Got three pieces of mail yesterday relating to the upcoming runoff elections. Two were positive: one from Jay Aiyer, one from Natasha Kamrani. The third was a straight-on attack piece, saying that Kamrani did not vote in several recent elections, up through 2003. If you looked real hard, you could see the tiny print, which was nearly the same color as the background it was on, that identified it as being paid for by the Anne Flores Santiago campaign. That was the only place Santiago's name appeared.
Nothing unseemly about this - unlike the anti-Adrian Garcia pieces from 2003, this one did say who sent it, and it contained simple enough claims. Not having a good voting record is not the most attractive trait one could want in a candidate for public office, but it's hardly the least attractive one, either. It's not going to change my vote, and more to the point it's not going to change my level of interest in voting. That's all that this piece, which I presume was also sent to most of my Heights neighbors, is supposed to do, since for all any casual reader would know Kamrani is the only candidate running. Runoffs are about turnout, and the goal here is to reduce it in Kamrani's main stronghold. The main thing to take away from this is that now we all know who the frontrunner is.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on December 01, 2005 to Election 2005 | TrackBackActually, candidates with poor voting histories is one of the biggest turn offs to voters.
As a professional oppo researcher, I've seen that in race after race and poll after poll.
Posted by: joey jo jo shabadoo on December 1, 2005 10:18 AMGrow a pair kuffner!
"Boo Hoo I got a mailer that tells the truth."
Being that your main stage is politics I figured that you would be immune to mailers. It is sad that you will vote for someone just because they are your neighbor. Why give your vote to someone who doesn't even care to vote herself??
Mike
Posted by: Mike on December 1, 2005 1:56 PMI already have a perfectly fine pair, but thanks for asking. I thought I was gently mocking the Santiago campaign for having to resort to attacks that have nothing to do with the issues, but I guess that may have been a bit too subtle for you. I'll try typing more slowly in the future; perhaps that will help.
And for the record, I decided to vote for Kamrani after quizzing her on the issues. On what basis are you voting?
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on December 1, 2005 2:16 PMI'll tell you why I voted for Kamrani - because the Flores clan are all nuts. Plus Shawn Levinthal is working for her so she can't be all that bad.
Posted by: Marie on December 1, 2005 2:45 PMWait till you see the postcard that came in the mail today from "Citizens for Truth in Governance". The front of the postcard reads, "Episode 1: Some people will say anything for power and money". This just makes me want to see Kamrani win by an even larger margin.
Posted by: Lori on December 1, 2005 4:31 PMNatasha may win but she will spend a good deal of time having to explain why she lied under oath about her marital status. It was not an easy decision but after considerable discussion it was decided that complaints against Natasha Kamrani would be filed with the D.A., the federal government (it is a violation to lie when applying for a home mortgage), the IRS, and with the State Bar. The future of our children is too important to place at the hands of some one who values money so much that they would lie about their marital status, that they would lie about their voting record, and about their jobs.
I had to prove the above statement (lied under oath) here is the link (http://mbarrera.com/natasha/Natasha.pdf) before my comments would be considered for posting, but I see that you let Marie make a general comment about the Flores clan (which I know can not be proved because it is not true). Tomorrow I will post Ms. Kamrani’s voting record and Ms. Santigo’s voting record. These will be verified copies that show that Ms. Kamrani has never voted in a Democratic primary while Ms. Flores has been a Democrat her entire life and has voted as such. I left the Democratic Party years ago because of the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party and this is a perfect example of it.
OUCH! what do you think now Kuffner!! Slam dunk!!
Posted by: Mike on December 2, 2005 3:40 PMAs promised I have posted on line Ms. Kamrani's voting record as well as Ms. Santiago the link is; http://www.mbarrera.com/natasha/Natasha.htm
Can't trust the newspaper and certainly not Fox now even the blogs are not seekers of truth.
Posted by: Manuel on December 2, 2005 8:56 PM