Political incivility has long history

For the North County Times

Local Oscar winner Richard Dreyfuss took his act to Solana Beach last month in observance of the day the Constitution was signed in 1787. He told eighth graders at Earl Warren Middle School that "civility is the oxygen for democracy for any democracy in the world. Without simple civility, he explained, "we will die because we demonize our opponents rather than sharing political views.

Dreyfuss has attracted national attention for his Dreyfuss Initiative to promote the teaching of civics in public schools. While he seems unaware of the civics lessons already imbedded in the California school curriculum, his crusade for a more civil political discourse is a noble quest. This year's election campaign is in dire need of adult supervision.

But does knowledge of civics necessarily lead to civility? If that were the case you'd have to assume the half-truths and outright lies parading before us endlessly in today's campaign ads come from people who don't know any better.

Dirty politics is as old as the republic itself. A few of the most egregious examples: John Adams was called a "repulsive pedant" and a "hideous hermaphroditical character" by a writer secretly paid by Thomas Jefferson. Adams supporters, in turn, accused Jefferson of favoring the "teaching of murder, rape, adultery and incest."

In the 1828 election, John Quincy Adams was called "the Pimp" by Andrew Jackson's campaign. Adams fired back with a pamphlet calling Jackson's mother a "common prostitute" brought to this country by British soldiers. James Buchanan, who had a congenital condition causing his head to tilt to the left, was accused of having failed in an attempt to hang himself.

So when tea partiers carry signs with pictures of President Barack Obams sporting a Hitler moustache and allegations that he's a Marxist, a socialist and a Muslim born in Kenya, they're simply carrying on our nation's long tradition of dirty politics, beginning with a couple of signers of the Declaration of Independence.

That, of course, doesn't justify today's political incivility. If Drefuss wants to bring good manners to politics, he should focus on adult education.

He's on the right track with his announcement of a plan to link websites this fall "representing all political opinion to discuss the state of the country" in a "national conversation." With only a week and a half before election day it's a little late to deliver on that promise.

But it's not too late for the actor to speak out against the lies being spread by those who claim to honor the Constitution. It would also set a good example for those Earl Warren eighth graders.

Union pays for Horn's signs

For the North County Times

You can tell when politicians get desperate by the way they attack their opponents with half-truths or outright lies in the final days of a campaign. Spreading fear about a lesser-known candidate is a common strategy for an incumbent running scared.

Confident candidates avoid mentioning the names of their opponents. But incumbent Bill Horn's latest mailer is more about spreading fear of what a Supervisor Steve Gronke might do rather than what Supervisor Horn has done and will do. He makes a pandering promise to "stand up for taxpayers," but unless he thinks public employees don't pay taxes, it appears Horn lives in an Orwellian world where some taxpayers are more equal than others.

You'd think Horn would feel more confident after 16 years in office. He's been able to make a lot of friends by strategically doling out his annual $2 million share of the $10 million in slush funds that supervisors enjoyed during his tenure.

Maybe what worries Horn most is that his $111,000 investment in the June primary yielded only 47,000 votes, costing him $2.80 per vote, while Gronke spent a mere $25,000 to attract 21,000 voters at $1.19 a vote.

From July through September, Horn spent another $163,000, bringing his campaign's total investment, a month before the election, to $274,000. With fewer deep pockets to tap, Gronke spent only $12,000 on his campaign during the same period, for a total of $39,000.

Horn's attack piece claims, "Steve Gronke's campaign is bankrolled by special interest public employee unions."

But Gronke's campaign consultant, Cody Campbell, told me his campaign "has not accepted money from any union or affiliated labor organization and is unaware of any monetary expenditure from labor that will go to support the campaign." He said several labor organizations have included Gronke on their list of candidates they endorse. That should come as no surprise, given Horn's outspoken disdain for unions.

I e-mailed Horn's campaign for a response, but didn't receive a reply by this column's deadline.

Horn's accusation that Gronke's campaign is being bankrolled by unions arrived in the mail the same day a public employees union was busily planting a forest of signs along North County roadways. They carry Bill Horn's name in large, flaming orange letters. At the bottom, in print so small it can't be read from more than a few feet away, we learn the signs have been, "Paid for by the Deputy Sheriffs' Association of San Diego County Political Action Fund #862122."

It seems the only candidate being bankrolled by a union is a desperate incumbent, willing to mislead his constituents and spend more than a quarter of a million dollars to buy an election.

Richard Riehl writes from Carlsbad. Contact him at fogcutter1@yahoo.com.

Why I voted for Blackburn, Douglas and Wantz

For Carlsbadistan.com

Supervisor Bill Horn’s second hit piece in two weeks landed in the mailbox the same day my absentee ballot arrived. The incumbent is using fear to keep his job for another eight years, when the new term limits law his scandal-plagued career inspired will prevent him from becoming supervisor for life. Horn’s desperate attack on his opponent, Steve Gronke, is a good example of why voters should disregard all negative campaigning in the weeks leading up to an election. It spurred me to cast my vote a month before the polls open.

In Carlsbad, North County’s Brigadoon, the campaign has been unusually civil up until now, with candidates touting their qualifications, rather than trumpeting the shortcomings of their opponents.

Mayoral candidate Matt Hall’s latest mailer refers to his opponent as “freshman councilman Keith Blackburn,” the “only council member to oppose (pension) reforms.” Well, that’s stretching the truth a bit. Blackburn is in his second year on the council, technically making him a sophomore, and he did not exactly oppose reforms.

He said he had no problem with reducing retirement benefits for new city employees, but he voted against singling out safety employees without considering the impact it might have in hiring and retaining them in a competitive local market. He is opposed to Proposition G that would give the council the power only to reduce benefits. Raising them could be done only by a vote of the people. That’s a win-win solution for incumbents who are elected to represent the people, but want to avoid hard decisions by turning them over to those who know the least about them. Blackburn’s right on both counts.

But Hall’s slight truth-stretching comes nowhere near the level of a smear campaign.

Since there’s still a month to go before the election and there’s ample time for the mudslinging to begin, here’s how I voted yesterday.

Blackburn is my clear choice for mayor. Yes, he’s been on the council for only two years, but that’s a good thing. I’ve been following the video-taped council meetings on the web during that time and Blackburn and Kulchin always seem to ask the smartest questions of staff and others who come before the council.

He and Kulchin were right about the swim complex. Had their view prevailed, Alga Norte would be under construction by now. Hall, Packard and Lewis kept that from happening. Do you suppose it’s just an election-year coincidence that the three of them joined Blackburn and Kulchin to vote to go ahead with plans for construction at the council’s September 28 meeting?

Yes, indeed, the good old boys have been good stewards of the city’s coffers, but leadership calls for more than simple stewardship.

Blackburn may be the rookie on the council, but his intelligence, educational background, service to the community, business experience, willingness to listen, and dedication to making a wealthy city even more responsive to the needs of its citizens, makes him the best candidate.

Farrah Douglas is my choice for one of the open council positions. Her unusually active experience in city government and the business community will enable her to be immediately aware of the issues facing the council. She, too, was right about Alga Norte. The money to build the swim complex was there two years ago. She was also the most articulate candidate at the forum I attended. Finally, she’ll bring gender and cultural diversity to a council badly in need of it.

My only reservation about her is her participation in the tea party events. She doesn’t strike me as someone who’s angry and believes government is the enemy. But that didn’t keep me from casting my vote for her.

Jon Wantz is my choice for the other seat on the council. He’s new to the city, but that, too is a good thing. He has the most ambitious and creative list of goals for the city with regard to attracting small business to Carlsbad, and his youth is an important element that’s been missing in a group of mostly good old boys. His service in the military required the development of leadership skills.

Wantz is far more articulate than Councilman Packard, whose questions at council meetings are remarkably shallow, and who, as a member of the North County Transit District board, cast the lone vote against installing a safety device for local railways required by the federal government. He claimed it was a symbolic vote against big government.

Take a good look at the websites and mailers of all the candidates and attend the voter forums. I think you’ll find that Hall and Packard are mostly about the past. Blackburn, Douglas and Wantz are about the future.