The Linda Ackerman for Assembly campaign put out another negative piece that landed in mailboxes today, hitting Norby once again for voting for supporting a November 2007 increase in the meeting stipend for OC Sanitation District directors, and for misusing campaign funds.

Here's the mailer: 

This is the fifth mailer hitting Norby on the stipend increase issue, which leads me to wonder how much impact it has on voters. After the fourth or fifth mailer saying the same thing, does a voter exclaim, "Hey! I didn't care about this before, but after hearing about it five times, I'm going to vote against Norby!" I'm not putting my judgment up against professional consultants, but I am curious if I'm overlooking some dynamic.

It also also illustrates how little there is to hit Norby on, despite such a long record in elected office. A 25-year voting record on city council and the Board of Supes would usually be a rich mine of bad votes: fee increases, pensions spikes, etc. That the Ackerman campaign has thus far found nothing in that voting record to hit him says a lot about Chris's fidelity to his philosophy (I'm guessing that's all they've found in Norby's voting record, on the assumption they'd have already used any other discoveries).

It also reminds me of something I once heard veteran political consultant Bob Nelson say in reference to another political campaign: "If the only instrument in your orchestra is a tuba, then you play the tuba."

The "unethical" charge is over-the-top. There's nothing unethical about voting for a stipend increase. One may think it unwise or objectionable, but it isn't unethical.

The misuse of campaign funds is a legitimate target in a campaign, but it's still small potatoes. Norby made a mistake in doing that. he has admitted as much and apologized for it.