Mudslinging in the JDP District Attorney Race

Posted
Comments 0

Pitfalls of Political Mudslinging
Editor,
An ad ran in this newspaper by SWLA Politics pointing to the idea that a candidate for DA was a “woke liberal”, because they defended Colin Kapernick kneeling for the national anthem.
I searched for this organization and I could not find a non-profit, an independent political action committee (PAC), or one connected to the Republican Party or a business under that name. The domain names for SWLA Politics (.com, .org, or .net etc) are available for purchase to anyone, so there is no other web presence. This simply means beyond a Fakebook group, it does not exist. In reality, it is a guy with a social media page and that’s about it, but he has the resources and motives to pay for a 1 page ad in the paper. SWLA Politics made a disastrous miscalculation and the 2 other candidates should scramble to disavow.
In the ad, a candidate for DA was assailed and demonized for exercising their right to free speech supporting someone who was exercising theirs. The obvious goal here is to paint a conservative as a “woke liberal”, when that candidate is anything but. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of conservatism, but the person behind this doesn’t know that because they are likely a newbie to conservatism. The conservative movement has had a difficult time with converts who bring over their radical agenda’s that does not serve the best interests of the movement. They do not assimilate or embrace its principals and opt instead to create a hybrid of their own beliefs and call it conservatism. It doesn’t work that way.
Conservatism is an established ideology. It is not shape shifted to fit your own narrative or your own definition of conservatism. Conservatism is struggling to survive because of the relentless onslaught from the left in its attempt to demonize it, and it is being torn apart from within from misguided people, with personal enrichment agendas, many are converts from other parties. It yields only in-fighting. Liberalism has the same problem.
I noticed in this ad that the DA Candidate quoted Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King “A time comes when silence is betrayal”. Is this another part of this charge of “woke liberal”, worthy of being demonized? Are conservatives now evil for quoting Dr King? Is this some kind of new secret rule of conservatism I am not aware of? Is there some kind of secret racist hand signal that goes along with this thinking?
I also noticed in the ad there was a picture that included Eric Reid and Colin Kaepernick, 2 black NFL players that the DA candidate supported their constitutional right to protest. Does SWLA Politics know anything about the optics of doing that? The takeaway from the SWLA Politics effort is that any candidate that supports people’s right to protest or otherwise kneel when the national anthem is played should automatically be disqualified for office. Is this disloyalty to the party? Is that the central message from the far-right extremists who pass themselves off as conservatives?
We are to believe that SWLA Politics is a “loyal/solid conservative Republican” but yet the owner has dumped considerable contributions to elect a Democrat Governor and super-Pac’s.
(Political contributions are public record you know!)

A term often used by candidates that claim are a “solid conservative Republican”, is overplayed, because I have learned that it can be interpreted as codeword for “far-right hardliners”. Those people can be scary, much like the far left liberals. Soundbites slogans like “tough on crime” sound good but begs the question…which crimes? Does it mean “tough as much as the law allows” or beyond that? I don’t want a DA, or Judge “tough on crime”, beyond what the law allows. I want them fair, reasonable, impartial and seekers of the truth. Catchy slogans like “tough on crime” are pretty scary when you look at it with granularity or perspective.
I look for an everyday run of the mill fellow conservative who supports things like free speech, free press, freedom of religion, fairness and the rule of law, and making the penalty fit the crime. Not toughness for its own sake. If they go too far to the right they end up in Nazi, ideological territory. If they go to far to the left they end up in communist territory. I didn’t make this up, the political science experts did decades ago.
Another scary piece is that the Candidate for DA posted this opinion in September of 2017. Since recovering the deleted post is highly unlikely that means the person who posted this captured it and saved it, at the time it happened and held on to it for almost 5 years with a plan to use it at a future time, you know…in case that person ran for office one day! Who does that besides the CIA or NSA? Scary stuff!
It appears the far left and the far right are in a life and death struggle of re-defining what patriotism is and the rest of us are caught in the middle standing as the accused for being “un-patriotic”, because we don’t see it their way. So it goes with the growing number of radical groups.
Local candidates for DA or other local positions need not promote themselves as Pro-second amendment, or pro-life. Unless you’re going to be presiding over or prosecuting abortion cases, it’s not necessary to make it major piece of your platform. If pro-life is a major piece, does that mean the candidate will not seek the death penalty in a murder case ever? How does that mesh with the slogan “tough on crime”? If you state you should be elected because you are pro-2nd amendment then we expect you to stand up for it and NOT enforce any unconstitutional anti-2nd amendment legislation that comes down from the Federal and State level, should that occur. If you’re not prepared to do that then you need to save your pro-2nd amendment speech for when you run for higher offices, where you can really make a difference.

It was fun and games to debate the Kapernick controversy and to have mixed feelings about it but when someone decides to use it as a litmus test for our elected officials, then we cross over into radical territory! I cannot see anyone with any shred of political intelligence getting behind this and giving it value.
The fakebook owner of SWLA Politics, demanded in a post that the candidate explain themself. Explain what? Explain why they support the constitution and the freedom of speech, and of expression? If you do not believe in those things then the burden of explanation is really on you.
Political mudslinging is never wise when you throw it straight up!

Author

Comments

There are currently no comments on this article.

Comment

Enter your comment below. Fields marked * are required. You must preview your comment before submitting it.