Not that I ever expected the Chronicle to give me a fair shake, but here is an editorial board that based their endorsement of a Democrat candidate on lies about me, that failed to include the egregious ethical violations of their preferred candidate, and then refused to print my response because they felt it was "misleading" and didn't match up with their printed inaccuracies. No wonder they can't keep their readers...
[# More #]
To the Editor:
I’m writing in response to your October 29th endorsement of Chris Bell for the District 17 state Senate seat.
Contrary to the claims in the editorial, Bell was not the first, nor the last, defeated Democrat to “fire shots” my way, and it’s laughable to think the vengeful actions of a freshman Member is what led me to resign two years later. I’d been through 10 years of this Democrat smear campaign, starting back in the mid-90s when they announced this as their political strategy. Rep. Patrick Kennedy even filed a RICO suit during the 2000 election, accusing me of conspiring to defeat Democrats. It was later dismissed with prejudice.
The Democrats’ continued their plan to “Newt-er” me leading up to the 2004 election, colluding with Democrat front groups and a so-called “watchdog group” that drafted a formal House Ethics complaint and shopped it around to lawmakers. Bell, at that point a lame duck congressman, was the only one bitter enough to bite, so he filed them. I was cleared on the charges.
The House Ethics Committee then issued a report finding Bell in direct violation of House Rules. The Committee found - as we’ve always held - that Bell’s complaint contained inflammatory language, exaggerated charges, and serious misstatements of fact and law. Their letter – of admonishment, if you will – would have led to official punishment for violating the rules, had he not already lost the Democrat primary.
The Chronicle can try to chalk Bell’s political losses up to “redistricting”, but in reality, he didn’t serve his constituents well enough to be returned to office.