Town Square

Post a New Topic

Hysterical Heyward's press release

Original post made by Dick Poe, Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park, on Nov 3, 2006

Dear Mr. Heyward Robinson. I am an officer of Menlo Park Matters. You issued an hysterical press release regarding a so-called “slate mailer” we purchased which endorsed Lee Duboc, Mickie Winkler, and John Boyle, calling it a “scandal” and a “fake endorsement.”

- I assure you that Menlo Park Matters has enthusiastically endorsed Boyle, Duboc, and Winkler – even moreso after observing the kind of smear campaign you have run.
- I note that your shocking press release failed to mention that one of your endorsers, former councilmember Paul Collacchi, and former councilmember Steve Schmidt were endorsed by similar slate mailers during their campaigns, and that Ira Ruskins has appeared in one in the current election year.
- You also conveniently failed to mention that the mailer expressly stated on the front in capital letters that it was not an endorsement by any political party, that it contained a large photo on the cover depicting our esteemed Senator, Diane Feinstein, and inside contained the names of many major politicians in California.

Are you accusing them of scandal and fakery? Are you accusing Senator Feinstein? Mr. Robinson, do you have the ethics to run for Menlo Park City Council?

Comments (8)

Like this comment
Posted by Gern Blanston
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Nov 3, 2006 at 4:24 pm

Pay no attention to the PAC behind the curtain, Mr. Poe? Your mailers were misleading at best and downright idiotic and dishonest at worst. Boyle and Duboc are registered Republicans -- what association were you trying to make with Feinstein's image? The Senator endorses neither candidate, far as I know. The curtain has been pulled back, and you and your candidates just look silly.


Like this comment
Posted by TimetoDuck Dick
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Nov 3, 2006 at 4:33 pm

Hey Dick,

Did you read the Sunday Palo Alto Daily News? Where your slate tries to distance itself from your tactics and you steadfastly insist that they agreed it was okay for you to mail misleading propaganda pieces on their behalf?

If you missed that, I recommend that you take a look at today's editorial in the Daily News. I realize that you might not be able to differentiate fact from fiction at this point, but other people can and will.

As for your comment that "the mailer expressly stated on the front in capital letters that it was not an endorsement by any political party," YOU conveniently fail to mention that this disclaimer is printed in 6pt type, unreadable by most people over 40, and filled with enough gobbledygook to make Karl Rove blush.

Like this comment
Posted by DeepThroat
a resident of Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks
on Nov 4, 2006 at 12:17 am

For those who wish to read more about the misleading mailers read here: Web Link

In this article, Poe, inadvertently admits that Menlo Park Matters is "coordinated" with the Boyle, Winkler, and Duboc campaigns. Though this is not illegal, it imposed different reporting requirements on those campaigns which they have not met.

It's also funny, because it shows that the slate didn't get its story straight on its relationship with Poe's PAC, Menlo Park Matters. Duboc's denial is not particularly credible. Here are some of the more fun parts:

"The mailers came out of two political lobbying and consulting firms in Los Angeles County and were paid for by Menlo Park Matters, a political action committee supportive of the Winkler, Duboc and Boyle ticket. The group spent more than $4,700 on the mailers.

The fact that the mailers are not specifically aligned with a single party fits the mold of nonpartisan local elections, said Dick Poe, director of Menlo Park Matters.

"The whole idea is, this is a nonpartisan race," he said. "Our intention was to get the message out to voters - regardless of party affiliation - to vote for these candidates."

Winkler and Duboc both said they couldn't recall discussing the mailers with Menlo Park Matters.

"Nobody has talked to me about the mailers," Duboc said. "If they asked me, I don't remember it to be quite honest. This is an independent group ... they don't have to ask us."

Boyle said he remembers being asked, but voiced some concern about the contents.

Poe was adamant he floated the mailer tactic by the campaign.

"I have absolutely no doubt that the campaign was aware that we ordered those mailers," he said. "Did we ask their permission, did they make the decision? No."

The mailers themselves raise questions about just what voters should believe on election day.

Like this comment
Posted by Democrat
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Nov 5, 2006 at 4:36 pm

This flyer was confusing--which is the real democratic party one? It's sad that it took some digging to figure that out. The slate candidates know full well most voters won't take time to do that and I believe this tactic is intentionally designed to mislead voters. I'm disgusted with them for so many reasons. I just hope people get out there and VOTE them OFF the council.

Like this comment
Posted by DemPolicyCitizen
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Nov 5, 2006 at 10:50 pm

The most damning distinction between Duboc and Winkler and Boyle being on the fake Democratic Voter Guide paid mailer is NOT just that they aren't endorsed by the DEm Party, or that Duboc and Boyle are Republicans and Winkler a former Republican, but that ALL THREE currently endorse Kiraly for ASsembly yet they wish to appear on a Voter uide that tells people to vote for Ruskin, whom Kirlay is seekign to oust....

This is so deeply hypocritical - and so unethical.

I hope the people on Menlo Park figure it out and dump all three (Boyle Duboc and WInkler! Thank goodness the REAL democratic party endorsements card came out noting that Cline and Robinson are officially endorsed.

The same thing abotu Big Oil -- they paid to get No on 87 onto the fake Dem mailer, even though the Dem Party officially supports Yes on 87 for Clean Tech investments that will jump start the economy.

Spread the word. DON'T TRUST THE FAKE MAILERS. Put them into the recycling bin. And while youa re at it, dump those who abuse them.

Like this comment
Posted by MPM Treasurer
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Nov 6, 2006 at 11:05 am

In this article, Poe, inadvertently admits that Menlo Park Matters is "coordinated" with the Boyle, Winkler, and Duboc campaigns. Though this is not illegal, it imposed different reporting requirements on those campaigns which they have not met.

Menlo Park Matters are in complete FPPC compliance. Our contributors and expenditures are not secret, all activity has been reported.

Like this comment
Posted by how quickly we forget our shortcomings
a resident of Oak Knoll School
on Nov 6, 2006 at 1:52 pm

Dear Mr. Poe
Interesting you had to go back so many years to find other examples of this practice. I recall two years ago Lorie Sinnott was endorsed on a similar disceptive mailer as a "Democrat". It was one more reason the voters distrusted her and she was not elected to the Menlo Park City Council.

Like this comment
Posted by MPM Auditer
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Nov 6, 2006 at 6:18 pm

Menlo Park Matters being in complete compliance is not the issue, though I doubt it.

Since Duboc, Winkler, and Boyle are coordinated with MPM, *they* must report differently, denoting many MPM expenditures as in-kind contributions.

Finally, Menlo Park Matters recieved a $6000 dollar in-kind contribution for a polling service. We're supposed to believe, first that an unknown San Francisco firm simply loved the MPM folks so much that they simply donated $6000 worht of polling services, without telling us who actually paid for those services.

Secondly, we're supposed to believe that MPM did not pass on a word of the political intelligence to the campaigns that Dick Poe says he collaborated with.

If MPM did pass that information to the campaigns, then it did not report correctly, for that is also a donation that should show up on their books and on the books of the individual candidates.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 15 comments | 3,718 views

Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,228 views

Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,173 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 849 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 256 views