Bolsavik.com

San Jose City Councilwoman Madison Nguyen (pictured) calls the efforts to recall her a “disruption” to the business of the city’s District 7, the San Jose Mercury News reports here. (The verb “chide” is the SJMN’s, the Bolsavik is just borrowing it.)

Madison Nguyen successfully spearheaded an effort to get the city to officially name an area of San Jose with a large number of Vietnamese businesses. It was the first time, ever, any ethnic group had achieved that with San Jose. When it comes time to actually choose a name, however, Madison went with “Saigon Business District” while others wanted “Little Saigon.”

What should have been a non-issue ballooned, with picketers camping out in front of City Hall, protests with thousands of participants, people calling Madison a communist sympathizer, and anti-communist activist Ly Tong staging a hunger strike.

Faced with a man willing to die for a street sign, the two sides arrived at a compromise: The city would allow a zoning deviance so that private property owners could, at their own cost and on their own property, put up signs saying “Welcome to Little Saigon.” The resolution to officially name the area was withdrawn.

(Read more about Ly Tong here and here. When the compromise was reached and the hunger strike ended, some of Ly Tong’s supporters turned on him. Read more here.)

The compromise did not end all opposition to Madison. Supporters of the “Little Saigon” name are continuing to try to have an election to recall her.

How did all this come about? Why such a tempest? Ah, one of these days the Bolsavik will tell you about a peson named Linda Nguyen and her father Son Nguyen….

The Bolsavik just got this text message in his cell phone from Dina Nguyen, the Garden Grove Councilwoman running for OC Supervisor, regarding the interview posted here and here.

Here’s the message, minus one sentence that the Bolsavik thinks is off the record. If Dina says it’s not, the Bolsavik will add it back on.

Please correct: 1. I was not before the central com. Janet was the issue, and the vote was 31 over 14. 2. The sentences are missing some essential thoughts discussed off the record. If u wont delete this part please correct the sentences : I went through the motion being at central com metngs, because I am a candidate and knowing from the very beginning it was not dina v janet or van v janet, like some republicans and Van haters would like to believe, . 3. Van really wanted to help my candidacy not “really wanted it” by not endorsing the encumbent who has not been working well with the rest of the V-A elected.  It by itself is not clear. 4. I did not say he was “just a supporter”.  I believe you asked if he has an active role in the campaign and I responded he is not part of the campaign commitee, but he is supporting my endorsement.