Take Mathur supporter Scamallert. In a comment re the recent Register editorial, he or she tries the old say it enough times and everyone will believe it gambit: “This Wagner Scandal really stinks to high heaven” she declares.
Scandal?
Scamallert suggests that we take a look at Wagner’s campaign donors. Among them, she writes, is “Union Boss” (?) William Hewitt, who gave Don’s campaign $1,000. Imagine!
Ms. Allert draws a conclusion: Wagner is neither fiscally conservative nor anti-union.
But, of course, Don is both, which is why the union, including Treasurer Bill, has opposed him during every election. Don’s on the board of Education Alliance, for Chrissake! Nobody hates teachers unions more than that crowd.
It is, I think, some sort of old-fashioned—and kinda hinky—take on politics that inclines the likes of Bill “the Schmoozer” Hewitt to contribute to Don's Assembly campaign. The rest of us dissenters contribute instead to Jane Fonda, the ALA, Satanism, Spain, and whoever makes those swell little mustachioed voodoo dolls.
Scamallert, in case you haven’t noticed, is an aficionado of daft conspiracy theories, which explains her disapproving mention of Hewitt’s long-ago involvement in the Frogue recall. (Gosh, I didn’t know Steve had fans! Maybe Scam is Steve?!)
Modjeska Grade, 1939
Her next shocker concerns the “prayer” lawsuit. The list of defendants, she notes, is practically an SOCCCD Who’s Who! That's true. So how come IVC Prez (and Wagnerian) Glenn Roquemore isn’t named in the suit?
“Very fishy indeed,” she snides.
Well, if Ms. Scama had bothered to read our complaint, she would discover that it names the trustees—they are the district—and then includes persons who participated in the actions and events that are the subject of the suit (showing "Jesus" videos, removing obstacles to trustee prayer at events, etc.). Tod Burnett and Raghu Mathur definitely participated. Roquemore did not, in part because he’s fifteen miles from the action. (Yes, the Chancellor’s opening session occurred at IVC, but it was strictly a district event, choreographed by All That Goo.)
Scamallert seems to think that Hewitt is involved in the suit. In fact, HE HAS NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. Hell, I don't think we'd have 'im!
Scamallert next goes off the rails completely, asserting, absurdly, that the lawsuit derives from plaintiffs’ “hurt feelings.” Even if that were true (I'm against the "establishment" of religion, and my feelings are fine), it would do nothing to serve her fish theory.
Evidently frothing at the mouth, she next notes that two of the suit’s plaintiffs (the two students) are anonymous. “Hmmm…. What are they trying to hide?” she oozes.
Actually, I argued against anonymity, but the other faculty plaintiffs, concerned about the students’ vulnerability, were adamant. (I think it's a nesting thing.) These two young people believe in the separation of church and state. That's why they've signed on.
OK, having established that (1) Bill Hewitt gave Don a check for one thousand bucks and (2) two of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs are anonymous, Scamallert declares: “The big puzzle is beginning to come together”!
Her grand vision finally spills forth in a tour de force of cascading disconnected imaginary factoids:
Some people wanted Mathur gone so badly, they figured all they had to do was flip one trustee…So they cut a backroom deal with the trustee to make Mathur an offer he couldn’t refuse – hire as a high paid admin, the woman … who hates Mathur, or Mathur is OUT! …The incentive for the trustee was financial support for his bid for CA Assembly [namely, that cool grand from Bill] …If the trustee wins that seat in Sac, it eliminates him from our board – one less conservative! … Now [?] while emboldened and on a roll, hit the district with a big lawsuit and hopefully take-out some more conservative trustees (all paid for by the taxpayer!) … The stench is rapidly becoming too overwhelming!Wow. What an idiot.
There’s no scandal here—just the usual semi-hinky machinations of a peevish and arrogant right-winger. In the end, this was about Wagner and one seriously lousy employee: Don could no longer abide the fellow's connivery, and so he pulled the strings and arranged the ducks to remove him, even if it meant permanently pissing off the pious and sulfurous Tom “Big Foot” Fuentes.
Some scandal.
5 comments:
Actually I thought her commentary was pretty accurate from what I've seen around the district, and explains Wagner's about face. Yours, on the other hand, offers only vague, unsupported allegations of "connivery" that Wagner "could not abide." It's time to put up or shut up.
That "union boss" line always makes me laugh. Hee, hee, hee. Only in the good ole OC.
1:14: Scamallert puts "some people" at the heart of her conspiracy theory. Whoever they are supposed to be, she attributes the lawsuit, this "backroom" deal, an effort to finance Wagner's campaign (with a measly $1000), and a plan to get Wendy into administration (to what end?) to "them." You've got to be kidding me. The only "about face" we've seen from Wagner concerns support of Mathur. That's it.
oh, I think there's a scandal and a conspiracy - just not the one outlined by Scamallert.
Scamallert?
Alert has ONE L Raghu!
There will be a Wagner scandal if Don manipulates the search for a new Chancellor to any degree. But I'm hoping that he will see reason and keep his mitts off of it. There may be other high-profile searches. Again, I'm hoping everything will be done professionally. That's what I worry about. Come through, Don! Could be he will.
Post a Comment