Candidate Scott Peters has been blanketing his expensive, slick fliers all over the 52nd Congressional District. Today, his latest flier arrived, and lo and behold – it’s a listing of media and press endorsements of the Scott Peters campaign – and includes the OB Rag. The flier intentionally makes it appear as if the OB Rag endorsed Scott Peters for Congress.
There is nothing further from the truth.
We at the OB Rag did NOT endorse Scott Peters – in fact, we endorsed Lori Saldaña in a staff vote of 9 to 2.
One member of our staff did wish to personally endorse Peters, and he wrote about it on our website. It a quote from that article that the Peters campaign used on their flier.
But with the OB Rag logo, along with the logos of other media, like CityBeat, the U-T San Diego, and the Tierra Times, the flier makes you think that the Rag endorsed Peters. Next to each media logo are the words: “Endorses Scott Peters“. The Rag logo and quote used are sandwiched between two other endorsements – which are on one side of the flier – but does not include the endorsing words. Yet, clearly the flier is meant to trick voters into believing that we did authorize him to use our logo and that we think people should vote for him.
We at the OB Rag condemn this trickery, this misrepresentation by the Scott Peters campaign – more misrepresentations in a campaign that has been getting uglier each day. Peters just reportedly lent his campaign $1.25 Million, money that could be spent on much better things than trying to beat out a fellow Democrat.
{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m Ernie McCray and I approve this message.
This is how premeditated “truthiness” replaces the truth.
Well if I was to argue it Anna, I would say it is a case of unmitigated “truthiness.” And it so far removed the “falsie-ness,” I can barely believe it.
Jack- do you remember when Lily Tomlin played Edith Ann on Laugh In? She would always end her skit with “I’m Edith Ann and that’s the truth.” Then she would add a raspberry. http://tinyurl.com/7ffjmfh
Now we just get the raspberry.
That’s the truth.
Oh, if only we could convince her to do a PSA video rebuttal statement on behalf of the Rag to Peter’s merchandizing, or is that pandering…no, no, I ‘ve got it. “Intentionally Misleading.”
this is about as low as it gets. i have tried to stay out of this squabbling–yes i like lori better– but now i’m pissed. i won’t forget. there will be consequences.
A link to a full picture of the mail piece is below so readers can see what Frank cropped out. The header says: ‘What they’re saying:” Next to the San Diego City Beat logo it reads “Endorses Scott Peters” and quotes an editorial. The next section has the OB Rag logo and DOES NOT SAY ‘Endorses’ and pulls quotes from, and cites, Andy Cohen’s column. The next section reads Tierra Times Endorses Scott Peters, etc. And the flip side says U-T San Diego Endorses Scott Peters. It’s quite clear that there is no endorsement from OB Rag — with 4/5 endorsing pubs backing Scott, we have no reason to falsify an endorsement. This FULL picture sets the record straight.
https://twitter.com/mapintar/status/209038352501047297/photo/1
No, sorry, MaryAnne, it is definitely not clear on the flier and it is substantially implied that the OB Rag endorsed Peters. The intention is to deceive, to trick the reader of the flier into believing that we – along with the other quoted and expressed media – support Peters. And now we’re pissed, and those of us who were perhaps on the fence in this contentious 52nd District race may be jumping off.
I’m grateful to see that the OB Rag has called Peters on another example of his sleight of hand dishonesty.
This flier looks as though it is designed to intentionally deceive any person who would read it. Here lies an example of the Transfer Fallacy of Division. If two other periodicals support the candidate, & the OB Rag’s logo is juxtaposed w/ the other two periodicals, then the OB Rag must support the candidate also.
Most people in the U.S. will have forgotten the list of fallacies, if they were taught any of them in high school.
Another problem would be that any people who view the piece may not know or have access to dialoque or rebuttals regarding the ad.
And then there’s that over use of water thing . . .
If it wasn’t so disgustingly, baldly manipulative, this could be wryly amusing — the OB Rag being recognized as a thought leader by a candidate who refused to endorse the only progressive in the SD Mayor’s race bc/ he didn’t want to slight his Republican friends running, and who endorsed the Republican in the City Attorney runoff after coming in 3rd. Who, btw, has since persecuted medical marijuana patients and caregivers as well as local Occupiers since his 2008 election.
i wish i could say i want some what the peter’s campaign is smoking. but i don’t smoke that crap. the “full picture” does nothing to set the record straight as far as I am concerned.
I demand a statement from the candidate apologizing for this trickery. Nothing less will satisfy. Got it?
We decided to not publish the entire flier. Not only is it an insult to us, republishing it would only further the Peters game.
Pretty sure nothing we would say would ever satisfy you, Doug. Take care.
Tsk, tsk, Scott Peters. How low can you go? Not even elected and already manipulating the situation to your benefit.
Feel free to use the above on your next flier.
It was pretty slick! Leaving very little time for clarification!
This points out the flaw of early voteing. You don’t smell the skunk until he’s already inside your house!
This is how “truthiness” happens: I got an email from a friend on Friday, June 1, asking why the OBRag endorsed Peters. I responded to her that we endorsed Lori Saldaña and gave her the link to the endorsement page. She then wrote back:
“The latest Scott Peters flyer makes it sound as though OB Rag supports Peters The right side is divided into 4 sections. The top says San Diego CityBeat endorses Scott Peters. The next section is titled OB Rag and has a quote from [a] writer and does not actually say OB Rag endorses Peters but it was sure easy to assume that the way they wrote it out!”
Yes, it is easy to make that assumption. And it is the wrong assumption. And that was the point of the flier.
If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.
If you lie down with fleas, do you get up with dogs?
Note to self: time to put Advantage on the cats.
A strange thing happened on my facebook page yesterday. A Scott Peters ad appeared on the righthand side of my page and under it was my name and that I “liked” Peters. I was baffled since I am a Lori supporter. I wondered if I had inadvertantly clicked the like button, but before I could correct it the ad disappeared. Now I am wondering…
Whatever happens on Tuesday — unless it turns out to be a November runoff between Democrats Saldana and Peters — everyone who has been enduring the blizzard of mailers, the tsunami of robocalls, the avalanche of falsehood and fakery in this bitter race will have to get it together to vote for whichever Democrat prevails. The goal is to take back the House of Representatives, unseating one Republican at a time. Our job is to retire Brian Bilbray.
Fran- you are right about November. This is June, however, and we have a choice in the meantime. That meantime is meaningful. It is going to be tough to unseat Bilbray. Scott Peters has the Democratic/Labor support and money behind him; Lori Saldaña has an admirable hardworking progressive ground game. Each one of them represents distinct values and approaches and support. We have a choice and it is worth thinking about that choice.
Do you think that the Democratic/Labor support will evaporate if Saldaña wins? Or that progressives will sit out the November election if Peters wins?
Could the comments and posts on the OBRag be used by Bilbray in November? Undoubtedly. The Bilbray campaign will assuredly use whatever it can.
That means that we, on the Left, need to be vigilant and committed to the truth. I think we are up to the task.
with due respect, I disagree. Brian will be retired in due course in that district–a real Democrat like Toni Atkins, Christine Kehoe or John Lee Evans will eventually take him out; if Scott takes the seat we will have our own local version of Joe Lieberman for a very longtime. When we had party primaries, I never participated in a Republican primary; a Bilbray-Peters race will be the functional equivalent of a Republican primary. Now does that mean anyone should actively support Brian or god forbid, vote for him? No, but making that race any kind of a priority? I think I’ll pass. Before spending time or money on Scotty, think about what your time & treasure might do for BO in Las Vegas, or for Matt K in his city council runoff.
If Peters is in the general election, he will etch-a-sketch to the right and run from any endorsement from the OB Rag. But, as a politically astute friend of mine recently observed, ” You don’t beat Bilbray with Bilbray Lite”.
I just saw the flyer on facebook…it did NOT say the OB rag endorses. Frankly, not that many people know about the Rag, Frank.
I wonder now if its the OB Rag majority editorial board OR the Lori campaign that is off its rocker. Why waste time and energy on this?
I’d like to clear up one point: “not that many people know about the Rag”. For the first five months of this year the Rag averaged 90,066 Unique visitors per month (124,445 page loads) as counted by StatCounter.com. We ain’t the UT or even Voice of San Diego, but for bootstrap operation we’re pretty well known.
Surprised I didn’t see this one, our house has been bombarded with flyers over the last couple weeks – probably even more than most with Christina being a Dem and me being “decline to state” and thus subject to tons of conservative mailers.
I’ve got to agree with both sides – the flyer does not explicitly say the Rag endorses Peters, which is his camp’s allegation. But it certainly implies it and invites confusion, as Frank claims.
That said, we’re down to a judgment based on assumptions about the collective intelligence of the voters, and the people responsible for the ad: should we reasonably expect the casual reader to notice that one non-endorsement, sandwiched between three other endorsements, is the only one to not contain the word “endorse?” Should we believe that, in a list of official endorsements, a positive comment without the word “endorse” is not likely to be viewed as in the same category of the other comments it’s grouped with?
Ultimately I’ve got no dog in this fight – I don’t vote for either of the ruling parties as a matter of principle. But I’ll munch my popcorn and toss tomatoes from the sidelines…
This is so infuriating, and so common. A candidate broadcasts utter lies at the last minute, when it’s too late to refute even if you had the money. They win, and even if the lie is later exposed, they still win. There need to be consequences for tbis stuff.
wonder if you can instruct the postal service to hold all bulk mail? another thing would be to start campaign via some social media encouraging people to tell USPS to hold all mail in last week before the election; you could really mess up the utility and drive up the cost of thoze crappy last minute mailers if you just got 10% of the voters in a given race to stop taking the mail in the last week; finally, how about finding the home address of the consultants — Tom Shepard, for instance–and start mailing the crap back to him
the OBRAG should try to get a copy of a recent interview Scotty did on KPBS: in it he expressly claimed that he had been endorsed by both the left and the right and he then recited his endorsements from the UT, Citybeat and the OBRAG
Kevin Wirsing, you are a liar. You said, and I quote:
Kevin Wirsing June 3, 2012 at 8:39 am
“the OBRAG should try to get a copy of a recent interview Scotty did on KPBS: in it he expressly claimed that he had been endorsed by both the left and the right and he then recited his endorsements from the UT, Citybeat and the OBRAG”
Here is a link to the Scott Peters KPBS Interview that Mr. Wirsing is referring to with the exact time that Scott mentioned his endorsements:
http://youtu.be/UPvIZD0pTt0?t=5m10s
Liar, liar, liar!
It is sure funny to see the tea-party-type-litmus-test being applied to the Democrat Peters. And I can’t wait for the OB Rag to do a 360 and endorse Peters in the November run off. LOL, may be they could just use the same flier.
the problem with Peters is not that he is a moderate; I for instance an an enthusiastic supporter of the most moderate and middle of the road member of the current city council, Sherri Lightner. The problem with Scott is that he is not an honest or effective moderate like say Dianne Feinstein, Christine Kehoe, or Sherri. In particular the idea that he “brings people together” is total self-promotion and self-delusion. When he was on the city council with respect to two controversial projects–the Hillel project in La Jolla and the Regents Road bridge in University City, early on in both cases he picked the side which in his feeble estimation had the most clout. In the case of Hillel that was prominent and powerful lobbyist Lynne Heidel; in the case of the Regents Road bridge it was Anne Evans and her son Bill Evans, the hotel magnates. In both cases he overpromised what he could deliver for the proponents of both projects and gave neither Heidel nor the Evans any incentive to compromise or look for realistic alternatives to their proposals; but worst of all in both cases he flat out lied to the large number of project opponents in each community and claimed that he had “not made up his mind and was waiting for data.” When –as any competent politician would know — opponents found out he was really a project supporter all along, he had no credibility and hence no ability to get the project opponents to compromise their respective positions. Moreover in both cases he used his clout with city staff to develop findings which were totally unsupportable–thus giving the project opponents in both cases ample ammunition in the inevitable litigation which followed the council approvals he obtained. In both cases the project opponents were successful in stopping the projects in court and collecting their attorneys fees in the bargain. But worst of all thanks to Scott’s incompetence and dishonesty, in both communities the two sides of each project are now more entrenched in their positions and unwilling to yield than they were before he stepped in. The reality is that Scott in eight years on the council didn’t solve ANY problems in his district–he helped create the pension mess and made problems like Hillel and Regents Road worse rather than better.
Haven’t found a true fact in a single piece of Peters record -setting 21 pieces of mail. He only has a day left to correct the record. I don’t think even peters has enough money to come clean. I’ll be bleaching my mailbox on Tuesday. Right after I vote against the Sleaze.
You’re splitting hairs about the flyer.
Lori herself and her her campaign are so deceptive that there’s no way this staunch liberal could ever vote for her again — not that she could ever win. In this primary, a vote for Lori is a vote for Bilbray.
Good. Now I don’t have to choose between Peters and Saldana. Was gonna vote Saldana anyways, but he just made it easy.
I realize at this point we have probably beat this dead horse into a dead terrier, but I just received another one of those f**king robo-calls. To all you politicians, everyone who is going to vote has pretty much made up their minds at this point. Annoying telephone calls from a machine does not endear the public to your cause.
And Scott, a prerecorded message from your Dad (who by the way sounded heavily medicated) is not going to change the fact you have been gobbling at the public trough for far too long, and like the animals who feed at the trough, and I for one am of cleaning up the by-product. Had I been on the fence, which I was not, that would have pushed me into Lori’s yard once and for all.
The secret missing password is “tired.”