« SunCal Sues Owner of Disputed 26-acre Parcel | Main | Carona In Cell; Hearing At 2:00 p.m. »

October 31, 2007



Next time just post the emails without the childish commentary.

A few thoughts: (1) why did Van forward the email from Bucher to Schroeder and is that what instigated this.

(2) I agree with Bucher on the overall motives of Schroeder and such and agree with Mark's assessment for why Schroeder is attacking Janet.

That said, Janet is bad news. Most everyone in Garden Grove (except Main Street) knows it. If Schroeder ever actually cared about Garden Grove or stepped foot in Little Saigon before Nguyen vs. Nguyen, I would have different thoughts about his motives but since I don't think he even knew where Bolsa Ave. is before he got involved in this, I think he is here solely for his power.

Jeez! Lighten up Anon. The commentary actually adds a little background for those of us who have a life and don't follow every back story of political drama in this county.

Even though you do not appear to have a sense of humor, you are right about Janet and even more right about Schroeder.

I wish someone would explain why there is a need to rally behind Janet so soon.

Gustavo Arellano

I love the commentary--a regular Cosell, you are!

Long-time politico

Round one is a draw; both boxers were just feeling out the other. Round two is where the fight began to get interesting and I have to give it to Bucher; Schroeder did not provide the proof of his allegations ("he swung and missed"). Likewise, round three goes to Bucher: Schroeder keeps swinging and missiing while Bucher lands a few by calling for proof. Advantage to the newer guy Bucher.

Great theater, thanks for the post.

Who the heck is Andy Dufresne?


Andy Dufresne is a wife killing banker.


...it turned out Dufresne was innocent, if you stayed for the whole movie.


Great commentary!

I think they both have good arguments, although it would suit Schroeder to come up with those quotes. If he can prove that Bucher trashed Corona in the newspapers, his argument against Bucher's claim of unconditionally supporting Reep incumbents becomes much stronger.

I would also have to agree with anon @ 10:31. What IS the rush to unite behind a candidate that hardly has a chance in the next election? ANY Republican would have a hard time getting re-elected next year to that seat. By what I could tell from the special in February Van's team has a better structured shop than Janet does, which would have given Trung a leg up on preparing for re-election next year.

In my opinion our party could have held that seat one of two ways: 1) if Trung would have won, Van's machine might have been strong enough to fight the Dem candidate; 2) if Janet would have IMMEDIATELY established a strong ground network throughout the district, which she hasn't done.

Since neither took place, sadly I believe the seat goes Dem next November. It would suit donors to probably sit this one out.

Get your facts straight Anon. Andy Dufresne was wrongly convicted for a crime he did not commit and served more than 20 years before being "released"

In this Corner

Wow. So far I score the match 3 rounds to Bucher and 0 to Schroeder. The referee might need to step in and stop the fight before Schroeder suffers permanent injury...

Central Committee Member who knows

While all of this is entertaining, it's pretty irrelevant. The botom line is this: Both men are have reputations; Bucher is known for being ethical and honest, Schroeder is not.

Therefore, what Marks says trumps anything Schroeder says unless Schroeder can provide indisputable proof to the contrary.

This match was over before it started...


I (heart) Mike Schroeder

Does anyone else think it unfair that the U.S. Attorney indicted Sheriff Corona at the exact time that Mike Schroeder is out of the country and, therefore, unable to refute their lies?

It hardly could be a coincidence.

And it seems equally unfair for this blog to release Mike's e-mails to Mark Bucher when he's on vacation and unable to explain what he really meant to say.

Just my opinion.

Question re: Schroeder

Who needs Amsterdam when Carona and his wife and his mistress are all back here in handcuffs?

I'm with Mark on everything except his initial contention; I hold Republicans to a higher standard and anytime one demonstrates inappropriate actions, they should be called on it promptly.

Schroeder needs, and received, a good slapping around; he's nothing but a bully (figuratively, of course; he's too much of a wimp to be a physical bully because he'd really get slapped around then; actually, that's probably just what he needs).

Also, for someone who is supposed to be intelligent, I wish Schroeder would stop separating words that are generally spelled out as one (every one = everyone; over look = overlook; any one = anyone; some one = someone).

Finally, Tran's actions on this, or lack thereof, show that he's a coward and needs daddy to stick up for him.

Schroeder has access to a computer and a phone. Frank Mickadeit does not seem to have much trouble getting in touch with him, although Schroeder does seem to be drinking every time they talk.

He is plenty capable of defending himself even while in Amsterdam - if there is any defense. His threats and personal attacks are pretty self-explanatory, and not very defensible.

It doesn't seem unfair to release the e-mails if you consider a.) Schroeder is the one who cc'd the political community with the intent of publicizing his thoughts on the matter and burning Bucher, and b.) who cares where Schroeder is... this is the Internet baby!


Anyone that supported Carona and continues to do so, is an fooling themsevles. It's that simple.
As is often predictable in these types of situations, the high-level supporters of Carona will start to make neutral comments and publicly distance themselves from him. I would like to see the common public (i.e. voters and such) distance themselves from these former Carona supporters. What can they contribute to us anymore, anyway? They just bluster, funnel money, play their hands, and make bold and important-sounding statements in support of their own little pet projects and people. And have a hearty laugh at our expense. Here's my advice to Schroeders of the world: be quiet and get out of the public spotlight. (Oh, though I suppose they would argue with me and claim they have lots o' influence and that I don't know what I'm talking about.)
And I also predict, and will give you 1:100 odds, or perhaps 100:1 odds, that there will inevitably be some person that chimes in against my comment, calls me a name, and infers that he/she still supports our little so-called Sheriff. Perhaps. Jeez Louise, I'd like to see a few of these little politically-involved men (like Schroeder) stand up for ethics in an EVEN-handed way (i.e. across the board). Seems they can't get it right and pick better people to support. Then, when the error of their way is pointed out to them, just like Carona - they get defensive, sometime cast insults at everyone else (or claim they are right and the rest of us are wrong), and take the stubborn-man approach (i.e. "I have never done anything wrong and never will.") I remember little boys like this on the playgorund when I was in 2nd grade. (And no, we didn't have a fight in the sandbox.) Yet, in their supposed older (and wiser?) age, they still act much the same as little kids. What is the major malfunction anyway?



You ramble and what you wrote looks like something I would expect from Steve Rocco.

But you are generally correct. Now to work on your clarity.



All opinions are welcome, but you have to express them minus the name-calling and personal attacks.


Jubal, to you and to this Blog - I apologise for the name-calling aspect in my comments above.

The comments to this entry are closed.