In my estimation, we get mad at politicians for giving politically expedient answers and outraged when they give honest ones with which we disagree. It is insufficient to just retort "that's politics." Whatever one may think of Whitburn's candidacy, the quote mentioned above is simply not a big deal. I might prefer if he had a position on the booze ban, but is it really so awful that he doesn't? Or that he was honest about his stance? There are plenty of legitimate policy distinctions between our two options that the mud slinging and name calling can be left for the fringes.

Posted by Omar Passons | reply to this comment
October 26, 2008 8:06 am

" "this is precisely the sort of issue that that the people should decide and I'm comfortable however they go," he said. " Wow, a politico who will not just go around saying what he was told by his consultants, will gain him more votes. You go Whitburn, not yet a public figure - your vote is as private and your concern - as my vote or any other private citizen. I for one agree that people who work for the city of San Diego keep their yaps shut and not try to force THEIR ideologies upon the people of our city by exerting what power and influence they have to force 'personal issues' (Mr. Mayor.) Let the people's vote, & in the case of a people’s vote - they, have only the value of a single vote in what little remains of our Democratic society.

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 11:54 am

Wait a second here, Whitburn can't make up his mind on an issue, he said one thing a few months ago, but now isn't sure? Well, that sounds right to me! People, PLEASE look harder at Stephen Whitburn. Stop believing all the crap that "HistroyMatters" and "Christine" are trying to tell you. Stephen Whitburn will do, say, and PAY whatever it takes to get elected. This is a perfect example of the person Whitburn really is. Tough issues, REAL questions, and a scenario where he is going to be angering one side or another, he can't be steadfast. Steve, I have another question for you: What are you going to do when you have to make decisions EVERYDAY after you "get rid of backroom deals"? Waffle and fold every time or ask Donna how to vote. Enter Christine, Ian or HM to attack Gloria in 3...2...1...

Posted by Whitburn the Waffle | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 12:36 pm

Waffle:I can't resist this challenge. But first I finally understand why Scott calls his column SLOP. It's because he runs stuff like this on slow news day. In my view, Stephen answers the question on where he stands on Prop D in a pretty unsatisfactory way that does smack of waffling. But Scott fails in even handedness in two ways. First he asks Stephen how he is going to vote personally and I think that is off limits. He also did not report why Todd approves boozing on the beach; because he enjoys chugging on the beach himself? because he likes to watch the antics of blasted boys when he is on the beach or simply because he thinks that position will win him more votes from the bar boys in Hillcrest that he is courting assiduously.

Posted by Ian Trowbridge | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 3:13 pm

Ian, I don't care for Whitburn as a choice for Council, but your post, even for you, is particularly mean spirited and inappropriate for this discussion, particularly your last comment. As for Whitburn being asked how he is personally going to vote being off-limits, that's utter nonsense. If he says he doesn't support a proposition, we safely assume he will personally vote against it, even if he isn't asked it in that specific way, and he expects us to assume that. The same if he says he supports a proposition. He's running for office, and by doing so he has opened himself up to questions of a political and social nature, like it or not. He should have an opinion, and he should express it. Either way it won't cost him the election. But it might cost him the respect of his matron Donna Frye.

Posted by Ronald Truman | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 10:19 pm

Ian, I must say your comments above are not your finest hour. I remember your jabs a couple of months ago about Councilwoman Atkins' sexual orientation, and the role you believe it plays in connection with her relationship with LeSar. Now you feel the need to characterize Todd Gloria's campaign as lustily going after the "gay boy" vote. Whitburn is gay, too. Is he also licking his chops going after the "boy" vote? Was I in my run in D3? When you set your mind to it -- as with SEDC and NBC, for example -- you do some great things for our city. Then you dig deep into the muck with something like this. I think an apology is due the gay and lesbian community, and Todd Gloria in particular...

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
October 27, 2008 7:38 am

Wow!! 1st of all, let me say I am flattered that you used my name!! Yep, I am nerdy--I am paying close attention to this race--I watch channel 24 and everything. I dont think much needs to be said--I mean the beach ban is a tough one and requires some research. It sounds like a bummer, but if you've been down to PB lately (and I have grown up here) it has really really disintegrated and if you look at cities that have implemented a booze ban on beaches it has done wonders. I would have probably said the same thing if I were Stephen. I think the truth speaks for itself--I dont need to make any Gloria comments.

Posted by Christine | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 6:56 pm

What a novel concept, a politician who believes the people should have a voice in how their city government works. You would think a voter like you would appreciate an honest answer. Guess not. I guess you trust our politicians to always do the right thing. Just look at the wonderful shape our economy is in. I for one can support a man like Stephen Whitburn who admits that the people should voice their opinions as well.

Posted by karl | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 12:51 pm

"Whatever y'all think is fine by me." !? Wow, way to take a stand, Whitburn! This guy isn't a leader, he's a political hack. I'm voting NO on the booze ban and NO on Whitburn.

Posted by Mike on Golden Hill | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 12:42 pm

Gregory -- it's interesting that you think people like the mayor should "keep their yaps shut" on initiatives. If you're right that no one cares, then journalists sure are barking up the wrong tree in their relentless pursuit of opinions on these matters from public officials. I personally find it to be enormously useful to see where others stand. Who stands behind (or opposes) an initiative will tell you just about all you need to know. I think Whitburn is just shying away from a hot-button issue that he gains nothing by speaking on. I have to wonder, though -- if he can't make decisions now, what will he do when these types of issues come before council? He should research and come up with an opinion. If he wins, he's going to have to do that a lot on issues that he doesn't personally care about.

Posted by Don't ask, then | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 12:54 pm

Our Mayor, blaming the City Attorney for everything…, it seems every single time he get himself on TV or hold a Photo-ops he is hacking ways about his fear and loathing of the city attorney. If the City Attorney is not doing his job, it’s clear to me it is mainly because members of our city council and our Mayor and his staff have been doing, and are still doing, such a POOR job. Look at the state of our City, Planning office, SEDC, CCDC, Ethics, water supply and delivery systems, and infrastructure in general; I see that none of those areas are the responsibility of the City Attorney – yet clearly, those are the main problems in our city. Sure, point all the fingers you want at our city attorney, but compared to those OTHERS - he is doing a FINE job.

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 6:15 pm

Gregory, if you think Aguirre has been doing his job, you haven't a clue what his job is. Wait a minute . . . are you really Mike?

Posted by Ronald Truman | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 10:11 pm

Ronald, if you think Jerry has been doing his job; you have not a clue what his job is. Wait a minute . . . are you really Jerry? Come-on now - it is clear you do not want to talk about what is really going on in San Diego, who is truly at fault and really responsible, that you want to deflect all topics and problems wtih our city into an attack on Mikey; that you 'hate' Mikey A.. You must be Jerry, or perhaps one of the many other people in our city government who has failed us and wants northing more than to pin all the blame on Mikey A.

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
October 28, 2008 3:27 pm

I'm tired of the mayor blaming the city attorney for EVERYTHING. Every time he get on TV or hold a Photo-ops he's hacking aways showing his fear and loathing of the city attorney. If the City Attorney is not doing his job it is clear to me that it is because members of our city council and our Mayor and his staff have been doing, and are still doing, such a POOR job. The state of our City, planning office, SEDC, CCDC, ethics, water supply and delivery systems, and infrastructure in general; I see that none of those areas are the responsibility of the City Attorney – yet this is clearly where the main problems in our city reside. It is easy to attack the person others are attacking, packs of wild dogs do the same, but all these failed policies have not come from the City Attorney.

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 6:24 pm

The difference between Stephen Whitburn and Todd Gloria is that Stephen Whitburn and his supporters can document every instance of Gloria's big contributions from greedy developers and lobbyists. It's all public record. When anonymous attacks against Stephen Whitburn appear, there's never a verified source. Again, look at the record. Stephen Whitburn is a reformer. The incumbents and insiders are wetting themselves for fear that Whitburn will win, join up with Donna Frye, and kick them out of town. That's why they're launching all these anonymous attacks. I'm voting for Stephen Whitburn.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 3:35 pm

Fred- The real difference between Carpetbagging Whitburn and Todd Gloria is that Whitburn has donated or loaned himself over 170,000 dollars. Gloria raised all his cash. A small percentage comes from what you scream to be developers and lobbyist. You are so desperate for Whitburn that you ignore the fact that most of his donations come from regular hardworking citizens like myself. Since Stephen only has support from the special-interests like the party insiders and the many special interest activists, he has to loan himself so much money. And the UT posted that Whitburn has 103,000 in unpaid bills and 2,000 cash on hand. What kind of candidate is that? He will drive the city into the ground. Also there are many more anonymous attacks on Gloria than there are on Whitburn. D3 voters deserve to know what a dangerous special interest candidate Whitburn is.

Posted by Pepe Cervantes | reply to this comment
October 25, 2008 12:00 pm

Its not a small percentage Pepe. That percentage thing is misleading because it does not include donations that are less than $100 and dont have to be registered. I have heard alot of reporters say this list reads like a roll call of the chamber of commerce for Todd aka developers. Developers know this and they throw the majority of it in smaller contributions. Thus he gets to consider ALL contributions under $100 non-developer because they are not registered and I think we all know thats not true. Also your "developer" percentage doesnt take into account realtors and other real estate investment people like their LAWYERS and lobbysists aka Wolfsheimer !!! It also doesnt take into account people like the Epsilon employees that are technically military, but are depending on the Manchester contract. So your 17% number or whatever number you are throwing around is not accurate.

Posted by christine | reply to this comment
October 25, 2008 11:42 pm

Apparently Pepe you haven't seen the nasty mailer sent out by the developers attacking Stephen Whitburn. Apparently you haven't looked into Doug Manchester's donation to the Gloria camp or noticed that Gloria is being endorsed by all the same insiders who have created the mess at city hall that we have now. Apparently you haven't noticed that the republicans in town have been having back room meetings with the powerful developers in order to sabotage the Stephen Whitburn campaign. They as much as admitted this in an article on Red County titled All Tied Up in District 3. So I guess you support the yes on 8 campaign, the powerful influence of the developers and the use of nasty attack ads that bear no truth. Apparently you support Gloria. I on the other hand support open and honest government , an end to the powerful developers influence in city hall.

Posted by karl | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 1:00 pm

Gutless wonder. Does he really think whatever position he takes on this is going to be noticed by so many voters that it might cost him the election? Apparently he does think that. Or, is it possible that he doesn't support it, still, but doesn't want to cross his angry matron Donna Frye?

Posted by Ronald Truman | reply to this comment
October 24, 2008 4:48 pm

I support politicians who are willing to listen to what the public has to say, and then enforce the publics will on issues. In a perfect world, all important issues that will impact the public would be put up to public votes, but since there are too many of them, the next best thing is to elect politicians who make it their business to listen to the public, then do what a majority of the public wants, instead of catering to the downtown developer old boy network which has nearly driven this city into bankruptcy and is trying to destroy our environment.

Posted by Watcher | reply to this comment
October 25, 2008 12:26 pm

It/'s perfectly OK that Whitburn has not announced how he will personally vote on the booze ban. It is for the People -- those who reside on beachfront properties, those who visit our beaches and parks, and those who responsibly drink -- to decide for themselves between curbing individual rights and placing significant restrictions on alcohol use in public places. To me, Whitburn takes reasonable and principled positions while Todd always does the popular, easy talking, make you feel good approach. For example, and this is far more important than a beach booze ban, Gloria supports in-lieu fees for developers that fail to include 10% low income housing in their new developments which would spread affordable housing throughout the city. Instead, we have a condition where there is a concentration of low income housing in District 3.

Posted by northparker | reply to this comment
October 27, 2008 4:06 pm

Oh, c'mon!!! I happen to know Whitburn on a casual level and support his candidacy, although I do not live in the district. But please don't go all "Palin" on us, not being able to answer simple questions!!! First it was with CityBeat, when they invited Whitburn to meet for drinks several months ago, and according to their report, he couldn't come up with a single drinking hole that he thought it would be nice to meet at. People like decisiveness. I can understand going back and forth on an issue like Prop D, as I have done myself, but ultimately you gotta check one mark for either YES or NO.

Posted by Richard | reply to this comment
October 27, 2008 2:28 pm

All "Palin" on us? Oh, brother, if only. Palin is the ONLY candidate taking questions at all of the four candidates, and no gaffes. Biden? Obama? McCain? Hiding, the three of them. Afraid of their own shadows. Just like Whitburn.

Posted by Ronald Truman | reply to this comment
October 27, 2008 7:35 pm

Richard, I also know Stephen Whitburn. He can be decisive. But when it comes to drinking, well...he's not a barfly. Sure, his opponent could go into any gay bar in San Diego and know all the bartenders and dancers by their first names, but Stephen Whitburn doesn't blow his disposable income on weekend booze-ups. Similarly, because Proposition D is about alcohol, something Whitburn can take or leave, he doesn't have a strong feeling and is willing to let the voters decide. Stephen Whitburn's position is fair enough for me.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
October 29, 2008 5:43 pm

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.