Blogging Bayport Alameda

August 18, 2006

The Don Roberts Show update, I watch it so you don’t have to

Filed under: Alameda, Election — Lauren Do @ 9:56 am

All the papers have been filed and we now have a roster of folks running for office in Alameda.  And so, without further ado, here they are (in alphabetical order, by last name):


  • Doug de Haan
  • Beverly Johnson
  • Kenneth Kahn

City Council

  • Pat Bail
  • Ashley Jones
  • Frank Matarrese
  • Michael Rich
  • Eugenie Thomson
  • Lena Tam

Yes, yes, I know there is the hospital board and school board as well, but I just want to talk about the City Council right now.

So, a commenter in another post asked about a Don Roberts Show update, and here it is as it applies to election issues.  Don Roberts had Linda Larkin to talk about election issues on his last show.  Although…as a side note, before the “interview” started, Linda Larkin asked Don Roberts if he had seen the Al Gore movie (An Inconvenient Truth)  To that, Don Roberts replied that he did not and that he didn’t like Al Gore and if Al Gore knew so much about Global Warming why didn’t he do anything about it while he was Vice-President.

I think this photo best captures my first reaction.


But moving on…

Linda Larkin and Don Roberts began talking about the candidates for mayor, and if you all have seen, Don Roberts has already endoresed candidates for all seats except mayor.  And this is when I start getting really ticked off because Don Roberts has the nerve to say that Kenneth Kahn should have dropped out of the race for mayor.  And the worst part is that, Don Roberts doesn’t even make an argument why he should, just that he should have.  To top it all off, I don’t think that at one time he even called Kenneth Kahn by name, he just called him “Barbara Kahn’s son.”  He implied that no one was going to take Kenneth Kahn seriously and that even his mother probably wouldn’t vote for him. (He actually said the part about Kenneth Kahn’s mother not voting for him.) 

It is OUTRAGEOUS for a purported “news” man to be so bold as to tell people that they should have dropped out of an election.  And he didn’t even stop at the mayoral candidates.  He said that since the only valid candidates were Lena Tam, Pat Bail, Frank Matarrese, and Eugenie Thomson; the others should have dropped out so that they wouldn’t be spoilers in the election and hurt Pat Bail and Eugenie Thomson’s chances of getting elected. 

Linda Larkin disagreed on the part about folks dropping out and mentioned that if Ash Jones decided to put together a real bang up campaign, he might be the leading vote getter for city councilperson.  But since Don Roberts had never met the guy (just talked to him on the phone) and had only heard rumors about him, he disagreed.  He stated that Ash Jones’ age (somewhere between 75 and 80) made him “too old” to be a councilperson and that during one city council meeting, someone told him that Ash Jones had made a comment that the meeting was going on too long and it past him bedtime or some other nonsense.  To which Linda Larkin replied that often she felt as though the meetings went on too long as well and implied that those factors weren’t a good reason to not vote for Ash Jones.  The ironic thing about Don Roberts’ comment about Ash Jones’ age was that advanced age was one of Pat Bail’s reasons why people should vote for her and Doug deHaan and Don Roberts agreed with her then.  Pat Bail said that because she and Doug deHaan were old, they would have no other political aspirations and would work solely on Alameda issues.  A little consistency please, Mr. Roberts.

And then both Linda Larkin and Don Roberts blather on about “the slate” and Linda Larkin actually said something that I think should have been talked about more, but Don Roberts just glossed over it.  She mentioned that there might be some difficulty fundraising for the slate because although a person might support, say Eugenie Thomson, they might not want to contribute any money to say, Pat Bail.  Don Roberts, the campaigning guru that he is, stated that it would not be a problem because they would just fundraise separately and then pool the money together.  But I think Linda Larkin’s point goes beyond that.  If someone really hated Doug deHaan, maybe they might not give money to Pat Bail because they know the money would be pooled to buy campaign schwag.  I believe that is the point Linda Larkin was trying to make but Don Roberts shut her down.

At the very end…this is the icing on the cake, Don Roberts says to Linda Larkin that he is glad that she supports all his endorsements.  And she looks a little taken aback and says to him, something to the extent of, “not necessarily.” End scene and curtain. 

Additionally, Don Roberts, unbiased newsman that he is with his scoops and award-winning web site, let the audience know that he would only be having certain candidates on his show and would not be interviewing all the candidate to let his viewership decide on their own.  Isn’t the point of journalism to show all sides of the issue and let people decide for themselves?  I guess Don Roberts got his journalism degree from the Fox News Channel School of Reporting, where “We report, you decide” actually means, “I tell you what to think and decide.”  Of course, I should have known something was fishy about Don Roberts and his site to begin with when I saw the link to the Drudge Report at the very very bottom of his page.


  1. Thanks for the update, Lauren…

    I don’t expect a truly unbiased show from Mister Roberts, only to be bemusedly entertained… (which may say something about MY state of mind…)

    Comment by Dave S. — August 18, 2006 @ 11:14 am

  2. The thing that truly baffles me is Don Roberts’ refusal to make an endorsement in the mayoral race. On the show he pretty much painted the race as an Epic Battle Between Good and Evil, but then he can’t bring himself to make an endorsement?

    Let’s see, he has gleefully given top billing to those with a stated desire to run the mayor out of town on a rail, so he can’t possibly favor Beverly Johnson. He summarily and very rudely dismissed Kenneth Kahn on his show, saying even his mother wouldn’t vote for him, so he’s clearly not in favor of him. Shouldn’t that be an endorsement for Doug deHaan by default? Especially if the mayoral race is the Mother of All Battles for the Soul of Alameda, as he and his good friend Tony Daysog would have us all believe?

    Is there some bad blood between Don Roberts and Doug deHaan? I can’t imagine it’s an ideological schism . . . I mean, if Mr. deHaan is willing to team up with Ms. Bail, Mr. Roberts’ political Golden Girl, shouldn’t that be proof enough of his suitability for office, especially when Mr. Roberts holds such obvious disdain for both of the other candidates in the race?

    What gives?

    Comment by Michael Krueger — August 18, 2006 @ 11:56 am

  3. I for one endorse Dave S. for mayor. He’s smooth. He almost had me fooled there for a moment with the “Why, I’m not convinced on either side of the Measure A debate yet.”

    But his soft-shoe with Doug Biggs, and hiss “don’t worry – the heat’s off Measure A, no petition filed on Aug 11.” tells another story.

    Dave S. is clearly in the anti-Measure A camp.

    Comment by keepmeasurea — August 18, 2006 @ 5:42 pm

  4. I nominate keepmeasurea for court jester.

    Comment by Ed — August 19, 2006 @ 9:13 am

  5. Psst! Ed!

    My neighbour is about to put up his 1906 classic Victorian for sale. I can get you into negotations with him before he lists it and puts it on the market, so you don’t have to put up a bidding war.

    We could be neighbours! Barbecues in summer, potlucks in winter!

    Wouldn’t it be grand!?

    Comment by keepmeasurea — August 19, 2006 @ 9:27 pm

  6. David, the comment was for you and Dave S to get a room. Perhaps all that hot air you’ve been blowing of late has confused you somewhat?

    Comment by Ed — August 21, 2006 @ 4:05 pm

  7. The lack of respect given Ken Kahn is inexcusable. He is the only candidate that brings a fresh perspective to a tired office.

    Hopefully, voters will hear Kahn’s message and elect him in November.

    Comment by Michael — August 30, 2006 @ 12:45 pm

  8. I plan to vote for Mr. Kahn. I believe that Don Roberts has grossly underestimated the political juggernaut that is the Kahn candidacy.

    Comment by Noah — August 30, 2006 @ 2:57 pm

  9. Kenneth Kahn has my endorsement. With Don Nelson’s return to the bench at Golden State, and Mr. Kahn’s imminent election, the world is finally returning to its proper state.

    Comment by John Shasky — August 30, 2006 @ 3:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: