Steve Schmidt and I don't really see eye to eye on many issues. I tend to be much more conservative than he. However, with regard to Elizabeth Lasensky Steve is being purely objective. Ms. Lasensky was being genuinely honest and accurate in her letter regarding Andy Cohen- The Runaway Councilman.

As I posted on the original thread - Web Link - on August 5, it's like that Steve and Brielle helped Elizabeth write her letter, so it's not surprising that he jumped in to defend her.

Lasensky [portion removed; see terms of use] never recuses herself when an issue pertaining to her employer, Stanford, is on the table. She apparently operates by the principle "what's good for Elizabeth Lasensky is good for Menlo Park." Short-sighted and not very productive.

Whatever you may think of Andy Cohen, his efforts have been unselfish and dedicated toward serving the community as a whole. I admire the fact that he is willing to listen to everyone -- even John Boyle has praised him for that. How vile of Lasensky and Schmidt to turn that openness upside down and insinuate that he is being bribed.

The letter is from Steve Schmidt, ex-mayor of Menlo Park and 2 term council person. The title "In Defense of Elizabeth Lasensky" is referring to the rather caustic letter Lasensky wrote last week which has been the subject of quite a bit of discussion.

In his letter, Schmidt takes aim at Judge Cohen with the statement

"Unlike council member Andy Cohen, Elizabeth answers to no one".

Now that is in interesting statement, implying that the Cohen does. There is a feud between the two of them, of that there is no doubt.

What is really interesting is that, Schmidt really got Andy Cohen interested in running for council when he ran for the first time over 4 years ago. Schmidt got insulted when Judge Cohen, wouldn't take orders from Schmidt and dropped his support shortly after Cohen took out papers. So it really is Andy Cohen who answers to no one.

I'm not implying in any way the Ms. Lasensky takes orders from Schmidt or anyone else. I do think her letter was mean and it deserved the criticism that it has received.

Small town politics --- isn't it wonderful? Actually big City politics as well.

Does there really need to be a conspiracy theory? Is Menlo Park politics so high-stakes that someone needs to elect a puppet to the city council? Isn't it possible that it's just a bunch of people, sometimes insightful, sometimes misguided, making their own decisions?

There's no conspiracy theory. What happened was that in 2006, Schmidt was testing the waters for a council seat and tried to seek support from people who had backed him in the past. They listened to his spiel, including his assertion that he had done everything perfectly during his previous council stint, and decided to back other candidates instead.

Now he's mad at almost everyone. I'm surprised that his angry letters aren't even more frequent.

Well, Steve wouldn't be the first person in town to take up bridge-burning as a full-time job.

[Post removed; off topic]

Manchurian states: "Is Menlo Park politics so high-stakes that someone needs to elect a puppet to the city council?"

The assessed property value for FY08 was $8.2B with a market value probably in excess of $20B. The city issued permits for new commercial development valued at $112M.

The city council acts as a regulatory agency for a $20B real estate industry.

Council can also act like the FED by "printing" money in the form of changes to zoning laws that create more development entitlements, as it did with Derry (~$18M in land value increases and >$50M increases in project revenue) and as it is being asked to do for the Bohannon project.

So, yes, it is a high-stakes game, in which a permanent infrastructure of real estate development special interests attempts to seat friendly council candidates. I would not call such candidates "puppets" as they are recruited based on their sincere beliefs in the benefits of real estate development, but they can engage in legislative acts, re-zonings, worth quite literally, tens of millions.

The comments by Happy Days and In the Know stink. These posters just make stuff up.

Happy Days got it partially right. Gail wanted candidates who would show 100% loyalty and obedience. The problem with Steve was that he wanted to be his own man and not be under the thumb of Gail. He paid the price. If one runs on the left. It is important to have the backing of Gail or else you won't have Mary Kenny's precinct walkers, Dorothy Bender's databases, Paul Collachi's strategies and Gail's blessing. Without Gail's blessing there is no election/re-election apparatus available for your campaign. It is virtually impossible to win as a "residentialist" without that backing.

This woman wields incredible influence in Menlo Park politics and is not afraid to use it. I don't agree with Steve very often but at least I respect him for being his own man.

And what is with this Judge Cohen nonsense. He commands about as much respect as Chief Justice Roger Taney did.