The title of this article is not a direct quote; when I’ve heard this said by campaign officials about voters it has started with something coarser than “to hell with.” And I haven’t heard it directly from Tony Bushala and his crew of FFFFers about last week’s pro-FFFF slate mailer, but I have a feeling that I will.
Can we all agree that trying to win votes by bamboozling voters is shameful and should be loudly denounced? (I know, we can’t; the question is rhetorical.) But we should, inspired by the last embers burning in the deepest buried memories of our civics classes, believe that elections should be contested on the merits — and when not on the merits at least not in ways diametrically opposed to the merits. Electoral success should not come from lying. Can we agree on that much? (No — sociopaths, for example, can’t.)
Many people in politics would agree that actively lying is out of bounds (although some would not), but misleading voters, implying that up is down rather than just saying so outright — that’s OK. You don’t believe me? Take a look at this slate mailer that arrived last week in Fullerton. This comes from a photocopy, so some of it is hard to read, but I’ll try to walk you through it.
As you can see, it’s a slate mailer, apparently for Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein. My information, which may be incomplete, was that it was sent to Democrats, to capitalize on Democratic warmth for those two politicians. Everything else about the mailer is either misleading or actively a lie.
Start with the Prop 28 argument. Legislators can currently serve “in office” for 14 years, not 6. They can serve for 6 years in the Assembly (or almost 7, if you take over midterm) and 8 in the Senate. That’s 14 years. It does allow legislators to serve for 12 rather than 6 years in the Assembly, but at the price of giving up any chance to serve in the State Senate. That is the scam.
Hold on, it’s about to get worse.
Yes, if you like Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein, you’ll love dismantling Fullerton City Government! If Tony Bushala — that’s my assumption as to who funded it — had cleverly left Republican State Assemblyman Chris Norby off of the slate mailer, it would be easier to pretend that this wasn’t just an effort to pull the wool over voters’ eyes. And, of course the fine print orders the reader not to read anything (like an endorsement) into anything in the mailer. The fine print ought to say “we think you Democrats are stupid and are just trying to trick you.”)
In fact, the number of informed Democrats who are supporting Chris Norby against Fullerton Mayor Sharon Quirk-Silva for State Assembly would probably fit into Tony Bushala’s bathtub. But supporting Norby in an uncontested is not the real point of this mailer; his inclusion may just be an eye-gouge at Quirk-Silva — to whom Bushala has donated in the past — for taking on the object of his political love. No, this is all about the recall — and using it to install a Bushala slate into power.
(Jane Rands, Matt Rowe, Sean Paden — sorry. You may get along with FFFF people, but you are not a fully owned subsidiary and so you cannot be trusted to do what Tony wants. Thanks for playing, though!)
Aside from the propositions and Judge Deborah Chuang — who has lost my vote simply because she can’t stay off of every stupid slate mailer around, no matter how disgusting — every paying contributor to this mailer is part of the Bushala claque, and my bet is that all of the money comes from Bushala. (If they win and claim a mandate, remember that part of that mandate is to support Obama and Feinstein.) If you like Obama and Feinstein, Tony wants you to transfer those warm feelings to candidates who will not rule out taking Fullerton into an unnecessary bankruptcy to try to cancel the city’s pension obligations. I’m pretty sure that Obama and Feinstein would be on the other side of that debate.
Another flyer also landed in Democratic voters’ hands this past week — but its recommendations had a difference than made me smile. See if you can spot it.
Oh, look, it’s the Coalition for Literacy Newsletter! I like literacy! Who’s Lloyd Levine, by the way? Wikipedia says that he’s a former Democratic Assembly Majority Leader “known for his effort to enact a spay and neutering law for some pets, his effort to ban incandescent light bulbs, his program to promote fitness, and his plastic bag recycling program.” That is all so totally Tony Bushala! Oh, and according to this conservative site, he’s also now putting out slate mailers, selling a bogus association with literacy to the highest bidder.
Now, who in Fullerton do you suppose would be the highest bidder for another misleading slate mailer?
That’s right — Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein! No, wait — no asterisks by their name, so they didn’t pay. And while you can see the ubiquitous Judge Chuang on the mailer as a paying customer, as well as a couple of propositions, most of the mailer (some of which didn’t come through on the photocopy) is once again the same well-funded bamboozler slate: yes on the recall, Kiger, Levinson, and Sebourn.
Maybe I’ve missed it, but — has any one of those three made literacy a centerpiece of their campaign? My guess is “no.” But from the perspective of a bamboozler, it doesn’t matter. What matters to the bamboozler is this bit of philosophy:
You are an ignorant mark and however you can be conned into voting for these FFFF’ers is just fine. “To hell with you if you’re stupid enough to believe it.”
(Or, if you want to, you could stand up to them and say that you won’t be conned. It’s your vote; it’s up to you!)
Oh, and the little detail that I love? The second FFFF slate mailer also favors one proposition and opposes the other — but it’s the exact opposite choice as the first one. That tells you what really matters to the people (or person) who paid for this — and what doesn’t.
P.S. Chris Norby has spent about $13,500 in mailings so far, $2600 of it in slate cards; his report shows that his inclusion in the “Your Ballot Guide” slate mailer at the top cost him $1000.
3/23/2012 | PITKIN PRODUCTIONS | CAMPAIGN LITERATURE AND MAILINGS | $850.00 | |
3/27/2012 | YOUR BALLOT GUIDE | CAMPAIGN LITERATURE AND MAILINGS | SLATE CARD | $1,000.00 |
5/3/2012 | CRA VOTER GUIDE | CAMPAIGN LITERATURE AND MAILINGS | SLATE CARD | $100.00 |
5/8/2012 | JC EVANS INC. | CAMPAIGN LITERATURE AND MAILINGS | $75.00 | |
5/9/2012 | CHRIS JONES CONSULTING | CAMPAIGN LITERATURE AND MAILINGS | $9,991.26 | |
5/14/2012 | CRA VOTER GUIDE | CAMPAIGN LITERATURE AND MAILINGS | SLATE CARD | $1,500.00 |
I don’t know how updated Fullerton keeps its records of campaign/independent expenditures. Anyone?
http://www.cityoffullerton.com/Weblink8/DocView.aspx?id=449059&dbid=1
What’s this you say? Let’s check it out.
Tony’s spent $41,426 on mostly literature and ads (Schedule E, page 13, and supporting pages.)
Tony’s spent $21,066 in IE’s on pro-recall slate mailers? No, that’s just the “Committee to Recall.” The “Committee to SUPPORT the recall” has spent another $16,026, so that makes $37,092, which sounds more like it. (This is on page 12, where the final donation is unlisted, but you can figure it out by looking at page 11.)
Tony’s spent $14,067 on pro-Travis Kiger slate mailers (Page 12)
But Tony’s spent only $2453 on pro-Barry Levinson slate mailers. (Page 11)
And Tony’s spent only $2261 on pro-Greg Sebourn slate mailers. (Page 9)
Does Tony really like Travis that much more than his fellow FFFF candidates? That’s one possibility. Another one is this: Tony thinks that Travis’s seat is competitive (between him and Glenn Georgieff) and that Sebourn’s and Levinson’s seats aren’t. In Levinson’s case, that may mean that Tony thinks that he isn’t going to beat Doug Chaffee (and maybe not even Matt Rowe.) In Sebourn’s case, it may mean that Sebourn — who before the election was represented to me as the strongest FFFF candidate — has it in the bag. It could mean that he thinks that either Bankhead won’t be recalled or that Sebourn’s not going to win.
The race for the Bankhead seat is a mess, with all four candidates all having some institutional and/or interest group support; it’s interesting that Tony isn’t spending his money there. But Sebourn has had more signs up than all of the others combined, for what that’s worth. (Campaign Field Directors say: not worth much.)
This does suggest a strategy for people worried about FFFF control on the Council: go ahead and recall McKinley (either Chaffee or Rowe would be an improvement) and vote against recalling Jones. If Sebourn wins Bankhead’s seat, so be it; the ability to get a motion and a second between him and Whitaker would tell a lot about what FFFF governance would look like. But Tony’s concern seems to be much more with Kiger vs. Georgieff — a seat that will, in any event, reopen in November.
Does anyone besides me think its a little strange that the three FFFF candidates (aka the broken records) all espouse “transparency”, yet they have no problem buying into slate mailers like this and employ misleading tactics and half-truths in their campaogns? If they really are transparent and Tony B really wants an open government, why can’t they be more honest with voters? I’d like to hear some independent thoughts and answers from the three broken records without them checking in with Tony first.
Whatever your feelings re about this recall, you cannot call it a “grass roots” effort by any stretch of the imagination. I think the best way to pay tony back for his generosity is to elect Rands, Gerogioff, and [Chaffee/Rowe]. Then Tony can sleep at night knowing he’s really done something to improve Fullerton!
Oh, and I’d really like to see any of the three, and Tony himself, put three sentences together that don’t insult, belittle, or smear someone who has the temerity to disagree with them!
You posted an hour too soon. It gets worse:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=77077
So I just saw….
Here are some straightforward questions for the three FFFF candidates (and/or Tony B), who should be willing to answer them in the name of transparency:
1. You have criticized the three Council members for taking money from special interests like public employee unions and developers. Since the majority of your campaign funds are coming from one person, how are you different from them?
2. Judging by his financial support and his positive comments on his blog, it’s clear Mr. Bushala is a major supporter. Given the often over-the-top nature of a lot of commentary on the FFFF blog, at what point would you disassociate yourself with these comments? What is your position on Mr. Bushala’s statement that he’s not responsible for what’s posted on a blog he hosts?
3. As a Council person, you will have to work with City staff at some point. Do you share Tony’s characterizations of 1) the police department as made up, for the most part, of “goons”? 2) all non-safety employees as “overpaid pencil-pushers”? 3) the senior management staff as “out of control”? If so, how can you expect to work effectively with the City organization? If not, have you publicly disagreed with Mr. Bushala?
4. Generally, Council candidates have been involved in civic affairs, either within the City organization as commission or committee members, or in support organizations such as community groups, for several years, so they are family with the community’s needs as a whole. What has been your experience with such organizations before the recall?
5. All of you have referred to the “illegal water tax”. Tony has made this a major campaign issue. Yet the Council members he has supported in the past, such as Norby and Nelson, voted for water rates that included the “tax”. Why was it okay then but wrong now?
6. The same question as number 5, but regarding employee agreements. All three of you make some vague references to employees being over-compensated. But Tony’s two former protégés voted for very similar agreements in the past. Mr. Nelson actively courted the police association’s support for his first Council election. How was it right then but wrong now?
7. Speaking of compensation, here’s an outside pitch to the current FFFF Council member, Bruce Whitaker. You are a state employee, working for Assembly Member Norby. What is your compensation, health benefit, and retirement package?
8. Local elections are supposed to be non-partisan, yet this race is clearly divided along partisan lines. If elected, how would you respond to the needs of the entire community rather than your narrow constituency?
9. On what issues do you disagree with Mr. Bushala? If none, would you as a Council person be willing to work with people with whom he has clearly and aggressively disagreed, yet deserve your respect and attention just as much as he does? If there issues you disagree with him, are you willing to state them publically before the election.
10. You all embrace a libertarian approach. This recall, at least at first, was about the murder of a homeless person. Given your limited government beliefs, what, if any, services, do you feel the homeless need from local government?
I don’t think any of these are especially difficult to answer, especially given the know-it-all attitude of the three candidates. So how about it? Let’s see of that transparency in action guys!
*Aren’t those insider comments…just the best? No dark agenda there! Just good old fashioned, honest to goodness tripe!
One – two – three…..dump ’em all and then go ski! Even though it might be a little late for Spring Snowboarding……love to see the Big Three Recalled Councilmen…..going over the Cornus on their snowboards…..just one time! That’s a video that could really go viral.
*June Mountain…of course! We knew you secretly wanted to know the secret skiing spot…..