I just finished reading the Almanac's article on Stogner vs. Horsely and said to myself, as a Stogner supporter, "this is fair and balanced."

While I respect the Almanac's right to endorse a candidate of its choosing, I find the sentence "Mr. Stogner can hardly be deemed a serious candidate in this race." to be offensive.

Mr. Stogner is a serious candidate. If you prefer Horsely, vote for him, but no need to denigrate Stogner.

Whether his "lack of experience" or "distaste for county officials" would limit or enhance his effectiveness is a matter of personal viewpoint.

All change has been initiated by outsiders to the system. Stogner is an agent for change.

I find this statement to be shocking….."His lack of experience and distaste for county officials would only limit his effectiveness." I understand the lack of experience concern but I would remind the voters that Jackie Speier, and Anna Eshoo both had no elected experience before being elected to Supervisors of San Mateo County.

The distaste for county officials, this is an outrageous statement, where does that come from? This is what you get when you stand up and ask questions of our elected officials. Don't be afraid of change.

Here is a perfect example of Don Horsley compromising as the Almanac recommends. No distaste here towards elected officials, just Dave Pine, Bob Adler and not elected but still County Manager John Maltbie

Web Link

Michael, by not having distaste for county officials, I believe the author means going along to get along. Be proud you uphold your principles always.

Stogner has the right ideas. Doesn't need experience for that. Just open your eyes people and see the corruption all around you!

Er, Almanac? You said that Mr. Stogner's "distaste for county officials " would make him an ineffective candidate? Huh?

Since time immemorial candidates around the country have chosen to run against the status quo because of their distaste for the actions of status quo county officials

In San Mateo County alone, you have:

1 A Sheriff, Greg Munks, who was caught in a brothel for underaged prostitutes in an FBI sting who arrogantly refuses to answer citizens' questions about it.

2) A head of probation, Stuart Forrest, who was convicted of having massive amount of child pornography.

3) Sam Trans officials who sure are defensive about their accounting, and the Supervisors haven't taken any action about it

4) A DA who has been sent at LEAST one warning by the California Bar after he made false statements to the press about a defendant's case, and who defends the sheriff after he broke the law for going into a brothel with underaged girls

There are many more examples but the above are just highlights

Many of us have distaste for the corruption by government figures. Mr. Stogner has chosen to run against them. Good for him.

Why a newspaper would attack someone who doesn't like corrupt officials is certainly unusual. Head in the sand, see no evil, hear no evil opinion piece by the Almanac

Stogner does not have a distaste towards county officials. He does have a distaste for the liberal country club atmosphere where everything is business as usual. He understands the crushing weight of the unfunded liabilities. Meanwhile the Board of Supes have the insouciant attitude of "What me worry". They are like ostriches with their heads in the sand (I was going to use another metaphor describing hidden heads but decided not to).

The salaries and pensions the County workers are receiving are way out of line with that of private industry and Stogner wants to correct that listing ship before it sinks.

The Almanac, like the League of Women Voters, pretends to be impartial but is really an ardent advocate for the most egregious liberal causes without regard to the severe fiscal consequences attendant to the implementation of these causes.

I am voting for Stogner because at least he recognizes the liberal cronyism problem and will try to do something about it before it is too late.