Jim Lange Lives

Open Letter to Matier & Ross:

(To my semi-loyal readers: This blog entry has nothing to do with baseball. Read it, don’t read it, it’s of course up to you. I was going to send M&R a private note, but then it occurred to me that I’ve got my own little publishing forum with 26 sort of faithful readers, so why not use it? Don’t worry, I’ll write more about Valverde later today.)

I read your column in today’s Chron about the shootout in the Wild West between Fiona Ma and Janet Reilly, or more accurately, the guys who support Fiona Ma and the guys who support Janet Reilly. As I was reading it, with CNBC on in the background, a commercial for Fiona Ma came on. Actually, I’m not sure her name was mentioned. It was really an ad against Janet Reilly, paid for by our friends at the Leaders for an Effective Government.

I actually have seen this commercial before, in fact, I’ve seen it about five times. It is a take off of the TV show Jeopardy, with Jim Lange playing the host. He reveals three answers for which the question is “Who is Janet Reilly?”

The first “answer” is something like “She’s rich and owns a fancy house in Seacliff.”

The second “answer” is something like “She says her number 1 priority is education, but sends her kids to fancy private schools.”

The third “answer” is something like “She says she is for better health care but has thousands invested in the stocks of big drug companies.”

The first time I saw this commercial, my head just about exploded. Now I couldn’t care a whit about Fiona Ma or Janet Reilly. I’m slightly familiar with them both, and frankly, there isn’t all that much different about them except for who supports them. But this commercial suggests that Janet Reilly is unfit for public office because she’s got a few bucks, lives in a nice house, chooses to send her children to Catholic school, and has enough money that she can invest some of it conservatively.

What nonsense. How dare they say those kinds of things.

Any PAC that’s not union formed that can afford to pay out over half a million dollars for a state assembly primary campaign must have been formed by people who live in nice houses and have enough money to invest. I imagine some of them send their kids to private schools, too. What hypocrites. People who live in big houses shouldn’t throw stones. And exactly what do they expect for spending that kind of money?

Now I’m not even close to being Catholic, and I don't have any children, so I’m not personally offended by the private school thing. But I have a business partner whose wife has been a teacher in the SF public school system for 30 years. She’s a fantastic teacher, and the school system would be truly great if we had hundreds more like her. But they sent their kids to St. Brendans and SI. Does that make her a hyprocrite who is not qualified to teach? All I know is, if I had kids in Catholic schools, I’d be furious.

And where is Ms. Ma on this? She may not be responsible for this blatant attack ad, but I haven’t heard her repudiate any of it. Does she live in a shack? Doesn’t she have any investment money, or if she does, how is it invested? I don’t know where her kids go to school, but does she agree that Janet Reilly is unfit because she chose to send her kids to Catholic schools? I’d like to hear her stand up and say what she thinks about this ad.

Why have these primaries gotten so ugly? The winner of the Ma-Reilly race is going to win, and win by a lot, because there are only about 22 Republicans registered in the 12th district. However, Angelides and Westly are going at it hammer and tong, calling each other unfit. The winner is going to get his ass kicked by Arnold, who is on the sidelines laughing. All he has to do is replay the loser’s commercials.

And speaking of Arnold, that same Leaders for an Effective Government sent out a hit piece that I received this week comparing our Governor with Janet Reilly. How are they similar? The mailer states that their campaign messages state that they want change. Hey, every challenger says they want change. Does that somehow make Janet Reilly an Arnold pawn? More nonsense, but another $25-50,000 spent to attack her.

This is exactly how George Bush got elected. Twice. He used outside political groups that Karl Rove “doesn’t control” to put together hit pieces on his opponents. Then, he refused to repudiate the message. That is politics at its ugliest.

Well, unless Fiona Ma repudiates the swift-boating of Janet Reilly by her supporters, I’m voting for Janet Reilly. Actually, I’m going to do it anyway, because I’ve seen that commercial 5 times now, and she’s been quiet as a mouse. And I hope the 26 people who read my blog (or the 8 of you who are still reading this piece) will consider doing the same.

I will say though, it's always nice to see Jim Lange.