Assuming you're not being facetious, according to Merriam-Webster, "synonyms ensure, insure, assure, secure mean to make a thing or person sure. ensure, insure, and assure are interchangeable in many contexts where they indicate the making certain or inevitable of an outcome, but ensure may imply a virtual guarantee , while insure sometimes stresses the taking of necessary measures beforehand , and assure distinctively implies the removal of doubt and suspense from a person's mind . (Ref.: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ensure)

@Sharon:
While "insure" may be technically correct, I'd argue that "ensure" would be more correct in this usage. Language is a dynamic thing. The momentum seems to be in support of a more deep distinction between ensure, insure, assure, and secure.

There are a few other points I'd make:

In her quote, she references her supervisorial district as "1st district." The consensus on a reference to a BOS district seems to be for either "First District" or "1st District," with the word "District" always being capital.

In the same paragraph, she writes "dedicated to the needs of it's citizens." "Its" is the possessive, "It's" is the conjunction for "It is." It should be "Its."

On the reverse, the first paragraph of her bio segment should read something like, "Rita's sincerity is proven by her 36 year residence in the Victor Valley as a business owner and community leader, serving as president of the chamber of commerce and Kiwanis." That one was kind of hard to reword... I wouldn't have written that bit at all like she did.

The second paragraph is a bit awkward as well. I'd have written it more like, "A long term commitment to families and seniors has been proven during her five years on the Hesperia City Council and her time as mayor in 2007. Rita is the only candidate who has previously been elected to public office." Again, I'd have done some significant rethinking on the bio.

In the bulleted list, "To improve transportation" should exclude the "To," to be consistent with the rest of the list.

OK, so I've been a bit harsh. I'll let you pick apart any grammatical errors I may have made now. :)

On that original quote, I'd also make it read more like, "Your support for Rita Vogler will ensure the election of a supervisor dedicated to ethics."

I assume we don't know each other. Someone outted you on my blog and, if true, then I only know you through reputation. You may or may not think you know me through my current reputation. Unfortunately, my reputation has been destroyed by my department head and her supporters...yeah, I know I haven't helped fighting fire with fire. However, before my life at TAD, I had an excellent reputation for the quality of my work, especially my written work. I was a perfectionist and completely understand the types of things you point out in Rita’s mailer.

The point I'm trying to get to is this. I have become very lazy about my own writing style partially due to the TAD influence and also due to the fact that no one seems to care about grammar, manners, protocol, or the other niceties in life any longer. So it seems to me that you’re picking on Rita for things that matter or are noticed by very few of us. Those involved in this campaign are concentrating on minutia and ignoring the real issues in the First District. I mean, come on, Brad’s FPPC complaint is ridiculous. So our side is going to fight fire with fire. And one wonders why the voters have nothing but contempt for politicians.

That being said, I still cringe at most political mailers as well as the quality of writing that comes out of almost every county department including those located on the fifth floor. I can't remember the last time I've received a political mailer and didn't want to apply my red marker to it and send it back. For example, I will not vote for anyone running for a school board or superintendent's office whose campaign statement is not grammatically correct. Sometimes that leaves me not voting for anyone!

Oh yes. I realize these are small things, and that the issues of the campaign are far more important. Just the same, I think it is relevant because the lack of grammatical accuracy in this mail piece points to a lack of campaign organization and infrastructure. The lack of an ID# ("Pending") points to the same. The late document filing issues point to the same (regardless of any issues relating to accurate reporting, the documents WERE filed late). That is why my commentary is relevant-- Not on an ideological or policy level, but on a campaign level.

Oh, and I think you may be confusing me with SB Veritas. I don't think anyone has "outed" me, SB Virtus. :)

Yep, between SBVirtus, SBVeritas, and SBVirtual, I'm getting y'all confused. No doubt about it.

The next "SB *word*" poster ought to be SB Imitor.

Well I'm going home before ya confuse me any more. Come visit any time!

I don't know about everybody else, but I'd rather have a Supervisor in my District who would be ethical and serve us, the fellow constituents. I'd take ethics over grammar any day...