Ballot Statement Was Simply an Attack on Candidate’s Opponents
Re “Ruling Lets Candidate’s Words Win,” Dec. 31:
Though the complaint challenging Marianne Zippi’s ballot statement may not have been submitted in time, it’s obvious she used her ballot statement to attack her rivals and garner some media attention. While this ploy may have worked for the time being, it’s a clear indication of a campaign with no substance -- which is why most local political observers don’t consider Zippi viable. For some time now, I’ve watched the contenders for the 70th Assembly District seat vie for money and momentum. Of the candidates, two clear front-runners have emerged -- Chuck DeVore of Irvine and Cristi Cristich of Newport Beach.
On two defining issues separating these candidates, the 70th District voters are overwhelmingly on DeVore’s side. While DeVore has always been an outspoken opponent of an El Toro airport, Cristich has long been identified as a staunch airport advocate -- though she now claims to have flip-flopped regarding El Toro.
Todd D. Gillespie
Is it too much to ask for candidates that exhibit better powers of argument and reasoning? No. We the voters should demand more of the people who would represent and defend our interests. Have our powers of reasoning fallen so far that we would allow unchallenged a straw-man argument by Marianne Zippi, a GOP Assembly candidate, in a campaign statement?
Let our collective New Year’s resolution include one more item: May our political representatives learn the basics of argument to better preserve our interests.