Great info. But practically no one who reads the Voice believed the hit pieces against Sally Lieber. Those potentially fooled are mostly voters who do not read the Voice. That is why candidates endorsed by the Voice editorial board should have been distributing in joint drops of their individual flyers the editorial and articles from the Voice.

I hope our community's leaders can show the same courage as San Jose when they stood up against's Silicon Valley Organization's campaign tactics. Web Link

The frequency that real estate and landlords have tried to influence MV politics through intentional lies and character attacks must stop. As long as leaders in MV continue to stay silent and take their money, they'll continue to hurt our community.

This election from federal to local has become more about the values of democracy than anything else. I hope Tuesday shows we had enough on all levels.

I was shocked and appalled by the well-funded and duplicitous ad campaign against Sally Lieber that showed up in my mail box. I was so angered by this incredibly deceitful political maneuver that I almost voted for her. But then I remembered that some years ago she said that she thought it should be illegal to spank your children. So, yeah. I couldn't vote for her.

In response to Nora S. you wrote:

“I was shocked and appalled by the well-funded and duplicitous ad campaign against Sally Lieber that showed up in my mail box. I was so angered by this incredibly deceitful political maneuver that I almost voted for her.”

Again, sounds reasonable, but then you wrote:

“But then I remembered that some years ago she said that she thought it should be illegal to spank your children. So, yeah. I couldn't vote for her.”

Here we go with another SMEAR campaign, if you even bothered to read here proposal it said this:

“A Democratic assemblywoman from Mountain View says she will submit a bill next week — once it is officially drafted — proposing that California become the first state in the nation to make spanking of children 3 years old and under a misdemeanor. Penalties could include child-rearing classes for offenders to one year in jail.” The New Your Times article found here (Web Link

Nora, a child 3 years old cannot even understand what the spanking is correcting for, they don’t have the cognitive awareness yet. This IS abuse. There is a great article about this topic titled “Spanking: The Case against It (Ages 1-3) found her (Web Link Specifically:

“Should I spank my child?

The short answer is no. When your child misbehaves or acts in defiant, inappropriate, or even dangerous ways, you want to show him his behavior is unacceptable and must change. Spanking may seem like a direct and effective way to do that, but it delivers other messages you don't want to send:”

What can a child ages 1 to 3 do to deserve it in the first place? More likely the parent doesn’t take care of the child correctly anyway, the article discusses what is the healthy way to avoid having to “strike” a child like this, it says:

“What can I do instead of spanking?

Make your home safe. Child-proof your living space so your child won't get into things or places he shouldn't -- and you won't be overtaken by a sudden panic.

Avoid direct clashes. If you order your child to stop throwing his food and he obstinately refuses, distract him instead. "Stay adult," says Penelope Leach, "and remember that you are much cleverer than your child. You can almost always find a diversion."

Teach empathy. From the earliest time that a child can begin to understand, it's important to teach morality. That is, the child should learn to do the right thing because it's right, not because he'll be punished if he doesn't do it. This can be done by explaining to the child why it's wrong to do something that may be hurtful to others. For instance, rather than saying, "If you hit me, I'll hit you back," try saying, "You shouldn't hit me because it hurts, and you know how it feels to be hurt." Even though a child may not catch on right away, if you're patient and give examples, he'll eventually understand.

Teach children to avoid danger. Rather than spanking your child if he nears a dangerous spot (like the fireplace), show him the fireplace and repeat his word for pain (such as "owie"). Soon your child will point, say "owie," and avoid the dangerous spot.

Use your imagination. You're also bigger and stronger than your child you can use that to defuse a situation, rather than letting it escalate. If your child won't head for his room when it's bedtime, pick him up and turn him into an airplane heading for the runway -- his bed.

Make room for negative feelings. Let your toddler express feelings like anger, sadness, and disappointment, and empathize with him ("You must feel mad about that"). At the same time, set limits on inappropriate behavior. You can tell him, for example, that it's okay to feel mad at his little sister for knocking over his blocks, but that he can't hit her or call her mean names.”

This attack you did was completely baseless and in fact shows you have no clue that in this case spanking is nothing but abusing a child. I am worried if you are a parent. I was abused by my mother as a child so badly that during divorce proceedings, since Massachusetts did not allow fathers to have custody of children, I was made ward of the state. I personally know what its like to have a mother like that. You simply scare the (blank) out of me.

@ Steven Goldstein

We disagree.

IN response to Nora S. you wrote:

"we disagree"

I am confused are you talking about just the two of us, are are you trying to say you are part of a group of people that believe that spanking a child less than 3 years old is acceptable behavior?

At least you are honest to not try to deceive the readers here in saying that the information I presented was NOT from sound resources and demonstrated also sound judgement.

But what you did was VERY deceptive, now that I presented the real history and the conditions. You merely claimed that ALL spankings were going to be made illegal. That was not true and you know it.

Again, I will bring this up every time in the future to demonstrate the point of view and what you subscribe to as acceptable behavior. In my humble opinion being 53 years old, I simply do not find it acceptable

In the meantime, I will point out that even though I don't practice it, I was trained in pediatrics, and childhood development. I actually took these classes in college. And did projects in childhood behavior analysis.

What you are describing is again very scary.

@ Steven Goldstein

Oh, so what I am "describing is very scary"? I am not describing anything. You are describing a great deal, most of which is fictional, not to mention paranoid.

All I am saying is that Lieber's idea that she knows more about raising children than actual parents do is highly debatable.

It's a shame. I agree with her on many other issues.

In response to Nora S. you wrote:

“Oh, so what I am "describing is very scary"? I am not describing anything. You are describing a great deal, most of which is fictional, not to mention paranoid.”

I will be happy to show you my court records from Family Court. In fact I have my Child Services records when I was in the Custody of the State. I will also be happy to show you my College Transcripts. As far as paranoid, please say you don’t believe in striking a child less than 3 years old? When you wrote:

“All I am saying is that Lieber's idea that she knows more about raising children than actual parents do is highly debatable.”

Again, tell us that you think striking a child less than 3 years old is justified? And on what transgressions? You wrote:

“It's a shame. I agree with her on many other issues.”

If this is your ONLY reason not to vote for her, boy this seams again a VERY SCARY issue to take issue with.

Authors of this opinion piece may not LIKE those anti-Lieber campaign mailings, but the mailings' claims of past actions do appear factual, and aren't even substantively contradicted here. Despite many negative characterizations of them and their sponsors ("nefarious," "heavy-handed," "specious," "cynical"), this essay's authors don't really dispute the history points claimed in the mailings. (How is this editorial spinning different, fundamentally, from what the mailings themselves did?)

The authors here also complain it was too much trouble for them to “check the facts" claimed in the mailings; they report no real effort to do so, despite quoting a reference source in the flyer (note: not all important information in life comes with a handy "link" -- occasionally you must actually look things up).

This opinion essay, then, could itself be summarized as complaining about the messenger, or style, rather than the message. Also -- though evidently this point eludes Steven Goldstein despite his several belabored replies already, just as he'll predictably respond at length to my comment here -- the "spanking bill," by a legislator who (I'm told) lacked experience herself of raising children and what it entails, gave many residents insight into Lieber's sensibilities; it dogs her reputation today. You need *not* favor spanking young children to question such a we-know-best intrusion into intimate family relationships. (In one Woody Allen comedy movie, a man becomes dictator of a small nation, and promptly orders that all citizens now must change their underwear three times a day. But that was parody.)

In response to Common sense you wrote:

“Authors of this opinion piece may not LIKE those anti-Lieber campaign mailings, but the mailings' claims of past actions do appear factual, and aren't even substantively contradicted here. Despite many negative characterizations of them and their sponsors ("nefarious," "heavy-handed," "specious," "cynical"), this essay's authors don't really dispute the history points claimed in the mailings. (How is this editorial spinning different, fundamentally, from what the mailings themselves did?)”

Appear factual, that’s a very muddy term. But more importantly, do you have any actual proof it is factual? So far there was nothing presented other than an advertisement designed to personally attack the candidate, simply because it was the only method of persuasion that these people can think of. You wrote:

“The authors here also complain it was too much trouble for them to “check the facts" claimed in the mailings; they report no real effort to do so, despite quoting a reference source in the flyer (note: not all important information in life comes with a handy "link" -- occasionally you must actually look things up).”

There were NO FACTS at all. I did the research by looking up her donations on the website mentioned, AND I FOUND NOTHING to support the claims. It was nothing but fiction, pure and simple. You should find us a record and provide us with a means to see if it is valid?

[Post shortened due to excessive length]

By the way it is time to dissolve he Chambers of Commerce once and for all.

The Silicon Valley Chambers of Commerce PAC is being closed per the article in the Mercury New titled " Silicon Valley Organization’s PAC dissolved in fallout from racist attack ad
" found here (Web Link

This is the same thing the Mountain view Chambers of commerce has been doing for the last 30 years, just not yet caught so blatently. THe story said:

"In a stunning move less than a day before Tuesday’s election, Silicon Valley’s chamber of commerce has dissolved its political action committee amid the political fallout from a racist attack ad it had commissioned last week in a San Jose City Council race.

“Today, as first a step toward restoring its 130-year reputation, the Silicon Valley Organization voted to immediately dissolve the SVO PAC, subject to state and local campaign finance laws and reporting requirements,” Terry Downing, a public relations consultant working with the SVO, said in a statement Monday.

The PAC, which is the campaign arm of Silicon Valley Organization, typically spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on campaigns for business-friendly candidates each election cycle. And in the South Bay, where the SVO PAC and South Bay Labor Council are two of the most influential players in politics, the dissolution of the SVO PAC could significantly alter how future campaigns are run.

The latest announcement from the SVO board comes in the wake of a growing exodus of influential and well-known board members and just days after Silicon Valley Organization CEO Matt Mahood stepped down and the executive board announced it was suspending all campaigning efforts and hiring a third-party investigator to determine how and why the ad was published. The organization said Monday that the results of the investigation will be available on Nov. 10."

We cannot afford to listen to the Mountain View chambers of Commerce, because they do not CARE about the City of Mountain View, they just want the city to be their playground and find all means they can to get money from the city.

If Sally Leiber gets smeared by the likes of CAA, she is a good person ... vote for her to rejoin MV city council!