OCEA Hits Brandman With Sleazy Attack #2

Another sleazy attack on Jordan Brandman from the Orange County Employee Association landed in the mailboxes of Anaheim voters today.

This comes on the heels of this piece that landed on Monday. At least this time, OCEA refrained from claiming Brandman had actually broken the law. A small victory for truth.

Still don’t get why OCEA tries to slime Brandman by using photos that make him look squeaky clean, but I’ll save that for a post on why OCEA burns so much money on not-very-good mail.

As I’ve mentioned before, the baseless “accusation” being “investigated” by the DA is from one of Brandman’s AUHSD Board of Trustees colleagues, Katherine Smith, an antagonist with her own truthiness problems, who herself admits she has no evidence of any kind of any wrong-doing.

Then there’s the $158 million canard being tossed about by GardenWalk project opponents and uncritically regurgitated by the media. It is not a misleading number, but the claim that it diverts money from any city service is a logical impossibility.

The last attack has to do with allowing home builders to pay the residential impact fees after a house is sold, rather than before a single home as been built, in order to help the home building industry, which creates these things called jobs. But construction workers, electricians, contractors, etc., don’t pay dues to OCEA, so who cares about them, right?

No comments

  1. [Comment deleted for rank hypocrisy]

  2. There must be some evidence or the DA wouldn’t even spend time looking into it.

    • No evidence is needed, one of the oldest political tricks around. Fill out the Complaint Form right before an election and the government (in this case the DA’s office) is required to investigate.

  3. Do you have any evidence to prove Brandman didn’t use school resources for his personally and/or campaign use?

    • Matthew Cunningham

      Jeremy: Did you you really say that? Honestly, are you for real?

      Maybe you have never heard of the phrase “trying to prove a negative”? That is what we do not do here in America. Here, one has the presumption of innocence. It is in dictatorships where citizens have to prove their innocence.

      What evidence do we have that you are not a drug dealer, or a burglar, or a peeping tom?

      You really ought to be embarrassed to have even asked such a noxious question.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


Skip to toolbar