Editor,
Does “the end justify the means” in politics? It seems today that most candidates, unfortunately, follow that path. But should that be done in city politics? This candidate, Adam Loraine, with the help of existing Councilmember Amourence Lee, used the “abortion” issue to shoot down Rod Linhares, his opposition candidate.
The direct mail pieces and mass texts were pretty nasty. Rod works for a faith-based organization (a worthwhile organization that helps the needy) and was caught between a rock and hard place on this issue.
This is a very personal issue for many people who might influence their perceptions/decision making about someone. It creates a halo effect. A halo effect is when one’s opinion is unduly shaped by a single perceived trait. But why bring it to the voting booth and overlook a candidate’s qualifications, experience and positions on local issues? The City Council has “no authority” to do anything about abortion, except to make sure protesters stand a certain distance away from a Planned Parenthood.
This race was very close and the “abortion” issue likely tipped the scales in Loraine’s favor. Why does a candidate and an existing councilmember have to stoop so low? Is it winning at all costs even it taints their character and reputation? This is something some will never forget.
Gary Isoardi
San Mateo
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(11) comments
Hi, Gary
I have to say up front that I have no dog in the hunt when it comes to San Mateo politics. That being said... IMO Lee and Loraine's tactics with respect to the abortion issue were unsettling. I thought it was interesting that two former San Mateo council members submitted an LTE criticizing those tactics.
Making a city council member's religion a campaign issue... unless it appears it may be an issue when it comes to city business... is wrong. Let's not forget that a city council position is ostensibly non-partisan, but the tactics used against Linhares were what we see in the acrimony that accompanies partisan politics. Sad.
Ray - And, those two former councilmembers were former Mayors, were they not?
Yep. I'm curious what our ol' pal Westy has to say about that LTE which came from two persons who served on San Mateo's city council.
I guess we're still waiting...
It has nothing to do with his being Catholic and everything to do with his actively working to subvert human rights. And he also dodged all questions about it, refusing to be transparent. Lots of Catholics refuse to have abortions but don't actively work to force others to continue pregnancies that are harmful to their lives.
Lee is cathophobic. She deals in guilt by association. very cheap. Joe McCarty is smiling.
Hi, Will
I cannot comment on the future mayor's views on the Catholic religion, but it's interesting Pew Research has reported over the past couple of years that a majority of Catholics approve of legalized abortion.
It is perfectly valid to raise it as an issue when a local candidate stands against basic human rights. It's not that Linhares is Catholic, or even that he is against abortion, it is that he actively works on preventing access to basic reproductive health care and to treating pregnant people as human beings with rights to control their own body. Yes, it is a local issue. Human rights must begin on the local level.
Good morning, Westy
We, as good citizens, should act to preserve human rights... no question. Our county has sent Kevin Mullin and Diane Papan to higher political office to represent local support for human rights issues, and they act as representatives for all locals in that regard. Acting as representatives in that same manner is not within the purview of local city councils.
You believe Rod Linhares actively works to prevent treating pregnant woman as human beings? I check the DJ almost every day, but I missed that one. Could you elaborate?
We should absolutely be concerned with reproductive health care. What is sadly often left out of the discussion is the health care of unborn children. I'm sure you remember the spirited debate last June in the comments section following the Supreme Court's decision re: Roe v Wade. I don't recall anyone... from either side of the political aisle... advocating for a wholesale ban on abortion. I could be wrong but I don't remember anyone... from either side of the political aisle... saying abortion should not be allowed to protect the health of a pregnant woman or in cases of incest and sexual assault. Abortion upon request is the position of most Americans concerning abortion during the early term of a pregnancy. The position of most Americans changes when it comes to late term abortions. I don't know for sure but that shift may be connected with preserving the health of unborn children.
The topic of abortion raises strong argument from both sides of the political aisle, and I wish it was a more of a conversation than an argument. At the end of the day, the argument or conversation re: abortion should not be part of a local election for persons charged with making sure our drinking water is safe and 9-1-1 calls are answered.
Ron Linhares serves as fundraising director for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, which has made it a priority to defeat Prop. 1, a measure that seeks to cement the right to abortion in the California Constitution. It is literally Linhares' job to work to subvert human rights. (You can be Catholic and you can be against abortion, and still not work to ban it and reduce other people to the status of incubators.) He continually refused to state his position on Prop. 1 and dodged all questions on whether he supported pregnant persons rights to make their own medical decisions. This, in my view, disqualifies him from holding public office.
Someone who cannot stand up for human rights should not hold public office at any level. Issues regarding reproductive health care do come up at the local level. You do not have the right to foist your belief that fetuses are children, and that people should be forced to gestate them regardless of any consequences to their lives, health or livelihoods, upon the rest of us.
Westy
Wow.
Neither you nor I can say with any certainty what Rod Linhares' job duties included but I'm positive his job description did not say "subvert human rights." Prior to voters approving Proposition 1, abortion up to fetal viability and beyond that point to protect a mother's health was already legal in California. So, a person could be in favor of legalized abortion and still oppose Proposition 1. Perhaps that was Rod's position. We don't know. As a city council candidate, he did not share his beliefs concerning abortion upon request beyond viability.
Making abortion an issue in a city council race as it was done in San Mateo is just plain wrong. Two former San Mateo mayors agree. Comment?
So, someone who cannot stand up for human rights should not hold public office? Care to comment on an official who permits thousands of deaths as migrants try to cross our border? Care to comment on an official who does not oppose the internment and atrocities committed against a minority people? Should that official continue to hold office?
What would progressives like yourself tell an unmarried, pregnant teenager? I think we know the answer. Fortunately, about 2,020 years ago, an unmarried, pregnant teenager believed her unborn child was a gift from God. If Rod Linhares also believes an unborn child to be a gift from God, that should not disqualify him from serving his neighbors as a non-partisan elected official.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.