Desperately Failing Ling Chang Can’t Tell Flirtation Between Friends from Sexual Assault


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

.

.

.

Ling-Ling Chang’s latest mailers against Josh Newman in the 29th State Senate District race ought to seal the case against voting for her.  I could remain very calm and methodical about them, especially based on some of the research and analysis I did — but instead I think that she’s earned a full-on rant.  Enjoy!

Hi! We become a part of this story at about the 900-word mark!

“Hi!  We become a part of this story at about the 1000-word mark!”

Accusing Ling-Ling Chang of misbehavior is sort of unfair because she is one of the most passive figures in recent Orange County history, willing to just be swept along on the conveyer belt to stardom on which she was placed by State Senator Bob Huff (with an ill-advised boost by State GOP Chair Jim Brulte).  Much as with the legislation placed on a batting tee for her to “sponsor” — like the one that may still kill off the independent bookstore industry in California — she doesn’t write ’em, probably barely reads ’em, and generally doesn’t seem to understand ’em.  She takes to the figurehead role well — except when she’s cursing someone for calling her a liar.

But at some point Ling-Ling has to take responsibility even for things that have been handed to her on a platter — especially campaign literature with her name on it or by an “independent” expenditure in support of her campaign.  (I mean, she could denounce it, I suppose.  Hahahahaha, I made a funny!)  So the latest desperate attack — and I mean desperate — on her opponent Josh Newman has to be placed in her tab.

She is searching for the killer “closing argument” to put her ahead of Newman — the issue that she wants voters to think about as they fill out their ballots.  And what she — Dishonest (and now Disgusting) Dave Gilliard, actually, but still “her” in the sense that she could say “no”comes up with is … a flirtatious letter that Newman produced in his mid-20s to invite a female friend to a hockey game, jokingly using a piece of official stationery!  Stop the presses!

Newman used the word “underpants,” Ling-Gilliard emphasizes!  Yes, he did.  His prospective date worked for the Joe Boxer company, which produced sterling silver tea sets … no, just kidding!  They produced … underpants.  Something that, if you have a decent sense of humor — and especially if you’re a 25-year-old guy — is a funny thing to allude to in asking a female friend to a hockey game.

That’s it.  Nada mas.  And now Ling-Ling — and I am not making this up — wants you to judge his behavior as being worse than Donald Trump’s “locker room talk.”

Worse. Than. Donald. Trump.

OK, this is so boneheaded that I’m not sure that it requires explanation, but let’s spell things out so that even Ling-Ling — that even Dishonest Dave Gilliard, who may have just managed to get himself blacklisted from ever working on another young woman’s campaign — can understand.

Newman’s “jocular little lark” (about 25 years ago, in his mid-20s): as a prank, used a piece of his-boss-the-Mayor’s stationery to send an in-jokey fake letter asking his friend who works in the underwear industry to a hockey game and in doing so used the word “underwear.”

versus

Trump’s “locker room talk” with a talk-show host (about ten years ago, at around age 60): bragging that as a famous man he could extend his mercifully short fingers and “grab women by the pussy” — by which he could have meant vulva, or could have meant labia, or could have meant actually trying to crowbar those stubby digits into a vagina, and I don’t know and I don’t care, I just want this to stop! — ignoring even the existence of impediments like “underwear” and “modesty” and “rights” and “law.”

Are these … the same level of infraction?  No?  Then …

WHICH IS WORSE, GOD DAMN IT, LING-LING?  WHICH IS WORSE???

ask that question of course because … YOU ASK THAT QUESTION!

Oh yes, you do!  Read your own literature, Assemblywoman Chang!

If I didn't know better, I'd say that Ling-Ling Chang is an unattractive middle-aged white guy who has the sex appeal of a hacked-up fur ball.

If I didn’t know better, I’d guess that Ling-Ling Chang is an unattractive middle-aged white guy who has the sex appeal of a hacked-up fur ball, but is less lovable.

WHAT’S WORSE?

WHAT’S WORSE?

Ling-Ling, did you forget your Brain-Brain?

Tell you what, Assemblywoman!  I’m not going to tell you what’s worse!  Instead YOU tell US “What’s Worse!”

Come on, you can answer this one!  After all, you have a college degree!  You attended Harvard! … um … you’re anatomically female!

Would YOU rather have some old creeper try to pat, stroke, or insert some portion of his fingers into your genitals without your consent and against your will?

Or would you rather get a flirtatious letter from an attractive guy you already know and like that makes reference to the fact of your working for an underpants manufacturer?

WHAT’S WORSE, LING-LING?

Wait, hold on a moment.  I just spotted something.

Technically … you’re not talking about their actions at all!

Technically, the big issue of the campaign — the issue on which you want us to compare Josh Newman and Donald Trump, is … how they described their actions!

What’s worse, “CALLING IT” either “locker talk” or “jocular lark”?

Is your point, Dave-Ling, that you think that Trump used a better euphemism for a humongously worse act — while Newman has too rich of a vocabulary?

Because if so, Ling-Gilliard, you old/young man/woman, you are one diseased enchilada.

Victimization of women is a serious issue this year, thanks to Trump’s serial forcing himself on women.  (Yeah, and raping that 13-year-old, sure, but that trial isn’t until next month.)  How do you possibly justify your “WHAT’S WORSE?” without trivializing that issue?  (Hint: you don’t.  And you didn’t.  You trivialized it while capitalizing on it — which is redeemed only by your total lack of credibility.)

And that brings us to your other mailer on this most important issue of the campaign, “Undergate.”  Not the drought, not education, just — splat! — this.

Remember those three women up there at the top, Ling-Ling?  One Asian woman that looks like she was a victim of something bad, and another two that seem not to be sharing the same mood?

Why is the white woman smiling? I don't understand! WHYYYYY?

If the Asian woman is solemn, why is the white woman smiling? I don’t understand! WHYYYYY?

So these women, having very different apparent responses to Josh Newman’s prank letter to his Joe Boxer employee friend, believe that Josh Newman is immoral — while you and those around you prepare to support Donald Trump?

Really, you’re a moralist now, Ling-Ling?  How do you feel about state legislators cheating on their spouses?  I think that you may be pretty familiar with one who has, right?  How do you feel about the women with whom they cheat?  If the jokey (or as some say, “jocular”) flirtatious letter raises your hackles, you must have a lot to say about other matters of sexual morality!  Remember, Ling Ling, I ran for this seat four years ago against your political mentor!  There were things that I didn’t bring up, but they’re pretty well known!  And you’re campaigning on SEXUAL ETHICS!

Lady, you have got some nerve!

That picture, by the way?  Unless it’s a stock photo — and I don’t see it on the Web, as one usually does in such circumstances — you stole it.

The full picture in its original tone, up at the top, appears on the website of “Family Forward Oregon,” at this website.  It is used to advertise their Monthly Workshop: Guiding Women Through Divorce.  (That’s presumably why the woman whose face isn’t chopped in half looks unhappy.)  It’s for:

Women beginning the divorce process, in the middle of the process who need additional support, those thinking about separation or divorce, or those who just want to learn more.

What: A workshop presented by mediators, counselors, attorneys and financial advisers …

And so on.  You, Ling-Dave, presumably after asking an intern or something like that to “find a photo of an Asian woman looking vaguely unhappy, standing next to another woman who can be chopped in half, but for the love of God do not use a photo where an African American woman is STANDING NEXT TO the Asian woman because that doesn’t poll well!” and came up with a photo from a nice-seeming women’s and family services group in Oregon, which you then swiped!

(Luckily, I do have their phone number, so I can call tomorrow to see how they feel about an anti-choice, anti-equality, filthy-mouthed Republican party girl who’s a puppet for a bunch of reactionary old white guys using their photo for her campaign.)

The good news for this, from a political perspective, is that for Gilliard-Ling to actually scrape this deeply into the bottom of the barrel like this probably means that Ling-Ling is not only well-behind, but that there’s no better attack out there that’s working.  But no matter — once you’ve gotten paid to deliver a series of mailers for even a lightweight candidate like this, you still have to come up with something, Dave-Ling Chang!  Am I right?

The best thing about this, actually, is how completely it obliterates your similarly bogus attacks on Farrah Khan — to which we turn tomorrow.  Thanks, Disgusting Dave!


About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-retired due to disability, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally runs for office against bad people who would otherwise go unopposed. Got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012; Josh Newman then won the seat in 2016. In 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002; Todd Spitzer then won that seat in 2018. Every time he's run against some rotten incumbent, the *next* person to challenge them wins! He's OK with that. Deposed as Northern Vice Chair of DPOC in April 2014 (in violation of Roberts Rules) when his anti-corruption and pro-consumer work in Anaheim infuriated the Building Trades and Teamsters in spring 2014, who then worked with the lawless and power-mad DPOC Chair to eliminate his internal oversight. Expelled from DPOC in October 2018 (in violation of Roberts Rules) for having endorsed Spitzer over Rackauckas -- which needed to be done. None of his pre-putsch writings ever spoke for the Democratic Party at the local, county, state, national, or galactic level, nor do they now. One of his daughters co-owns a business offering campaign treasurer services to Democratic candidates and the odd independent. He is very proud of her. He doesn't directly profit from her work and it doesn't affect his coverage. (He does not always favor her clients, though she might hesitate to take one that he truly hated.) He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)