Does Dunning know what a Mulligan Actually is?
Dunning in the latest installation in his continuing saga against Lamar and “Target-did-not-get-a-mandate-gate” writes:
Looks like the good professor called it right two weeks ago when he wrote me:
Speaking of Dunning... he keeps hitting on the Yamada and Souza elitism shtick
He quotes Tim as saying:
Tim if you are taking offense to that, it’s time to lighten up and get some skin. Either that or start following the opera, because politics is a tough world and those were softball comments.
Selling the suit
Another Davis Enterprise article this one on November 29, 2006, ostensibly to tell us that the city has indeed followed through on the lawsuit, because it does not actually give any further details that their previous article from a November 21, 2006 did not.
Meanwhile Crilly Butler of Davis writes into the Enterprise to ask:
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
Dunning in the latest installation in his continuing saga against Lamar and “Target-did-not-get-a-mandate-gate” writes:
“You know, Sharon, Lamar’s remark was so off the wall and he’s so new at this that I’ve decided to give him a Mulligan on this one… basically, he’s trying to convince us that because it passed by such a small margin, it didn’t really pass at all…”Yes, Bob, Lamar is claiming that Target didn’t actually pass… right. Mulligan? How many columns has Dunning written about Heystek in the last two weeks?
Looks like the good professor called it right two weeks ago when he wrote me:
“You might want to jot down Friday, November 17 as the day on which Bob Dunning started another of his standard snide and sarcastic campaigns against a new, threatening progressive Council member.”Of course this is nothing compared to Wednesday’s column, but it’s just another example.
Speaking of Dunning... he keeps hitting on the Yamada and Souza elitism shtick
He quotes Tim as saying:
“I find it interesting that politicians such as Souza and Yamada can’t accept their defeat.”Now I’ll be darned if I’m going to let Dunning force me to defend Souza, but geez, Bob, could you for a moment accept the possibility that when your opponents spends $11 million in order to defeat your ballot measure that you’ve been working on for a considerable length of time, you might not be the most gracious person in the world. I’m willing to accept defeat; deceit is a little tougher to swallow.
Tim if you are taking offense to that, it’s time to lighten up and get some skin. Either that or start following the opera, because politics is a tough world and those were softball comments.
Selling the suit
Another Davis Enterprise article this one on November 29, 2006, ostensibly to tell us that the city has indeed followed through on the lawsuit, because it does not actually give any further details that their previous article from a November 21, 2006 did not.
Meanwhile Crilly Butler of Davis writes into the Enterprise to ask:
“The Davis City Council is going to sue the city of Dixon for approving a horse racetrack because it’s going to increase pollution and traffic congestion. This is the same City Council that supported “our” new Target store, when the Target EIR itself stated that the impact on air pollution and traffic were “significant” and “unavoidable”?Yes Crilly, I am afraid so. At some point, I’d like to hear Stephen Souza, Don Saylor, or Bill Emlen explain the logic. At least give credit to Greenwald and Heystek on this one—they were consistent—against Target, against Dixon Downs.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
