I'm traveling out of the state today and received several calls relating to the letter that was mailed to an unknown number of Latino voters in central Orange County. While I have not seen the letter, its description to me seems crude and grotesque, not to mention plain wrong.
I spoke to Dick Rosengarten about this issue who told me that a Democrat leaked the letter to him earlier and the Democrat suggested that I was behind the letter. Since Democrats are suggesting I and/or the Republican Party of Orange County are responsible for this stunt, and since the Attorney General claims he wants to get to the bottom of it right away, he or his investigators should call me right away. I'll be happy to make myself, along with our staff and any member of the Central Committee available to answer their questions immediately.
I suspect, however, that we won't be getting calls anytime soon. The crudeness of the letter suggests to me it was written by someone pretending to be an anti-immigration extremist. Of course, if this proves to be a real attempt to suppress voter participation and it constitutes a crime, the offenders should be prosecuted vigorously.
Either way, this is a shameful action deserving condemnation from all sides.
There is an old saying in politics that states, "don't believe anything till its been officially denied."
Now that Scott Baugh has officially denied being any part of this we now know is either behind it, or knows who is.
Posted by: Elroy El | October 17, 2006 at 08:41 PM
Now that Scott Baugh has officially denied being any part of this we now know is either behind it, or knows who is.
And because Scott Baugh knows that we know "[he] is either behind it, or knows who is," he's trying to throw us all off by publicly inviting Bill "let's waste tax dollars and sue automakers over an urban legend" Lockyer to call him right away. Absolutley Roveian!
Posted by: Big Slick | October 17, 2006 at 09:00 PM
There is an old saying in politics that states, "don't believe anything till its been officially denied."
Now that Scott Baugh has officially denied being any part of this we now know is either behind it, or knows who is.
Does this mean if he admitted it that you would assume it came from someone else?
Posted by: | October 17, 2006 at 09:27 PM
I have some more speculation on the letter here.
Tell me: how many anti-illegal immigration groups would use the phrase "Anti-immigration organization". In case that goes over your head, you haven't been reading too many MSM reports that support illegal immigration by calling those opposed to illegal immigration "anti-immigration" or even "anti-immigrant".
While that might be a clever trick from an opponent of illegal immigration, one would think that someone who'd engage in such a clever trick would also realize how the letter would end up being used.
What can the citizens do if Lockyer won't pursue the joe job possibility?
Posted by: BigMediaBlog | October 17, 2006 at 09:52 PM
"don't believe anything till its been officially denied."
I did not have sexual relations with THAT woman
Posted by: William Jefferson Clinton | October 17, 2006 at 09:53 PM
"don't believe anything till its been officially denied."
I did not have sexual relations with THAT woman
Didn't take long for that to land here. I knew it would. For the record I didn't support Clinton. But any one with sense knew immediately he had done exactly what he denied.
But at least you're getting the point as it relates to Baugh denying any knowledge of this letter.
Posted by: Elroy El | October 17, 2006 at 10:31 PM
Play it again Sam
All of this stuff reminds me of this famous dialogue from Casablanca.
Rick : How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
Posted by: Chris Prevatt | October 18, 2006 at 12:21 AM
Elroy El Stupido and Commissar Prevatt: You guys are nuts. Typical Democrats: don't need facts -- or even circumstantial evidence -- to make up your minds!
Posted by: Strong Coffee | October 18, 2006 at 08:29 AM
Whether the letters were sent directly by the OC GOP (even I doubt they’re that stupid) or sent by a wing-nut idiot, the Republican Party shares some responsibility here.
Just as the person who incites someone to riot is guilty of that crime, a person or group, who through their rhetoric incites a person to commit a crime is responsible for that crime.
The Republican Party of Orange County has a long history of inciting hate to drive votes or suppress voters that oppose their views. Poll Guards in Santa Ana, Proposition 187, the attacks on immigrants who protest anti-immigrant sentiment, the attacks on Bill Dalati using his ethnicity and religion as a reason why he should not be elected to the Anaheim City Council, and these letters; all of these are actions that have been either openly supported by the Republican Party of Orange County, encouraged by their rhetoric, or supported by their silence.
The Republican Party of Orange County should not be surprised when suspicion immediately looks their way. The Republican Party of Orange County had no regrets when they posted poll guards in Hispanic majority precincts in 1990. I seriously doubt their, and Baugh’s outrage now.
Posted by: Chris Prevatt | October 18, 2006 at 09:00 AM
What did you do today Prevatt when you woke up, drink TWO bottles of your liberal koolaid?
And I suppose you think Hugo Chavez is your hero and should be our president so he can save us from the evil empire?
Posted by: | October 18, 2006 at 09:15 AM
Wow! I guess you guys have forgotten your own history...
"Poll guards" in 1988...
Prop 187 in 1994...
B-1 Bob Dornan's erroneous charges of "fraud" in 1996...
The Illegal GOP reregistartion scandal that's STILL BEING SORTED OUT...
And you wonder why people are immediately casting a suspicious eye on the OC GOP?
Chris is just giving you guys a crash course of recent Orange County history...
But I guess vitriol is the only way you can respond.
Posted by: Andrew | October 18, 2006 at 09:56 AM
You have an odd notion of responsibility, Commissar. The rest of the civilized holds individuals responsible for their own actions instead of spreading responsibility to people and/or organizations that had nothing to do with the act in question.
Your approach to responsibility essentially means no one is responsible for anything.
Posted by: Strong Coffee | October 18, 2006 at 10:51 AM
What if it turns out the letter was sent out as a Demcoratic dirty trick, Commissar? How do you plan to rationalize that and blame it on the GOP?
Posted by: Strong Coffee | October 18, 2006 at 10:53 AM
The Republican Party of Orange County has a long history of inciting hate to drive votes or suppress voters that oppose their views.
"Long history" my hat. If you actually knew what you were talking about, Commissar, you might be taken seriously.
Posted by: Strong Coffee | October 18, 2006 at 10:55 AM
Andrew:
You have got to be the most ignorant young pllitical noob I have seen in the local blogosphere. You were still watching Teletubbies when most of the events you cite went down, and now you're regurgitating the mythical version of those events you've been spoon fed.
When you are actually able engage in a debate, as opposed to repeated slogans and talking points, maybe then you can be taken seriously.
Posted by: Strong Coffee | October 18, 2006 at 11:05 AM
"Prop 187 in 1994..."
Supported by Santa Ana Mayor Pulido with the additional boost of "it does not go far enough"
Posted by: See's right through it | October 18, 2006 at 11:36 AM
Strong coffee---
I was around during those events. I know about the actual voter suppression efforts of the GOP in New Jersey, Louisiana and Orange County. A federal court injunction to prevent further GOP racially profiling voter suppression efforts. A $400,000 settlement payment here in Red County for the poll guards shame. The 187 campaign which the GOP still hasn't recovered from, not just in California but nationally. The Willie Brown photos in every GOP hit piece(I've yet to see one on Don Perata, despite all his legal problems or any other speaker or pro tem). Look, we could go on but why? Lee Atwater apologized for the racial attacks. Ken Mehlman apologized for the entire Southern Strategy which he admitted was built on racial division. You've got a history that your own leaders acknowledge. The Dems of course have their own history--they were the party of slavery in the South and it took a very long time for them to shake off that terrible past. But they've done that.
GOP leaders like Arnold and Mcpherson are trying to get you guys out of this problem and instead of people staying on message, you ignore his leadership or you mock them, as Jubal did. If people follow Arnold's lead its a 2 day story unless they actually nail someone for it. But you folks keep feeding the Dem machine.....are they paying y'all to keep blogging so defensively?
As I've posted before, I don't think Daucher or anyone in GOP leadership would be stupid enough to do something like this. DItto on the 9/11 Truth Committee theory that the Dems got in the way of their own bullet.But I think it is a fair comment that when you constantly play the racial card some rogue operator will get caught up in the excitement and do something like this.
One final note, I know you can put together a good analysis defending your position. Don't you think the name calling and the personal attacks detracts from the points you're trying to make?
Posted by: Bladerunner | October 18, 2006 at 11:57 AM
What if it turns out the letter was sent out as a Demcoratic dirty trick, Commissar? How do you plan to rationalize that and blame it on the GOP?
And I could just as easily ask what if it turns out some GOP nutbag is behind it? How would you rationalize that?
If your only defense is a hypothetical, you've already lost whatever point you were trying to make.
Posted by: Elroy El | October 18, 2006 at 01:31 PM
Bladerunner:
You know very well the poll guards incident is a more complicated story -- you're just choosing not to tell it in its entirety.
As for 187, there were a number of Republicans who opposed it, including Ron Unz. And if anyone is to blame for the subsequent political fallout, it is the Pete Wilson team, not the Republican party as a whole.
As for Prevatt and Andrew, I offer no apologies. I am simply communicating to them in the abusive manner they prefer to use on those who disagree with them.
Posted by: Strong Coffee | October 18, 2006 at 02:20 PM
Strong Coffee--While almost all stories are more complicated then a one sentence summary, the poll guards incident was a variation on a GOP theme in tight races---try to hold down minority turnout. Unlike the probable outcome of CCIRgate, in the poll guards incident the Orange County Republican Party(pre-Baugh) was directly involved.
As for Prop 187, the California Republican Party endorsed 187 so while Pete Wilson can share the blame, the Republicans can not escape it.
When the information comes out that it was a Republican operative(not connected directly with Scott or Lynn in my opinion)I think you folks will need to be as clear and concise as Arnold and Lyn were in their condemnations.
Posted by: Bladerunner | October 18, 2006 at 03:04 PM
Well, Lockyer says the letter came from a REPUBLICAN candidate. Though I highly doubt that will shut any of you up.
Don't you worry that there are better uses for your highly developed political minds than blogging? I readily admit I have little else to do with my time, but I'd rather see some of you folk running the county.
Posted by: Alex Brant-Zawadzki | October 18, 2006 at 04:44 PM
BR:
Believe you me, I will be.
Posted by: Jubal | October 18, 2006 at 06:08 PM
The story should be coming out very soon, although Lockyer already let the cat partially out of the bag.
Posted by: Jubal | October 18, 2006 at 06:09 PM
Any Democrat who suggested that Scott Baugh is behind the letter should be ashamed. There's no evidence to support that conspiracy theory. Don't stoop to Chuck DeVore's level and blame people for sending this letter if you don't have any evidence.
Posted by: Let's not throw around baseless accusations . . . | October 18, 2006 at 09:24 PM