It’s hard to remember a more bitter and caustic election season than this one. Leave it to the “Progressives,” Adam Hill, and some Trilogy NIMBYs on the Nipomo Mesa to heap their constant nasty vitriol on 4th District Supervisor Lynn Compton in their efforts at character assassination.
A case in point is the recent letter to the SLO Tribune written by Laurance Shinderman who has made it his mission to distort Compton’s stellar record. Shinderman is living proof that with every project completed by developers, they import the opponents of their next one.
He first appeared in the battle against Phillips 66’s rail spur when he forcefully advocated denial of that project. And who voted against it? Supervisor Lynn Compton.
While Shinderman won’t be happy with any of the many things she has done to benefit her district, Lynn Compton has run a dignified campaign. That she refuses to jump into the pigsty and sling mud like he does is to her great credit.
With all the noise out there, it’s time for voters to do the right thing and shun the falsehoods of the character assassins like Laurance Shinderman.
Tom Dawson
San Luis Obispo
This article appears in Apr 19-29, 2018.
Im writing to express my disappointment with the SLO New Times for publishing the letter from Mr Dawson, an obvious apostle of Lynn Comptons conservative agenda.
Ive written many letters to the editor of the SLO New Times and thank you for publishing them. My letters Ill admit have an edge and an agenda, but I dont attack a person personally; only their positions.
I challenge the absurd positions of dune riders when they deny science, I grade Lynn Compton due to her positions on air quality, and lock step adherence to the Trump/Zinke off shore drilling initiatives; I did give her an A when she made the political calculation to deny the Phillips rail terminal project, and I take issue with the banalities of Andrea Seastrand and her dog whistle partisan rhetoric.
But I think you are off base to print the comments of Mr Dawson when he says its time for voters to do the right thing and shun the falsehoods of character assassins like Laurance Shinderman.
Nothing that I sent and you printed were false , so to be characterized as a character assassin or that my content is false is absurd.
It would be easy pickings to skewer Mr Dawson and his fact-less letter, but he’s not the issue. He’s entitled to his own opinion, but not his characterization in print that my letters content was false or that it was imbued with character assassination. Ive challenged Lynns positions but never her character.
To have a political representative devoid of criticism for their actions in office would seem ludicrous. I did not see anything in Laurence’s critique that had to do with Lynn Compton’s personal life. Public figures are subject to rebuke or praise depending on their level of governance. Unfortunately Lynn has shown little aptitude for good governance not only by simple observation but as pointed out by Laurence.