And the Winner is…… The Environment

It is somewhat ironic that the CLCV would express concern over low voter turn-out when it can be easily argued that it was part of the problem. I am an environmentalist, so that diffuses that avenue of criticism. Argueng from a simple moral perspective, the CLCV joined the nurses and attorneys in using very negative mail pieces, which have been documented to supress, rather than encourage voting. I do not tolerate negative campaigning because it is simply undemocratic and it leads to more and more partisan, out-of-touch, and unpopular governing bodies. If the CLCV is truly concerned about turn-out, next time refrain from immoral, nasty attack ads (specifically the ones from the 10th senate district. One particular ad attacked Dutra for failing to vote when one of the votes he was out due to his wife breaking her neck.) I still support the environment, but until the CLCV cleans up its act, it will no longer receive my support. Or my money.

I am disenchanted with CLCV and want to be taken off mailing and calling lists. Reflecting back over the last few years, there have been several times when CLCV's judgement on environmental records just hasn't jibed with my own personal experience with the candidates. People look to CLCV for guidance and the guidance in the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary was not sound in my opinion. I wasn't alone. Moreover, I came away with the feeling that the process was forced to achieve the outcome desired by key CLCV leadership. The rules governing CLCV endorsement were not posted (is it two thirds of the Board or just two-thirds of whoever is present? Must there be a fully noticed board meeting, or just a hastily called conference call?) and I saw no verification that there are clear rules or that the rules were followed. Does CLCV even have a compliance officer to guarantee that the rules are followed?

Wow, those are pretty well-informed opinions. I wonder if they represent anyone in particular. Candidates who didn't get CLCV's endorsement? Disenchanted factions? Who knows?

Anthony Sanchez: http://johndutra.com/blog/?p=30
Judith Lamare: Westley supporter ... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/28/ING6EJ0UHT1.DTL ... or, really, more of an Angelides opponent ... sadly, wasn't that pretty much the spirit of this election

Anthony, you failed to reveal you were a paid staffer on the Duta campaign.

I live in SD 10 and was volunteer for Corbett. I'm also a consumer attorney.

Dutra had one of the worst records in the Assembly among Democrats - over six years, not for one instance in time - with respect to supporting environmental legislation. You can't repeatedly choose to abstain on bills promoting environmental, consumer, policyholder and employee rights, knowing that by not voting you are working to defeat the legislation, and then expect a free ride from the CLCV and other advocacy groups when you seek a State Senate seat. That is part of the core mission of the CLCV.

The voting record (or deliberate lack of one in the case of Dutra) of elected officials is always at issue and it is not negative advertising to criticize officials on the basis of their voting record. Despite spending by far the most in the campaign, Dutra finished last in the race and for good reason, his record was out of step with the Democratic voters of SD 10.

Yes, I did fail to disclose my connection to Dutra and we can both agree failing to disclose is serious. I guess I got into to moment. But nonetheless, this revelation does not change the merit of my words and still warrant a legitimate response, rather than a simple dismissal.

As for legitimate criticism of a candidate’s record, yes, it is totally acceptable. But the keyword here is legitimate. You can “attack” someone tastefully, and well, not tastefully. Nasty attacks are what are not legitimate and detrimental to the voting public. Don’t believe me? Look what happen in the democratic gubernatorial primary. Westly and Angelides constantly mudslinged until both lost ground; it was one of the lowest turnouts for a primary. Please tell, how does that serve democracy? That only serves politics.

But I digress. The CLCV and Corbett for that matter did not tastefully attack candidates, and many times it is baseless. John Dutra may not have been stellar on environmental issues, but to say, like many mailers did, that he is not a democrat, or a “republican in democratic clothing,” is just low and very disgusting. If the attacks were tastefully and simply showed his record, I would have been fine. But anytime a group or person resorts to disgusting campaign tactics, they automatically lose my support. (Also, for the record, I, too was not too happy with Dutra’s less-than-stellar environmental record, but I still would have never used such low tactics to highlight it.)

Also, Stephen, in response why Dutra came in last had little to do with beging out of touch (plus, the election was roughly slip into thirds). I would argue, and reason would be on my side, Dutra lost because of one of the most simple rules to campaign victories...turn-out. But you knew that, you're obviously a smart individual (attorney) who tends to draw conclusions on more empirically-based reasons rather than the subjective.

Post a comment