Nadia Lockyer visits Newark, adopts the “When in Rome” philosophy

In Uncategorized on February 22, 2012 at 7:54 pm

Let’s quickly summarize the recent events surrounding Supervisor Nadia Lockyer.

1.  In 2010, Mrs Lockyer was in a drug treatment program, presumably for the use of methamphetamine.  At the program she met a San Jose man in his early 30’s with a 15 year arrest record and an apparently similar meth issue.

2. In the same year as her drug treatment program, she was elected to the Alameda Board of Supervisors because of, well her last name is Lockyer and people associate that with status quo. During the campaign, Mrs Lockyer lied about her previous position, claiming she had the ability to prosecute legal cases when she was in fact a powerless administrator (appointed, of course).

3.  Mrs Lockyer still acted on her meth addiction while “serving” on the county board, at times rendezvousing with her drug rehab acquaintance at hotels throughout the east bay.   How this man was compensated for drugs is not clear.  Considering Mrs Lockyer’s methods for accession it is not out of the question to suggest she was sleeping him (see #4).

4.  In mid February, 2012 she met with her meth dealer at a Newark hotel, a dispute took place and she was assaulted.  Usually assault is not perpetrated at a small drug deal by people not otherwise attached by some personal relationship.  Was her dealer so jacked that he’d risk assaulting one of the 100 most prominent people in the Bay Area for the return on a quantity of meth?  Perhaps, but not likely.

5.  A swath of misinformation from the Lockyer camp ensues, Nadia checks into rehab, and the management of Alameda County crumbles into chaos in her absence.

I admit, some details of the above may be wrong — probably not but I am willing to admit the speculation.  But I think speculation is justified when those involved persistently lie to the media about particulars.  For example, Bill Lockyer’s camp initially stated that assaulter was an enraged ex-boyfriend.  A tactic obviously aimed and leveraging sympathy for Nadia as a victim of violence rather than a meth seeking addict.  Then Nadia Lockyer stated that her recovery is for prescription medication initially prescribed after an auto accident, by doing so inferring that she is a high class addict.

She’s done in politics, that’s for sure.  And unless he can leverage this into some unprecedented sentiment of sympathy, I expect Bill Lockyer to be as well.  By running Nadia out of town are we losing a Gavin Newsom? Am I being sexist and especially critical of an attractive and seemingly successful woman, while giving someone like Newsom a pass?

Like Gavin Newsom, is Nadia’s talents and achievements distracted by these mishaps?  Or is she as low value and pointless as she has suggested herself to be.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: