Doolittle's Fans - NOT

Last week the Sacramento Bee published an opinion piece authored by California Republican State Assemblyman Tim Leslie. Leslie praised Doolittle, brushed aside ethical concerns from Abramoff to Wilkes and suggested that Representative Doolittle's financial arrangement with his wife is just fine with him. Leslie picks up the same theme that Doolittle has been playing - the stinking liberal media (and women's groups, environmentalists, gays, etc.) are behind all these negative stories. According to Leslie "election season attacks on Doolittle are so predictable one can practically set their watch to them."

Well, Tim, what time is it when the Bee publishes a selection of reader's letters in response to your piece and of the nine published, eight condemn you and Doolittle, and only one thanks you for speaking up in his support? Here's a sampling of the negative comments:

Interesting. I've been following California politics since Gov. Pat Brown, and the important facts that Leslie left out was that Doolittle led the most negative and dishonest campaign in 1980 of anyone running in this state. He knew that if he threw enough mud, some would stick. "With a little digging" people will see Doolittle for what he is, a hypocrite and Leslie as someone with a selective memory.

[...]

Doolittle's wife worked out of their house, had no known experience, no known employees and her other clients were Jack Abramoff, an admitted felon, and Ed Buckham, who is under investigation.

Julie Doolittle's other business we know about just points to a more direct means of paying the Doolittles.

[...]

This is wrong. It's a sleazy way to circumvent our campaign laws. This smells like corruption, and it is not the way I want my representative in Washington to behave.

[...]

Doolittle was in the Republican leadership that ignored reality and initiated action whose consequences will continue growing for years, if not decades. I ask myself whether this is a sign of incompetence or misplaced values. It could be both.

[...]

Julie Doolittle gets 15 percent of all money raised, and how hard can it be to raise money based on Doolittle's situation? If for some reason a contributor doesn't give or gives less than Doolittle thinks appropriate, that's money taken directly out of his pocket since he doesn't get his cut.

[...]

Re "Doolittle mailer embarks ahead of port deal," April 3: Rep. John Doolittle, using his congressional franking privilege, sent a "mass mailing" at taxpayers' expense to his constituents, stating that he opposed the port deal involving a United Arab Emirates company. I can understand when a member of Congress wants to communicate with his constituents, but which constituents is Doolittle communicating with?

My son and I are both registered voters in Doolittle's district, but neither of us received that letter. If a member of Congress sends a letter to all registered voters in his district, it's communication. If he sends a letter only to members of his own party, it's campaign literature and should never be sent at government expense, especially just a few months before an election.

[...]

But it is self-evident that this expensive missive, mailed at taxpayer expense, is simply part of a campaign strategy to re-elect Doolittle.

Tim thanks for taking Doolittle's side. Apparently, most of the other folks in CA-4 aren't quite as indebted to Doolittle as you.