Back in 2006 when Tony Daysog was toying around with whether or not to run for Mayor, he eventually decided to not. Even back then Tony Daysog was still attempting to receive validation from the old guard of Alameda.
For those of you newish to Alameda the grandfather of all Alameda hyper local blogs was Don Roberts of the Alameda Daily News. The white font on black background with yellow title was a hallmark of the site. Anyway, this was Tony Daysog’s letter to the editor about why he was choosing to stay out of the Beverly Johnson vs. Doug deHaan mayoral battle royale.
The relevant part:
There are two fundamental questions that voters must ask in the upcoming election, and, accordingly, for this election to be a true referendum on these two questions, there must be only two mayoral candidates. For this reason, I will not be a candidate for the Office of the Mayor.
These are the two fundamental questions: do Alamedans want to preserve our unique heritage and small town quality that our diverse residents enjoy, and which among the candidates displays the fortitude and courage to fight for this heritage and small town character? Or, are residents willing to sacrifice bits of their history and small town charm here and there in order to reap the benefits of so-called progress, and do they want leaders who are willing to accommodate this kind of change?
FYI, Doug deHaan represented the “fortitude and courage to fight” and Beverly Johnson represented the “benefits of so-called progress” part. In this referendum Beverly Johnson won. Handily.
Today, Tony Daysog is still attempting to win over and be accepted by the same group of people who have chosen Jennifer Roloff as their anointed one and still leaving Tony Daysog behind. He has taken an ad out in the paper, as mentioned in this tweet, to support Jennifer Roloff:
This is the ad:
I mean at some point this bald faced kissing up has got to allow him entrance into the cool kids club right?
This comment from 2006 is as relevant today as it was back then, Tony Daysog really hasn’t changed one bit:
Tony is a nice person, but I think you have nailed him on his erroneous suppositions about what is at stake here, and his lame attempt at over simplifying things.
For ten years Tony has made rambling speeches, always being careful to point out that “On the other hand, there is the other hand”, while nitting his eyebrowns and pressing his palms together as if he is deep in thought and plumbing the depths of his intellect for the wisdom of Solomon. I’m ready to move on.