BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Truth in Politics

I've been taking it easy the last couple of days while Travis asks where Susan Rose is...and then saw a Wolf mailer the next day with her photo on it. That's pretty public. Capps spending money on Wolf? I don't know if it's the best policy for a congressional representative but as Anderson manager Richard Cochran says -- it's a free speech right. At least Capps isn't having a Democrat no one has ever heard of do her dirty work for her -- see for yourself what the fuss is about at Truth About Thomas.com. Has anybody ever met this Tony Simmons who paid for the letter? The NP says the URL is registered to a former Cochran employee...

"It is this type of crap that keeps good people from running for public office and unnecessarily hurts the families of the candidates," Mr. Thomas said.


I may not agree with you most of the time -- but AMEN Jim.

27 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anthony Simmons actually introduced Anderson at the podium during his re-election news conference. Simmons and Cochrane are regulars together at Harry's. The URL was registered on May 3rd by Lee Geintke, a former employee of Cochrane's who now lives in Emeryville. The bulk rate permit #888 comes from Admark, the mail house in Goleta Cochran uses - Simmons lives in Lompoc. I'm sure it's all just coincidence and that we can take Cochrane's and Anderson's word for it that they had nothing to do with it.

5/31/2006 7:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of truth, just plain Joe should be forced to deal with the problem of the e-mails he sent to County Fire employees seeking their support. Will he take responsibility for those?

5/31/2006 8:23 AM  
Anonymous weary in the second said...

nothing personal, Sara, but it was actually kind of a breath of fresh air for some of us blog-addicted folks to not be stung by the innuendo and outright personal attacks in many of the posts and blog responses of late.

In fact, I might have broken my addiction...seems like this blog has just become an extension of campaign staff or surrogates from all of the candidates [sorry, but, you included!]

5/31/2006 8:26 AM  
Anonymous First District Streetfighter said...

JimmyT gets hit by a campaign mailer and whines about it like he is a victim. He then gets coverage in a lead story on KEYT and in top of the fold front page article in Newspress.

Who really is gaining here? Thomas is a sick political animal and probably sent it out by his own people so he would get attention.

Bill Brown, please save us from the ineptitude of Anderson and the insults of Thomas. Brown was endorsed by the Indy in a very good editorial last week.

5/31/2006 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ragarding Travis' editorials asking where Susan is, he once again exposes his unfair tactics. Half of his editorials complain that the power brokers are trying to install Janet. The other half complain that Rose is staying out of it.

As for Travis' complaints about large and inappropriate donations by Capps and the unions, at least these donations are reported.

What about all the free advertising Travis and the News-Press are giving to Guzzardi and Secord daily through its editorials, columns and selectivity in publishing letters and reader editorials? Hiding behind freedom of the press, the News-Press is trying to influence this election in ways that the rest of us could not, unless we bought our own newspaper.

I'm not talking about the simple NP endorsement. Nor am I talking about the NP news stories. I'm talking about the almost daily editorials touting Secord and Guzzardi and ragging on Wolf and Williams! I'm talking abou the daily printing of letters selected mostly with a pro-Secord, pro-Guzzardi slant while many pro-Janet and pro-Williams letters mysteriously don't make it into print (I and others have not seen out letters published.)

The News-Press normally charges for advertising. By publishing what is essentially advertising for candidates, but framing it as opinions, however slanted, the NP activity is essentially donating massive payments in kind that go unreported by Secord and Guzzardi.

And just as Travis alleges that Janet would be beholding to Unions for their campaign contributions, it follows that Guzzardi and Secord would be beholding to the NP for its massive editorial campaign in their direction.

The NP and Travis' pattern of behavior is hypocritical and at some point, the elections commission should look into this behavior.

It's a good thing that ultimately, voters, not the NP will get the last word.

5/31/2006 9:06 AM  
Blogger john san roque said...

Although I am not a fan of the News Press editorial page, I disagree with anonymous 9:06. The paper has the right to endorse any candidates it wants. It also has the right to be selective about the letters it prints; there’s no reason for an elections committee to step in. The profession of journalism should embrace higher standards than the one-sided and slanted statements we get in the News Press. They stay on the legal side, but not on the ethical side, in their selective publication of information/speculation.

A good example was one of Armstrong’s “bonus” columns last week where he talked about campaign donations for the supervisor race. Well, actually, he speculated about campaign donations that have not yet been reported, spending six or seven paragraphs speculating on who might be a contributor to the candidates he doesn’t like: Wolf and Williams. He did not speculate on who might have contributed to the candidates he endorsed. He asks: “What will the disclosures tell us?” but since he had no actual information, his commentary included the following qualifiers: could be, might, should we be that surprised, for example, possibly, apparently, to what extent will we see, etc. His super-best, triple-speculative question was whether a possible upcoming donation to Williams from a source which may or may not make the donation might be being held back to escape media attention.

Armstrong noted that Susan Rose donated to Wolf’s campaign, but there’s no information on whether other politicians have contributed to the endorsed candidates. And he criticizes another current target, Lois Capps, for supporting Wolf. “Possibly unprecedented” says Armstrong, again displaying his mastery of conditional adverbs.

I admit that I don’t understand what comprises the editorial stance of the News-Press. It’s all over the place. I know with certainty the people Armstrong doesn’t like, but I don’t believe they have anything in common.

5/31/2006 9:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, as a former Thomas campaign staffer I can say that he is being less than honest about that whole Democrat "turn coat" thing. The "truth" is that when he was facing Jim Vizzolini in 1990 he was frozen out of the Republican donors because of The Vizz's connections. So he changed his party affiliation and promised it was sincere and for good. Well, he won the election and promptly switched back to the Republican party. Sincere, for good, right...

And, when ole Jim T says he had nothing to do with the whole Schade affair; whose he trying to fool? He was the Sheriff, nothing happens without his approval.

It still amazes me that people don't look at that should-have-been-scandal under his leadership. $2.35mil for Federal civil rights violations under his direct command. If that had been a minority instead of a former cop, the press would have went nuts.

It is these kinds of political opportunism and lack of morality that turned me off.

5/31/2006 10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn, 9:06 AM, that First Amendment and the freedom of the press can be a real bitch....

5/31/2006 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm talking abou the daily printing of letters selected mostly with a pro-Secord, pro-Guzzardi slant while many pro-Janet and pro-Williams letters mysteriously don't make it into print (I and others have not seen out letters published.)

I have seen pro-Guzzardi letters not get published as well. And I have also seen, as in today, pro-Wolf letters get published. Did you ever think that there is just more letters coming in for Guzzardi than Wolf? Is that a possible scenario in your world?

5/31/2006 12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, our founding fathers wanted to protect a free press. I don't think they planned on individual tycoons and billionaires buying newspapers, radio stations and entire media outlets (as has Murdoch) and having the powers to do things far beyond those of mere citizens.

And freedom of the press aside, it is Travis who is criticizing king makers and people for giving major contributions.

But at the same time, it is Travis and the News-Press trying to be king makers trying to influence the vote with their own outsized contributions of free advertising merely masquerading as editorial opinions. So that's hypocrisy by any definition.

If any reasonable value were placed on the NP free backing of certain candidates and negative advertising against their opponents, the amount would exceed by far the contributions Travis and the NP are criticizing.

And at least the contributions of others are reported for the public to consider. Travis and the NP get to not report their in-kind contributions. I'm not sure this would stand up in court if anyone had the resources to challenge NP practices. In my view, they have crossed the line from freedom of the press into partisanship of the rawest kind.

5/31/2006 12:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike Pinto says...

Nobody but Das has anything to complain about. He has been attacked by all. This blog is one of his only free outlets to get the truth out. He has posted here many times unlike the others. We have to ask ourselves what type of world do we want ti live in?

5/31/2006 12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, FDSF, I agree with you about Anderson being inept and Jim T being dishonest, but I have to disagree about Bill Brown.

He's no answer. Speaking of which, he seems long on talk, but short on answers.

Like why is it his department has had such a massive turnover during his tenure?

Why is their morale problems not being asked about or addressed?

Why is it he claimed for years that Lompton had no gang problem (which is absurd) and then changed up without explanation, now claiming they do have a gang problem?

Why did he recently short his own city on staffing to send officers out of the county, leaving his streets at minimal staffing? Was it to make himself look good for his Chief buddies in Sacramento?

I'll grant you he is glib and smooth, but then so are many televanglists and do we trust them?

5/31/2006 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike Pinto says...

Nobody but Das has anything to complain about. He has been attacked by all.


Oh, whanny pants. Are there any more slices of victim pie?

This blog is one of his only free outlets to get the truth out.

Yeah, because every time I want to buy a NewsPress, some knucklehead keeps dumping them.

He has posted here many times unlike the others.

Others have posted and you know it.

We have to ask ourselves what type of world do we want ti live in?

I think that most of the bloggers here have a certain curiosity of what its like in your world.

5/31/2006 1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:27--It has been tested in court. The Constitution won.

5/31/2006 4:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What excess will Anderson and Cochran come up with next? Too bad they leave their DNA everywhere they go.

5/31/2006 5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's interesting that Joe Armanderiz sent out at least two emails last week promoting Hayes for the DA spot extolling,among other things, that candidate's resume for the job. JoeA is exec dir of the Taxpayer's Assoc and the Industral Assoc so it is not too far-fetched to assume he used both those lists to promote "his" candidate.

Hmm, well in today's NP sits a story on page three saying that JoeA's price for rolling his Lexus while intoxicated is jail time as well as loss of license and probation. His lawyer? The candidate he is backing! Me thinks JoeA got free legal counsel for his endorsement and, considering the results of the court, it obviously was not good for a "first time" offender.

5/31/2006 7:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sara, you have gone primetime. According to Jim Thomas' website he is a regular reader of your blog and is not ashamed to admit it! What are you going to do now that you are legit?

5/31/2006 8:20 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Primtime? That adjective has to be reserved for the honorable John Palminteri as he is PRIMETIME! But thanks -- I guess as I am being used to an extent:)

Pinto - whanny pants and victim pie? You gotta stop walking so many precincts before you blog buddy.

And yes -- it would be interesting if you could count the NP as an in-kind contribution -- it would be worth a lot, all in the name of a free press.

5/31/2006 8:49 PM  
Anonymous dd said...

Hey Sara - you've made it big time now!

Keep up the good work and glad to see that people are starting to pay attention.

5/31/2006 9:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Never saw the facts on the anti Thomas site but they tell a very strong story. It is very clear Anderson is not a media giant - but facts show he has done an excellent job - now Thomas is great media star but a horrible sherriff - he has dogged and attacked Anderson for four years because Anderson was not his pick -

Thomas is not fit to be Sheriff - just got read the documents on the web site - ouch

5/31/2006 9:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am sorry that Joe's DUI has influenced this race. Doug Hayes is by far the best candidate for DA. The other option, Christie, would have you think that bringing Michael Jackson to trial was a good idea.

5/31/2006 9:39 PM  
Anonymous First District Streetfighter said...

per the Anonymous posting 1:01 PM:

"Lompton"?!?!

You just impeached all your seething commentary with that one.

5/31/2006 9:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I can't let it go by. According to a "former campaign staffer", I committed a number of sins.

#1 – That I changed from Republican to Democrat. True, but not at the time and for the reasons "staffer" suggests. I was running in 1986 against Sheriff John Carpenter. As we were both Republican's, we were invited to Barney Klinger's home in Hope Ranch for a campaign function. We were being introduced and Ken Petit was there as a guest of Howard Menzel. Petit was running for Clerk-Recorder. When Howard ( a republican) asked them to introduce Ken, they refused . . . because Ken was a democrat.

Being new to politics, my wife and I decided at that point that we did not want to be in a political party that refused to recognize the existence of another human being. We re-registered as democrats. Ken and I are not the best of friends any longer but I believe he will confirm the story. After a number of years, I found that hard-core democrats were much the same as hard-core republicans, and I changed back. Believe it or not - that's the truth.

#2 - On the issue of the law suit by Dale and Lia Schade. Of course I know about the investigation of the Schade's - I ordered it. Lia recently testified that that I started that investigation because her husband, former Lieutenant Dale Schade, said in 1999 that he might run for sheriff. Trouble is, the narcotics and money laundering investigation against them started in 1997 - two years earlier.

There is an inference that a Federal Court found guilt in a law suit against me, the Sheriff's Department, and the County. Again - not true. The county had filed a motion for summary judgment against the 8 claims made by the Schade's in a civil rights violation law suit. All but 2 were dismissed - one, a claim against one of the investigators and another against me and an investigator. That meant that they could go forward with a civil suit had they chosen to do so. Rather than go to Federal Court in LA with all the costs and the POTENTIAL of a loss, the county decided to settle the case for $2.35 million in 2005 . . . 3 years after I retired.

I would have opposed the settlement and gone to court. The claim against me was that I should have know the affidavit for a search warrant lacked probable cause- I did not. A search warrant is written by law enforcement, scrutinized by the DA, and again scrutinized and signed by a Superior Court Judge before being served. As Sheriff, after that level of review, it is normally believed that probable cause was present, or the DA and Judge would not have approved it.

An interesting side note - during the case, Lia Schade served as Jim Anderson's campaign treasurer during his 2002 campaign for Sheriff. After he won, the case settled.

My e-mail is jim-thomas@msn.com and my personal cell # is 680-2345. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and I will be happy to set the record straight. Jim Thomas, signed in as another anonymous.

5/31/2006 10:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh please Mr. Former Sheriff. Your Schade scenario limps. So Lia Schade worked for Anderson? Apparently, according to court documents, with what you did to that family any like-minded "victim" would have backed the person running against your hand-picked candidate Dorsey. And so what if six counts were dropped. Two stuck and they -- thereby you -- cost we the SB taxpayers 2.35-million. Who cares if the judgement came three years after you retired. You were named; you lost; we the taxpayers lost, and after that revelation, plus others, you lost my vote.

6/01/2006 7:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike Pinto says..

Dear Sheriff, you too are nothing more than a poltical tool that is used by the corporate power brokers. You have been used by the hidden hand much like Travis at the NP. I can only hope when Das is elected he can put a stop to this hidden power structure that controls our county. The sheriff should be brought under complete control of the board of supervisors.

6/01/2006 1:51 PM  
Anonymous dd said...

Sigh,

Dear Mike Pinto - please read the California constitution. The sheriff is ELECTED, he cannot be "controlled" by the BOS, never, ever!!!!

dd

6/01/2006 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, my recollections are about the same as Anon 10:48's. I seem to recall quite the hub-bub when JimmyT switched parties in the run up to the 1990 election. And, then switched back right after winning. I also recall that when then President-elect Clinton visited Summerland, JimmyT was frozen out because of his "turncoat" status.

Hmmmm......

6/01/2006 3:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home