Holy God. Look at this.
Chris Norby’s attack on Sharon Quirk-Silva for making an unspecified attack on him and his family that she never in fact made remains the most disgusting mailer I’ve seen in this campaign, given the likelihood that he forced his immigrant wife to sign a statement denying that he had abused her. Until the past couple of days, most of what the Ed Royce campaign has had to say about Jay Chen has been tied for second. Now, unexpectedly, a new contestant has come along to push Royce’s mailers into third place. It accuses Larry Agran of abetting child rape.
That’s, uh, pretty low. Absurd, too — but awfully low.
As such, it’s pretty typical of conservative Orange County “winning is the only thing” politics, where no one gets held responsible for this sort of vile filth — and vice (even if repudiated for the record) is rewarded.
The ad is put out by the innocuous-sounding “California Term Limits PAC,” which someone who isn’t spending this weekend on GOTV and such can look up in their spare time. (Remember — when you hear “term limits,” this is what you should think about in practice!)
I therefore don’t blame Agran’s opponent Stephen Choi for this directly — but he sure as hell should denounce it. (Spread that word, folks!)
Will he? My guess is: at least without pressure, no he won’t.
For the record, to my knowledge the groups that have actually done the most the abet pederasts are not supporting Agran in this election.
I’m not going to post a picture of them. Instead, for balance, here is Steven Choi with my opponent Bob Huff.
Can you please show the back of the mailer and explain what part(s) are not true?
Welcome to our humble blog, Mr. Bieber. I hope you don’t mind if I take advantage of your presence to ask you a question.
To answer your question first: yes, I could do that — though I would be more inclined just to link to DA Rackaukus’s denunciation of the flyer, which seems more definitive.
Before I scan and post it, though, let me ask you: is it your position that the flyer (may I say “your flyer”?) should be judged by the standard of (1) whether the specific factual allegations that it makes are technically true or (2) the degree to which a person with knowledge of the pertinent facts would judge it to be misleading? I favor the latter standard; from your question, am I right to think that you favor the former?