a telling coincidence that we each endorsed John Garamendi for Congress is today's newspapers, making some of the same arguments as we bypassed two other experienced politicians and an attractive newcomer.
The Garamendi campaign had an interesting take on the two papers as it announced the endorsements this morning: "I am honored to have received endorsements from the San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Bay Guardian," said Garamendi. "The Bay Area's largest newspaper and largest progressive weekly often disagree on a lot of issues, but on the need for experienced leadership in these troubled times, they are in unison. Debates over health care, job creation, and climate change are front and center in Washington, and my three decades in public service have centered on finding innovative solutions to these very real problems. I will represent the people of the 10th Congressional District with the passion and drive that have defined my entire career and remain focused on the serious issues at hand."
BTW, you can listen to our endorsement interview with Garamendi, as well as Anthony Woods and Adriel Hampton, here.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (2)
you're so stupid you can't even get Adriel's last name right. You really are stupid, aren't you?
Posted by toolio | August 19, 2009 06:04 PM
The idea that a "progressive" weekly would endorse a whichever-way-the-political-wind-blows lifelong politician like Garamendi is disappointing, to say the least. Those "reforms" Garamendi supposedly introduced are one of the reasons insurance rates (car, employment and health) in California are among the HIGHEST IN THE COUNTRY. If he couldn't fight the health care insurance industry as insurance commissioner, how would he be able to do more as 1 among 435 votes? And how would his "experience" at failing Californians make him a successful representative? Not to mention the fact that he DOESN'T EVEN LIVE IN THE DISTRICT. Sorry about the all-caps, but seriously, WTF?
Posted by Jacob | August 25, 2009 06:00 PM