Articles (sacbee & SacTicket)
Shopping Yellow Pages

Site Navigation

Sacbee: Politics

SUBSCRIBE: Internet Subscription Special

Daniel Weintraub

California Insider

A Weblog by
Sacramento Bee Columnist Daniel Weintraub

Back to California Insider home page

« October 11, 2006 | | October 13, 2006 »
October 12, 2006

Union dues are safe

The governor tells the Chronicle ed board that paycheck protection is not one of the "good ideas" that he will revisit if reelected.

Posted by dweintraub at 10:31 AM

'The best...attack'll see...this year!!!'--California Insider

You know how movie producers like to pull dramatic quotes from the reviews and highlight them in their promotions? The same is true with political consultants. The Garamendi campaign is doing that now with the Bee's review of McClintock's latest ad.

In this ad watch, Amy Chance said one snippet of film was "completely misleading." The clip in question was of Garamendi at a hearing. Most of the ad is about his role in the Executive Life insurance mess, and at the end of the commercial, the announcer asks:

"Can you afford to trust Garamendi again?"

At which point Garamendi, in the clip, says:

"I'm not prepared at this time to answer that question."

And the ad ends there.

My colleague found that misleading because the question to which Garamendi was repsonding had nothing to do with Executive Life. But when I saw the ad I never assumed that it did. I thought it was simply a creative way to use Garamendi answering, or not answering, their question: can you trust him?

At any rate, The Garamendi camp has now taken the Bee's complaint about context out of context. Here's the headline on their latest press release:


They're asking stations to pull the ad, calling it “manifestly defamatory and actionable."

I've always wondered if movie reviewers try to write blurbs that will be quoted in the ads, or try not to. Do political writers have to worry about that too?

You can see the ad for yourself here.

This is far from the best political ad, or even the best attack ad, you will see this year, or even this month. But it might be the most controversial.

Posted by dweintraub at 8:38 AM

Chron: No on 89

A huge supporter of public financing says the "Clean Money" initiative is dirty:

This measure is terminally flawed by the other half of what it does -- its selective restrictions on contributions to ballot propositions. This provision represents a blatant attempt by one special interest to neutralize its potential opponents. It is a corruption of the "clean money" concept.

Posted by dweintraub at 8:04 AM

LAT: No on 90

But the paper would still like to see some eminent domain reform.

Posted by dweintraub at 8:01 AM


Another thing on which they agree: Poochigian and Brown are both distancing themselves from Lockyer's global warming lawsuit against the auto companies.

Posted by dweintraub at 7:59 AM

OC Reg: Strickland for controller

Chiang's penchant for investment activism rubs the Register the wrong way.

Posted by dweintraub at 7:55 AM

Merc: Yes on 86

Another paper sets aside its qualms about ballot-box budgeting and endorses the tobacco tax increase.

Posted by dweintraub at 7:52 AM



At Crossroads, a panel of experts and the public debate the future of health care in California. We'd like you to join the conversation.

Daniel Weintraub


October 2013
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Recent Entries




News | Sports | Business | Politics | Opinion | Entertainment | Lifestyle | Cars | Homes | Jobs | Shopping

Contact Bee Customer Service | Contact | Advertise Online | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Help | Site Map

GUIDE TO THE BEE: | Subscribe | Manage Your Subscription | Contacts | Advertise | Bee Events | Community Involvement | |

Copyright © The Sacramento Bee, (916) 321-1000