Justice Bird’s Losing Campaign

Hell hath no fury like a consultant scorned. This is clearly shown by the sniveling exercise in arrogance and self-pity by Zimmerman.

He would like the reader to believe that a man who makes his living by deliberately confusing woefully uninformed (his words) voters actually is profoundly distressed by the loss of Justices Bird, Grodin and Reynoso, so he whimpers his way through a self-serving display of finger-wagging and finally, in a gesture of moral indignation, raises the back of his hand to his forehead, sighs and presumably collapses in a swoon.

Zimmerman smugly implies that had Bird only retained his services the election would have come out differently. Apparently it takes a special kind of person to run an effective mudslinging campaign. Zimmerman takes great pride in using these negative tactics “because they work,” he tells us, thus revealing a contempt for the electorate that not even the worst demagogue dare opine.

Is it any wonder that Bird, who consistently and forcefully appealed to the voters with the utmost respect, would fire a firm with the likes of Zimmerman?

As a parting shot, Zimmerman hysterically flails out at the schools for everything from poor voter turnout to the sorry state of political campaigns.

Rose Bird provided a breath of fresh air in California politics this year and she will be missed for that almost as much as for her outstanding performance as chief justice. Her defeat will not have been in vain, however, if her thoughtful, dignified style of campaigning becomes the norm. Then we can dispense with the pompous duplicity of people like Zimmerman.

KEN LANDSMAN

Manhattan Beach