WHOPPER: WATCH OUT FOR THE UNETHICAL GUARDIANS OF POLITICAL ETHICS!!

Most of us know that the Mercury News has a long and shameful history of misusing its role as a critic of sleazy campaign advertisements or mailings. Basically, it expresses outrage at anything that tarnishes its preferred candidates and whitewashes the attacks on those it opposes.

Scott Herhold’s recent column on the “nasty shots” of 2016 is one more incident in this malodorous tradition. Herhold launches his strongest criticism against campaign materials issued on behalf of Mike Honda and Ask Kalra.

My first observation is that – by pure coincidence – these candidates are both vehemently opposed by the Mercury News. A corollary observation is that this type of coincidence has been going on for decades.

But my second observation is of greater interest. The “nasty” attacks that Herhold lambastes appear to be accurate. You know… the truth…what newspapers are supposed to be committed to. Let’s examine the facts.

  • Honda vs Khanna

Overwhelming evidence, including the precipitate resignation of Khanna’s campaign manager, indicates the Khanna campaign accessed Honda’s data bank without authorization on multiple occasions, perhaps as often as 40 times. Herhold blasts Honda for TV ads that make this accusation in strong and graphic terms. Now, it is not clear exactly how much damage that hacking did to Honda’s campaign.  The exact amount of damage is relevant to Honda’s effort to secure an injunction. Injunctions are rarely granted unless serious damage will continue unless the court intervenes prior to trial.

But from the perspective of campaign ethics, the amount of damage is utterly irrelevant. Herhold bemoans the suggestion that Khanna’s transgression is compared to Watergate. But the Watergate break in was a botched burglary. It generated no useful information to Richard Nixon’s presidential campaign. However, even diehard Republican Members of Congress agreed Nixon should be impeached despite the failure of the burglary. Why? Because they acknowledged the overriding principle that candidates for high office should not attempt to bug (or hack) their political opponents. It is this principle that Herhold expects us to believe he doesn’t understand when he rushes to Khanna’s defense.

 

  • Kalra vs Nguyen

Independent expenditures on behalf of Ash Kalra claim that Madison Nguyen voted for a budget that slashed police department funding when crime (particularly homicides) was increasing.

Did Nguyen vote to cut the budget? Yes, she did.

Was serious crime including homicides, increasing? Yes, it was.

So what’s Herhold’s problem?

Herhold believes Nguyen had reasons for voting the way she did, reasons that Herhold agrees with.

From the perspective of campaign ethics, so what? Candidates don’t have a responsibility to explain their opponent’s reasoning.

Kalra’s allies do have an obligation to tell the truth- which they did.

Of course, sometimes the truth can be described in a misleading manner. For example, if an official overspends a $300 million dollar budget by only 13 cents, it is misleading to say that the official’s fiscal irresponsibility led to large tax increases.

But Kalra’s supporters aren’t making a mountain out of a mole hill.

San Jose’s budget and its impact on public safety was a highly controversial issue when Chuck Reed was Mayor. It was intensely debated both on the City Council and in the community. The claims that are being made against Madison Nguyen were repeatedly presented as arguments against the budget Nguyen voted for. She clearly knew about those risks, and the massive loss of experienced police staff in San Jose which followed cannot be disputed.

Herhold would like to give Madison Nguyen immunity from the consequences of her decisions. He’s free to do so. But the voters are equally free to hold her accountable for actions that trashed one of the best police departments in the country. And supporters of Ash Kalra are engaging in honest and ethical democratic politics when they point out these errors when she campaigns for higher office.

Moral of the Story: One of the factors that contributes to sleazy politics in San Jose is the failure of the city’s newspaper to discuss campaign ethics in a fair and honorable manner.  Maybe columnists shouldn’t award garbage cans (the symbol of dirty campaign tactics) until they can do so with clean hands.

Total Views: 649 ,


Do you have a news tip you would like to share? Would you like to contribute to The Left Hook? Email us at LeftHookBlog@gmail.com

No Comments

Leave a Comment

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: