Kari Birdseye. (File photo)
Staff Report
At its Tuesday meeting, the Progressive Democrats of Benicia interviewed candidates for the Benicia City Council and Solano County Board of Education. Club members cast their votes and announced the results on Wednesday.
Of the three candidates running for City Council, Planning Commission Chair Kari Birdseye and former Councilmember Christina Strawbridge. Ultimately, Birdseye narrowly edged out Strawbridge in the votes and received the club’s endorsement.
“The Progressive Democrats of Benicia are proud to endorse Planning Commission chair Birdseye,” group officials wrote.
The club also interviewed Dana Dean, a trustee for Area 3 of the Solano County Board of Education, which represents Benicia. Since Dean is running unopposed, she cruised to an easy endorsement. Dean also served as a trustee for Benicia’s school board from 2008 to 2013 and is a local attorney.
The election is Tuesday, Nov. 6. For more information on Birdseye, Strawbridge and Dean’s candidacies, visit their respective campaign pages at BirdseyeForBenicia.com, ChristinaForBeniciaCouncil.com and danadeanforboardofeducation.com.
Sharing is caring!
What good is this endorsement for Candidate Birdseye. It is a pure set up. The Mayor has her ring in the nose of her followers present at the meeting , Vice Mayor Young endorsed her and is also a member of the steering committee as is candidate Birdseye. Progressive Democrat Socialist at their very best. They claim to be Democrats first and call themselves Democrats but then why use the name “Progressive” which is a synonym for Socialist. Beats me.
Great link below explaining the difference:
https://bit.ly/1mxKN7Z
“Great” is a matter of opinion. It was informative, though. It also split hairs between socialism and communism in another article. The hairs are so thin that there may as well not be a difference unless you are looking microscopically. Regardless, I do not believe in the goals of any of the three…their common element is anathema to my way of thinking. People should be given similar opportunities to work toward betterment, not given betterment without effort at the expense of folks who have put forth the effort to become better.
“not given betterment without effort at the expense of folks” I did not read that part in any of the definitions. Not sure that that is a tenet of either, perhaps an unintended consequence. All societies, regardless of economic/political system, will have a certain population that cannot fend for themselves. What should happen to those people?
From the article, …”both seek the economic and political equality of all members of society”. That goal is anathema. People are different, have different talents, have made different choices, have had different successes. To make someone “my” equal economically without having made the same sacrifices as well as hard work throughout my life makes the striving meaningless. Life is a competition…the unsuccessful competitors should not have the same economic benefits as those who have been successful.
Indeed, what should happen to those people who cannot cope or have chosen not to cope. Every society has had to make hard choices…I don’t want “our” society to be so idiotic as to make them “comfortable” in their inadequacy-or what’s the incentive to be anything more than idle flesh.
Vegetable, Again ”both seek the economic and political equality of all members of society” is not mutual exclusive from contributing/working hard within the system as well as benefiting. There is no pure socialism, as there is no pure capitalism.
“I don’t want “our” society to be so idiotic as to make them “comfortable””. People that have either mental or physical health (or both) issues should not be offered at least a degree of comfort? Sorry, if these folks had nothing to depend on but charity, it would not be enough. I for one don’t want to live in a country that just tosses these folks aside.
You say it is not mutually exclusive…in practice there would be no incentive for the lazy.
What do you mean by a degree of comfort? Shelter, food, TV, Phone, car? The aim of progressivism wants THEM to be equal economically with medical doctors and drive porche’s. Also, what is the difference between living off charity and living off the government-anyone with self respect “should” find either to be abhorrent.
You already live in a country that just tosses these folks aside. Walk down San Francisco at night to see all the homeless, drug victims….what are you doing about it to change it to what you want–do you personally provide care and shelter for them? Of course not, instead you want to create a government that takes them away and keeps them out of your sight. I wouldn’t mind that myself, but I’m honest enough to admit it.
Vegie, OK, I can see that I’ve lost you (based on your misinterpretations and assumptions). . No need to continue.
Like mother is the child. There is very little difference between the two. Just words to achieve the same thing.
You can do better than that. For instance what if I said modern-day Conservatism is the mother of all intolerance (plenty of valid examples), and that any argument against that would just be words?
Sorry Thomas I just did better. I also have that article. Nothing new.
Well, then I guess modern-day Conservatism is the mother of all intolerance. Thanks for verifying.
Dear Thomas,
You give me hope that there are decent people in that world.
Thanks.
Did the Solano County Democratic Central Committee also endorse her? Anyone know.
Yes they did endorsement Kari Birdseye for Benicia City Council. What is more important was an opinion piece in the SF Chronicle on Aug. 23 by Mayor Patterson and Melvin Willis. It clearly states her position on fossil fuel and Valero. She is anti both., Now Birdseye is walking hand and hand with the mayor as campaign door to door salespeople selling Birdseye as a candidate for Benicia City Council. Now this is the kicker she states on her campaign web page that she is not anti-fossil fuel and against Valero. She just admitted she was by saying “”the ONLY thing I will be anti or against is hatred and name calling. She did not include Valero or Fossil-fuel. There is your answer. She is anti fossil fuel and against Valero. Sorry Kari you said it.
My suggestion to all voters is to read the re-post from the SF Chron on the article co-authored by Mayor Patterson of Benicia. That article is now re-posted on the Benicia Independent by Roger Straw. Another huge anti fossil fuel and anti Valero backer of candidate Birdseye.Now Birdseye says she is not anti fossil fuel and anti Valero. But she walks the streets in Benicia with her major backer who has a ring in her nose. That major backer is Mayor Patterson. Yes City Council candidate Birdseye is anti fossil fuel and anti Valero. Birdseye has no economic plan or anything to have City of Benicia keep pace with the quickly rising obligations of the financial needs of this very fine city. Tell the voters candidate Birdseye how you are going to fix the CalPers obligation which will rise to over 14mil in about ten years. Do you have a plan? Words is not what this city needs. It is an action plan not words. Birdseye is not the candidate this very fine city needs as a City Councilmember. By the way candidate Birdseye cannabis is not your dream world of a fix by another backer Stan Golovich. We do not need a “Quasi Shadow Government” candidate that will vote only the way the mayor and vice mayor votes.