I "hear" that Rewers current job in San Francisco is to help draw MUNI bus routes. Maybe he should apply to work for Sac RT?

@PocketGOPer: I think he has applied for a job that would have great input into that already. So, in a sense, he has taken your advice. And, as I felt he was the most qualified person applying for that job, this morning I submitted my recommendation that he get it.

PocketGOP: Do you feel that, when a voter takes a lot of time to carefully speak to the candidates (or in KJ's case his spokesperson), thinks about it, talks it over with friends, co-worker and most of all with her significant other before making up her mind and casting a vote for the person she feels is most qualified she is "wasting her vote"? Why?

Do you think this is a basketball game and all that matters is winning the play-offs? It isn't. What matters is citizens participating thoughtfully in the civic life of our City.

Oh, I get it. Only the guy with the money is worth voting for; the guy who actually walks precincts; talks to people; answers questions; comes to community events--what a waste of a vote. No, we need the guy who, when he does a coffee run, hops into his polce SUV with tinted windows, rolls up those windows, tells his security detail to turn on the lights and the horn and races to the coffee--which is run out to him by one of his people. He rolls down the window, reaches outside, takes the cup, rolls up the tinted window--and then lights flashing he and his security detail are away. Now THAT's what I call real representation, that's really talking to people, that's a real mayor!

It is so not a waste of a vote to vote for that guy because you know.. he's a millionaire and a celebrity. And he's got money. And look at the police SUV we paid for so he can be escorted everywhere in it, including to thr voting booth: http://www.sacbee.com/pictures/index.html?image=1 So of course we should vote for the guy with the money. Makes sense to me. I mean seriously--why waste your vote on Rewers who talks to people as he walks about town and wants to represent the people of Sacramento?

What a total waste of a vote.

evak; i love your passion and have truly enjoyed reading all that you have to offer. I truly appreciate you for sharing your heart -sometimes wit- lol and insight with us. I am so deeply impressed. Thank you.

Here's the thing about contributions from outside the region. The people who donate to a campaign--any campaign--do so for a reason. If you're talking small amounts then it's possible that those people don't want something from the candidate. So, for example, in 2008 we gave to the Obama campaign when we thought he was being unfairly attacked. we gave to make ourselves feel good and we didn't give a whole lot.

But when people give the maximum amount they can (Rupert Murdoch gave the maximum to KJ) they want something in return. Now, they may not want it today and they may not even know what they want but once they give you the maximum they can give to a campaign, it's understood that you owe them. So, if Murdoch needs favorable zoning regulations in the future because he wants to expand his operations in Sacramento, he will get a full court hearing. If you and I wanted something similar, we'd have to go through the process.

Not only that, but the Murdochs of this world don't invest (that's what they call campaign contributions btw "investments") in politicians who are interested in just their local communities. On the contrary, if they can find a politician who is being elected locally but whose real interest it national, that (as far as they're concerned) a worth-while investment. Why? Because should KJ get to the Senate, he will be able to do a lot more for Murdoch than he can as mayor of Sacramento. So, a mere $3,050 is a great way to make this guy (who isn't really interested in Sacramento but who may well be on his way up, up, up) owe you.

Now, the downside of that of course--and it's hardly worth mentioning--that politicians that the Murdochs of this world invest in really aren't interested in their local communities. And so they just let them.. stagnate while they themselves go up, up, up; amass more power, fame, fortune and give out favors to the Murdochs of this world.

So that's our choice in the mayor's race. Do we want a really personable (and as PocketGOPer points out very rich) man whose political money comes from the Murdochs of this world to be our mayor or do we want a very young and I would add very idealistic young man who doesn't have a lot of money but who does understand how public finance works and who seems to genuinely care about what the people he meets have to say? At least that's the choice as I see it.

Can you hear that? It's the sound of PocketGOP Googling right-wing responses that don't ACTUALLY answer with any logic or reason, but sound good on the face of it.

Well said, Evak.

Is Sac Press still going to post more answers?