Disregard Slander

Well, Van Wolfswinkel (What a name. Really?) said he wanted to change the way some things operate in SB. I guess he did that with the nasty campaigning.

It's a sad state of affairs all around.

I had the same reaction as Susan when I saw the last wave of junk mail from Van Wolfswinkel.

According to local blogger Craig Smith, the miscreants behind this dirty campaign are John & Sandy Wallace of Montecito and L.A law firm Reed & Davidson:

http://craigsmithsblog.blogspot.com/2009...

But its Van Wolfwinkel who needs to own up to the smear tactics he's paying his underlings to perpetrate.

Dale Francisco and his whopping 250,000 dollar endorsements received from Van Wolfswinkle have potentially ruined Santa Barbara. By creating so much negativity circulating around in the local media about the elections, the residents have been subliminally turned away from the problems and thus the hunt for the solutions, and instead have been focused on the unfortunate reality of dirty politics... smear campaigning at its worst....

This seems to be endless with you folks. Would you be saying the same things if it was "your" guy the $250,000 was supporting? I think not. Daniel Petry

I disagree, Daniel. It's easy to dismiss opinions as being slanted towards one candidate or another, but this is a different issue. It's about the process of election and candidacy in SB, not as much about one candidate or another.

Fair enough if you have a differing opinion, but don't be so quick to dismiss others' opinions as something they are not.

So far, Van Wolfswinkel has spent $518,991.02 on his PAC:

http://craigsmithsblog.blogspot.com/2009...

From my viewpoint, if the ads that were paid for with all that money were plainly truthful, factual, and focused on the issues, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

But instead, the ad campaign "Preserve Our Santa Barbara" has constructed is based on veiled innuendo, insinuations, and false accusations. Combine this with the huge sums being spent and you can understand why so many people are turned off.

To me, this is one of the problems with American politics - there are no "truth in advertising" requirements at all for political ads. Combine that with voters who don't take their responsibilities seriously and you can get some really messed up election results.

EastBeach, you're spot on there about the truth in advertising, or lack of it. There was an excellent editorial in the LA Times (which of course doesn't seem to have a working link online) about Meg Whitman's radio ads. Seems they contain egregious mistruths. Why is it okay for candidates to either twist the truth to their benefit or outright lie to get into office? Isn't there a watchdog group that could try to regulate this sort of thing?

But you're right; it isn't the large amount of money, it's what the money has paid for that's at issue here.