There you go again, Jerry

Jerry Fuchs, editor and columnist of a couple of freebie journals in town has boiled the election issues down to one thing. In his mind if you want a new Safeway vote for the M&M's, otherwise vote for the challengers!!!!!

What a total crock. ALL the candidates want a new Safeway. They have stated it in their campaign literature, at all the public debates, and every meeting where the issue has arisen. And Jerry knows it, of course. It seems that those opposed to change in this town cling to this trivialization of the issues.

The real issue is leadership and vision, of which, as the Burlingame Voice and many of its readers have clearly pointed out, neither Mike Coffey or Mary Janney posses the smallest scrap. Sure, if you want special interest politics, if you want closed door meetings, if you want exclusion of the peoples voice, if you want your property values to decline, go ahead vote for the M&M's. Whoever you vote for, you will get a new Safeway.

Jerry, roll over!

- Written by admin

Comments

[Rosaline]

Jerry Fuchs is the most despicable gossip columnist I have read. Why can't he be more responsible. More honest. He should be ashamed of himself.

[sue]

Shameful to say the least. But, that is the way Fuchs operates...fairy tales, lies and deceit. Doesn't he know that people are really listening during this election time and those who care KNOW that ALL the candidates want a new Safeway. Nobody asked me, but, I think Fuchs should be recalled for his BS journalism.

[Gerald]

Nobody Asked Me, But-------

I think Jerry ought to have a recent photo atop his column instead of one dating from back during the administration of President Nixon.
***
And I thought all the candidates were in favor of a new grocery store but most favor building one the safe way, not the Un-Safeway.
***
I don't usually shop there anyway, because, frankly, Safeway is merely a 7-11 on steroids (and aren't those in the national news lately, Burlingame??)
***

[joe baylock]

Wasn't today's Fushsian fantasy fabulous? The Old One writes "The challengers complained at the end of the campaign that incumbents fought dirty. Did they not understand that their letter-writers were a reflection of their campaign and that they opened the door to reciprocity?" Isn't that classic? Doesn't Fuchs understand that he has been writing "vitriolic" B.S. for years which has reflected poorly on his pet pols? What he's really upset about is that there are plenty of newspapers in town, including several with more readership than his, and that he can no longer censor letter writers.

The best part was his confused analysis that asserts that maybe it "backfired because Coffey survived the onslaught." Old Fuchsy should get the precinct results before jumping the gun. If he had, he would know that Coffey did far better in the early voting absentees than he did in the Election Day voting. In fact, Russ Cohen beat Coffey by 66 and Janney by 223 votes on Election Day so people who saw the MM slime tactics at the end reacted negatively and voted for change.

So the bottom line is still the same. LYING about people won't work in this town anymore. That still leaves Fuchs plenty of room for innuendo, misinformation, gossip mongering and sharing of his own personal, but dated, fantasies about who is doing a good job.

joe baylock