Disappointing election cycle

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.