The Non-Partisan Candidate Evaluation Council slate is one of the most venerable of the now-multitudinous slate mailers in California.
This election, Mike McGill bought the spot for the 67th AD primary, and lists an endorsement from Senator Tom McClintock.
Unfortunately for voters receiving this slate, that information is erroneous.
According to the Silva campaign, they contacted McClintock's office, which verified that McClintock has no endorsed Mike McGill. Senator Dick Ackerman apparently also spoke to McClintock about the alleged endorsement, and McClintock reiterated that he has not endorsed McGill. In fact. Tom McClintock has not endorsed any candidate in this race.
It's too late for this revelation to have much, if any, impact on the outcome of the race, but it's worthwhile to report it for the benefit of any 67th AD readers whose vote is influenced by this non-existent endorsement. This reflects badly on a great, old slate.
UPDATE: I just heard from McGill consultant Joe Giardiello on this matter:
Jubal,
Can you please update your blog to correctly reflect the McGill slate situation. It was a mistake by the slate and not the McGIll campaign. The text they used was for another candidate.
Here is the text I sent to them:
End Illegal Immigration – Supported by Minuteman Project – Protect Prop. 13 – Endorsed by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, National Tax-Limitation Committee and California Republican Assembly. Retired U.S. Marine, Councilman and small businessowner.
As McClintock's district director I can assure you that I would never do anything like falsely claim his endorsement. He'd have my ---- if he even suspected I did it on purpose. Thanks.
Joe
Too bad about the slate mistake but it WILL help McGill. I'm sure he will send out an apology tomorrow.
Posted by: McGill scores | June 06, 2006 at 11:45 AM
what a load horse dung. there is no way there was a snafu.
Posted by: Shame On Mike | June 06, 2006 at 01:41 PM
I'd bet my house Brian Park- who runs that slate and is a huge Mike McGill supporter - did it on purpose.
Posted by: Park to blame | June 06, 2006 at 04:58 PM
Wooooooops! Come on Brian, suck down some more coffee or something.
I can’t believe that Parks would ever do something like this intentionally. Brian would never do anything to compromise McClintock.
That being said, I have some unrelated questions...
Why does Rackauckas appear on this slate when he is unopposed?
And what is the point at taking a shot at Poizner who is also unopposed? Doesn’t this only hurt our down ticket in the general election?
Posted by: Shawn Fago | June 06, 2006 at 05:21 PM