Just to show you how wildly desperate this booster crowd is to get another credulous booster in there, and how much community ridiculousness they’re willing to traffic in, we thought we’d cite a published response in MyBurbank to Will Roger’s recent letter about the well-known perfidy and hypocritical bad faith of Councilman David Gordon — the same letter that he also for full effect cross-posted to the Leader:
Thank you, Councilman Rogers, for saying what I and so many others feel. You said it much better than I could.
I was surprised by the revelation that Gordon and Guillen had accepted these contributions, but especially by Gordon, who is always so aggressive about his anti development stand. Yet he’s the guy that voted for IKEA without adding any of the conditions so many Burbank citizens asked for. He’s the one who jmped on a bulldozer like a kid. He’s the one who took money from Cusumano’s development group and kept it, and then made excuses that ring hollow to all of us who have not drunk his VERY Trump-like kool-aid.
Hold on. Gordon’s an avowed anti-Trump Democrat, so this little slur here won’t find much of a mark to hit. Gordon was also the most skeptical one of the bunch about that new IKEA in fact, and the reason why he voted for the project sans any of the supposed “conditions” that this guy won’t spell out is because no one else brought them up either, whatever they ought to have been. He showed great concern about the project, too.
Gordon also lacks the ability of “adding” anything to a subject matter vote; and since they all voted for the same thing as Gordon per IKEA, they didn’t add anything either. Or make much of a try. So let’s single out Gordon, right?
Gordon has also never been anti all development, so there’s nothing inconsistent here about his behavior. Is he supposed to be against everything? IKEA’s also not what any of us are worried about when it comes to destructive projects. Do the other council members object to that new IKEA as well?
Oh really? When?
Ms. Springer asked a question about this. Did not level any accusations or make any threatening remarks at all, and suddenly a few Trumpettes…um, sorry, Gordonistas started spreading lies and slander about her intentions. Of course she wants to beat him in the election, but she has been a fair candidate all along, and I – for one – admire the fact that she has the guts to respectfully call in to question the contradiction of his financial dealings. I want my council members to ask the hard questions. Gordon did not answer wit hthe same integrity or respectfulness, and I’m not surprised. He’s a sexist, mysoginistic, bombastic bully, who has done nothing for our city during his long tenure on City Council. He even had the audacity to say in his official video, “Hi, I’m David Gordon, and I am on CIty COuncil…and I believe the Status Quo is not good enough”. He’s right. Let’s get rid of that awful offensive Gordon, and elect Springer, who has “proven” she cares about more than her self-agrandizement.
It was dishonest for Springer to accuse Gordon of getting the new IKEA through, or that it was some kind of notorious mega-harm of a project in the first place, which is exactly what she was claiming. She also failed and fails to challenge either Talamantes and Frutos on this very same charge.
Instead, she’s taking an obviously well-tutored lesson from that ancient Rogers’ playbook of false charges, innuendo, red herring targets, misrepresentations of facts, and the desire to always demonize the other side as inconsistent and wild-eyed fools and morons. She and her supporters must think it’s going to work the same way it did with Ted McConkey 20 years ago.
If Gordon btw has indeed been an ineffective member of the city council, and is always on the losing side of an issue because he can’t get anything done, then he in fact is not the “status quo.” So his campaign claim makes perfect sense in this letter writer’s own terms.
As to the sexist, misogynist, and bullying claims, not only is there a complete lack of evidence on this (no, Shelley Rizzotti lying about you and hating you in public does not make you a woman-hater, although it could provide a good start), it just shows you how obviously desperate this crowd is when they have to engage in such dirty and malicious ad hominem attacks. They’re just simple smears.
Wonder what’s next with them? They gonna go after his practice?