And the bleat goes on

     APEGATE: In an update, R. Scott Moxley now reports that

     The executive committee of the OC Republican Party voted today 10-2 to send the Marilyn Davenport matter to the ethics committee, says … Jon Fleischman, a prominent local Republican who supported the motion. He identified the two "no" voters: Pat Shuff, a GOP activist in Fullerton, and the party's first vice chairman, Deborah Pauly, who caused a huge mess earlier this year when she made anti-Muslim statements in public. The ethics group will meet on Saturday.

     Moxley also noted that Davenport (and her handler, Tim Whitaker) showed up today on conservative talk-radio bloviator Larry Elder’s talk show. Evidently, Elder, who is African-American, encouraged Davenport to go on the offensive

     [She blamed] Democrats for having a "double standard" about racism and Republicans for not keeping her email a secret from the media.
     Elder, a prominent black conservative talk radio host based in Los Angeles, got Davenport to agree that the "real racists" are Democrats and to credit Republicans for insisting on the nation's civil rights advancements.
. . .
     Tim Whitacre, the fellow Orange County Republican Party official and former U.S. Marine who is aiding Davenport with the media, also appeared on the show, defended the email as a non-offensive joke, called Davenport "of sound mind and reason," and declared, "We are not going to let the [political] Left dictate this."….

     Earlier this week, Davenport acknowledged that, when she sent the chimp-Obama image, she knew that it likely would offend some—to whom she therefore did not send it. She also seemed to acknowledge that, in view of the use of ape images in the country’s racist past, the image should not have been sent—to anyone, I guess.
     Davenport is mighty confused.

The OC: "an incubator for grotesque political ugliness"

Scott Moxley connects the dots over at the OC Weekly in his article,
Marilyn Davenport: the Evolution of a Scandal.

excerpt:

   For decades now, OC has been an incubator for grotesque political ugliness. For some reason, this is where the darker side of right-wing American politics routinely emerges in gloriously shameful fashion. A brief, partial history...
   ...The scandal certainly isn't earth-shattering. Yet, if you are looking for evidence of progress in OC, here it is: In the long list of right-wing kooks who have turned the county into a political punch line during the past 50 years, none of them ever apologized and asked for forgiveness. Indeed, most of them shamelessly reveled in their nastiness. For Davenport, conceding that her email could have offended people—even if it appears she doesn't quite understand why—makes her footnote in the annals of the 2012 presidential campaign perhaps slightly less damning.

To read the rest, click here.

*

"Westphal v. Wagner" resolution (up for approval Monday)

     The agenda for Monday’s meeting of the South Orange County Community College District board of trustees (April 25) is available here.
     Item 11 is the “resolution” that is Exhibit A of the recent “Westphal v. Wagner” lawsuit settlement (the settlement was ratified March 31).

The RESOLUTION:

Lady, you need to shut up

You didn't know? But you did know?

     The Mission Viejo Patch describes “Obama-chimp Emailer” Marilyn Davenport’s press conference today:

     Davenport read the written apology she issued earlier this week, and went on to say she did not intend to offend anyone by forwarding the email. She noted, however, that she didn't send the email to some people who she thought she might be offended.
     "I felt they might just not like it too well and might be a little offended about it so I didn't step on that feeling of theirs,'' she said.
     "Those who would be offended would be those who perhaps would be of another race or in some cases that aren't black or brown or any other, some of my own race would be offended,'' she said.

Stop shoveling!

     Now I’m confused. Earlier in the week, she seemed to say that she did not know that the “ape” image would offend. For instance, on Monday, she said: "Before I sent that email, I should have stopped to think about the historical implications [of depicting a black man as an ape]. That can be offensive. Obviously, I have unintentionally offended others, and I am so sorry." (NavelGazing)
     But now she says the she didn’t send the image to some people because it might offend them, which implies that, when she sent the image, she was aware of its potential to offend.
     Is she contradicting herself? Or is she now distinguishing between two kinds of offendedness? That is, maybe she’s thinking that recipients of the image might be non-racially offended (whatever that might be). She had thought of that. Only later did she realize that they could also be racially offended.
     Is that it?
     Above, she seems to be talking about her thinking when she sent the image. And she seems to say that, at that time, it occurred to her that recipients “of another race” might be offended. So she didn’t send it to them.
     So is she saying that she knew that some people might be racially offended (and that’s why she didn’t send it to them)? Well, yes.
     Lady, you need to shut up. Really.

The latest on "Westphal v. Wagner"

Clueless Daze: Marilyn Davenport's mere "political satire"

Obama chimp email official meets the press (OC Reg)

John and Ken and Marilyn

The OC Weekly's R. Scott Moxley reports:

...Marilyn Davenport tells John and Ken on KFI in a live interview that she sent the racist email against President Obama "strictly as a joke type thing." She said she "does not think in racist terms." According to Davenport, she "doesn't look at Obama as a black person," she only looks at his policies. She went on to say that she doesn't think her own race is superior to any other race and that she has never discriminated against people of another race. With the aid of fellow conservative OC activist Tim Whitacre, she did say that she feels "betrayed" by OC GOP boss Scott Baugh and Mike Schroeder, both of whom have expressed a zero-tolerance stance against Davenport's actions....

Tom Fuentes

     STATING THE OBVIOUS. Davenport and Co. evidently do not recognize any racism beyond overt and conscious racism—call it “blatant” racism. This is a stunningly clueless perspective, although I do not doubt that Ms. Davenport has it, more or less. It is stunning but it is familiar.
     I am willing to take this lady at her word: OK, she’s not a blatant racist. She's probably a nice lady. But to suppose that one who has not acted from blatant racism ipso facto has not acted offensively (with regard to racism) is ABSURD. My grandfather (for whom I had the usual affection) was not a blatant racist. Had anyone challenged him, he would surely (and sincerely) deny harboring racist attitudes. But I have no doubt that, by the standards of our day (at least among decent society), he was a racist. I cringe to think of the things he would sometimes do or say that bespoke his profound albeit unconscious racism.
     It does not strike me as unreasonable to hold public persons to a higher standard than the average citizen. Ms. Davenport is clueless about race and about our society. This is tolerable in my Aunt Minnie but less so in Ms. Davenport.

     THE LESS OBVIOUS. I don’t know, but I strongly suspect, that Baugh and Schroeder decided early on to use Davenport’s blunder (and indeed to use Davenport, their comrade) to kill two birds with one stone—namely, to smack down the endlessly troublesome Tea Party (Davenport’s birtherism is Liptonian) and to “define” the party as staunchly anti-racism, which is helpful relative to the need to attract minorities to Republicanism.
     If I’m right, it was a cynical and ruthless move—ruthless because decent people don’t just throw their friends under the bus (they talk with ‘em; they at least give ‘em a heads up!); cynical because the Baugh/Schroeder crowd routinely exploit those very racist attitudes (exemplified by Davenport’s email—and worse) that they so noisily condemn. (I’m willing to acknowledge the possibility of some sincerity on Schroeder’s part, owing to his strong stance against Steve Frogue thirteen years ago.)
     I agree that there are times at which one must adopt a “zero tolerance” stance toward some error or misdeed, even if that means hurting comrades or friends. A painful thing, that. But one can suppose that that is occurring only among leadership that is sincere and decent. If the past is any indication, Baugh (and Schroeder and Fuentes, et al.) fall into a very different category.

The latest on "Westphal v. Wagner"

Glad to be a conservative, offering “grace, redemption, and forgiveness”

Mr. Myers

     In this morning’s (OC) Red County, Walter Myers III discusses Monday’s meeting of the Orange County Republican Central Committee, whose Marilyn Davenport recently sent around the now infamous Ape-Obama email. When Mike “Darth Vader” Schroeder was sent a copy, he took it to the press. (Yesterday, Central Committee officer Deborah "unadulterated evil" Pauly judged that action to be unethical. “It’s an ethical violation to embarrass the Republican Party,” said she.)
     Well, Myers ends his post with some remarkable remarks, and I’ve decided to share them with you:

     In any event, the meeting went smoothly and some of the groups that threatened to show up and cause trouble, such as local members of the Democrat Party [sic] and the California Friends of the African-American Caucus, did not show up in force, but for those who did, they were quiet and mannerly. I must say that after seeing the despicable email circulated by the African American Caucus calling for Davenport to resign along with a threat to protest at Monday's Central Committee meeting, I’m glad that I have chosen to be a conservative. These African-Americans are aligning themselves tightly with LGBT groups and Obama’s Organizing for America, groups whose charters are absolutely inimical to family values, and promote a redistributionist socialist ethic in a country whose capitalist system has given them the greatest freedoms and opportunities for prosperity in the free world. These people have left one plantation and willingly have been duped into joining another. Lord, what have my people become.
     While liberals such as these pillory the Republican Party and conservatives for being paragons of racism, the key difference between us is that we conservatives don't see people through racial lens [sic]. We are always the first to offer grace, redemption, and forgiveness, which we extend not only to our own but to socialist liberals also. This is what makes us fundamentally different from them, so they just don’t understand why we don’t throw our own under the bus just because they say we should. We believe that everyone, regardless of the charge, deserves a full hearing where all sides can weigh in before any judgment is passed. As strongly as we may feel that Davenport’s actions were unacceptable, we will not condemn her as a person and throw her to the wolves because she made a grave mistake. It is for this reason why we grow and thrive in knowledge, recognizing that we are all fallen, while liberals sink into depravity in the pursuit of a utopia that doesn't exist and couldn't be produced anyway with such a flawed philosophy based on secular humanism, where man is the measure of all things.
     For conservatives, it is our belief in God that grounds our morals, and thus grounding our actions accordingly. We rest on the solid rock, while liberals build their castles on sand. And that is why we are the ones who demonstrate true love, compassion, and mercy, even during the darkest times, to our own and to all other fellow humans as well.

Golly.

UPDATE:

     Earlier today, I wrote Myers. He then responded:

A virtuous party? (Roy B)

     Mr. Myers, I just don't understand you. You say that the GOP is the party of "love, compassion, and mercy." But where are any of those virtues displayed in your local party's treatment of [Marilyn] Davenport? You say that your party doesn't throw people "under the bus." Isn't that exactly what Schroeder and Baugh are doing to Davenport?
     For all that I know, you are a benevolent man, but you are describing your party, not yourself, and your description clashes mightily with the facts of this very episode.
     But this isn't an isolated case, is it? If your party is so dang benevolent, why did it put up with the likes of Mike Carona for so many years, repeatedly endorsing him? Why did it get behind Chriss Street despite clear indications (even before he was elected) that he behaved unethically in his dealings with Freuhauf? Why did it repeatedly foist the manifestly incompetent and corrupt John Williams on the taxpayer? I could go on all day with examples.
     Mr. Myers, maybe you are a good man. So I ask you: why do so many good people in your (county) party put up with a leadership that is plainly rotten, and has been so for decades?
     I just don't get it.

Virtue (Walt M)

     Roy, let me be clear that in this piece I am discussing the ideals of the party. You may want to follow my personal blog, where ... I have repeatedly stated that the human condition is fallen. Neither I, nor you, should expect perfection on this earth. Just because we cannot expect perfection does not mean we don't have a rule or canon by which to judge what is right from wrong. What [former state GOP chair Mike] Schroeder did was dead wrong, as he brought something forward that should have been dealt with privately and strongly. He has made the party look bad. [County chair] Scott [Baugh] came out against [Davenport's email] as he should have, and stated ... his own opinion. Had you been at CC meeting (perhaps you were), you would have heard a beautiful speech by Scott that was firm and condemning of what Marilyn had done, while being clear that there would be consequences for her action in accordance with the party bylaws.
     I am completely with you on Corona, but I know little of the Chriss Street situation. I was John Williams' alternate in CC for several years, and only recently learned of some of the things he did that appear to be abuses of the public trust. Fundamentally, what I'm trying to say to you is that people aren't perfect, and they never will be perfect on this earth. That includes you and me. However, based on you expressing your concern, it would be great if you could join us to make things better as it is obvious that you stand against corruption of any sort and would be a voice integrity. So if you haven't already joined us, then please do.

There's a third comment; it is signed by "Ron Paul."

The latest on "Westphal v. Wagner"

The district issues a statement re "Westphal v. Wagner" (FACT CHECK)

     At about noon today, the South Orange County Community College District sent district denizens a statement regarding the “Westphal v. Wagner” settlement. I provide the statement in its entirety below.

     BUT FIRST, some facts:

Scholarship remarks: unconstitutional 

• As per the settlement, the district agrees to pay plaintiff’s attorneys (Americans United for Separation of Church and State) $250,000.

• Plaintiffs comprise not only professors but former students.*

• The “summary judgment” to which the district’s statement refers included the determination that Trustee Don Wagner’s Scholarship “prayer” was unconstitutional and that Chancellor Raghu Mathur’s showing of a patriotic slide-show including a message about Jesus was also unconstitutional. (See OC Register: Saddleback, Irvine Valley to discontinue some prayers)

• The district agrees to leave deciding whether an invocation (or moment of silence) shall be included in Commencement to college planning groups, which may decide to forego either invocation or MOS.

• If the planning group chooses to include an invited speaker to give an invocation, the speaker will be informed that the prayer must be non-sectarian and that he/she must refrain from proselytizing.

Slide show: unconstitutional

• The relevant language in the settlement (and its “exhibit A”) is the following:



     Beginning on the effective date of this Agreement [March 31, 2011], neither the SOCCCD nor its colleges…shall include an invocation on the program at any future Scholarship Ceremony or Chancellor’s Opening Session.
. . .
     Within 30 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the SOCCCD shall cause to be made a one-time payment in the amount of $250,000 to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
. . .
     At any future District of College event at which an invocation is included on the program, neither students nor faculty shall be required to attend such event, and no student or faculty member shall lose any privilege, benefit or employment status by failing to attend such event.
. . .
     Within 30 days of the effective dates of this Agreement, the Board shall adopt the Resolution attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement….

The Resolution:

     The district desires to ... provide guidelines to the planners of important District and college events.… 

. . .
     The decision on whether to select a speaker to deliver personal remarks in the form of an invocation, moment of silence, of opening and/or closing message, not to exceed two minutes, at important District and college events shall rest within the sole discretion of the event planners….
. . .
     The content of the invocation or message, or in the case of a moment of silence, any introductory remarks by the selected speaker leading up to it, shall be prepared by the selected speaker, as his or her personal remarks, and shall not be monitored or otherwise reviewed by the Board of Trustees of the SOCCCD, its officials, or employees….
     …the person selected…shall be provided with a copy of this resolution…shall be informed of the District’s request that any personal remarks be non-sectarian; shall be informed that the opportunity to speak at a District or college event must not be exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief….

You can read the SETTLEMENT in its entirety here.

The District’s announcement (today):

Invocation Lawsuit Settled, Constitutionality Upheld

Loves prayer and cookies
and junkets and money

     Mission Viejo, CA – April 19, 2011 – South Orange County Community College District wishes to apprise the college community of recent developments in the Westphal v. Wagner lawsuit as communicated by the District’s counsel, John A. Vogt, from the firm Jones Day in the following summary:
     Westphal v. Wagner is a federal lawsuit that was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California in November 2009. The plaintiffs in the case are professors from Saddleback and Irvine Valley College. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs contended that the Trustees, Chancellor, and President of Saddleback College violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution by including a non-sectarian invocation at significant District and College events. On that issue, the District prevailed in a summary judgment ruling by the Court that the past practice of the District (and its Colleges) of including invocations at significant District and College events are constitutional, and do not violate the Establishment Clause.
     After the District won summary judgment, and before the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the parties engaged in settlement discussions, which lasted several months. The District participated in that process in the hope of achieving its litigation objectives, while at the same time, minimizing future litigation costs. On March 31, 2011, the parties reached a settlement in this case, which will allow the Colleges to continue with their historical practice of including invocations at their annual commencement ceremonies. The District and Colleges also may continue to include invocations at virtually all other significant campus events.
     As a compromise, the District agreed that: (i) invocations would cease at Chancellor’s Opening Sessions; and (ii) to the extent the District or Colleges planned the event, invocations at Scholarship Ceremonies would be discontinued as well. In exchange for these concessions, the plaintiffs dismissed their litigation with prejudice—which means that the case is over, and cannot be brought again. The District viewed both of these compromises as reasonable.
     The Trustees, Chancellor, and President are pleased with the outcome of this litigation. They consistently have maintained that the practice of including a brief, non-sectarian ceremonial invocation at significant District and College events—a tradition that traces its roots to the first graduation ceremony at Saddleback College over 40 years ago—is well-grounded in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, as well as our nation’s rich history and culture. That position was vindicated by the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in the District’s favor. Under the settlement just entered, the District and its Colleges may continue with this practice. [END]

—Spin. DtB has made the actual settlement available. DtB's announcement of the settlement two weeks ago, which presented the actual settlement documents, is here.

*At the beginning of litigation, some non-faculty plaintiffs (viz., students) were advised to be anonymous, but the district successfully pressed to remove anonymity. Despite losing that protection, two non-faculty remained as plaintiffs and are parties to this agreement.