As we blessedly near the end of the 2022 political cycle, I have been considering what might best sum up the year — the campaigns, the candidates and the atmosphere that have characterized this election. Sadly, it seems to come down to one word — disappointment.
Far be it from me to sound a note that, in any way, might discourage people from voting.
But I have a deepening sense that the kind of rhetoric that colors so much of our national politics has leaked into our local politics, in muted form, most assuredly, but unmistakably.
When it comes to political campaigns, I am certainly no babe in the woods. I fully understand why candidates go negative, particularly late in the campaign.
But this year, it seems there is a willingness to push beyond our historic standards of conduct and rhetoric and reach for the unnecessary overstatement. There is a self-justification behind it all — a belief that one side is better, more deserving, even more virtuous, than the other.
It starts with the campaign by, and on behalf of, San Mateo Councilmember Diane Papan for the 21st Assembly District. The onslaught of mailers slamming Papan’s leading opponent, Redwood City Councilmember Giselle Hale, dominated the June primary. The vast majority of the pro-Papan, anti-Hale mailings were from an independent committee backed largely by real estate interests.
But Papan weighed in with her own online ad asserting that Hale had ties to Donald Trump because — you cannot make this up — she tried out a quarter-century ago for Trump’s then-hit TV show “The Apprentice.”
The point, not to belabor it, is that labeling the ultra-progressive Hale a Trump devotee is an accusation that is purposely misleading to the point of absurdity.
There are more examples, large and small.
San Carlos Councilmember Laura Parmer-Lohan, running for county supervisor against Menlo Park Councilmember Ray Mueller, has been sending out attack commentaries via email while maintaining a much more benign presence in her online postings. In one recent fundraising appeal, she wrote: “Our opponent is being propped up by big developers, guaranteeing that he will vote for projects not in the best interests of our communities values.”
Putting aside the tortured syntax, it should be enough to say that Mueller is backed by development money.
To assert he has received their backing in exchange for a “guarantee” of how he will vote is to accuse someone of near-illegal behavior. Parmer-Lohan did not respond to my request to ask her about this and other emails, a posture she has adopted from the outset of her campaign.
Then there are the efforts by San Mateo councilmembers Amourence Lee and Rick Bonilla to make abortion the only wedge issue in the council race between Adam Loraine and Rod Linhares. This is largely because Linhares has declined to respond to Lee’s decision that all council candidates should be questioned about this single issue.
Bonilla happily tweeted what he described as a rumor that Linhares has been silenced by his employer, the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco. When asked about any facts to back up this rumor, Bonilla said blithely that it was “a rumor,” adding, that the existence of social media means “this is the land of rumors. This type of rumor is part of the discussion.”
It appears to have worked, at least on one level. Linhares emailed me Wednesday night the following: “While I would certainly uphold all the laws of California, given my personal experience I just cannot support Prop. 1. I was the product of an unwanted pregnancy. My biological mother wanted to abort me in the final trimester. My issue with Prop. 1 is the fact that it allows abortion in the last three months. If Prop. 1 was in place then, I wouldn’t be here. Thus, I cannot support Prop. 1.”
In the other race for county supervisor, San Mateo-Foster City School District Trustee Noelia Corzo, running for county supervisor against Belmont Councilmember Charles Stone, recently posted about his donations from development interests and said he “works for developers.”
Stone retaliated with a piece noting the campaign donations to Corzo from Diego Ochoa, the San Mateo-Foster City schools superintendent, before and after Corzo voted to give him a 15% raise. But Stone called it a kickback and, in so doing, went too far. Inappropriate, certainly. Illegal?
All the candidates have spent months putting forward positive issues and images. There is always pressure to go negative, especially as the end approaches. But it does not excuse rhetoric that, ultimately, is misleading. Voters want to vote for something, not against someone. It is, in a word, disappointing.
Mark Simon is a veteran journalist, whose career included 15 years as an executive at SamTrans and Caltrain. He can be reached at marksimon@smdailyjournal.com.
(6) comments
If people want to know Linhares' stance on abortion rights, they can ask. He can either answer or not. Clearly he felt like it would be unpopular with voters for him to stay silent for so long. But ultimately he's clarifying his position and now we vote.
Vote early and you will likely receive fewer mailers, emails, and phone calls. Abortion is not a local issue and should not be part of a local campaign. Following the money tells a lot about the candidates.
As someone who is deeply pro-choice, I respect Rod Linhares position on Prop 1 and hope he wins the District 5 City Council seat. Why? Because we need to get San Mateo City Council away from the toxic politics that has been introduced by Mayor Bonilla and Council member Amo Lee. Choice will never be an agenda item under City Council jurisdiction. And after all the dirty politics, I don’t think we have to worry if Rod will run for higher office. I think he’s probably seen enough, and I don’t blame him. But he will be a blessing for San Mateo as the District 5 representative along with Lisa Diaz Nash for District 1 and Rob Newsom for District 3.
You are correct when you write. “… rhetoric that colors so much of our national politics has leaked into our local politics…” You are also correct when you say misleading rhetoric issued by local politicos is “disappointing.”
Rudy Espinoza-Murray wrote in a column a while back that local politics matter. He is spot-on, and the DJ deserves credit for publishing so many LTEs submitted by local voters. However, IMO the disappointing rhetoric from local politicians like Papan, Parmer-Lohan, Lee, Bonilla, and Corzo has apparently leaked into a good number of those letters.
I am a First Amendment guy. It’s OK if a letter writer wants to parrot something negative said by someone else, but how persuasive is such negative rhetoric?
In stark contrast is an October 4 LTE submitted by Alison Proctor titled, “Mental health is at the top of mind for us.” In her advocacy for Noelia Corzo, Alison did not tear down Corzo’s opponent, Charles Stone, but she told readers why she thinks Noelia is worthy of support at the ballot box. To be fair, Charles’ supporters have presented positive reasons to vote for him.
My advice to any undecideds out there is to look at the positives then vote for the candidate with more meaningful accomplishments and admirable qualities.
Stone has used 2 below-the-belt hit pieces this cycle. I didn't expect him to go low this campaign. It's not very becoming at all. But I guess he's desperate, because to lose means he's out of local politics until next election cycle.
McCarthyism is alive and well in this race.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.