Sunday, October 24, 2010 – 10:50 a.m.
Talk about an independent expenditure with a life of its own.
A series of negative mail pieces sent by the San Francisco-based “Citizens Against Corruption Opposing Rutherford for Supervisor 2010″ took on a life of their own over the past ten days or so.
That extra life courtesy of The Sun and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers.
Both papers, instead of letting the mailers and their respective content, fade away into the political campaign void, they ostensibly kept the attack pieces on board of supervisors candidate Janice Rutherford alive for more than a week.
Rutherford is trying to unseat two-term incumbent Paul Biane.
The latest story was published this morning.
The newspapers are part of the Los Angeles News Group, which means they are basically the same operation, apparently don’t know or haven’t figured out a cardinal rule in politics.
The rule being, negative campaigning works.
Voters may say they are turned-off by negative campaigning. But they still like to read it and it does make an impression.
Not only has the aforementioned newspapers penned three stories covering the mailers, they have actually published what the mailers say, and placed photos of them on the front page more than once.
Maybe the independent expenditure committee should cut a check to the newspapers.
Newspapers in general, whether conservative or liberal, pick sides in campaigns. They enjoy it.
And the writing, polling and editorializing by the papers is usually slanted towards their position or candidate. It’s just the way it is.
The Sun/Daily Bulletin is no different.
It should be noted that the Press Enterprise, who has also endorsed Rutherford, hasn’t touched the issue.
why has the newspaper not asked their candidate why she changed her name, this is one voter who would like to know.
Hmm, just changing one’s name is not in itself a crime. People change their names all of the time, particularly women when they marry, etc. This is not still the 19th century, or is it?
It’s highly irregular for a husband and wife to change their last name unless there is an underlying issue.
Annonymous, no, changing ones name is not a crime, but when a husband and wife both do it there generally is a reason why. That reason could be very innocent but more than likely not, otherwise we would all know why. So, why Janice, why? And shouldn’t asking that question be the job of an independant and non-bias newspaper? Too bad we don’t have one of those in this county.
Something doesn’t pass the smell test here.
TBL: It is not uncommon for women to retain their maiden name for professional purposes apart from their married name. With some women, that’s important.
The real problem people have with Janice Rutherford is that she is a Anglo/Caucasian female married to an Asian-American man with little mixed-raced children. That’s the real problem here isn’t it? How bigoted can you guys be? You should all be ashamed. Are we in the 21st century or not?
Anonymous don’t try to hide the realm issue, its not about women keeping maiden names its about a politician running for office who changed her name from Salas to Rutherford after cheating people out of pay checks, period. Rutherford’s camp has nothing to do but avoid this issue and have people like you try to obscure the real issue. What kind of person changes their name to avoid creditors and then runs for a political office on an ethics platform, can you describe the lowest form of politician, it would look and sound like Janice Rutherford.
Anonymouslymiguided:
My point exactly.