This comparison mailer from Cassie DeYoung landed in 5th Supervisor District mailboxes today, in which DeYoung promotes her support of Measure M.
DeYoung also claims, in banner headline, that Pat Bates supports a tunnel through the Santa Ana mountains linking Riverside and Orange counties.
This is at least the second time in a week DeYoung has made this claim in a mail piece.
It's also an outright lie. What's more, Cassie DeYoung knows it is a lie, and yet she approved it anyway. Pat Bates supports doing the geo-techinical feasibility study because as a responsible public official she wants to know if the tunnel is even doable before making a decision one way or the other. Cassie, being an opportunist, operates under no such burden.
Pat ought to take DeYoung to the OC GOP Ethics Committee and ask for a censure.
When campaigns begin basing their campaigns on lies about their opponents, it's a sign of desperation and awareness that defeat is increasingly unavoidable. She's plunked in another $350,000 of her own money and spent an additional $373,741 dollars between October 1 and October 21 -- for a total of $2,875,714.90 thus far. And for what?
It's in circumstances like this that a candidate's true character emerges, and what's emerging isn't very attractive. Perhaps DeYoung knows that light and the end of the terrible tunnel of her campaign is the oncoming train of defeat.
"Pat ought to take DeYoung to the OC GOP Ethics Committee and ask for a censure"
YOU have got to be kidding....right? Did you not suggest that Pat Bates' association with the the most corrupt members of Congress was OK as long as they got the pork to fund the Terrible Tunnel, or as we like to call it, Bates’ Congestion Relief Leading to Orange County Constipation!
We will lobby to have your picture placed under the definition for demagogue!
Posted by: cotoblogzz | October 27, 2006 at 05:42 PM
Did you not suggest that Pat Bates' association with the the most corrupt members of Congress was OK as long as they got the pork to fund the Terrible Tunnel, or as we like to call it, Bates’ Congestion Relief Leading to Orange County Constipation!
Tempted as I am to disregard your strange query since I don't even accept its premise, my answer is No, I did not say that.
Posted by: Jubal | October 27, 2006 at 06:20 PM
Seems like Jubal is pulling a Nguyen on us - I shall retrive the link in question....
Posted by: cotoblogzz | October 27, 2006 at 06:33 PM
As someone who has had direct experience with the OC GOP Ethics Commission, and as someone who is just watching this race via OC Blog I think this is ripe for the Commission.
Posted by: Duane Dichiara | October 28, 2006 at 06:14 PM
"As someone who has had direct experience with the OC GOP Ethics Commission"
With such credentials you must also have witnessed lawsuit happy-that-go-nowhere Pâté Bates, unless you also just happen to suffer from that terrible tunnel vision afflicting the Bates’ candidacy!
Posted by: cotoblogzz | October 29, 2006 at 07:06 PM
Whatever happened to being able to change your mind? Isn't it possible that between January and now, Cassie learned something that caused her to reevaluate her toll road position? Like maybe OCTA's 2030 projections, or the congestion projections in the South Orange County Major Investment Study?
It seems like it's impossible for a politician to have a change of heart without a certain sector of the electorate tripping on flip-flops all the live-long day.
Posted by: Alex B-Z | October 29, 2006 at 10:20 PM
AleX:
I'd be interested to see if you were so understanding if she were flip-flopping away from sharing your opposition to completing the 241.
Maybe Cassie will next embrace your notion that building more roads increase congestion.
Posted by: Jubal | October 29, 2006 at 11:16 PM
There you go again Matt, cramming words into my mouth without actually addressing my questions.
All I've ever suggested is that building this 16-mile toll road extension will do nothing to ease congestion and will in fact make said congestion worse.
But if you need to simplify that as much as conceivably possible in order to try and understand it in the context of your conventional wisdom, you do that. Just remember what Freakonomics has to say about conventional wisdom.
Posted by: Alex B-Z | October 29, 2006 at 11:55 PM