Democrats support Hammer, not McPherson
Oct 11, 2012 | 2848 views | 27 27 comments | 22 22 recommendations | email to a friend | print

EDITOR,

I was volunteering at the Democratic headquarters in Santa Cruz when a woman called from the San Lorenzo Valley saying she was confused by a letter she received with a large banner that read “Democrats for McPherson.”

I explained to her that the letter was purposefully misleading and that the Democratic Party of Santa Cruz County endorses Eric Hammer for supervisor in the 5th District.

The worst part of the letter was a plea for money to withstand a “barrage of negative ads that will come from the opposition.” Eric Hammer ran a positive campaign in the June primarily based on listening to the needs of local residents, and he is running a positive, forward-looking campaign in the November runoff.

No doubt Mr. McPherson wishes he had been endorsed by the Democratic Party, but that would have been impossible, since he was a Republican until he failed to win the supervisor’s seat in June. Then he became an independent to help him win in the heavily Democratic district.

Do not be deceived by McPherson’s change of party, nor the lies in his campaign letters. The Democrats of Santa Cruz County want you to vote for Eric Hammer.

Deborah Luhrman, vice chairwoman, Santa Cruz County Democratic Party, Soquel

Comments
(27)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
SC Weekly says
|
October 31, 2012
Eric Hammer Admits Falsifying Credentials

Opponents say supe candidate's diploma issue raises character questions:

On an application to the County of Santa Cruz Treasury Oversight Commission from 2011, current Fifth District Supervisor candidate Eric Hammer listed a Bachelor’s of Science degree from San Francisco State in 2000 as one of his credentials, in addition to an Associate’s from Cabrillo College.

The only problem? He doesn’t have a Bachelor’s of Science degree from San Francisco State. The same untruth was also listed on his construction company’s website, under the heading, “About Eric.”

When queried by Lompico resident Paula Gee recently about the matter, Hammer played dumb: “I have been very clear that I have the credits and I did attend SFSU, but have yet to receive a diploma,” he wrote. “I have not stated anywhere that I have a Bachelor’s degree.”

But, of course, he had. Hammer’s construction company website was suddenly taken down for “maintenance.” As of press time, the site is still down.

Clearly, the stonewalling had begun. Unfortunately for the Hammer campaign, County Treasurer Fred Keeley, a key supporter of Hammer’s opponent Bruce McPherson in this campaign, wasn’t having it. Between this and the recent controversy over whether Hammer knew a supporter who vandalized McPherson’s signs, Keeley sees a pattern of lying.

“It’s not quite like saying, ‘I was co-captain of the JV soccer team in 6th grade.’ This is a substantial issue…That’s a pattern of resorting to lying as your first response,” says Keeley. “I don’t know a voter who, if the call is relatively close, if they knew a candidate whose first reaction on fundamental issues is to lie, that they would then say, ‘Gee, all other things being equal, I’ll go with the liar.”

It quickly got worse. In a phone interview with the Weekly, Hammer’s campaign manager Amanda Robinson at first insisted no diploma has been mentioned in any of Hammer’s campaign for supervisor literature. She mentioned the numerous awards Hammer won at SF State and then tried to steer the conversation into a bigger picture look at the woes of community college students who transfer to four-year institutions: “Lots of students are struggling with getting their courses transferred, that’s really the issue here,” she says.

Mmm, maybe. Or maybe the issue is that Hammer lied about a diploma and then tried to cover it up.

Finally, Hammer came clean, maintaining that “I’ve earned all the credits and then some! But I should have done a better job representing myself—instead of calling it a BS, I should have said that I earned all the credits for a BS. I look forward to working through the process and getting the final paperwork.”

To be sure, the position of county supervisor doesn’t require a college degree. But no one would argue with the assertion that it demands integrity. While McPherson himself is staying above the fray, his supporters are turning this last week of the campaign into a referendum on character. They’re out to prove the issue with Hammer is no longer just inexperience, but that he’s flat out too immature for the office. Unfortunately for the Hammer campaign, their candidate suddenly seems intent on helping them.

From the current issue of the Santa Cruz Weekly (formerly the Metro).
Sonya Theil
|
October 31, 2012
Most fascinating that the only paper to print the story is the far left-leaning Santa Cruz Weekly.

Where is the Sentinel? Press Banner? Scotts Valley Times? Patch?

We know where the Sentinel is - elections reporter Jason Hoppin, is busy helping Eric with misleading reports. And non-existent reporting.
SC Weekly says
|
October 31, 2012
Eric Hammer Admits Falsifying Credentials.

http://www.santacruz.com/news/2012/10/31/eric_hammer_admits_falsifying_credentials/

Article is available online. Please forward, tweet, like, etc. Spread the word.
Pics don't lie
|
October 14, 2012
Does this Gail Pellerin have an email address? My friend got some cell phone pictures of McPherson himself pulling out Hammer signs made by kids, that were placed outside the gates of his gated community, on Sims Road.
Connie Crowe
|
October 15, 2012
Did your friend get any pictures of Hammer supporters slapping big yellow stickers covering McPherson's signs? How bout some pictures of setting fires.

Eric Hammer = Dirty Campaign.
Observante
|
October 14, 2012
Last night someone defaced McPherson signs with a bright yellow sticker. If you see a defaced sign, please peel the sticker off and report it to Gail Pellerin at the elections department and to the local sheriff.
DC in BC
|
October 14, 2012
Maybe Eric doesnt' even know all the stuff that his campaign people are doing. Other people are probably running the strategy behind the campaign.
Silly distractions
|
October 13, 2012
It is unfortunate McPherson's signs were defaced, just as it is unfortunate that Hammer's signs have also been defaced, stolen, destroyed. Even the ones handmade by children.

I don't hear any clamoring for the McPherson campaign to apologize for whomever committed those acts, why not?

Mr. Keeley chastises Hammer for not apologizing for people unrelated to his campaign vandalizing signs, instead of calling for both men to speak against such behavior? Thanks for the moral compass, Fred.

silly really
|
October 13, 2012
Destroying signs=stupidity. Got it. But going to the trouble of printing up stickers to be placed on McPherson's signs=campaign suicide.
BC Mom
|
October 31, 2012
I'm sickened by the junior high antics of people following all the campaigns. Even rec board signs have been pulled down and thrown into the highway. Grow up people. I'm also sickened by how desperate McPherson is to hold office. Seriously? Switch parties just to win an office? Can you not do a real job, Bruce? I've known the man for twenty-some odd years and he has lost my respect almost every single year....
Obvious
|
October 13, 2012
As a previous Democrat, I think if he is backed by the Democratic party then I know for sure I will not be voting for him. Thank you for helping me make the clear decision.

A side note, I have seen many McPherson signs defaced. Whether or not Hammer did it himself, or his supporters, I find that to be just the rude and obnoxious following of the DP. I will choose class over trash.
On the fence
|
October 13, 2012
I had planned to vote for Eric Hammer and still may. I am truly undecided at this point. One side note that came up this week that bothered my was the yellow "footnote" someone took upon themselves to attach to McPherson signs a few nights back. It stated REPUBLICAN and then the years he was: start year to 2012. I don't care who you support but you DO NOT go about defacing signs of the opposition campaign. It makes your cause look sneaky and weak. Now I know, the defense comment will be something like "It's just a fact" Yes, true, he did change his affiliation but it is passive aggressive behavior at its finest and does not reflect well on the Hammer campaign. If the culprits were trying to suppport Hammer, I think it had the opposite effect.
Obvious
|
October 13, 2012
I also changed my political party. This is the USA and we are allowed to do that. Are people treating this like RED China that controls all of our steps? I have seen the signs defaced and along with the fact Hammer walked right past me to shake hands with people who were already wearing his pin, helped me. I am a single parent. I work very hard. I care about the environment and I care about the community. I am however staunchly against the Democratic party at this point. Sadly.
Tori L
|
October 13, 2012
What it comes down to is that Eric lacks not only the experience, but the proper temperament for public office.

Today we took time out of our Saturday to clean the McPherson signs on Mount Hermon Rd which were vandalized by Hammer supporters with those yellow stickers. To think that someone actually went to the trouble to print those stickers and glue them to Bruce McPherson's signs indicate it was a thought out process. I understand some signs were burned by an arsonist as well.

This whole Republican Democrat thing is a false narrative. Bruce is moderate and reaches across all parties. Eric does not appear to have exhibited any Democrat values, so why even go there?
Thea Scott
|
October 13, 2012
Such gall, to call everyone in our community who supports someone other than your candidate a liar or schemer. I mean, really, how does that forward your candidate?

Mr. McPherson really missed an opportunity to present himself as a benevolent elder statesman by allowing Fred Keeley and his other supporters and paid staff to smear honest (yes honest, remember, I actually live here, and see these people doing good things in my community all the time, not just election time) locals who think an issue focused candidate from the area might be a better choice.

I am starting to regret having voted for McPherson and Keeley 20 years ago, because it seems to have resulted in a sense of entitlement on their part. I thought term limits were passed to make way for new leadership, instead we find ourselves watching the spectacle of career (yes, 20 years in politics could be called a career) politicians beating the hell out of a local guy because, god forbid, he might take their prize from them. It's sad, and it isn't in line with the values of the 5th District I live in and love.
Obvious
|
October 13, 2012
I agree with the career politicians bit. I however would rather see some one who knows what they are ding than to see someone who is supported by a hate fueled vessel.

I like Mr. Hammer, but since I like everyone, that does not say much for him being my representative.
Liz Fenn
|
October 13, 2012
The creation of that negative literature was made in coordination with the campaign.

To suggest otherwise is just plain silly.
Chris Finnie
|
October 12, 2012
Some actual facts may be in order here.

I know the people who were handing out the literature at the candidate forum. They were handing out 10 reasons to vote for Eric Hammer, plus notices about a website detailing Bruce McPherson's voting record in the state senate.

I have no idea why the folks who posted here seem to find that so threatening. Or why they would characterize either of those as negative.

Plus, while those ordinary citizens do, in fact, support Eric Hammer for supervisor, none of them are affiliated with his campaign. Eric has actually been quite insistent that his campaign will strictly focus on why he's running and what he plans to do if he wins.

So what is on the site these activists put together that seems to so disturb McPherson supporters? His voting record. A record that doesn't support Mr. McPherson's representation of himself and the things he's done. So I could see why he might not want those facts to get out. And why he might want to have his surrogates say nasty things about grassroots activists who are only trying to expose the truth. Please don't take my word for it. Go to www.mcphersonrecord.com and look for yourself.

I also received the Democrats for McPherson letter. It says things that are directly contradicted by Mr. McPherson's voting record. And I've seen doorhangers that are clearly intended to confuse voters into believing that Bruce McPherson is, in fact, a Democrat. Anybody who feels the need to be this deceptive to try to win is clearly desperate. I think it's sort of sad.
Martha Hammer
|
October 14, 2012
Chis Finnie stating FACTS? Hilarious, just as factual as Lowe, Sosebee, Bratton, Patton and other pit bulls, vicious people who have driven moderat Democrats to decline to state.

Well done.
Hurray Fred
|
October 12, 2012
Fred Keeley just posted online:

Hammer's challenge to McPherson is stated as: "I shall immediately and publicly repudiate support deriving from any individual or group which resorts, on behalf of my candidacy or in opposition to that of my opponent, to the methods and tactics which I condemn. I shall accept responsibility to take firm action against any subordinate who violates any provision of this..."

Last week, I attended a candidates forum sponsored by the Valley Women's Club and League of Women Voters. As I entered the auditorium, a person with a Hammer badge handed me a paper that listed "The 10 lies of Bruce McPherson". I have known and worked closely with Bruce for two decades, and none of the statements in that sheet were accurate, much less truthful. Hammer did not, that night or at any other time, "publicly repudiate" the flyer, or his supporters.

Yesterday, someone or more people defaced McPherson signs throughout the San Lorenzo Valley by gluing over-sized bumper stickers on the signs. Again, Hammer did not "publicly repudiate" this act of campaign vandalism. The list goes on and on.

Frankly, I have been a successful candidate for election in the 5th District, and in Santa Cruz County continuously for the last 24 years, so I understand that campaigns and can be rough and tumble. In the case of Mr. Hammer, he is in the awkward position of having violated his own signed oath to run a clean campaign. Now he has violated the terms of his own challenge to Bruce McPherson, and he wants an ironclad guarantee that he will not be held to either the same standard, or that he will be held responsible for his violations.

Not a smart move by Mr. Hammer. Not honest, not trustworthy. Hammer only demonstrates again that he lacks the kind of leadership and integrity that we are looking like for the 5th District.

Fred Keeley

Treasurer

Former 5th District Supervisor

Former Assemblyman (D-Santa Cruz)
Chris Finnie
|
October 12, 2012
Hi Fred,

I doubt you can prove the Hammer campaign had anything to do with either the signs or the handouts. But I can prove it didn't. So, as a surrogate for the McPherson campaign, does having you tell lies in public mean that he is not running a clean campaign?
Donna May
|
October 12, 2012
Deborah Luhrman - how is the title Democrats for McPherson misleading? The list of Democrats supporting Bruce is VERY long and active in his campaign.

Want to see the list? Look here, http://www.mcphersonforsupervisor.com/endorsements.html
Gail Levey
|
October 12, 2012
Wow, what an amazing letter. So full of hate, so loaded with lies. Hammer has run a negative campaign from the gate, McPherson has been honest and positive. The difference between the two campaigns is startling. Hammer's camp steals, burns and vandalizes McPherson's signs, flat out lies about McPherson's record - FLOW is a prime example of a fat lie, FLOW never requested a meeting with then senator McPherson, in fact FLOW hadn't even formulated their plan until AFTER McPherson left the senate.

So this "record" Hammer keeps touting? What is that exactly? Preventing oil rigs out on Monterey Bay? No, that was Bruce McPherson. Did Erick preserve thousands of acres of open space? No, again, that was Bruce.

Speaking personally, I became a decline to state democrat several years ago BECAUSE OF THE ACTION OF OUR LOCAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERS. The vicious lies, the dirty tricks, bullying... shocked me deeply, once I became involved with Santa Cruz Democrats - attend a couple of meetings, you'll be blown away by the hate. Blew me right out of the party my family helped build in this state. No honor, do dignity. Shame.
Tonya Theel
|
October 12, 2012
The Hammer campaign staff seems to be having a hard time coordinating their messages. The email team is claiming that Eric is running a nice campaign, while the letter writing and astroturf blog team is busy running a slimy, vile campaign.

Maybe they should have a meeting.
Chris Finnie
|
October 12, 2012
I was at the meeting where the Democratic Party Central Committee members asked Deborah Luhrman, as vice chair, to clarify their endorsement. They had, as she clearly states, endorsed another candidate and felt Bruce McPherson was trying to muddy the waters. I fail to see any "hate" in her letter. Nor do I see any lies.

Honestly, your post is a lot more angry and negative than her letter.

I have also never heard Eric Hammer say anything negative about Bruce McPherson or seen any mail pieces from the Hammer campaign that say anything at all about his opponent. So I really have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm sorry you don't like local Democrats. But you might want to check out Bruce McPherson's actual record and see how honest you think his campaign is. He did, as you rightly say, vote against oil drilling in Monterey Bay. His other environmental votes are far less impressive.

Though Eric Hammer doesn't have Mr. McPherson's long legislative record, he has volunteered for decades for local non-profits dedicated to improving the lives of residents in this area. That's a record a lot of people would be proud of. And it's good enough to get my vote.
Liz Fenn
|
October 13, 2012
Were you at the meeting where the Democrat candidate was given information about how everyone voted?

Or did you miss that one.
Sarah Starpe
|
October 12, 2012
Except that many, many Democrats support Bruce McPherson. Many respected elected Democratic leaders refuse to endorse Hammer.



We encourage your online comments in this public forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a forum for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Readers may report such inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at pbeditor@pressbanner.com.