The resent flood of O'Malley campaign blarney would have you believe that the governor is responsible for making an education from the University of Maryland affordable to "middle class working families." He also contends that Bob Ehrlich raised tuition at the University of Maryland by 40 percent. Gov. Martin O'Malley also contends that Mr. Ehrlich is not to be trusted because the former governor claims that he did not raise taxes but that he did raise user fees that are in fact the same thing.

I have seen correspondence from discerning voters to The Sun who ask, "Why didn't Martin O'Malley revoke Bob Ehrlich's 40 percent tuition increase?" Why Indeed. On closer inspection, it seems that tuition can only be increased or reduced by the regents, not by the governor. A minor technicality. The O'Malley camp would contend that the rise in tuition was the result of Mr. Ehrlich's failure to increase state funding to the University System; but of course they fail to note that such funding would have been borne on the backs of the very middle class that Mr. O'Malley says he's looking out for.

Then there are Mr. O'Malley's contentions regarding fees verses taxes. I would hope that discerning voters will realize the difference: namely that fees are paid by those that use the associated services, while taxes apply to most everyone. Someone should also point out to the governor that tuition is in fact one of a number of fees that must be paid in order to attend the university and that the governor's campaign fails to note that the price of attending the University of Maryland has increased 26 percent during his term as governor, including (Surprise! Surprise!) Increases in the fees that the governor did not put a freeze on. In addition, tuition for community colleges in the state where also not frozen and have increased throughout his tenure. Maybe "middle class working families" don't send their kids to community colleges.

My college history course described the many ways that propaganda is disseminated. One method of which is to paint an opponent with the same brush that unfavorably tars you. It's a favorite tactic of the O'Malley campaign in both this and the last election. Mr. O'Malley's campaign ads continually try to say that Bob Ehrlich supports special interests and that he also runs misleading unscrupulous attack ads. As in the last election, enter Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith's commercials in which he blames Bob Ehrlich for doing just that. It is almost comical that Mr. Smith's commercials are aired immediately following O'Malley attack ads in which it is inferred that Bob Ehrlich's million dollar income could only be the result of representing lobbyists. Comical if it was not for the seeming total lack of conscience that Mr. Smith can once again deliver such blarney for Mr. O'Malley.

As for Martin O'Malley's stated concern for the working middle class, it is apparent to me that what he means is his support for union members — union special interests that the governor is clearly beholden to, by virtue of the campaign contributions each of their members contribute to his campaign (whether they want to or not) and for which Mr. O'Malley in turn gives his full support — until, that is, he furloughs them.

Look behind the blarney and decide which candidate for governor can't be trusted.

Dennis Peltz, Perry Hall