Bucher vs Schroeder

Those of you who consider behind-the-scenes political maneuvering a sport will be fascinated by a recent email exchange between Mark Bucher and Mike Schroeder. Due to the length of the emails, which were sent out over a few days starting October 16, I will post part of the exchange today and the rest tomorrow. It should be noted that this exchange happened prior to the announcement of the Sheriff Carona indictment.

So join me at ring side...

Announcer: Well, this is the day we have all been waiting for. In one corner we have Mike Schroeder, former Chairman of the California State Republican Party, close confidant and advisor to Sheriff Carona and District Attorney Tony Rackauckas. A political heavyweight to be sure, but one who many think has passed his prime and lately seems to get headlines more for bungling efforts such as the Sheriff Carona endorsement fiasco.

In the other corner is Mark Bucher. A scrappy up and comer who is relatively unknown, Mark is best known for taking on the unions, who are clearly the reigning heavyweights of California politics. He is also a co-author of Proposition 226, the first paycheck protection initiatives, and the Chairman of the Education Alliance.   

The battle is about to start. Mark leads off with a rather soft first punch,€“ a private email to Assemblyman Van Tran in response to a newspaper article about yet another complaint, this one based on allegations of a bounced check, which were filed against Supervisor Janet Nguyen by Trung Nguyen, who lost to Janet last year by only 3 votes, and Schroeder, his lawyer. 

Email from Mark Bucher to Van Tran
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:22 PM
Subject: Latest Trung tactic

Van - 

As a friend, which I consider you to be, I just wanted to let you know that this type of thing is making you look bad. It is simply not OK for Republicans to be attacking a sitting Republican over a bounced check. People are angry about what is happening, and it is actually pushing a substantial amount of support toward Janet.

Mark

Announcer: Most insiders know that Van is closely allied with Schroeder and Trung. He is even rumored to have given the greenlight for a €œ"scorched earth"€ policy of attacking her relentlessly. Van gets the ball rolling by forwarding the email to Schroeder and Trung for their comments.

Email from Schroeder to Bucher
and 7 other email addresses:
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: Latest Trung tactic

I for one welcome Mark's belated professed allegiance to supporting Republican incumbents running for reelection irrespective of his opposition in the media to our Republican Sheriff's reelection. Hard to understand the willingness to look the other way when any elected official elects to set up a secret campaign account, solicits unlimited amounts to that account, then repeatedly lies about it.....

Announcer: Schroeder comes out swinging with a body blow straight to Bucher'€™s midsection by getting personal. He brings up the Carona endorsement and accuses him of having sympathies for unethical behavior. He really tries to play off his close relationship with Carona (a strategy that probably seemed like a good idea at the time) but largely avoids the real issue of whether attacks of this nature by Republicans against another Republicans are a good idea. But regardless, Schroeder really took the gloves off.

Round Two: Can Bucher Recover?

Email from Bucher to Schroeder
and the same 7 email addresses Schroeder included
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 10:59 PM
Subject: RE: Latest Trung tactic

Mike,

You know that I never opposed Mike Carona'€™s re-election. I objected only to the abuse by you of the OC Republican Party'€™s endorsement process to obtain an endorsement re-vote. You went so far as to claim you possessed a version of the Party'€™s bylaws allowing the re-vote that no one else had ever seen. You asserted last time we spoke that I opposed Mike'€™s re-election. I challenged you to back up your claim, and you were unable to do so. Since you are repeating this now in an email cc'€™ed to numerous people, I again ask you to support this claim.

Regarding Janet. No one is fooled by your attempt to take the high road on this. We all know that your strategy is to attack her in every possible way to make her vulnerable, and it simply makes you look deceptive as you attempt to pass yourself off as Shirley Grindle on steroids.

My observation and opinion is that Van'€™s connection to this is hurting him politically. I am also certain that it is backfiring and driving support toward Janet.

Mark 

Announcer: Shirley Grindle on steroids! That had to hurt. For Schroeder, who likes to think of himself as Darth Vader, this is not a pretty image. (For those of you who do not know, Shirley Grindle is Orange County'€™s self-appointed watch dog on political finance. Read more here.

Bucher is correct that Schroeder, who last year chaired the OC Republican Parties endorsement committee, claimed while defending a particular decision against endorsing a candidate, that he had a version of the bylaws that no one else had. Conveniently, the version of the bylaws Schroeder claimed to have supported his endorsement choice. Many observers concluded that Schroeder abused his position and broke the Party'€™s rules in order to obtain an endorsement re-vote for Carona after initially losing on the first endorsement vote. Party Chairman Scott Baugh recently removed Schroeder from his Chairmanship, many think because of his actions while Chairman.

Email from Schroeder to Bucher
and the same 7 email addresses
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Latest Trung tactic

Mark: The Sheriff will be pleased to hear of your belated support. Of course, it is common after elections are over for some who were on the losing side of an election to try to falsely claim that they were with the winner all the time. No one is ever fooled. You lied to every one concerned and said that you only had some "procedural concerns" about the process and you wanted to voice them. You said that you would voice them then support the Sheriff. You then proceeded to trash him in the press, fooling no one.

Janet Nguyen has committed a series of criminal acts. You choose to over look them because it suits you politically and for no other reason. You were much more critical of the Sheriff for the only reason that some one he hired had acted illegally. Get back to me when you can be more consistent....

Announcer: Schroeder just won'€™t let up. Several more body blows to Bucher accusing him of being a liar and siding with Janet only for political gain. Schroeder is particularly adept at throwing out not-so-subtle reminders that he enjoys a close relationship with Carona and implies that he is going to discuss this matter with Carona. Bucher had better come back strong in round three.






Round Three: Schroeder Running out of Steam?

Email from Bucher to Schroeder
and 12 (five new ones) email addresses.
Sent: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 2:06 pm
Subject: RE: Latest Trung tactic

Mike,

This is offensive. I do not appreciate being called a liar or your attempts to make this a public matter by cc'€™ing multiple parties, some of whom I do not even know. I have tried to understand you and work with you, but this crosses the line.

You tend to attack people who do not agree with you, and you have chosen that tactic here. I expressed a valid opinion and concern to Van, you are now attempting to make this a public dispute over my character. Ad Hominem attacks such as this are generally used when there are not enough facts on your side to win the argument. I suspect that is why you are using one here. I am not sure why you want me to be your enemy, but calling me a liar and impugning my integrity is an outstanding way to get there.

My motives and character have nothing to do with the validity of the opinions I expressed to Van, but since you brought them up:

1. Please show us all where I trashed Carona in the press. My quote in the paper, as I recall, was something to the effect that I support the Sheriff, but was opposed to an endorsement revote.

2. Please identify who I lied to and when. 

3. Please explain how it suits me politically to be supporting Janet on the basis that she is the incumbent Republican. She was not my first, second or even third choice for this seat. She is vulnerable in the next election, and it would actually be a poor calculation on my part to be supporting her if I was doing it for political purposes. I am willing to give a voice to what many others are saying in private. I know that is unusual, precisely because it is often not the best thing to do politically.

Since you want this to be public and about personalities, I am ready to bring it on. I have added a few more names to the cc list for starters. 

Mark

Announcer: Bucher has really struck back hard, calling Schroeder out for turning this discussion on Janet into a personal attack on Bucher and challenging Schroeder to back up those attacks. It is a risky move by Bucher, however. If Schroeder can support his attacks, say by simply producing a newspaper quote wherein Bucher attacks Carona, Bucher will be all but out of the contest. Interesting logic lesson by Bucher. Read more about Ad Hominum attacks here.

Email from Schroeder to Bucher
and 12 other email addresses.
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Lastest Trung tactic

Mark: I think that you are over looking the central point. The Sheriff is pleased that you you are now a Carona guy, however belatedly, let's not kid any one. No one believes that you supported his reelection. As you know, the way you tell if some one supports you is that they endorse you, contribute to you, or work for you. Of course, you did none of these things and attacked him in the press instead. I look forward to your providing us with your supportive press quotes....

Do you read the stuff that you write? Everything from you is personal. You fired a similar email to me as the one you sent to Van and immediately attacked my motives for going after Janet. The simple fact is that your claims that you back Republican incumbents is false. You did not back the the Sheriff, the Capo trustees, and do not back Harman. Janet is not worthy of support because of her repeated criminal transgressions and her union connections -- things that you did not over look in the past. I do not get caught up on labels such as friend/enemy, etc. I find it is much better to evaluate people based on their conduct.

Announcer: Schroeder tries to throw a few punches, but they seem to miss the mark. Schroeder should have replied with press quotes supporting his claims. Instead he challenges Bucher to come up with his own quotes. Schroeder claims Bucher is the one who gets personal. That sure seems like the pot calling the kettle black. And trying to compare sliming Janet to not supporting the Capistrano Unified Trustees, who the central committee unanimously asked to step down for violations of the law? That swing seems almost delusional. If Bucher can come up with a quote close to what he claims to have said, this round could end up being really embarrassing to Schroeder.

Check back tomorrow for the final rounds...

Comments

[Anon]

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?

[Anon]

Andy Dufresne is a wife killing banker.

[Actually...]

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

[d'Anconia]

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...

The headline reads, "MAGNIFICENT MARK" BUCHER WINS WITH A KNOCK OUT BEFORE SCHOREDER CAN THROW A PUNCH!"

[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!

[J.R.]

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?

[J.R.]

J.R,

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.

[Jubal]

JR:

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

[J.R.]

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