Fear and bad behavior seem to be inherent in the Bohn for Supervisor campaign. Cheryl Seidner ain’t having it.

  1. Just Middle Class
    June 4, 2012 at 9:50 am

    Just like this blog, there are strange people out there and they are not part of a campaign, although I am sure that everything will be reported on the blog in the most negative way possible, ie Bohn-heads, need I say more?

  2. Smiley
    June 4, 2012 at 9:55 am

    Cheryl is a fine person who will make a great supervisor.

    JMC, what is your definition of “middle class”?

  3. Anonymous
    June 4, 2012 at 11:48 am

    Finally, a candidate that will address the deception. How refreshing.

  4. Smiley
    June 4, 2012 at 11:54 am

    Call some friends tomorrow. Let’s elect Cheryl Seidner!

  5. Jack Sherman
    June 4, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    My neighbor told me she’s voting for Annette but refuses to post a sign because she’s known Bohn since High School. Bohn blanketed Eureka with signs in 2004, tomorrow we’ll see if he gets similar results.

  6. Anonymous
    June 4, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    What are the names of the Facebook users? Are they identifiable people in the community? If not, who is to say which side is posting the offending messages? Humboldt loves false flag tricks.

  7. Gil Yule
    June 4, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    How refreshing!

  8. HUUFC
    June 4, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    Get a thicker skin.

  9. tra
    June 4, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    I guess I’d have to see the Facebook comments she’s referring to in order to be able to judge whether her reaction is appropriate or not. But if the messages are deleted, there’s nothing for me to judge. Her statement, taken at face value, is that if you’re a Rex Bohn supporter, any message that you post to her Facebook page will be taken down immediately. I kind of assume that’s not quite what she meant, because I see that they’ve allowed some dissenting (but polite) comments to remain in the comment threads, which I think is admirable. My guess is that there were some really stupid, obnoxious, inappropriate comments, and that’s what she’s really referring to. I’m not sure whether attributing responsibility for those types of comments to Rex or his campaign is appropriate or not, I guess that depends on whether it’s a concerted effort on the Bohn campaign’s part to flood her Facebook page with that kind of garbage, or whether it’s just a few knuckleheads acting on their own (and ironically, acting in a way that is probably quite counterproductive to the interests of their own preferred candidate, since making obnoxious comments on her Facebook page will almost certainly do nothing to help win votes for Rex, but will almost certainly galvanize Seidner’s supporters).

    At any rate, it’s her Facebook page, and it’s up to her what kind of negative comments she’s willing to put up with. If people are posting really nasty and/or totally inaccurate stuff, then I don’t blame her at all for not tolerating that. People can be real jerks sometimes, it’s especially easy to be a jerk online, and the last few days of a campaign can sometimes seem to bring out the worst in people. In the past there have been some really nasty, personal attacks against Bohn here on the Herald, dealing with unproven accusations against him and even attacks on his family members — which to his credit, Heraldo has removed when made aware of them. There’s no call for that kind of garbage from either side, and it’s entirely appropriate to delete those kinds of comments when they appear. Actually I think both Rex and Cheryl would probably agree with that 100% and I’m sure neither of them would ever encourage their supporters to engage in that kind of thing. Unfortunately the same may not be true of a few of their supporters on either side (or maybe much more on one side than the other, I really have no way of knowing).

    In general, I think that at the level of the candidates themselves, it’s actually been a pretty positive campaign on both sides, with neither candidate making negative attacks against the other.

    However, if the allegations of fake-polling — where people called voters pretending to be from the Seidner campaign though they were not, and promised yard signs that never showed up,m etc. — are accurate, then whoever was responsible for that was definitely involved in “dirty campaigning.” And I’m none-too-impressed with the Bohn campaign’s choice to participate in the rather misleading “Democratic Voters Choice” slate mailer. Fortunately, I doubt those things will have made any significant impact on the outcome (not that this excuses those things — it doesn’t).

  10. Anonymous
    June 4, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    Cheryl is standing up to the Eureka bullies who want to take over the county’s board of supervisors.

  11. Anonymous
    June 4, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    tra, many democrats received the phony phone calls, as well as the phony mailers. Even the republican Cheryl supporters received deceptive mailers from Rex’s campaign.

  12. Anonymous
    June 4, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    tra, word on the street is that the fake phone calls were orchestrated by Lee Ulansey of HumCPR fame.

  13. Anonymous
    June 4, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    After the fake letters to the editor of a few years ago, I don’t accept any of these dirty politics claims at face value. There’s no telling whether one side is attacking the other, or one side is attacking itself to cry wolf.

  14. just middle class
    June 4, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    If Cheryl played by the rules she would disclose the name address and employer of the ad placed on this blog. But she has not, which shows that she marches to the same drummer as her supporters claim Rex is. Me thinks thee protestheth too much, or the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.

  15. Anonymous
    June 4, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    This is an independent blog that can put up anything they want-get over it! Try a valid accusation before you go pointing fingers! Don’t you live in McKinleyville and run a little conservative paper up there anyway “middle class?”

  16. Anonymous
    June 4, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    Could you ask Rex to add the occupations to the over 60 donors that he failed to give full information on his 460’s? Could you ask him why misleading mailers went out to dems and republicans? Could you ask him why he’s never looked into the phony polls that were benefiting his campaign?

  17. just middle class
    June 4, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    The only paper in McKinleyville is the McKinleyville Press and I do not “run” it, but I find it amusing that Anonymous people try to identify those that use a consistant identifier. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

  18. Mitch
    June 4, 2012 at 4:53 pm

    just middle class,

    No one is paid at the Herald. No one pays to read the Herald. No one is being paid to provide a link to the Seidner campaign.

    If you want to create a blog to present your thoughts, you can do so in exactly the same way Heraldo did. It’s easy, just go to and click on the button labeled “Get Started Here.”

    You can then put your thoughts up and you can even put up links to your preferred candidates. You will not have to report those links as a campaign contribution. Also, you don’t have to report it as a campaign contribution if you tell your neighbor who you like in the race.

    Get it?

  19. just middle class
    June 4, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    Mitch, in kind donations are not pay and have value, just check out the reporting of others. Anonomous advertizing, just like the anonymous hit pieces of years ago, are no longe legal, and anaonymous blog ads fall in the same category. I just have to get a copy of Cheryl’s report to see if she reported it, if not, FPPC, here I come!

  20. June 4, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    but jmc, you have to use as real name to file a complaint.

  21. just middle class
    June 4, 2012 at 5:05 pm


  22. Anonymous
    June 4, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    I’ve heard one seidner ad on the radio a couple times. Doesn’t say much of anything at all. Typical but no blatant lies.

    The radio spot by karen brooks makes me want to vomit. She pay to have that thing play every half hour or what? It literally says karen brooks doesn’t accept any campaign money from special interests. IT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT. HOW CAN SHE GET AWAY WITH THAT????

  23. walt
    June 4, 2012 at 5:56 pm

    Why would ANYONE watch or listen to ads, much less believe them?

  24. Giggles
    June 4, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    Just everyone get out and VOTE tomorrow… get all your friends and all your neighbors to vote… then when the winner wins, there can’t be any whining about “I don’t like it,” because we will have all had an official opportunity to be heard.

    And the ballot box is anonymous too, we’ll all do fine!!

    I hope tomorrow is “three strikes yer out” for dirty campaigning and election tricks. I received NINE calls from “Humboldt Research” ( as written about here — ).

    I saw three mailers: one Democratic, 2 aimed at Republicans. The Democratic one said “yes on 29” the other two said “no on 29.” One of the Republican mailers had a target pattern over the U.S. Capitol dome, an image I recall got Sarah Palin into a lot of trouble a while ago.

    I’m tired of dirty campaigning. I’m tired of sign pollution by someone who claims to support the environment. I’m tired of the nasty remarks on Facebook (and other places) which I’ve seen and I support Cheryl wholeheartedly for removing them from her Facebook page.

    It’s time for first district healing and growth, not more nasty childish games. Take photos of any electioneering you see.

    Vote Cheryl… people first.

  25. Anonymous
    June 4, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    “Why would ANYONE watch or listen to ads, much less believe them?”

    I drive most of the day. Does whether or not I believe them make it okay to lie to me?

  26. Anonymous
  27. Anonymous
    June 4, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    He claims to not even know what the Humboldt Herald is…

  28. just middle class
    June 4, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    People first, or …………

  29. tra
    June 4, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    “tra, word on the street is that the fake phone calls were orchestrated by Lee Ulansey of HumCPR fame.”

    “Word on the street” is another way of saying “a rumor that I choose to believe.”

    I will say this: If the reports about these phone calls are accurate and the intent is as malicious as it sounds, then whoever is behind them is certainly guilty of “political dirty tricks.” I think they’d also be guilty of foolishness and of wasting their own time and money, because, at least from what’s been described, I’m having a hard time seeing how they’d do any real harm to Cheryl’s campaign, or how they would help any opponent of hers. If anything, the perception that her campaign has been the target of dirty tricks has probably motivated her supporters to give more and to work harder, and perhaps gained sympathy for her from undecided voters who heard about it.

    I seriously doubt that Rex knew about or would have approved of an orchestrated phony phone call campaign. Whether he tried to figure out who was behind it and didn’t get anywhere (apparently neither the Seidner campaign nor any media outlet has had any luck with that either, otherwise I expect we’d have heard about it by now), or maybe he didn’t even try, I don’t know. I do think he should have spoken out against it publicly, and made it clear that he did not want any of his supporters to engage in that kind of activity. If he did that, I don’t remember hearing or reading about it.

    But when it comes to the misleading “Democratic Voters Choice” slate mailer, his campaign paid to be included in that, so the responsibility for that lands squarely on Rex and his campaign. Since it is my understanding that he was a longtime Republican, only recently switched to Decline-to-State, it’s hard to see his paying to be listed on that flyer, surrounded by Democratic candidates and quotes from JFK, RFK, Truman and so on, as anything other than an blatant attempt to falsely portray himself as a stalwart Democrat.

    Sure, some Democrats are supporting him, and I don’t think there would have been anything unethical about a flyer that simply listed endorsements from local Democrats who are supporting him (“Democrats like ______, _______, and _______ are supporting Rex Bohn for Supervisor, and here’s why…”), but that’s not what the slate mailer was. It was buying his way onto a flyer listing a bunch of Democratic candidates who did not agree to associate their names with his. I guess the idea is that a low-information voter may look at that kind of mailer and think “hey, I support Obama, Feinstein, Chesbro, etc., so this looks like a list of my team, and I see that this guy Rex Bohn is on the list too,” though I doubt too many people do anything with those slate mailers other than take them out of the mailbox and toss them right into the recycling bin. Again, though, that’s not an excuse and doesn’t mean their isn’t an ethical issue there — if the intent is to deceive/manipulate, then even if it’s ineffective, it’s still just as wrong.

  30. tra
    June 4, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Thanks for the link to the NCJ article, 6:12. It’s a good article, and documents that the “Democratic Voters Choice” flyer wasn’t the only one.

    It’s true that Gallegos was criticized in the past for paying to appear on both Democratic and Republican slate mailers in the same election, but this seems like the most extreme case yet.

    As far as the fact that some of the slate mailers Bohn was on also featured No on 28 and No on 29, and others featured Yes on 2 and Yes on 29, that does look ridiculous, but probably not a matter of Bohn’s campaign deliberately trying to ally himself with both positions, more a matter of not having any control over which of those campaigns also happened to buy their way onto that particular slate mailer, and not caring one way or the other.

    I think the reality of many of these slate mailers is that they’re really just one more way for profit-minded direct mail outfits to partner with some not-very-creative political consultants to jointly suck some more money from the world of political campaigns. Aside from the higher-level political figures who are used (I assume without their permission, and certainly without paying) to give an impression of which “side” the slate mailer represents, all the lower-down slots are basically sold as paid advertising, probably to whichever candidates or initiative campaigns send them a check first. It’s kind of a bottom-feeder end of the political direct mail business.

  31. Anonymous
    June 4, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    tra, it’s more a matter of not giving a shit what he says and does to get elected. It’s mostly a matter of him lying to the public.

  32. Observer
    June 4, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    I put a good wager bet that Mathew Owen is behind this. He did a similar act on another Supervisor’s race a couple of years ago. He even staked out a meeting of a rival canidates, posted blogs untrue facts, and made malicous attacks about great community members.
    He is just a bully that will have Karma come back on him 10 fold.

  33. Thorstein Veblen
    June 4, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    These slate mailers are just what tra said, a way for direct mail advertisers to pick up some election year gravy, disguised as being semi-official voter guides. Most campaigns don’t use them, or only use ones that truly reflect their affiliations, because they cost money and most campaigns don’t have enough of that. Bohn apparently is the exception.

  34. June 4, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    It isn’t really a dirty campaign until someone ends up in jail.

  35. Anonymous
    June 4, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Ryan Burns has done a great job of laying out the facts:

  36. June 4, 2012 at 8:03 pm

    Oh, I see Doug.

    And “It ain’t really a lie unless you get caught”, eh?

    I appreciate your presumed attempt at humor, but fact is most dirty campaigns do not result in jail time. Oh – and a lie is just a lie.

    Some good people were talked into endorsing Rex. If he wins, that mistake will still be a mistake.

  37. High Finance
    June 5, 2012 at 7:26 am

    I heard someone use a phrase that fits this topic perfectly.

    “Manufactured outrage”. There are cowards everywhere who use the anonymonity of the internet to post disgusting things. That Cheryl’s Facebook page is attacked is childish and she has every right to be ticked off.

    But then she tries to make a political issue with it by accusing the morons posting of being Bohn supporters.

    And the Heraldo smear machine tries to help her.

  38. Anonymous
    June 5, 2012 at 7:30 am

    Because Bohn’s supporters wouldn’t do such a despicable thing, High? Do you think it was Seidner’s supporters who did it?

  39. High Finance
    June 5, 2012 at 7:37 am

    No 7.30am, those types posting that garbage are too young and/or too immature to bother voting.

  40. Anonymous
    June 5, 2012 at 7:45 am

    Rex Bohn has earned has label of liar-now it’s time for the voters to hear about it! Don’t be mislead-vote for trusted leadership-VOTE CHERYL SEIDNER FOR FIRST DISTRICT SUPERVISOR!!

  41. mresquan
    June 5, 2012 at 7:48 am

    “but fact is most dirty campaigns do not result in jail time.”

    True.But a $14,000 laundering scheme could and should.And to blame that on volunteers is disgusting.

  42. Anonymous
    June 5, 2012 at 7:48 am

    Whiny Bully v. Inspirational Leader

    Which will Humboldt choose?

  43. Anonymous
    June 5, 2012 at 8:37 am

    tra’s predictable defense of Ulansey is predictable. Why don’t you ask him directly and report back here?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s