I thought I was done talking about the judge’s race in which Clinton Parish made false and misleading attacks. After all, at some point, it simply becomes a matter of kicking the proverbial dead horse.
However, I was reading Bob Dunning’s Davis Enterprise column and I realized there is something that still needs to be said here and it has to do with a YouTube shot at a Republican gathering in Woodland in which Fred and Kathy Santos speak in favor of Clinton Parish.
And actually, to be quite frank, they are not so much supporting Clinton Parish as they are opposing Dan Maguire.
It is, in fact, a tough thing to deal with and we tend to give the parents of a young person who is murdered an incredible amount of deference and in most cases that deference is entirely warranted.
Most of us, thankfully, will never know the pain, anger, grief and anguish of losing a child, particularly in a senseless violent act.
As Mr. Dunning puts it, “Fred and Kathy Santos are the parents of Luis Santos, a young man who was stabbed to death in 2008 by a roving group of thugs on the San Diego State University campus. One of those convicted for the murder of Luis Santos was Esteban Nuñez, son of then Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez.”
Let us not diminish the fact that, while Esteban Nuñez was sentenced to 16 years in prison in his plea bargain, in one of the most disgraceful acts of political favoritism, the outgoing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reduced Nuñez’s sentence to just seven years – a act that was admitted to be a favor to the former speaker.
Listening to the video you can hear the unbearable pain and sorrow in the voice of Mr. Santos. Mr. Santos was unhappy to begin with at the 16-year sentence and outraged at the apparent violation of Marsy’s Law when the governor commuted and reduced the sentence to just seven years.
All of this is righteous anger and indignation.
Mr. Santos said that the governor knew this was wrong and that is why the governor and his staff did this as the very last act of his term as governor. He noted that in an interview the governor admitted to having done this as a favor to Fabian Nuñez.
Up until the seven minute mark of the comment by Mr. Santos, not one reasonable person could fault him, until he says, “That brings us to the reason why we are in Yolo County, the reason why I am up here. Dan Maguire was a member of Schwarzenegger’s secret backroom deal staff.”
“Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed his political allies to various positions in California,” he said. “Dan Maguire was appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to a judgeship in Yolo County. This was just another Arnold Schwarzenegger last minute favor to a friend.”
“The people of Yolo County did not vote for Dan Maguire as their judge,” he continued. “The people of Yolo County had no say about Dan Maguire’s appointment to the bench.”
“Dan Maguire became Judge not because of his long career in defending the law, but maybe because of his skills in making secret backroom deals for the ex-governor,” he said.
Mr. Santos has every right to be angry, but his anger here is misplaced. As Mr. Dunning notes, “Maguire, who was in the audience along with Parish, was mentioned by name five times by Fred and Kathy Santos, alongside such descriptions as ‘secret back-room deals,’ ‘behind closed doors’ and ‘political cronyism,” Those charges might fit Arnold Schwarzenegger and Fabian Nuñez, but not Maguire.”
You see, in October of 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger had already appointed Dan Maguire to a judgeship. It was actually two months later, when Dan Maguire was a Yolo County judge, that the sentence reduction was done.
So when Mr. Santos accuses Dan Maguire of being part of the governor’s “secret backroom deal staff” – he does so with no evidence whatsoever to support the charge.
In fact, when pressed on this point by the Davis Enterprise, since he never responded to requests from the Vanguard, he was paraphrased Mr. Parish, saying “that the ads don’t claim that Maguire played a part in the reduced sentence.”
“The point is that he worked for the legal team that made that and other bad decisions,” he said. “It really goes to show, you are a product of the offices you work for. Right or wrong, it’s the truth, and people judge me based on what I and my office have done.”
So he admits that Dan Maguire was not in that decision, only that he was at one time part of a staff that would make a decision in his absence that was poor.
It is actually worse than that. Because we do not know if a staff made that decision. In fact, it seems like the governor and the governor alone cut that deal.
As we previously noted, Mark Pruner, the Yolo County Republican Central Committee chair, was uncomfortable with the event and the Republicans eventually pulled their endorsement for Mr. Parish.
“It went well beyond what was appropriate for that setting,” said Mr. Pruner, who has since apologized to Judge Maguire for the incident. “There are human explanations for that – these are people feeling a lot of pain – but it was not the right forum.”
As Judge Tim Fall wrote on the Enterprise website, “I sat next to Judge Maguire that night. He handled this attack with grace, restraint and decorum, just as you would expect from a judge.”
When Mr. Santos finished his speech, Mr. Parish would hug Mr. and Mrs. Santos. It was a moment in which the candidate would seem to console the Santos.
Wrote Mr. Dunning, “Indeed, everyone in the room felt their very real pain and could sympathize with the terrible tragedy and added injustice they were enduring.”
But he added, “But Parish was the only one to cynically play the Santos family for political gain as he shamelessly let Luis Santos’ parents place the blame for their pain on Dan Maguire, even though Parish knew Maguire was not involved in any way.”
Mr. Dunning suggests they “didn’t know it at the time, but they were merely political pawns in Clint Parish’s win-at-all-cost campaign to land himself a seat on the Yolo County bench.”
While it is understandable that the bulk of the blame be delivered on Mr. Parish’s doorstep, I do think we have a tendancy, out of the need for respect for their losses, to let people like the Santos’ off too easily. Unfortunately, l think that they became so consumed in anger and the thirst for vengeance, that they are no longer thinking clearly. They are perfectly willing to go off on an innocent person full bore, with no true facts at their disposal because, unfortunately, the former governor is out of their reach.
We do not know what role Mr. Parish played in setting this up, though he was certainly all too happy to use their pain to try to help his candidacy. That said, I think that they are responsible for their own actions and responsible for the fact that they bore false witness against Judge Maguire.
They are every bit as guilty as Mr. Parish in this. Yes, we feel for their pain, but their pain does not absolve them for their conduct. They, of all people, should be extra careful about how their son’s legacy is viewed and take care to make sure it is not exploited for political gain.
Finally, and we shall talk about this more tomorrow, every single judge in Yolo County was appointed by a governor.
Every single judge has to get vetted through the Judicial Nomination Evaluation Committee.
So when they say, “Dan Maguire became Judge not because of his long career in defending the law” – it is actually not true, because he had to get through that process. Did Mr. Parish attempt to go through that process? Did he pass?
We have never been told, and Mr. Parish has not been forthcoming about this part of the process. So, yes, it is true that Mr. Maguire worked under the governor, but in order to be appointed to judge, he had be qualified and he was.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The problem with beating a dead horse is that you might stir up the maggots. Given everything, a person, in Mr Parish’s position, with one shred of decency would either suspend or formally abandon his campaign.
Let the Parish campaign perish. Pull this ‘article’, and don’t give the candidate another second of “fame’.
[quote]”Bob Dunning is willing to absolve the Santos’, calling them “good and decent people.” Except, are they?…(We) let people like the Santos’ off too easily….they became so consumed in anger and the thirst for vengeance, that they are no longer thinking clearly….they are responsible for their own actions and responsible for the fact that they bore false witness against Judge Maguire. They are every bit as guilty as Mr. Parish in this….their pain does not absolve them for their conduct. They, of all people, should be extra careful about how their son’s legacy is viewed and take care to make sure it is not exploited for political gain.”[/quote]That damn Dunning, acting like a human again. Don’t let him get away with it.
No one should use this family’s pain for political purposes–not the scummy Parish and not the Vanguard.
I agree with hpierce: This commentary is not worthy and should be pulled. Less offensive personal attacks have been taken down within minutes.
Stirring up maggots gets them all over the stirrer. Whew! Please reconsider.
I don’t agree with you or HPIERCE, I think the Santos’ have gotten a free ride to make scurrilous attacks because we understandably feel sorry for their loss.
Even if you think these parents got a “free ride” because Dunning gave them an understanding scolding, who cares to defame them even more? Just the [i]Vanguard[/i].
Actually, they believed (like some other poorly informed folks) that Judge Maguire was somehow involved. Since it doesn’t matter one way or the other, why dump the an unexcused “bearing false witness” exaggeration on this couple if you really “understandably feel sorry for their loss”?
What’s the purpose of announcing you don’t agree that they’re good and decent people, particularly since Parish doesn’t have a prayer (to continue with your Biblical analogies)? If you have no purpose, then it’s simply a personal attack of the kind you’ve eschewed in the past.
While I agree that “their pain does not absolve them for their conduct,” I understand how misguided and pained people could have participated in such an ineffective video. What I don’t understand is the rationale for your own conduct here.
You’ve even minimized the real crime here–that Governor Schwarzenegger’s administration would make such a patently payoff using our criminal justice system. It was an indecent act against this family, the justice system and all Californians.
The [i]Vanguard[/i] doesn’t really need to engage in telling everyone how bad this family is. This doesn’t enlighten anyone about the judgeship election in any way. It’s strictly a personal attack on very personal judgments and actions.
I kind of worry that a few months from now that you won’t be looking back on this “exposé” with as much pride if you allow it to remain part of the [i]Vanguard[/i]’s on-line historical record.
Seems like the only reason you could disagree with my point David, is to assert that Parish was an innocent victim of the Santos’ appearance and words.
It appears that you assume they KNOWINGLY falsely accused Maguire. In the stream of coping, I’m betting they’re still in the anger phase, and could easily believe (from what they hear from others) the lie that Maguire was involved. Show me where they got a “speaking fee”, or had other information that would have constructively known that they were dead wrong, and I’ll shut up on this. As it is, you have accused them of violating one of the Ten Commandments, dishonoring their son’s memory, and perhaps committing slander (criminally/civilly?).
Perhaps someone should share this article and discussion to the Santos family, and give them an opportunity to apologize, or defend their actions. Nah… that would be fair.
[quote]While it is understandable that the bulk of the blame be delivered on Mr. Parish’s doorstep, I do think we have a tendancy, out of the need for respect for their losses, to let people like the Santos’ off too easily. Unfortunately, l think that they became so consumed in anger and the thirst for vengeance, that they are no longer thinking clearly. They are perfectly willing to go off on an innocent person full bore, with no true facts at their disposal because, unfortunately, the former governor is out of their reach.[/quote]
If they are not thinking clearly bc of extreme grief, don’t you need to give them some leeway? To err is human, to forgive divine…
Cindy Sheehan is an example of this sort of thing. Various political groups will always exploit the vulnerable…
Elaine… Ms Sheehan has had much more time than the Santos’.
[quote]Elaine… Ms Sheehan has had much more time than the Santos’.[/quote]
Grief knows no time limits…
David, please provide link to YouTube. Since you seem so determined here, guess we should check it out. Was the Republican meeting presentation after the Parish charge against Judge Maguire was discredited?
Elaine, I agree. However, Cindy Sheehan eventually got caught up in her own notoriety. I don’t see that the Santos family even comes close.
It seems that the Parish campaign tracked them down since they were part of narrative the campaign thought was accurate. They got sold on the “facts” of Maguire’s role and agreed to speak out against his candidacy. Do they still believe the charge, now that Parish’s own campaign has backed off? What do they say now?
Before we charge them with “bearing false witness” in such a nasty rant, it would be responsible to talk to them about their level of complicity and understanding.
Or, to just to realize that there is [u]not[/u] “something that still needs to be said here” when no purpose is served except public humiliation of the mother and father.
Sorry, David, but you have completely missed the boat on this one. How dare you suggest that we place ANY blame on the Santos family? They were USED by clinton parish, fed lines straight out of his campaign slogans, flown up here by clinton parish’s campaign, and thrown out in front of a microphone with clinton parish’s COMPLETE EXPECTATION that they would not only break down emotionally, but would regurgitate those anti-Maguire lines that they had been fed. Shame on you for deflecting attention away from the REAL villian, clinton parish, and placing that blame (even a small amount of it) on the Santos family.
Sorry, David, but you need to rethink this one. The Santos family gets a pass from me, and I think from everyone else besides you. THEY WERE USED BY the clinton parish CAMPAIGN!!!!!!
I’m glad someone said what needed to be said. The parents were willingly used. The parents didn’t check the facts. Their son had poor judgment being in harm’s way and the parents don’t seem to have much sense either. Our family lost a loved one through no fault of the deceased, but we took pains to understand the larger picture, and, amazingly, the prosecutor was very helpful in giving us a larger picture to consider. We’re fortunate to be at peace with our loss and never-ending grief. The Santos’ are bitter and angry and taking it out on others like Maguire.
Arnold was a big problem to many people, esp his own family!
Of course they were used by Clinton Parish. I remember a couple of decades ago Marc Klaas following his daughter’s murder quickly recognized that people who didn’t give a darn about his daughter were trying to exploit her legacy and he put a stop to it. I’m sorry that they lost their son, it’s a horrible thing and I can’t imagine how much it hurts and I hope I never have to imagine it, but this isn’t going to bring him back. This is making it worse.
“I’m sorry that they lost their son, it’s a horrible thing and I can’t imagine how much it hurts and I hope I never have to imagine it, but this isn’t going to bring him back. This is making it worse.”
It is making it worse. They are caught up in the unthinkable grief of losing a son, and then having some measure of justice ripped from them by the governor. Cut them some slack. To use this family as clinton parish has used them, however, is just as unforgivable.