Received the above photo from a reader, along with this e-mail …
Received the above photo from a reader, along with this e-mail …
So earlier today Bill McCarty, a resident of California’s 48th District, posted video on the Indivisible 48 Facebook page of a recent encounter he had with Dana Rohrabacher at something called the “world-record paddle-out event” in Huntington Beach. The congressman was posing for pictures along with a red, white and blue surfboard. McCarty decided to use the opportunity to speak up.
McCarty: “Good morning, Congressman, I certainly hope you’ll have a public town hall and very soon.”
Rohrabacher: “We’ve had thousands of people already [inaubible].”
McCarty: “Well, we’d like to have one in public for sure.”
It should be noted that Rohrabacher was polite and courteous. Then, out of nowhere, a woman steps forward and says, “OK, this is not the time.”
McCarty: “Well, actually we can’t ever talk to him so …”
Woman: “Make an appointment. Here—here’s my card.”
She then hands McCarty a business card and notices he’s filming Rohrabacher with his phone. She wags her finger and adds, “And I don’t consent to being filmed.”
McCarty: “Well, that’s alright. You’re in the public anyway so it’s not really …”
Rohrabacher then finishes posing, faces McCarty and says, “Thanks for being courteous. Across the country the people that have been demanding them haven’t been courteous. Thank you for being courteous.”
Now, this is interesting.
The woman’s name is Constance Towers. She’s a relatively recent UC-Riverside grad who has worked as Rohrabacher’s district representative since the later months of 2015. Here’s a big chunk of her resume …
I have no personal beef with Constance Towers. Hell, I don’t even have a political beef with Constance Towers. We don’t agree on issues. Hey, it happens.
What troubles me about the exchange is the nonsense “Call me to schedule an appointment” garbage. If we know one thing by now, it’s that Dana Rohrabacher doesn’t take appointments with people who disagree with his world view. He doesn’t meet with environmentalists, scientists, Democrats, liberals, Obamacare backers. He treats us (those who don’t share his beliefs) as lepers, to be kept at a far distance.
Towers knows this. I mean, damn, she’s out front. So don’t BS. Don’t deceive. Don’t say “Call us” when you know the call won’t result in anything fruitful.
PS: Call her …
Here’s a strange thing about Dana Rohrabacher: He runs as if he only needs Republicans to vote for him.
Seriously, it’s the damnedest thing. Most politicians—especially in local races—make certain to try and woo all potential voters. Sure, they play to the base. But there’s an awareness that you’ll need some crossover; that it’s almost impossible to win with solely the backing of one party.
Well, here’s Dana’s latest campaign letter. Why would any liberal or Democrat EVER support him? It’s clear what he thinks of us …
We don’t break much news here at crazydana.com, and I’m not even sure if this constitutes “breaking news” in the realm of Orange County politics. But it has been relayed by multiple sources that Hans Keirstead, a stem-cell biologist who worked at UC Irvine for nearly 1 1/2 decades and sold his Irvine-based California Stem Cell Inc. for $214 million, is entering the race to oppose Dana Rohrabacher in 2018.
Here’s part of his LinkedIn bio:
This means we now have three serious candidates for next year’s election. There’s Harley Rouda, the local businessman who has the most momentum thus far. There’s Laura Oatman, the architect who entered a couple of months after Rouda.
And now there’s Keirstead.
I’ve dined with Harley, and I very much like/admire him. I’ve DMed with Laura and I very much like/admire her. But both suddenly have good reason to be concerned. Politics is about issues, yes. And politics is about making human connections, yes. And politics is about endorsements and rubber chicken dinners and handshakes and backslaps and resumes and appearances. Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Sadly, what politics is mostly about (at least electoral politics) is money. Lots and lots and lots and lots of money. As I noted in my last post, Rohrabacher will soon be hosting a $2,700-per-head fundraiser. And while I find this distasteful and an indictment of our system, I can’t blame the man. Survival in Congress means an every-other-year battle of contrition. It’s soul sucking and spirit draining, and it means always holding a hand out and begging for seconds. I neither like nor admired Dana Rohrabacher, but I can sympathize with this specific task. In short, it sucks.
Well, Hans Keirstead won’t have to beg or grovel or devote the majority of his hours to fundraising. He can easily afford the $500,000 (or so) it takes to run a competent congressional campaign; he can purchase all the ads he needs, and focus squarely on taking down the hollowed tree that is Dana Rohrabacher.
Does this mean he winds up the candidate? No. Positions matter; personas matter; mojo matters. There’s a long journey, and many wealthier men (and women) have found themselves poorer and with nothing gained.
But is Keirstead a legitimate threat?
In case you’re wondering what we’re up against in 2018, Dana Rohrabacher is holding a fundraiser on June 25.
It costs $2,700 per person.
Yes, you read that correctly.
I don’t know, exactly, what the solution to this problem is, because most of us probably don’t have $2,700 to spend on a political campaign. But it’s worth noting that people who give such lavish amounts tend to expect stuff in return. Access. Deeds. Action.
Dana has been a puppet for wealthy conservatives for a long time.
If that doesn’t motivate you, nothing will.
So get out there.
In case you missed it, Dana Rohrabacher sorta kinda kinda sorta held a town hall last night.
I say sorta kinda kinda sorta because Rohrabacher is a unique genre of coward, and steadfastly refuses to engage with large swaths of constituents in person. On the one hand, I get it—he has to run again next year, and video clips of folks screaming him down hardly sell well. But, on the other hand, well … stop being a wuss. You represent us. Show your face, dammit.
Anyhow, I’ve pasted the entire town hall session above. My quick takeaways:
• Rohrabacher relies heavily on Fox News and Breitbart for his climate change material.
• Rohrabacher laughs whenever he’s uncomfortable.
• Rohrabacher compares Donald Trump to Ronald Reagan.
• Rohrabacher is tethered to Trump at this point—a gift to the Democrats.
• Rohrabacher needs a better phone.
• Rohrabacher said this about the president in his intro: “President Donald Trump is not the typical president that we have had. Ronald Reagan, I thought, was quite a revolutionary. And I of course learned all my lessons from Ronald Reagan. But he, um, Donald Trump is obviously even much more involved with, um, promoting his type of … um … um … his type of change than was Ronald Reagan. And it’s a totally different style and I will have to say that I think that their goals were the same. And that is—Ronald Reagan maybe didn’t turn it into a slogan and talk about making America great again, but Ronald Reagan was all about making America great again after the 1970s, we were in a period of decline and we needed to have confidence, we needed someone with strength and purpose and had a plan to step forward. That’s what Reagan did. And he changed it around. And by the end of his term we had just basically put America on a wonderful course for peace in the world and prosperity in the United States. This president has taken over at a very volatile moment as well and however, he is under attack from Day One. The people who lost the election have not been able to accept that they lost and have been trying to do their best to disrupt President Trump’s administration. I disagree with some of the stuff President Trump has done but I agree with most of them, if not a vast majority of them. And I am proud that he is trying to fulfil his campaign pledges and I’ve tried to get behind those; those pledges that I think made sense for our country.”
Um … OK.
My favorite exchanges? Here are a handful …
QUESTION: I know your position on the US leaving the Paris Agreement. I wanna know why you don’t think why the Paris Agreement wouldn’t lead to more industry, more jobs, and more global partnerships being lodged. And so far many states and mayors are moving forward with speaking to it, and scientists have proven this global warming is a fact. As a mother I am concerned and I want to know your position. Why against all the scientific facts? You believe there is no global warming and we don’t need to stick to any plan like Paris Agreement.
ROHRABACHER: Thank you very much for that question, and let me just say that I’ve been on the science committee here for 30 years. I’ve gone through many, many different hearings with some of the top scientists in the world. Not just in the country, but in the world. Who come here to testify in Washington about the idea that global warming concept. And global warming is, by the way, the idea that mankind, by producing CO2 in his internal combustion engines, that we are changing the temperature of the planet. And for years and years and years they called it global warming. But of course—how you can tell is it was not accurate is they had to change the title. Because for about 15 years instead of … because of the masses increases in the use of CO2, there wasn’t any major increase in temperature. In fact, the temperature stayed about even the whole time. For about 15 years. So they had to change the name from global warming. So every time they use the phrase “climate change” that’s an admission that they were wrong. And here’s what it is: The scientists I’ve heard. Yes, there are a lot of scientists who believe in the CO2 theory. The more CO2 produced by mankind, the hotter it’s going to get. And it’s getting hotter.
Well, I don’t believe it. There are many other scientists who say just the opposite; who say CO2 is not a determining factor. In fact most of these other scientists believe that sun spots — in the sun have caused us to go through many many different cycles. For example, in the 1930s it was really hot. In the 1920s and 30s we actually had a big melt off up in the Arctic area as well. In the early 1930s we had some of our hottest weather. In fact the scientists now trying to claim we have the hottest weather ever recorded—they had to change the actual temperatures from back in the 1930s. To make it actually look like it was cooler there. So that these temperatures would look warmer. So we’ve had a lot of shenanigans going on and we should not give up our right to control our economy and control those economic factors that are so important to the well-being of the American people by giving [inaudible] to an international body. Remember the United Nations, their governments and their people who are signing these international treaties, most of them are not democracies. And most of them have governments that are made up of lunatics and crooks. Look at the United Nations—the last thing we should be doing is giving power to them. And that’s what this whole issue is about.
Should we do whatever we need to do for our economy and for our environment here in the United States, and should we control our own destiny? Or will we use global warming as an excuse to get control of our lives? The American people wouldn’t support that.
Let me just note this: You probably don’t know. Right now the people who are pushing for the global warming, most of them are rich and running around like Al Gore in his private plane, in his millions of dollars home, with all these movie stars in their private airplanes, they don’t want us to be able to own a car. They’re pushing to make sure that parking fees go way up so we can’t afford to have a car. And so gasoline prices go way up. In California we’ve already experienced that, where we’re paying almost $1 a gallon more for gas than anywhere else in the country. People don’t even know that. They want us, for example, to not to be able to have frequent flyer miles on airplanes. These are things that are being advocated by the global warming crowd. Among the many things they’re advocating that would have dramatic impact on ordinary American lives and will put a lot of people out of work, will cost a lot of money and wouldn’t change the climate a bit. Because all of this climate change you see going on—it’s been cyclical and it’s been going on forever.
QUESTION: My question is how does he feel about the wall and is he going to help our wonderful, beautiful, lovable president get that wall built …
ROHRABACHER: That’s a very good question. Thank you. I happen to believe the massive flow of illegal immigration into our country has been very damaging to the well-being of our people and has a horrible security aspect to it as well in that we don’t know the people who are coming in as we’ve seen in other countries where they’ve done this, they end up with terrorists murdering their people, as were murdered in San Bernardino in our own country. So stopping the flow of illegal immigrants has been a high priority for our president and for me. And I have no apologies about it—I think that’s vital for the security of our country and … if we have limited amount of dollars we just can’t afford to provide any people who are here illegally to actually have government benefits—education, health care, police protection. These are things that belong to U.S. citizens and to people who have come here legally. So do I believe in the Trump wall? The answer is yes, and in fact I have even introduced a piece of legislation that is now in the hopper, it’s coming up for consideration, meaning people are beginning to pay attention to it, and I have been pushing it. The bill does this: The bill is HR2724. It’s called “The Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Act of 2017.” And what it does is, right now we have 1 million people who come into our country as legal immigrants every year. I support that. I think it’s wonderful. Those people who put legal and illegal immigration in the same category—they’re the racists. They’re the ones doing harm to those people who came here from different countries legally and deserve all the rights of every American. Well, what that bill says is … of that million, I found out 55,000 of those 1 million, we’re not even selecting them. We’ve put them into a locker and we take out the names of the lottery. We’re not even making decisions, who would be the best person to bring to our country for them and for our country. And so what we’ve ended up with is not necessarily the best we’d want to come here. My plan would be this—of those 55,000, instead of taking them from a lottery, let’s set up a fund. Let’s let them pay $1 million per person into that fund. And those individuals who do that will be vetted, they will be inspected, they will make sure they are good character, not criminals, not the robbers or anything like that. Terrorists. Those people then will be able to come into the country and within two years if they pass their citizenship tests they will become citizens. And that $1 million per person—for 50,000 of them that’s $50 billion. We can use that to improve the security of our country, built that wall that Trump wants, and also provide for the security of our country in terms of immigration, in terms of naturalization, in terms of border patrols and things such as that. So I hope that answers your question. Yes, I want to build that wall. And I think it’d be very symbolic, but we can do it without costing the American tax payers a dime. And we should do that.
QUESTION: I have a question about the immigration bill you were just talking about. My parents came to this country from India and my dad came here to get his PhD and he worked for 30-plus years designing hard drives and paying taxes. And I’m concerned that this $1 million fee is going to exclude people who would work very hard and contribute to our society who can’t afford that. Um, and I feel like …
ROHRABACHER: Well, we don’t know that. All we know is that the people are going to be chosen at random in some sort of a —laughs—raffle-type thing. Where you’re actually … you don’t know who you’re picking. I mean this is not a selection process of who the good guys are. Right now it’s a lottery. So, no we don’t know right now if those 55,000 … I’d imagine right now most of them have no credentials compared to what your father would have.
FOLLOW-UP: If [my parents] had to pay $1 million, they might not have been able to come to this country.
ROHRABACHER: Well, if they put $1 million in you’ll at least know they have some means of support and also … we might add that if they put $1 million in it’s going to help you, it’s going to help your father and your family because we’re no longer going to have an open-border system in which millions of people are coming in illegally. Who we don’t know who they are. So a lot of them are criminals. Most of them are not. A lot of them are people who are just coming here for a job. But those people who are criminals are able to come in because we don’t have control of the border. And so the actual money that they spend helps you and your family live a more secure life here.
FOLLOW-UP: Well, I still think it prevents people from coming here that want to come here to get their education and get a good job who can’t afford that. For example my dad would not have been able to afford that.
ROHRABACHER: Well … well—we already bring in a million people like that every year. Um, we bring in more legal immigrants than every other country of the world combined. All the people combined … and for us to say we’re not going to select 50,000 of them by lottery any more … but we’re gonna think about it and bring in people who can contribute $1 million right off the bat, which will help us secure our borders against people who have come here illegally … they have already made a big contribution right there. But if you don’t agree with that, that’s fine. People disagree. But that’s what I think would be best for our country.
Now you know …
I read an article in the New York Times recently about Dana Rohrabacher that reminded me, in a huge way, of the Feb. 11, 1990 heavyweight title fight between James (Buster) Douglas and Mike Tyson.
The piece, written by Dave Weigel, detailed Rohrabacher’s confidence as he heads into next year’s election. He’s hardly lacking in self-belief.
Take a gander …
Way back 27 years ago, Tyson was in Rohrabacher’s shoes. He was the heavyweight champion of the world; the holder of the WBC, WBA and IBF titles; seemingly invincible and indestructible. He had won his first 37 professional fights, including a recent first-round TKO of Carl Williams and a 91-second destruction of Michael Spinks. There were good boxers, there were great boxers and there was Mike Tyson—the terrifying boxer.
But then, on that February night, something happened. The Mike Tyson who entered the ring in Tokyo got soft and complacent. He didn’t work quite as hard; he confused victories for verifications; he soaked in the adulation and lost the intensity. His rival, the obscure Douglas, was a nobody whose 29-4-1 record seemed downright pedestrian. Hell, he was listed in Las Vegas as a 42-to-1 underdog.
Here’s what happened …
I don’t know if Harley Rouda or Laura Oatman will win this election. I truly don’t. But when I watch Dana Rohrabacher, and I hear him talk, and I watch him hide from constituents, and I see him try and put forth the ol’ happy surf guy persona, I can’t help but recall Tyson, all cocky and macho, step into a ring unprepared for what was about to hit him.
He knew no better.
But he was about to fall.
This is the letter Dana Rohrabacher sent a constituent who requested a town hall.
I need not say it—but the man is filled with doodie, and limited accountability. Oh, and he’s sort of a coward, no?
Here you go …
Dear Mr. Jones:
Thank you for contacting me requesting a “town hall” style meeting. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.
Earlier in my congressional career, I would routinely conduct in-person town hall meetings. Unfortunately, over the years, such meetings became less and less useful as a means of communicating with my constituents about the issues of the day. It got to the point where those who came to ask sincere questions about my policy views were often overshadowed by protesters and those who sought only to shout at me for disagreeing with their worldview. In such an environment, in-person town hall meetings are not able to accomplish their purpose of fostering a respectful dialogue on the issues of the day.
As an alternative, I have scheduled many tele-town halls, in which I reach thousands of my constituents by telephone, and many more people are able to make comments for all to hear and to ask questions of me than was possible in my previous in-person format. In addition, I regularly schedule smaller, more intimate meetings with constituents who require assistance or wish to convey their policy preferences. Those meetings are by appointment and scheduled as the legislative calendar allows. I also write letters back to constituents who write or call my offices on policy matters.
I welcome your input on my performance as your Representative, and thank you for giving me the benefit of your views. Please continue to keep me informed on any federal issue of importance to you.
Because he is a coward, and cowards rarely take up fights that might matter, Dana Rohrabacher has stood by and watched as Donald Trump—his favorite president and playmate—has routinely (and lamely) bashed the news media.
Rohrabacher’s reaction to #fakenews? Silence.
Rohrabacher’s reaction to threats of violence against reporters? Silence.
Rohrabacher’s defense of the First Amendment? Silence.
But here’s the wacky thing. Rohrabacher is one of us (I’m saying “us” because I’m a journalist). Or at least he was one of us. Here, this is from the July 13, 1980 Los Angeles Times …
Look, I’m not saying the man was Woordward or Bernstein or even Jeff Pearlman. But he was a legitimate reporter and a legitimate columnist, and he surely knows the importance of a free press and quality investigative work.
So why the refusal to stand up for what’s right?