Baseless Dornan witchhunt continues
Harry Hope
From The Los Angeles Times, 10/10/97:
No New Voter Fraud Leads in Dornan Papers
Ousted congressman submits 12 pages of answers to
panel's questions, but does not identify source
who allegedly told him of 1,200 illicit ballots.
WASHINGTON--Defeated Rep. Robert K. Dornan
(R-Garden Grove) renewed his allegations
Thursday that "hundreds" of noncitizens and
undocumented immigrants cast illegal ballots in
last year's election, but he failed to provide any
concrete evidence or new leads in 12 pages of
sworn written testimony submitted to the
congressional committee investigating the dispute.
The fiery conservative also did not identify the
source on which he based his assertion last week
that congressional Republicans had uncovered at
least 1,200 clearly illegal votes. Instead, the
former congressman acknowledged that the numbers
stemmed from an anonymous caller to his home who
said she works "on the [Capitol] Hill" but
declined to give her name or job.
Asked by the House Oversight Committee to provide
names, addresses and telephone numbers of people
who illegally registered to vote, voted or helped
others do so, Dornan admitted he could not,
referring lawmakers instead to lengthy lists of
allegedly suspicious names that he previously
submitted.
Dornan farts again.
Harry
Harry Hope
Jim Glass
In article <61lca5$b...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, riv...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>From The Los Angeles Times, 10/10/97:
>
>
>No New Voter Fraud Leads in Dornan Papers
>
>Ousted congressman submits 12 pages of answers to
>panel's questions, but does not identify source
>who allegedly told him of 1,200 illicit ballots.
>
"Baseless"?
We shall see. I hereby predict: the Sanchez election will
be overturned on account of massive voter fraud.
Hermanidad and its "officials" will be prosecuted and
jailed.
Wait and see.
Jim Glass
fga...@*servcom.com
Jim,
> These Republican goobs make me laugh.
Excuse me, what is a goobs? It is just a thought. I have never heard
the term before.
Thank you
Frank
Zepp Weasel
On 11 Oct 1997 19:08:39 GMT, jfglass^^@mindspring.com (Jim Glass)
wrote:
>In article <61lca5$b...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, riv...@ix.netcom.com says...
>>
>>From The Los Angeles Times, 10/10/97:
>>
>>
>>No New Voter Fraud Leads in Dornan Papers
>>
>>Ousted congressman submits 12 pages of answers to
>>panel's questions, but does not identify source
>>who allegedly told him of 1,200 illicit ballots.
>>
>
>"Baseless"?
>
>We shall see. I hereby predict: the Sanchez election will
>be overturned on account of massive voter fraud.
I don't bet money, but if there were ever a statement that left me
more tempted to...
Dornan is toast. OC Republicans are frantically looking for a way to
not have him as their candidate in the '98 Election. He's reached the
point where even Southern California Republicans think he's nuts.
>
>Hermanidad and its "officials" will be prosecuted and
>jailed.
>
>Wait and see.
>
>Jim Glass
Still waitin', bahss...
>
=====================================================================
"You want evidence that Clinton faces Serious Allegations over illegal
campaign fundraising?"
--Paul Havemann, hoping that the capitalization
of "Serious Allegations" will lend weight to
his argument that allegations equate to
evidence.
Be good, servile little citizen employees, and pay your taxes so the
rich don't have to.
=====================================================================
When replying by e-mail, remove the third "P" placed there to foil
spambots.
eric sieferman
In article <61oirn$4...@camel12.mindspring.com>,
Jim Glass <jfglass^^@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <61lca5$b...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, riv...@ix.netcom.com says...
>>
>>panel's questions, but does not identify source
>>who allegedly told him of 1,200 illicit ballots.
>>
>
>"Baseless"?
So far, it's baseless. Unless you put a lot of stock in anonymous
callers.
>We shall see. I hereby predict: the Sanchez election will
>be overturned on account of massive voter fraud.
>
>Hermanidad and its "officials" will be prosecuted and
>jailed.
>
>Wait and see.
So far, this hunt for voter "fraud" has been as effective as Huffington's
expensive search for similar bad behavior. Nada. As long as the money is
good, there seems to be no end to Republican vindictiveness.
--
Dialogue of the Week:
Mr. Sam: How much does it cost to reattach someone's head,
after it was cut off by a cracked-up drug maniac?
Zepp: I don't know. How much did you pay?
K. Knopp
> In article <61oirn$4...@camel12.mindspring.com>,
> Jim Glass <jfglass^^@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >In article <61lca5$b...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, riv...@ix.netcom.com says...
> >>
> >>Ousted congressman submits 12 pages of answers to
> >>panel's questions, but does not identify source
> >>who allegedly told him of 1,200 illicit ballots.
> >>
> >
> >"Baseless"?
>
> So far, it's baseless. Unless you put a lot of stock in anonymous
> callers.
Seeing how "nearly 60% of voter registrations by the immigration-rights
group Hemandad Mexicana Nacional were non-citizens ineligible to vote",
according to Bill Jones, Secretary of State (CA), and that Hermandad
refuses to comply with a supeona in conjunction with the dispute, BASELESS
is hardly a accurate description of an investigation of voter fraud in
California.
> >We shall see. I hereby predict: the Sanchez election will
> >be overturned on account of massive voter fraud.
> >
> >Hermanidad and its "officials" will be prosecuted and
> >jailed.
> >
> >Wait and see.
>
> So far, this hunt for voter "fraud" has been as effective as Huffington's
> expensive search for similar bad behavior. Nada. As long as the money is
> good, there seems to be no end to Republican vindictiveness.
See above. You are confused.
--
Remove "pez" from address for direct e-mail
eric sieferman
In article <kknopp-ya02408000...@news.citynet.net>,
K. Knopp <kkn...@citynetpez.net> wrote:
>In article <6202e0$7...@big.aa.net>, berg...@big.aa.net (eric sieferman) wrote:
>> In article <61oirn$4...@camel12.mindspring.com>,
>> Jim Glass <jfglass^^@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >In article <61lca5$b...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, riv...@ix.netcom.com says...
>> >>Ousted congressman submits 12 pages of answers to
>> >>panel's questions, but does not identify source
>> >>who allegedly told him of 1,200 illicit ballots.
>> >"Baseless"?
>> So far, it's baseless. Unless you put a lot of stock in anonymous
>> callers.
>
>Seeing how "nearly 60% of voter registrations by the immigration-rights
>group Hemandad Mexicana Nacional were non-citizens ineligible to vote",
>according to Bill Jones, Secretary of State (CA),
Thanks for naming someone who is not an anonymous caller.
> and that Hermandad
>refuses to comply with a supeona in conjunction with the dispute, BASELESS
>is hardly a accurate description of an investigation of voter fraud in
>California.
Show me the indictments.
BTW, is the investigation going over the complete voting rolls in Orange
County, or just the voters with Hispanic sounding names?
>> >We shall see. I hereby predict: the Sanchez election will
>> >be overturned on account of massive voter fraud.
>> >Hermanidad and its "officials" will be prosecuted and
>> >jailed.
>> >Wait and see.
>> So far, this hunt for voter "fraud" has been as effective as Huffington's
>> expensive search for similar bad behavior. Nada. As long as the money is
>> good, there seems to be no end to Republican vindictiveness.
>See above. You are confused.
Certainly not about Huffington.
Given the way that so many Republicans are attempting to distance
themselves from Dornan, however, it would almost be funny to see his fraud
charges hold up and have the 1996 election overturned.
Zepp Weasel
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 12:19:57 -0400, kkn...@citynetpez.net (K. Knopp)
wrote:
>In article <6202e0$7...@big.aa.net>, berg...@big.aa.net (eric sieferman) wrote:
>
>> In article <61oirn$4...@camel12.mindspring.com>,
>> Jim Glass <jfglass^^@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >In article <61lca5$b...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, riv...@ix.netcom.com says...
>> >>
>> >>Ousted congressman submits 12 pages of answers to
>> >>panel's questions, but does not identify source
>> >>who allegedly told him of 1,200 illicit ballots.
>> >>
>> >
>> >"Baseless"?
>>
>> So far, it's baseless. Unless you put a lot of stock in anonymous
>> callers.
>
>Seeing how "nearly 60% of voter registrations by the immigration-rights
>group Hemandad Mexicana Nacional were non-citizens ineligible to vote",
>according to Bill Jones, Secretary of State (CA), and that Hermandad
>refuses to comply with a supeona in conjunction with the dispute, BASELESS
>is hardly a accurate description of an investigation of voter fraud in
>California.
At this juncture, there are 24 possible cases there. That leaves B-1
with 962 to dig up. Oh, BTW, the Pub's now enjoy 24% support among
California Latinos, down from 35% last year. That alone could shift
eight congressional districts. B-1 isn't only losing his battle; he's
losing the war for the Pubs.
>
>> >We shall see. I hereby predict: the Sanchez election will
>> >be overturned on account of massive voter fraud.
>> >
>> >Hermanidad and its "officials" will be prosecuted and
>> >jailed.
>> >
>> >Wait and see.
>>
>> So far, this hunt for voter "fraud" has been as effective as Huffington's
>> expensive search for similar bad behavior. Nada. As long as the money is
>> good, there seems to be no end to Republican vindictiveness.
>
>See above. You are confused.
Huffy didn't have a leg to stand on, but he's still trying. Even
Arianna decided enough was enough and dumped the clown. Now she's
joined a growing chorus of conservatives who want to throw the
right-wingers out.
>
>--
>Remove "pez" from address for direct e-mail
=====================================================================
You want to argue Original Intent? Here's the Second Amendment from
the first draft of the Bill of Rights:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia
being the best security of a free country; but no person
religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled
to render military service in person."
Op. Cit "Up From Conservatism", Michael Lind, pp 221, Simon & Schuster, NY
David Loewe, Jr.
On Wed, 15 Oct 1997 05:47:02 GMT, zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp
Weasel) typed frantically:
Everything else snipped
>
>Huffy didn't have a leg to stand on, but he's still trying. Even
>Arianna decided enough was enough and dumped the clown. Now she's
>joined a growing chorus of conservatives who want to throw the
>right-wingers out.
Huh? '....conservatives who want to throw the right-wingers out'? What
_have_ you been smoking now, Zepp? <Speaking into Zepp's ear> Hello!
Anybody home in there? <Stops speaking into Zepp's ear> Conservatives
_ARE_ right-wingers!!!!!!!!
Good God!!!! You _ARE_ as stupid as I feared you were.
--
"Always store beer in a dark place." - R.A.H.
Zepp Weasel
Conservatives are rightwing, and a subset of an umbrella group. By
and large, they are the respectable part.
Now, most of the right-wingers you see here on Usenet are not
conservatives. They are reactionaries, fascists, and in a few truly
pathetic cases, Nazis. It's kinda fun watching reactionaries and
fascists rail on against "failed liberal policies" such as abortion,
pollution controls, minimum wage, public schools, and yes, even
desegregation.
You see, all of the above are things that were implemented by
conservatives. REAL conservatives, and not the American-hating
reactionaries that run loose, thumping their chests and declaring
themselves to be conservatives. The came from people like Harding,
and Nixon, and Eisenhower, Truman, and the Supreme Court (yes, even
before Warren became CJ!)
No self-respecting conservative would find himself in the postion, as
the net reactionaries are, of finding themselves boisterously and
joyously supported on 95% of their views by ... Nazis. The lowest,
most hateful scum of the earth. The ones that conservatives like
Eisenhower and Truman worked so hard to defeat.
You should read some history, especial the second half of the 20th
century, before declaring yourself a conservative (believe me, you
aren't) and anyone who doesn't accept that curtain of respectibility
as being stupid. You are fooling only your fellows, and they being
equal to you, that will gain you nothing.
>--
>"Always store beer in a dark place." - R.A.H.
=====================================================================
H.Selvitella
>Now, most of the right-wingers you see here on Usenet are not
>conservatives. They are reactionaries, fascists, and in a few truly
>pathetic cases, Nazis.
>You should read some history, especial the second half of the 20th
>century, before declaring yourself a conservative (believe me, you
>aren't) and anyone who doesn't accept that curtain of respectibility
>as being stupid. You are fooling only your fellows, and they being
>equal to you, that will gain you nothing.
Speaking of self-respect, and YOUR internet fellow-travellers, have
you exhausted your repertoire of insults or have you some in reserve
to characterize the standard of such emminent Democratic Party
spokescreatures as the hysterical and scatological voltai ? Or are you
interested only in advancing the welfare of the opposition?
Jim Glass
In article <3451e2c2...@news.snowcrest.net>, zeppN...@snowcrest.net says...
>>How would you proceed if you got the notion that the dreaded
>>conservatives had finagled the count in your district?
>
>I would demand a recount. I would look at the results of the recount.
>If I lost, I would start thinking about the campaign two years up the
>road. I wouldn't play the Republican game of endless innuendo and
>abuse of legal and investigative systems for the purpose of throwing
>mud.
Strangely, the Congress has established procedures for invalidating
elections. Wonder why? Because politicians have been known to
steal elections via various forms of chicanery. I'm sure you'd rather
these procedures not be used when a liberal is the perpetrator, but,
gosh, it doesn't work that way.
Since the Democratic party has a long and well-documented history
of egregious voter fraud (dead people rising from the grave to cast
dem ballots, illegals trucked in to vote dem, people voting several times
etc.)...it would seem that in this instance your favorite party just got a
bit too enthusiastic and got caught.
So sorry.
Jim Glass
Zepp Weasel
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 06:36:00 GMT, th...@look.up.att.net (H.Selvitella)
wrote:
Gratifying to know you have such a deep concern for my well-being.
Makes me feel just validated all over, it does. So did you have
anything to say besides this, or have you shot your intellectual wad
here?
H.Selvitella
On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:53:32 GMT, zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp
Weasel) wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 06:36:00 GMT, th...@look.up.att.net (H.Selvitella)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:45:31 GMT, zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp
>>Weasel) wrote:
>>
>>>Now, most of the right-wingers you see here on Usenet are not
>>>conservatives. They are reactionaries, fascists, and in a few truly
>>>pathetic cases, Nazis.
>>>You should read some history, especial the second half of the 20th
>>>century, before declaring yourself a conservative (believe me, you
>>>aren't) and anyone who doesn't accept that curtain of respectibility
>>>as being stupid. You are fooling only your fellows, and they being
>>>equal to you, that will gain you nothing.
>>
>>Speaking of self-respect, and YOUR internet fellow-travellers, have
>>you exhausted your repertoire of insults or have you some in reserve
>>to characterize the standard of such emminent Democratic Party
>>spokescreatures as the hysterical and scatological voltai ? Or are you
>>interested only in advancing the welfare of the opposition?
>
>Gratifying to know you have such a deep concern for my well-being.
>Makes me feel just validated all over, it does. So did you have
>anything to say besides this, or have you shot your intellectual wad
>here?
I'm beginning to think you birds are really CONSERVATIVE agents
provocateurs. Nothing could be more damaging to the American Liberal
Front than the infantile and indecent fanaticism of your arguements.
That the more reasonable constituents of the left tolerate your
diahrretics without condemnation reflects the weakness of their
convictions, ignoble and fortuitous.
ralph nader weasel
In article <62pckf$9...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, th...@look.up.att.net
says...
> On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:45:31 GMT, zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp
> Weasel) wrote:
>
> >Now, most of the right-wingers you see here on Usenet are not
> >conservatives. They are reactionaries, fascists, and in a few truly
> >pathetic cases, Nazis.
> >You should read some history, especial the second half of the 20th
> >century, before declaring yourself a conservative (believe me, you
> >aren't) and anyone who doesn't accept that curtain of respectibility
> >as being stupid. You are fooling only your fellows, and they being
> >equal to you, that will gain you nothing.
>
> Speaking of self-respect, and YOUR internet fellow-travellers, have
> you exhausted your repertoire of insults or have you some in reserve
> to characterize the standard of such emminent Democratic Party
> spokescreatures as the hysterical and scatological voltai ? Or are you
> interested only in advancing the welfare of the opposition?
>
Let's see: Zepp says that Far right interests (Fascists; Nazis)
currently infect the Conservative movement in the US. Looks true
to me, when I look at Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrich, and the John
Birch Society and their connections to Ronald Reagan and George
Bush.
You respond with: " Namecalling! Namecalling! " .
... First of all, you are incorrect. Zepp the W. carefully
differentiated between Conservatism and the Rightist goons
currently shacking up with American Conservatives. He didn't
call Conservatives any names. Secondly;
your response was irrelevant to the point Zepp Weasel made
in the first place. Either there *are* rightists among
Conservatives (looks like it to me), or their aren't. Either
way, there is a pretty objective statement to address, which
you ignored.
* * * * * * * *
You want to stick up for Conservatism? ... easiest thing in
the world: Just post a message PERSONALLY DISAVOWING the
white separatist posting flood currently going on here. Procede
to Explain to us ignorant lib-rulls how US Conservatism has
nothing in common with Fascism and Nazism our fathers faught
against in WW 2.
I'll be waiting a long time for your post, won't I?
- your friend ralph.
H.Selvitella
The only fascists and nazis I see emulated in this group are rabid
weasels.
>You respond with: " Namecalling! Namecalling! " .
I might have said slanderous, fanatical, left-wing horse-puckey.
>You want to stick up for Conservatism?
Not my job. I'm a full-time citizen passing through, hoping for
intelligent discourse but apalled by the naive and disgusting zealotry
posted here by left-wing fanatics. Since a more rational left fails to
condemn the spectacle I conclude they approve.
> ... easiest thing in the world: Just post a message PERSONALLY DISAVOWING the
>white separatist posting flood currently going on here.
Sort of like signing King Henry's Oath, eh? Or the gestapo. Who the
hell do you think you are to stipulate disavowals? You are entitled to
challenge me when I speak in favor of right-wing fanaticism--until
then your accusations are no more than the bullying provocations of a
gutter thug intended to drown out with ill conceived and scatalogical
bellowing any potential opposition to your party-line that may
manifest itself in these posts.
Your liberal comrades may not be disgraced by this spectacle, and
that's sadly understandable though by these presents you shame us all.
Ruben Rodriguez
On 25 Oct 1997 03:10:12 GMT, jfglass^^@mindspring.com (Jim Glass)
wrote:
>In article <3451e2c2...@news.snowcrest.net>, zeppN...@snowcrest.net says...
>So sorry.
>Jim Glass
The more the Dornanites repeat this the less I believe it.
"Newsroom Front Page
Nov. 23, 1996
DEFEATED BY A NOVICE
The Orange County Register
The beginning of the end for Rep. Robert K. Dornan, as best anyone can
peg it, probably came that November day in 1992 when Americans first
elected Bill Clinton president.
Bob Dornan could no more abide Clinton as commander in chief than a
lion could ignore a hunk of raw meat. But the Orange County lawmaker's
desperate drive to destroy the career of the man he reviled became an
obsession that led to his own defeat.
The very idea of Clinton as president seared Dornan, a fierce patriot
and former fighter pilot whose nickname — B-1 Bob — grew out of his
ardent support for the supersonic Air Force bomber.
How could Clinton, who had evaded the draft, protested against the
military, smoked marijuana and cheated on his wife — a "nerdy little
flower child," Dornan had called him — defeat a man of George Bush's
stature, a World War II hero and respected international statesman who
just two years earlier had led a worldwide coalition to smash Saddam
Hussein's Iraqi army?
The more the result gnawed at Dornan, the more he resolved to undo it.
Finally, he decided to run for president himself.
"I want to save the country from Bill Clinton," he said.
But it was a mission doomed to failure, and it backfired.
The presidential campaign, in which he collected exactly zero
delegates, kept Dornan on the road, making him a stranger in his own
district. His off-color denunciations of Clinton on the House floor
attracted criticism even from his Republican colleagues. The local and
national media increasingly portrayed him as irrelevant. The battle
drained his political coffers of precious cash — money raised $50 at a
time from thousands of supporters across the country.
By election time, Dornan was vulnerable at home. And a political
novice named Loretta Sanchez crept up on the veteran lawmaker and
overtook him before he knew what hit him.
Dornan, always proud of his military background, this time badly
needed some expert reconnaissance. But when friends and supporters
warned him of the danger ahead, he ignored them, blinded by his hatred
of Clinton and the glow of his own celebrity.
"I don't think Bob Dornan lost this election because of his political
views," said Michael Schroeder, an Orange County lawyer and vice
chairman of the California Republican Party. "I think he lost because
of his presidential campaign. It took him out of the district and it
left him broke."
In his pursuit of Clinton as his political prey, Dornan displayed all
the characteristics that made him a larger-than-life political figure,
the rare congressman with a national following. Loyalty to a cause,
single-mindedness of purpose, a flair for theatrics.
These were traits shaped by the major influences of his life: the
Catholic church, the military, show business. In the end, they also
were the traits that led to his downfall.
Dornan was born into an Irish Catholic family in New York City on
April 3, 1933, to Harry Joseph and Mickey McFadden Dornan. His father
was a haberdasher and had fought in World War I. His mother was a
Ziegfield showgirl who quit the business after a serious automobile
accident. The family moved to Los Angeles, and Dornan graduated from
Loyola High School.
Although the Catholic church today is often identified with tolerance
and liberal causes, Dornan's role models were from another era. Among
them were Francis Cardinal Spellman, the powerful archbishop of New
York City, and Fulton J. Sheen, the anti-Communist Catholic missionary
and radio talk show host who founded the Society for the Propagation
of the Faith.
"He was shaped very much by a pre-Vatican II view of the world," said
Jack Pitney, a Claremont Graduate School professor and fellow
Catholic, referring to the era before church reforms in the '60s. "He
has a belief that politics really is a struggle between good and
evil."
And so Dornan has been not just an opponent of abortion, but an enemy
of anyone who supports abortion rights. He not only abhors
homosexuality, he at times seems to detest gays and lesbians
themselves, though he has supported greater funding for research on
AIDS and has donated to a hospice.
With his wife, Sallie, and their five children often at his side,
Dornan championed "traditional" family values and excoriated so-called
alternative lifestyles. But he was quick to point out that he hated
the acts he found abhorent, not the persons; in his religion, hatred
of others is a sin.
He fought against federal funds for AIDS education, saying the money
went for programs that promoted a homosexual lifestyle. Battling over
the issue with Rep. Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin, a fellow Republican
who did not hide his homosexuality but did not display it, Dornan made
a public issue of Gunderson's sexual orientation.
Such attacks led many to brand Dornan a bigot.
"His hatred of my community is unfathomable to me," said Assemblywoman
Sheila Kuehl, a Santa Monica Democrat who was the first openly gay
member of the California Legislature. "He clearly either never
experienced any real connection with a gay or lesbian person or has
just cynically decided to bank some of his reputation just on
castigating our community."
Dornan voted for John F. Kennedy in 1960 in part, he says, because of
their shared Catholic faith. And he came to expect the same fealty
from other Catholics in the political world. He routinely questioned
the faith of any Catholic who might oppose him on anything.
He called Sanchez a "Catholic for abortion and sodomy rights."
To William Dougherty, a military veteran and Republican who endorsed
Sanchez, Dornan bellowed, "You are a disgrace to your baptism!" His
1994 opponent, Dornan said, was a "disloyal Catholic." When a U.S.
senator from Washington state opposed his move to ban abortions in
overseas military hospitals, Dornan averred: "This is a Judas act by
Patty Murray."
And when Clinton in his 1992 campaign called for a "New Covenant"
between the government and the American people, Dornan was outraged.
"The ark of the covenant was the old covenant," Dornan raged on the
House floor. "The new covenant was the son of God, Jesus Christ."
Clinton, he said, had no right to steal such a sacred phrase.
Dornan's Catholicism even became the source of political comedy. When,
amid a scandal over the House bank, he admitted bouncing a single bad
check, he said he'd written it to pay for stones to build a grotto in
his back yard as a shrine to the Virgin Mary. That excuse made him the
butt of jokes on late-night talk shows.
But faith was no laughing matter to Dornan. He marched every year with
opponents of abortion who converged on Washington to protest the
Supreme Court's 1973 decision to legalize the procedure. He fought to
ban abortions in military hospitals and to end the use of fetal tissue
in research. He introduced a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.
He told one crowd that it sickened him that so many members of
Congress who supported abortion rights were Irish, and presumably
Catholic. Then he implored his audience to "start kicking out the
senators and congressmen who are pro-death."
Besides his church, perhaps the greatest influence on Dornan was the
military.
As a student at Loyola University, Dornan volunteered for the Air
Force at age 19, and went to flight school. The Korean War ended
before he finished training, so he never saw action. But he spent five
years as a peacetime fighter pilot and many more in the reserves.
Later, as a civilian, he flew missions into Vietnam as a combat
photographer. His position in Congress allowed him to pilot every new
military plane that came along.
In Washington, Dornan carved a niche for himself as defender of all
things military — from his famous support for the B-1 bomber to his
crusade for higher pay and pensions for soldiers.
He led a dogged, 25-year quest for information on American prisoners
of war and those missing in Vietnam, whose memory he kept alive by
inventing the POW bracelet. Later, he revealed that the government had
covered up evidence of Americans left behind in Korea.
"It's going to be a hard blow to recover from his loss," said Jim
Greene of the National Vietnam Veterans Coalition. "Dornan was
probably the single most important congressman that pursued our
issues."
But above all else, Dornan will be remembered as a political showman.
His uncle, Jack Haley, played the Tin Man in "The Wizard of Oz," and
Dornan had a few movie roles himself before settling in as a Los
Angeles television talk show host and commentator, where he won
several Emmy Awards for his work.
His recognition helped him to win a seat in Congress in 1976
representing West Los Angeles, where he served for three terms before
new district boundaries forced him out. In 1982, Dornan ran for the
U.S. Senate and finished fourth in the Republican primary. Two years
later he moved to Orange County and defeated veteran Democratic Rep.
Jerry Patterson.
Over the years, Dornan was famous — or infamous — for his caustic
denunciations of political opponents.
In West Los Angeles in the late 1970s, he referred to his foe as a
"sick, pompous little ass." In his first campaign in Orange County,
Dornan described Patterson as a "sneaky little dirtbag." And when
then-Rep. Barbara Boxer opposed a tax bill he had sponsored, Dornan
referred to her supporters as "coke-snorting, wife-swapping,
baby-born-out-of-wedlock, radical Hollywood left."
On occasion, Dornan went beyond harsh words. He called then-Rep.
Thomas Downey of New York a "draft-dodging wimp" in 1985, presumably
out of two years of pent-up anger for Downey's opposition to Dornan's
possible appointment to an arms-control post. When Downey confronted
Dornan over the attack, Dornan grabbed him by the necktie and shirt
collar.
Dornan drew national attention, of course, for his attacks on Bill
Clinton, before and after the Arkansas Democrat became president. As
the first member of Congress to endorse George Bush for president,
Dornan felt a special bond with the former president and vowed to
avenge his loss.
He called Clinton an adulterer and a "triple draft dodger," and he
mocked the president for his "slit-up-the-side, silk, girlie-girlie
jogging pants." And he once implied that Clinton was using illegal
drugs.
"Follow the money on Whitewater. Follow the nose on Clinton," Dornan
said to a reporter about what he called Clinton's "bulbous,
cocaine-snorting nose."
Dornan has acknowledged that some of his stunts on the floor of the
House were designed to get him on the nightly news, where his audience
would be wider. And in an interview with The Washington Times, he
disputed the common perception that he is a loose canon.
"I say what I believe," Dornan said. "People who say I'm out of
control mistake passion for temper."
Dornan's comments about Clinton drew rebukes from Democrats, and when
he accused Clinton of having been a traitor during the Vietnam War,
even his fellow Republicans said Dornan had gone too far, withdrawing
his floor privileges for a day. Of course, the punishment only served
to gain still more publicity for Dornan's attack.
But if Dornan's tactics delighted his fans, they infuriated his
opponents and made them all the more eager to defeat him this year.
Abortion-rights groups rallied around Sanchez, and the partners of
three gay members of Congress held a reception to raise money for her.
Clinton, as the election neared, made a special trip to Santa Ana to
hold a rally at which Sanchez appeared by his side.
Some in Dornan's district, meanwhile, wondered if his fixation with
Clinton hadn't led him to forget about them.
Ho Chung, a Garden Grove city councilman and longtime Dornan
supporter, said he grew concerned as Dornan refused to abandon his
ill-fated presidential campaign. He said Dornan, unlike other
politicians, rarely attended events in the Asian-American community.
"I wished him to come back to the constituents and prepare for his
election," Chung said. "But he didn't spend time for the constituents
until the election was really closer. ... The voters were demanding a
little bit more listening to the constituents instead of the rhetoric.
If he spent more time with local voters, I think he'd have had no
trouble getting re-elected."
But he did not, and he lost by 984 votes.
Refusing to go quietly, Dornan alleged that he had been done in by
fraud, illegally registered voters and illegally cast ballots — not to
mention what he called the "filthiest campaign I've ever seen run in
my life."
There may never be another politician to match Robert K. Dornan. But
here's a thought to comfort his friends and send a shudder through his
foes: Hundreds, if not thousands, of young men and women inspired to
the cause of "faith, freedom and family" by Dornan's tireless
exhortations probably will continue to vote and volunteer and, in some
cases, be elected to office because of the work he did.
Among them are young people who were members of the College
Republicans, a group Dornan almost single-handedly transformed from a
mild, moderate, mostly social organization into a hardened ideological
force.
Jon Fleischman, now an aide to Republican state Sen. John Lewis of
Orange and president of the California Republican Assembly, remembers
a night many years ago when he and some buddies attending a College
Republicans function gathered around a phone at 10 o'clock and called
Dornan at home in Fairfax, Va. It was on the anniversary of the day in
1961 when Dornan survived a crash into the Pacific off Point Mugu, a
day he often referred to as his "second" birthday.
Lying in bed at 1 a.m., his wife sleeping next to him, Dornan
proceeded to regale the young GOP activists with stories for 2 hours.
He talked of the military and politics and ideology, and what they
could do to advance the cause they shared.
"There's a huge Dornan legacy," Fleischman said the other day, still
in awe. "The impact he has had in energizing people to get involved in
politics, to get involved in conservative activism, will go on
forever."
=======================================================
"...If Dornan has a worry about the current race, it's the presence of
candidates from the Libertarian, Reform and Natural Law parties.
"That eats up my base," Dornan said."... [Houston Chronicle 10/18/96]
"Every time I see Dornan, he looks like he needs a rabies shot."
-Bill Clinton-
==================================================
wol...@nospamnetvalue.net
On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 05:51:47 GMT, zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp
Weasel) wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 17:37:26 GMT, th...@look.up.att.net (H.Selvitella)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:53:32 GMT, zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp
>>Weasel) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 06:36:00 GMT, th...@look.up.att.net (H.Selvitella)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:45:31 GMT, zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp
>>>>Weasel) wrote:
>
>Aw, shit. Weasels, he's on to us. OK, OK, I confess. I'm secretly
>Newt Gingritch. Gail Weasel is actually Arianna Huffington. Jim
>Kennemur is actually Tom Delay. Milt is really Jesse Helms. Mary
>Knadler is actually Dan Quayle, but, being Dan, was too dumb to
>understand that he was actually supposed to be trying to pretend to be
>a liberal. In a similar departure from reality, Billy Beck was played
>by Bob Dornan.
>
>I'll report in, guys, but I'll tell you now -- our masters in Moscow
>will not be amused.
>=====================================================================
Shifting blame again , a liberal tactic.
But why pick the name weasels ?
Wolf
That's right, join The War On Right Wing Ignorance,
stop being ignorant about the right, the more you
know of the truth the more conservatives there will
be!
===================================================
Mankind believes in something he cannot comprehend
and comprehends something he cannot believe
-----------------------------------------------
Dem truth is one Dem agreeing with another Dem.
-----------------------------------------------
The worst inequality, is trying to make something not
equal, equal
Remove the nospam to e-mail
Phil Kramer
zeppN...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel) wrote:
|
|th...@look.up.att.net (H.Selvitella) wrote:
|>How would you proceed if you got the notion that the dreaded
|>conservatives had finagled the count in your district?
|
|I would demand a recount. I would look at the results of the recount.
|If I lost, I would start thinking about the campaign two years up the
|road. I wouldn't play the Republican game of endless innuendo and
|abuse of legal and investigative systems for the purpose of throwing
|mud.
It's all very pointless on Dornan's part. If they held the election
over again today, he'd lose much worse than he did a year ago. If he
runs again a year from now, he'll get beat worse than he would today.
The demographics of the district are changing. Latinos moving in, Anglos
moving out. It's an oversimplification to say Latinos = Democrats &
Anglos = Republicans, but Dornan is probably losing 150 or 200 voters a
month from people leaving (as opposed to conservative Latinos offended by
the blatant character of his investigation).
I lived in the district for 15 years and still get back there 5 or 6 times
a year. It's gone thru incredible changes since Dornan came there from
Santa Monica (60 miles away) back in 1980. He's just gonna have to pick
up his carpetbag and find himself yet another district.
Phil Kramer
Seattle
H.Selvitella
You seem to enjoy the memory of the elephant partisans while exposing
the countenance of the jackass partisans. While agreeing with you that
considerable naivete informs the good congressman's politics, though,
I doubt that the opposition can substantively gain from overlooking
suspicious electoral practices that can only result in poor
representation and thus serves to indict their cause for
superficiality.
The public perception is that the democratic party machine has never
shrunk from violating its trust in order to gain materially. Where it
was initially perceived as mere expediency--what the hell--it seems
more commonly now to be tainted not with irreverence but with
desperation. And that is a decidedly unattractive association for the
peculiar constituency it claims to represent.
Phil Kramer
On Sun, 02 Nov 1997 07:35:30 GMT, p...@halcyon.com (Phil Weasel) wrote:
>It's all very pointless on Dornan's part. If they held the election
>over again today, he'd lose much worse than he did a year ago. If he
>runs again a year from now, he'll get beat worse than he would today.
>
>The demographics of the district are changing. Latinos moving in, Anglos
>moving out. It's an oversimplification to say Latinos = Democrats &
>Anglos = Republicans, but Dornan is probably losing 150 or 200 voters a
>month from people leaving (as opposed to conservative Latinos offended by
>the blatant character of his investigation).
>
>I lived in the district for 15 years and still get back there 5 or 6 times
>a year. It's gone thru incredible changes since Dornan came there from
>Santa Monica (60 miles away) back in 1980. He's just gonna have to pick
>up his carpetbag and find himself yet another district.
h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella) wrote:
|You seem to enjoy the memory of the elephant partisans while exposing
|the countenance of the jackass partisans.
I love it! Mind if I put it in my sig?
|While agreeing with you that
|considerable naivete informs the good congressman's politics, though,
|I doubt that the opposition can substantively gain from overlooking
|suspicious electoral practices that can only result in poor
|representation and thus serves to indict their cause for
|superficiality.
You doubt that Sanchez would lose a rematch now? Or next year?
|The public perception is that the democratic party machine has never
|shrunk from violating its trust in order to gain materially.
As if this made it different from any other party machine.
And as if civil libertarians, liberals, union members, greens,
abortion-rights activists, &c. haven't known this for years.
|Where it
|was initially perceived as mere expediency--what the hell--it seems
|more commonly now to be tainted not with irreverence but with
|desperation. And that is a decidedly unattractive association for the
|peculiar constituency it claims to represent.
The word "desperation" indicates you're talking about events beyond
the 46th Congressional District. I'm not gonna get started on that.
Phil Kramer
Seattle WA