.
.
.
.
.
Most people living in the 46th Congressional District have their very own Bizarre Dana Rohrabacher story—not something they heard somewhere, but something they experienced themselves. Myself I have several. Browsing through my laptop today I was reminded of one of them, an incident from last summer.
The Congressman had agreed to meet with a few of us to talk about the war in Iraq. We decided, five of us, since the Walter Reed and other related scandals were fresh in the news, to spend at least half our time advocating for better veterans’ healthcare, as Dana had been in the forefront of cutting VA funding.
Also present were Kevin Stendl, a Marine just back from Iraq and a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW); fiery young anti-recruitment activist Thu-Trang Tran; the very urbane Jackie Bunnell of Seal Beach Leisure World’s “Senior Patriots Against the War”; and Matthew Holcomb, a young intellectual and screenwriter with anger issues. Matthew had if anything shown up ridiculously over-prepared, with fat spiral binders of material for each of us, and wearing a nice suit.
But, as I could have warned him, Dana only likes to hear himself talk, and he will talk at length on whatever topic pops into his undisciplined mind; he even snapped at us, “I called this meeting, not you!” And he infuriated Matthew with one of his usual tricks: discovering that we hadn’t heard about an obscure vote that had taken place three days earlier where he had approved a measly few million dollars of veterans’ benefits, he bellowed at us, “You people are unprepared! You need to do your homework before you come here!”
Another thing you should be prepared for if you ever talk about the war with Rohrabacher is he will have some hulking bodyguard-looking guy sitting at his side, whom he will introduce as “so-and-so just back from Baghdad.” And whenever Kevin would start describing what he’d been through in the field, Dana would turn to his companion and say, “It didn’t seem so bad to you when you were out there, did it?” and the answer would always come back “No sir, Mr. Rohrabacher, not that bad at all.” (At that point we didn’t realize quite how symbiotic Dana’s relationship with Blackwater was, so it struck all of us after the fact—this was some pampered mercenary who got paid ten times more than Kevin to play cowboy inside the Green Zone, while Kevin was out “rolling and patrolling” the streets of Fallujah watching his buddies get killed. My blood boils even now thinking about it.)
At this point you’re saying, “So what, Vern? Thus far it could be any Republican politician! Where’s the Wacky? Where’s the Demented? Where’s the Dana? We want to laugh, we want to marvel!” And so glad you asked, I was just getting to it: All of a sudden, apropos of nothing, he launched into a five-minute reverie (5 minutes—I was checking the clock!) on how “handsome and good-looking” Bush’s generals are, and how that’s a sure sign of their incompetence. “Have you SEEN how good these guys look?” he continued at length. “Of COURSE they’re just hired for their looks—no wonder the war is going so bad!”
Dazed, none of us could think of a response. Various things went through our minds—the question of which general or generals, exactly, was so great-looking; the question of is it really that uncommon to be both handsome and competent; memories of Vietnam-draft-avoider Dana’s own cameo as a Naval officer in Robert Duvall’s film Gods and Generals, leading to memories of President Bush’s own military-drag escapade on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln; all mixed with the unproven but long-lived and stubborn rumors about Dana’s sexuality.
It is observed that different sorts of people react to traumatic experiences each in their own way. In this case, Jackie took ill for a time, I went back to drinking for a few weeks, Thu-Trang threw herself into her highschool anti-recruiting efforts with redoubled energy, and Kevin we didn’t see again for several months. But I think Matthew reacted most healthily and creatively, going home to create this Photoshop encapsulating his experience:
Matt, if you are out there,
perhaps raging up and down the Los Angeles freeways,
maybe cursing your chronic bad luck with women,
could you please re-do this Photoshop with “Rohrabacher” spelled correctly?
PS. Vote for Debbie Cook! And contribute here!
(or, if you’ve really got some kind of visceral allergy to Democrats,
vote for the clean, mean, Green Tom Lash – you’ll feel good in the morning!)
I was waiting for you to bring this meeting up, Vern. In fact, wasn’t it the same day you left a protest in front of Loretta Sanchez’s office because she closed at noon on a Friday. I recall hearing about this meeting and about how the Congressman spent a long time with the group on a Friday afternoon. At least he meets with people who disagree with him. That’s more than can be said about many members of Congress.
Hm. I think you have different months of 2007 mixed up. I wasn’t there at Loretta’s on the day you describe. Believe it or not, I gotta work sometimes!
You’ll find I think that most members of Congress will meet with their constituents on any issue as long as you’re patient, polite and professional, and go thru the right channels. If you’re suggesting that Loretta never met with MFSO members to discuss war funding, you’re wrong, and haven’t been paying attention to any previous posts or comments.
I’ve always said though that one thing I do admire about Dana is that he has the cojones to hold debates with his challengers when he doesn’t have to – something the other safe OC congresscritters (Loretta, Royce, Campbell) never do. Let’s see if he agrees to debate Debbie – that will be a little scarier for him!
Vern,
You are rapidly establishing a body of work that makes you the shining star and best writer int the OC Blogosphere. Like Digby, but with a lot fewer readers.
The LiberalOc is playing URL games not because Art and his shenanigans, but because they are so damned jealous of teh awesome Vern.
Thank you friend, I especially appreciate teh “teh.” Class touch!!!!!1!
Vern,
I can’t believe you wrote this. You were not even there!! While I am not a supporter of Dana Rorhabacher, I cannot let you lie about that day. This meeting happened in May 2007, yet your tirade was written in April 2008. Your article is full of lies.
Thu Trang, Matthew, Kevin and I met with Rorhabacher without anyone else present. There was no body guard. We expected 15 minutes. We got over 30. An aide who interrupted was sent away.
Dana did make a joke about calling the meeting as we sat down. That’s all it was — a joke. He was cordial and courteous. He did not go on and on about generals. That whole part about the “so and so back from Baghdad” is made up by you!! What’s this bit about your watching the clock? You were NOT there. Dana listened to Kevin very respectfully and thanked him for his service. Kevin did an excellent job and did not cower the way you said.
Dana did say we were not prepared and he was right in that the funding bill approval was brand new news none of us had. Other than that Thu Trang held her own with him but Matthew’s presentation was all over the map and was confusing. To someone with a busy schedule, disorganization can be very annoying. My own share of the meeting went well with Dana. He couldn’t contradict other statements he had made to me during one of his constituent conference calls.
You omitted the most significant thing he stated that day. While I was making my pitch he surprised us by saying, “I hate Bush! I can’t stand the man,” which he exclaimed with great dislike. Too bad his GOP supporters in Orange County didn’t hear that.
Come on, Vern. He’s a politician and human. He is not a monster. Your diatribe has shocked me to the core. SHAME ON YOU. Your EGO is getting in your way.
Whoa, blast from the past! I was just looking through some of my old stories and came upon Jackie’s comment.
You’re right, Jackie, I wasn’t actually at the meeting I described. That was a sort of literary device I used, and probably shouldn’t have, but seemed to make the story go smoother. Still, every detail is as it was described to me at that meeting by people I trust (mingled with a couple other meetings I’d been to or been told about added in for the full Dana effect.) And I ran the story past Matt and Thu and they had no problem with it.
As you may remember, I was SUPPOSED to be at that meeting, but I got a gig at the same time that I couldn’t afford to turn down. I helped organize the meeting and went to a couple of preliminary meetings with you all, including right before crossing the street to Dana’s office; then after my gig I called you, Matt, and Thu to get a report (I didn’t have Kevin’s number, so I don’t have his perspective.) Matt’s version was the most detailed and colorful so made up the most of my story, but I don’t remember any discrepancies with the way you and Thu described it.
As disappointed as I was to not be at that particular meeting, I did manage to meet the Congressman (and object of my morbid fascination) on two other occasions that same year – With a Save-Darfur group (he told us we needed to send “mercenaries” into Sudan, and that he knew “just the company”) and earlier with Jeff Merrick, Pat Alviso and Military Families Speak Out. That was where I got the mercenary-bodyguard contradicting the real veteran story, not only did I see it there, but Pat and Jeff saw the same thing other times. I could swear Matt told me they did that to Kevin too, but maybe my memory fails now. Anyway i don’t have Kevin “cowering” in my story.
I had thought of explaining all that in my story, but it was all so long and tedious. And obviously there’s a humorous yarn-like quality to the story starting from the title and leading to the Photoshop. Still, you’re right, I shouldn’t have told it like I was there. Credibility and all.
I TOTALLY don’t grasp what you think is so “significant” about him saying he hates Bush. He was saying that to everybody who would listen. This was 2007 when the President’s popularity was at record lows, and most Republicans were running from him as fast as they could. But did he say WHY he hated Bush? The reasons are a matter of record: Number one, it was Bush’s openness to reasonable immigration policy, and specifically his refusal to pardon trigger-happy border guards Ramos and Compean – a refusal Dana found worthy of impeachment. Secondarily there was the relentless growth of the federal government and the deficit and debt under Bush-Cheney, and also Rumsfeld’s “inept” prosecution of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wars for which Dana was always a strident cheerleader.
I don’t think our group showed up at his office looking for camaraderie of Bush-hate. Our goals were getting out of Iraq, and providing better services to returning vets. If I remember right, you in particular had heard him, on a conference call, pledge to lead a withdrawal from Iraq if the Iraqi government ever asked us to leave, and you were there to hold him to his pledge; needless to say he found endless excuses to weasel out of that. So, I disagree that I omitted anything significant by omitting his well-known Bush Hate.
Finally, is he a “monster”? There are people we call monsters, hyperbolically or not – Pinochet, John Wayne Gacy, maybe Polanski… and of course they are also human and have likable attributes. Politicians by definition have more than their share of charm, and Dana specifically can be unpredictable, entertaining, and sometimes quite reasonable on some issues.
But before you rule out calling him a monster, you should bear two things in mind: His strident nativist demagoguery up to and including pushing legislation to deny emergency medical care to undocumented immigrants; and his tireless, passionate cheerleading for torture, which I documented here: http://orangejuiceblog.com/2008/06/rohrabacher-portrait-of-the-torture-apologist-in-the-twilight-of-his-career-panties-on-head/
Skip my angry writing if you want, just listen to Dana’s own words on the videos.
We are all lucky that – apart from apparently being able to get re-elected as long as he wants – Dana is such an ineffective politician. Otherwise, he would be a very dangerous monster indeed.