This essay turned out to be much more serious than I had expected it would be when it began. Part 1 involves a minor semi-political event that some fool is trying to elevate to the level of a “game changer.” That’s practically comic. Parts 2 through 4, though, involves a politician’s reaction to that event — and why, at least for now, pending any satisfactory explanation, her statement has given me the chills.
Portrait by Michelangelo of the Prophet Jeremiah on the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel. “Then the Lord told me, ‘The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I didn’t send them, I didn’t command them, and I didn’t speak to them. They’re proclaiming to you false visions, worthless predictions, and the delusions of their own minds.’ Jer. 14:14, Int’l Standard Ver.
(1) Changing Styles
Weird things are going on in Chumleytown. I’ve been participating in the conversation there, but even I’m having trouble following it anymore. But, it’s definitely political, and Chumley seems to think that it’s a turning point in the Anaheim Mayoral campaign, so I guess we need to cover it. (It will be more pleasant to discuss here than most places, because Chumley refuses to post here.)
Here’s the introduction to Chumley’s post:
TheLiberalOC has learned that Pastor Stephanie Stieler, who served as a field operations manager for Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait’s re-election effort, has resigned from the Tait team and has joined the campaign for Lorri Galloway for Mayor.
Lorri Galloway sent us this statement this morning:
“She (Pastor Stieler) has offered her total support, but most of all her prayers for our success. The reason that I share this is not to boast but to share a window into my world and the reality of our campaign’s purpose. For me, politics have never been about power and influence, but it is what I know to be God’s will for my life of service.
Before I ever announced my intention to run for Mayor of Anaheim, amazing people of faith have come to me, not by my asking, but by their own will and they have surrounded me and covered me as powerful prayer warriors. They pray for my family, my home, my business – The Eli Home for Abused Children, and anything that may come under attack because of my calling.
Along with my wonderful prayer warriors, people of all ages, color, nationality and belief, have joined with us in knowing that our great city of Anaheim, after 157 years, is on the cusp of change in many more ways than one. Many people ask me how and why I have the will and energy to take on this battle. The peace in my heart tells me that the battle is already won, and my most important task is to walk humbly with our God.”
Lorri Galloway
Unfortunately for the story presented by Chumley and Galloway, Pastor Stieler had this to say about her departure from Tait’s office:
I left for health reasons, I had to go through extensive medical test for the last three weeks, and the long hours in the campaign office drained my energy. Tait campaign knows that. Tim [Whitacre’s] letter does explain that they do not need more volunteers. I quit for no other reason than my health.
I do not know why you think I work in Lorri Galloway’s campaign office, that’s not true at all. I was asked to pray and keep her in my prayers and counsel her when it’s needed. She has my full support. I worked with her assistant for many years.
Lorri Galloway and Tom Tait are both good people. We do not have to black smear people we work with, no matter who is Mayor, we need to work with both these candidates.
There are no secrets to share from one office to the other office.
To this I say, “GOOD!”
While ceasing work for a candidate is almost always OK, switching to an opposing candidate with three weeks before the election is treachery. Going to a campaign in a different race is generally fine. But betraying the person you’ve supported, to whose confidences you claim access? That’s not OK. The exception would be if you discovered something truly heinous going on in the campaign at which you had been working — but clearly (judging from the above statement) that was not the case here.
By the way, I’d apply this same rule even to someone trying to switch from a campaign I actively dislike — such as Lucille Kring’s or Kris Murray’s. You find out that they’re all watching porn videos in the back room? Go ahead and quit. If it’s heinous enough, you can go to the press and report it. But, if it’s not illegal, what a leading staff member DOES NOT DO is actually go over to a rival campaign when the original campaign is still a going concern. You’ve used up your allotted choices for this race at that point; go get involved in a different race.
Chumley claims that his story was correct and directed me to Pastor Stieler’s Facebook page. So I went. (I’m not going to link to it; those who want it can find it.) I scrolled through, by my count, literally 50 inspirational posters being shared in less than two days — which seemed like a good point at which to stop. I’m not opposed to inspirational posters; my wife has been known to indulge in them. But I’ve never seen her (nor I think anyone else) engage in that sort of output. It seemed to me to be a sign of distress; as such, I would prefer that everyone leave her alone.
That’s not intended ironically; I’m only writing this story at all just because Chumley is breathlessly hawking it as a “game changer.” I include Pastor Stieler’s comment just above simply because it seems suited to that end. Her story appears to be that she left the Tait campaign for medical reasons. Tait’s campaign manager wrote her a warm and kind farewell message. Stieler says that Tait’s rival Lorri Galloway then told her that Tim Whitacre was bad-mouthing her behind her back; it’s not clear whether that communication, and whether its content was incorrect if so, and whether it did or didn’t ethically have to be passed along. If Stieler even knows what he allegedly said, she hasn’t said so.
Pastor Stieler did say (belatedly, as of Sunday morning) that she’s voting for Galloway — but that’s no surprise given that the blazing religious tone that Galloway takes in her statement (as opposed to the more quiet religiosity of Tait and the pretty decent joke that I have omitted here about Kring.) Sunday evening, she clarified that while she was not working for Galloway in any way that would normally be considered “political campaign work,” she was praying for her and counseling her — which, she suggested, is a kind of work — and so that did not mean that it was wrong to say that she was part of Galloway’s team. (She also said that she’d have done this for any candidate, but that Galloway asked first.) So … let’s not pursue this too much further, shall we? Let’s leave the Pastor alone and in peace.
What prompts me to write, at any rate, is not what Pastor Stieler has had to say, nor even Chumley’s saliva-flecked jabberings, but Galloway’s statement about her …. um, doing whatever it is she did — and what that statement means about religiosity in politics.
[2] Religion from a Minority Perspective
I really don’t like to mess around with other people’s religious beliefs — and I do think that religious belief has a fair, though not at all mandatory, place within politics. I am, as I like to say, “unfashionably religious”; I do personally believe that humans have a higher purpose as independent agents with free will. I cannot defend my belief as compelling on rational and scientific grounds; all I can say is that it makes sense to me. Even though I can’t pretend to feeling certain about any of it, to the extent that it feels true to me it is as a matter of faith.
Having this kind of faith is entirely compatible (and is even encouraged) within my own religion — the religious minority of Reform Judaism. A Reform Jew can also be a devout follower of the 613 Commandments, or an agnostic, or even an atheist — although, most would say, not an adherent of another religion. Whatever you are, you’re supposed to have given some real thought to your cosmological beliefs and to live in accord with them. I can live with that.
My wife is Catholic, and her religious faith clearly guides her moral views. Previous girlfriends that I’ve had from other faiths were guided by them in similar ways. I find my faith personally useful, and I try to respect it in others without considering it to be in any way mandatory. This personal belief is, I think, a very good approach to politics as well — because it reduces sectarian political fighting, which has an unfortunate tendency to become deadly.
Most religious rancor within the context of U.S. politics has come from clashes between Catholics and Protestants. Part of being a religious minority is that you know that, outside of a courtroom with a very fair and principled judge, you have no chance in a political fight against the religious majority. This is especially true when it comes to an election. That’s a big reason why it is generally a good idea to keep sectarian religion at some distance from electoral politics: we don’t want a situation where someone can rally a political majority simply on the basis of their professing allegiance for one or another religion, completely apart from the policies they favor.
Do you know why this is? Basically, it’s because claiming to be with the religious majority and against the religious minority, regardless of one’s actual covert religious beliefs and one’s commitment to them, is exactly what a bad person would do. Just as Christians may well guide their actions by asking themselves “What Would Jesus Do?” — and I wish more of them did so, in an informed way) it also behooves all of us who can at least imagine an embodiment of Evil (in either a literal or an allegorical way) to ask: “What Would Satan Do?” so it can best be fended off.
What Satan would do in politics is this: pretend to be a devout member of whatever religion would get him elected — and ask voters to concentrate on that affiliation rather than looking at his likely performance in office. After all, such a mere unsupported profession of belief is easy, it’s cheap, it’s effective — and no one could hold Satan to any promises “his flock” elected him.
To be clear, for those who are religious, religion definitely has a place in politics as a guide to explaining one’s personal beliefs. (I’m a candidate, after all, and I just wrote about my personal faith a few paragraphs back.) Much valid coming out of a spiritual tradition (as do many African American Christians, non-African American Christians, Muslims, and others do) that guides one’s beliefs. What I have a problem with is trying to lay claim to others’ political loyalty on a religious basis. That attempt to circumvent moral reasoning is what debases religion. As the Founding Fathers wrote, separation of Church and State was as much for the protection of the Church as it was of the State.
[3] Playing with Hellfire
The worst sort of claim that one can put on others’ political loyalty, at least in my view, is the candidate who literally claims to be speaking for God. That is, not a candidate speaking as someone informed by and trying to make sense of their own religious tradition, but a candidate who proclaims dictates attributed to God for political obedience — and even implying divine punishment for those who transgress.
Playing with Hellfire is Playing with Political Fire.
As a member of a religious minority, I may be more attuned to this than those who don’t need to think about it to survive — but I can’t even say that my antennae are always working well. When Tom Tait talks about his religious background and basis for his beliefs, it doesn’t bother me; he seems to take his religion as his own guide, and in civil life turns to secular concepts like “kindness” for guidance. Some candidates profess faith traditions that, looking at their political actions, I may not find it hard to accept that they sincerely believe — but I still wouldn’t challenge them because that’s quite a charge to make and I don’t see the world through their eyes.
Sometimes, though, a candidate will aggressively invoke religiosity in politics with a messianic fervor — and that is capable of disturbing me. That’s how I felt when I read Lorri Galloway’s message. I don’t believe for a moment that she has Satanic insincerity (I do not); my fear is that she believes the aggressive appeal she makes — one that goes well beyond what one normally sees in politics (and, frankly, especially Democratic politics — without seeming to appreciate how dangerously self-serving it is. (It might be better if she were just faking it.)
I’m going to take apart her statement line by line, with my comments interspersed:
She (Pastor Stieler) has offered her total support, but most of all her prayers for our success.
No problem here. “Thank you for your prayers” is just fine.
The reason that I share this is not to boast but to share a window into my world and the reality of our campaign’s purpose.
I presume that the “window into [Galloway’s] world” that she mentions is that people pray for her success. I hate to be a downer, but this is also probably true of Tait and Kring. I’m not sure why she even points out that the fact that other prayers for it’s not a basis for her to “boast”; it wouldn’t have occurred to me that it was. It’s when she gets to the “reality of our campaign’s purpose” that I start to get concerned.
For me, politics have never been about power and influence, but it is what I know to be God’s will for my life of service.
No — she knows that that’s not true. If Galloway seeks to be an effective leader — and I presume that she does — then she absolutely does seek “power and influence.” That’s what elections are about. What she seems to be trying to say is that she doesn’t seek it for her personal glory, which is great news if true. (But note: if someone says that Galloway actually does want power and influence for her own personal glory, they would not be attacking her religion — they’d be attacking the accuracy of her self-perception.)
It is what she says next that really starts to gnaw at me.
[It] is what I know to be God’s will for my life of service.
In my own political actions, I try to be an instrument of God as I — surely imperfectly — understand God. But, to adopt a line from my wife’s religion, we see God’s purpose only “through a glass darkly.” I hope that what I may do in office will serve God’s will — which I see as identical with “what is best for humanity.” I believe that what I do will serve God’s will — or I wouldn’t do it. But I would never state objectively that I know my political success to be God’s will — because I’m just a human doing the best I can, without a direct pipeline from God. So I am suspicious of saviors, political or otherwise, claiming divine sponsorship.
(Before moving on, let me address the exception of Jesus, who according to half of the Gospels did claim divinity. By far most of Jesus’ pastoral work on earth involved arguments (the parables) and statements of principle (the Beatitudes), which preceded any claims of divinity and put him pretty squarely — even spectacularly — in a Jewish prophetic tradition. So I want to clarify really well here that criticism does not apply to him — or, depending on your religion, Him.)
I hope that I’m misconstruing Galloway here — and I’m happy to let the matter rest if I am. But if she’s claiming to be somehow chosen by God to become Anaheim’s Mayor, then I am very, very disturbed by that sort of assertion. That sort of absolute conviction in one’s rightness doesn’t seem like a basis for good governance. It’s not only an expression of arrogance clothed in the garments of humility, but it also suggests that an attack on her is necessarily an attack on God and God’s will. And that message to voters would be crystal clear.
Galloway will, I hope and presume, respond by saying that she realizes that she is an imperfect vessel, etc. She sure is — as am I, as are we all. But that’s not the point. The point is: does she really think that God has anointed her to be Anaheim’s next Mayor. If you or I said something like that, it might be dismissed as symbolic and loose talk. That doesn’t seem to be the case with Galloway. She seems to believe it.
For those uncomfortable with criticism of others’ religion — and you can count me among them — let’s be clear on two other things. First, these beliefs about her own destiny are not themselves “her religion.” And second: with this statement Galloway has thrust her own religious beliefs squarely into the center of her campaign. That is the only reason that I feel at all comfortable in addressing them. Does Galloway want us to accept that she is being destined by God for greatness? OK — then we are going to have to talk about that.
[4] Universal Coverage
Galloway continues:
Before I ever announced my intention to run for Mayor of Anaheim, amazing people of faith have come to me, not by my asking, but by their own will and they have surrounded me and covered me as powerful prayer warriors.
First, for anyone who (like me) was unfamiliar with the term, I had to ask my wife to translate the phrase “covered me as powerful prayer warriors.” Sorry, but to my knowledge I’ve literally never heard it. She said that it referred to those people who, when a cleric was healing someone in distress or otherwise in need, would come up and place their hands over the head of (i.e., “cover”) the person being healed. (I take it that “healed” is used in a broad sense here, to include “comforted” and “empowered.”) My wife said that it’s not particularly a Catholic concept, but more Protestant. (I don’t know Galloway’s religious sect.) If Galloway means something figurative rather than literal by this phrase, that’s great — but in that case it’s also not so surprising. (If we’re talking metaphor, then I too have had wonderful people react similarly to my candidacies, yet God favored my candidacies no more than Galloway’s ill-fated Supervisorial race.)
Putting aside whether there ever really was a time when it was not clear that she would eventually run for Mayor, Galloway seems to be treating the idea expressed here, that people would assemble unbidden to place their hands over her and pray, as some sort of divine and miraculous sign of her status as a “chosen one.” I’d like her to clarify this point. I know a lot of wonderful religious Democrats, including Charismatics who in the course of worship may speak in tongues, but this claim of anointment is not something that I’m familiar with in Democratic politics.
They pray for my family, my home, my business – The Eli Home for Abused Children, and anything that may come under attack because of my calling.
This really bothers me, for a reason that may not be immediately obvious. Praying for her family, home, and business is fine. But their praying — and remember, these people are supposedly coming to her “unbidden” — for “anything that may come under attack” makes me suspicious. And instead making it “anything that may come under attack because of my calling“ is far worse. Now, it’s suggesting that any attack on her must be suspected of being motivated by opposition to God’s plans for her. I don’t know that Galloway is a sort of Elmer Gantry-style charlatan, but saying that “going against me is going against God” is exactly what such a charlatan would do.
My Republican friend Cynthia Ward has hinted broadly from time to time that there have been some rotten dealings with Galloway’s Eli Home — the formation of which was what triggered Galloway’s rise from bankruptcy to that house that people are praying for, located in Anaheim Hills. My only direct experience with the Eli Home is that they’ve produced at least one excellent young man of my acquaintance and they don’t seem to be especially good at passing on messages; I certainly hope (and expect) that the thrift store pays disabled workers better than Goodwill does.
I’ve told Cynthia that, whatever information she had, I didn’t want to know about it: as a Democratic Party of Orange County Central Committee member, I was bound not to oppose Galloway. I don’t think that I have to support her — but if I oppose her, or if I endorse someone else, I can be removed from the Central Committee. (We’ll see if that is true even when it comes to my raising objections, based on my own religious faith, to some of her statements.) The point is that I really have no idea over what Cynthia might have to say about Lorri is true or false or somewhere in between.
But I do know that Cynthia may have negative things that she wants to say about the Eli Home (and the Galloway Home) — and that Lorri Galloway knows that Cynthia might want to say them. I don’t see how to read the above as something other than a warning that to attack the Eli Home — or, more specifically, any of the Galloways’ own business dealings regarding it — is ATTACKING GOD, because she is Chosen By God to be Mayor of Anaheim.
Her fending off criticism this way, if true — and I welcome anyone’s explanation about how it isn’t true — would be about as low as one can get as religion relates to electoral politics. And this is anathema when it comes to Democratic politics, which has generally been more welcoming of religious minorities. I can’t think of a time that a Jewish rabbi, at least outside of the politically conservative ultra-Orthodox, “ever said “attack me and you thereby attack God.” I’ve seen it when corrupt enterprises like the OC’s Crystal Cathedral wanted to stave off investigation of their own business practices, but even there it’s uncommon. I would also consider if to be flat-out blasphemy.
I would very like to believe that Lorri Galloway agrees with me on this. So, I’d like for her to clarify whether she believes that anyone who “attacks her,” especially her secular business dealings, is thereby attacking her “because of her calling” — and is thus deliberately going against the will of God. Presuming that she rejects that interpretation of what she wrote, then we can return to some level of “politics as normal” rather than “politics as religious war.”
Galloway concludes this way:
Along with my wonderful prayer warriors, people of all ages, color, nationality and belief, have joined with us in knowing that our great city of Anaheim, after 157 years, is on the cusp of change in many more ways than one.
I wish I knew what she meant there by “cusp of change” besides “electing a woman.”
Many people ask me how and why I have the will and energy to take on this battle. The peace in my heart tells me that the battle is already won …
Let’s just stop here again and note that she again seems to argue that she is anointed by God for political victory.
… and my most important task is to walk humbly with our God.”
And there it ends.
I know a lot of politicians and religious leaders who I think can fairly lay claim to the idea that they at least try to “walk humbly with our God.” (It ain’t easy.) I can’t think of one of them who would write a statement about themselves, in the waning days of an election campaign, that reads like what Galloway has written. Using the word “humble” doesn’t make you humble.
Galloway’s seemingly raising herself to the status of divinely anointed political savior — using language that other politicians in Orange County and beyond generally just don’t use — makes me want to pray for the future of Anaheim. If a politician believes that God sent them, commanded them, and has spoken to them — what acts might it excuse when that politician wants her to get her way?
That Stieler woman is extremely unhinged. Something is amiss. Dan C and Lorri would not be touting her the way they have unless there was something in this Stieler woman’s craw that will amount to some kind of October Surprise. Keep an eye out for that.
I don’t really want to pick on her. I am interested, though, both in what (if anything) Tim Whitacre told Lorri Galloway about her, and what Lorri Galloway told Pastor Stieler that Tim Whitacre told Lorri Galloway about her — and how well the two representations match.
(Anyone who knows anything is welcome to spill it to me!)
And why is Dan C now cryptically writing that “Team Tait tells me I’ve been played.” Is he admitting he got “played?” And by whom? Team Tait, or Lorri?
Something about this has gottten my Spidy sense tingling. I cannot see Lorri Galaway touting this nut job unless there is some sort of October Suprise in this ladys bag of tricks.
I’m betting there’s nothing, and this has been a huge disappointment and embarrassment to Team Lorri. My spidey sense says this was a sign of desperation. And I’ve never heard her indulge in so much over-the-top evangelical rhetoric. I sense madness brewing on East Street.
I disagree. As much as I hate Dan C, I highly doubt he would be trotting this obviously mentally ill woman out like this if he didn’t have some sort of plan to use her and or something she has to hurt Tom Tait in some way. Dan C is just not that dim witted. It sure as heck isn’t based on the woman’s merits. simple google check will reveal her to be an outright fraud. Remember this is the same guy who along with several others tried to have me censured at the DPOC to the benefit of Janet Nguyen I warned them all along that Janet was a snake in the grass, but they had some sort of deal with that devil for some shirt term gain at the expense of long term costs now coming due.
I’m betting you. This has blown its load. He’s not even defending her any more. He is uncharacteristically quiet. Embarrassed.
Dan C i told you many times to stop talking about me or writing about or even thinking about me you fat fucking creep. Keep my name out of your fat fuck mouth you FAT FUCK STALKER PIECE OF SHIT.
Fantastic post, Greg.
We all know “Patriotism is the last refuges of the scoundrel.” We need a similar catchy phrase for false pieties.
+1 !!!
Can we just call ’em Pharisees?
Well, since y’all want to get all biblical ‘n stuff, there were Pharisees and Sadducees. Lorri is the latter; Dan Chipmunkski is the former.
Why do you say that? Didn’t Pharisees exude false piety? I don’t think that Chumley even bothers with that.
The Pharisees were the running dogs for the Temple Establishment and staunch defenders of the formality of the Law (per Christian viwepoint). In the Bible they are noted not only for their hypocrisy but also for trying to trick Jesus (Christ) with bogus and transparent rhetoric.
You can see a Pharisee setting up a blog in which nasty words and “lies” are not allowed, except from the Pharisee himself, and where the honest comments would be banned. And that describes Chipper’s blog, and Cunningham’s, too. Just shameful, hypocritical bullshit peddlers.
I have not hinted broadly, I have flat out stated that there are COURT CASES reflecting the kinds of people the Galloways are, these are public record and have been reported on in the past, So when the DPOC keeps shoving their ostrich heads in the sand to support her, saying, ‘We don’t want to know” then you will forgive me for not having an ounce of respect for them.
Well, then perhaps I was just not paying attention broadly enough!
How did y’all miss this? The info has been out there, public record. She will sit down and explain it all, but it seems she FAILED to explain it to the JUDGE! Go ahead Lorri, explain to us how you ripped off Mike’s AUNT! Then filed bankruptcy (the first time) to get out of paying the Judgement. And yet, the DPOC still backs her. Now tell me they are the party of moral superiority.
http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2010/the-lorri-galloway-experience-monterey-county/
“Now why does that put me in mind of a crooked televangelist?”
Yep, that’s the vibe alright. And wasn’t there something about her trying to claim a degree from CSUF?
Well, in my case, I’ve missed it until now because I don’t make a habit of cruising through the back pages of FFFF for the fun of it. (Reading the FFFF back pages can be emotionally trying enough even when I do have a reason.) But I recognize that, along with lots of unfortunate stuff, there’s much there that does demand to be grappled with and that (so far as I ca tell) didn’t appear anywhere else.
I think that this is the first time that I’ve ever heard of multiple bankruptcies — but again I haven’t paid that close attention to Galloway prior to her running for office before this past year (and never in this sort of depth.) Not to dizzle on the parade, but: I’m guessing that “multiple” = 2?
Putting on my partisan hat in response to your challenge — I don’t think that more than a few people in DPOC (presuming even that many) know about any of this. What they know is that she’s a charismatic leader — which, as she showed when I opposed her endorsement due to concerns that she would split the reformist vote and hand the election to Kring — she obviously is. And I would certainly want Galloway to have ample opportunity to rebut this material — although I have a feeling that she will not “sit down and explain it all” anytime soon. Has she ever done so in writing?
I’ll tell you what I don’t like about having charismatic political leaders — and I’ll say this here because of the great likelihood that this is going to create big headaches for me personally within DPOC: the notion that anyone accused of wrongdoing has an automatic entitlement to a vigorous defense from members of their own party rubs me the wrong way. I think that I’m required to say, and gladly will say, this: she deserves the chance to explain this away. And I can understand why she won’t take that chance now. This is not an opportune time for it.
But if Galloway claims in vague terms and with sprays of counter-fire that this is all sort of some secret attempt to destroy her reputation — and, at a minimum, Cynthia is right that this was in plain night — when she has put her character squarely front and center with her messianic self-presentation, then she would be not only wrong, but she would be wildly irresponsible. My criticism of her on the narrow point expressed here is grounded in my own religious beliefs — which includes grave concerns over the dangers of allowing religious fervor to take over political action. If people want to criticize MY religious beliefs because I have serious criticism over how Galloway has marshaled HER religious beliefs in a particular way here, then we will have a stark and frank conversation about it.
For the record: I wrote this piece on my own, in response to Galloway’s response to the Pastor Stieler fracas, knowing that Cynthia did have concerns about Galloway’s character but not knowing exactly what they were — nor that they were, literally, already published. Even if seeing this information makes me sad, it would be very hard for me to argue is crossing some line of propriety by making it again available to the public like this. How am I possibly supposed to read that article from 2010 and then say “oh, no — this is the sort of thing that the public shoudln’t know and that Cynthia therefore shouldn’t say?
This “red vs. blue” fight here isn’t a USC-UCLA game, where you just root for whomever you want. It’s a deadly serious business, impacting countless lives for generations to come. Who wants to argue against taking it seriously enough to face unpleasant allegations squarely, just because the target is “on our team”? Not me.
Cynthia, don’t forget 2010. The Lord told Lorri to cook up THREE fake residences in the 4th District ’cause he had a plan for her “calling.”
Wake up! It’s in Exodus, people!
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-03-03/local/me-38407_1_eli-home
http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/eli-home-organization
It’s like it’s 1995 again.
As for the other articles — I only skimmed them, but I take it that at least 15 years ago or so Galloway and Tom Daly were not invited to many of the same parties? (Seriously, it’s hard for me to assess, from this distance, the legitimacy of the various allegations made.)
A little to much, a little too soon. There is still time to drag out a fetus or a dead baby to pray over.
Hey, How about a “power prayer circle” led by Pastor Stephanie and Lori!
Geez, and all this time I thought God was on my side.
Told you you’d get bored out in the midwest. Good to hear from you!
Not a prayer of that, sinner.
everybody has to believe in something,,,,i believe that I will have another beer
“Filed bankruptcy to avoid paying the judgment?”
Shit, that’s exactly what I’ve been trashing the Harkeys for.
How depressing.
At least the Harkeys ripped off strangers. And they never invoked the Deity, either.
Politicians, arrr.
Belay ’em all to the bowsprite! Any good Pastafarian knows that pirates be the chosen folk. If Galloway provides safe harbor for a fair bribe, that’s all we give a bilge rat’s bung for.
(Just missed Talk Like a Pirate Day, Sept. 19th)
This anointed by God thing is apparently going around:
http://disinfo.com/2013/10/ted-cruzs-father-preaches-son-anointed-king-will-bring-end-time-transfer-wealth/
Stephanie Stieler
September 23, 2014 at 11:20 am
Jason,
You were our entire favorite person, you all are democrats and tackled me on abortion and gay rights. I just purely stated why it is not biblical to be gay, and abortion is taking a life, that is a sin in God’s eyes.
We all know you are gay and never tried to change your mind. God loves you anyways. You also stated you are an Atheist, go figure.
We all worked together in love and harmony, I never preached to you at all. I never bad mouthed any one and have a great reference letter from Tim Whitacre that how wonderful and instrumental my help were as Office Manager.
You told July that I worked my bud of and that’s how they treated me.
So I really do not know what you are talking about, we even met for businesses reasons, outside the campaign office.
It looks like someone put you up to this. No, you are lying.
I just cut and pasted this from The Fib OC page. It in no uncertain terms shows that this woman Stieler is a homophobic pro-lifer. And in a way shows that he who shall not be named PROMOTES defends and CONDONES this kind of outlook for a “Liberal Democratic candidate and a blog that “Challenges the Right Wing Noise Machine?”
Hmmm Indeed.
yes, let’s forget about the silly pastor. She is feeble-minded and from another era. That’s already been established.
But she told July that she worked her bud of and that’s how they treated her.
Yes Im aware of that but does he who shall not be named know that we know and that he who shall not be named now owns this womans point of view?
I guess he who shall not be named actually SUPPORTS Gay bashing AND is Anti-choice when it comes to a woman’s reproductive rights!? way to Go OC and Challenging the Right Wing Noise Machine!! Bravo!
Dear Stephanie,
On behalf of Mayor Tait and City Council candidates Doug Pettibone
and James Vanderbilt, I want to thank you for your
volunteer efforts at the Campaign Headquarters. Your daily help
was instrumental in getting the office to a point where
it can run well with minimal internal volunteer effort from this point
forward.
Your resignation from Headquarters volunteer activities effective
September 5th is understandable and accepted with nothing
but best wishes for continued success in whatever you do.
Sincerely,
Tim Whitacre
Campaign Manager
Timothy R. Whitacre
Strategy. Leadership. Campaign Management. Event/Crisis Management. Public Relations.
714-615-1111 trwhitacre@gmail.com
Pastor Stephanie Stieler
Yes, “pastor,” this is the fourth time we’ve all seen that letter. We all know that Tim was very polite and nice to you when you left the campaign. Your point?
Do you want to keep digging your hole a little deeper over here as well?
Jason,
You were our entire favorite person, you all are democrats and tackled me on abortion and gay rights. I just purely stated why it is not biblical to be gay, and abortion is taking a life, that is a sin in God’s eyes.
We all know you are gay and never tried to change your mind. God loves you anyways. You also stated you are an Atheist, go figure.
We all worked together in love and harmony, I never preached to you at all. I never bad mouthed any one and have a great reference letter from Tim Whitacre that how wonderful and instrumental my help were as Office Manager.
You told July that I worked my bud of and that’s how they treated me.
So I really do not know what you are talking about, we even met for businesses reasons, outside the campaign office.
It looks like someone put you up to this. No, you are lying.
You are re-posting things we’ve all already seen, “pastor.” Write something new for this blog or you’ll get deleted.
Freak.
Let her go nuts, Vern.
It’s a testament to Lorri and Dan’s good judgement.
I agree. No harm in letting her say what she wants.
Seriously — is Lorri pro-choice or not?
It’s not “biblical” to eat shellfish, either. I hope you aren’t doing it, angry Jehovah-wise.
For a female you sure got some balls!! Im curious to know what it is you have in your craw that Lorri G and Dan C have to tolerate your anti-choice anti-equality rhetoric? Or is this the way they too feel about equality and choice?
I doubt that’s the way they feel about equality and choice. Making guilt-by-association connections like that is always a fools errand. Best to leave that sort of thing to folks like Pedroza.
No, it’s more like placing more value in rushing to make a petty, political point than in taking a step back and thinking before one writes. Making those points sometimes trumps all rationality.
The touted this woman coming to the campaign as a coup and a triumph. Sounds like agreement and co-signing to me.
So you’re saying that everyone who ever works on or supports a campaign/candidate feels the exact same way about each and every issue? They’re all in perfect lock-step?
It sure was a mistake for galloway to advertise this idiot’s endorsement. And then all that “prayer warrior” camp meeting stuff. I wonder if she’ll put that on a mailer.
Chimp only did it because he thought it would be embarrassing to Tom Tait. Ready, fire, aim.
Spot-on, Mr. Zenger.
I’ll second (or third I suppose) that, Mr. Z.
What an incredibly impulsive and stupid move.
If she’s the one who passed on the story to Chumley, then it’s pretty clear what she wanted him to do with it. And he did. So Chumley would presumably think that she showed good judgment there. Case closed.
What’s really sort of funny is that the Chimp didn’t even pick up on the loony prayer-warrior-poor-pitiful-Christian-being-persecuted-for-beliefs tripe and how poorly it would play out among normal people.
That’s what I call some serious, besotted luv.
In the news paper today:
Dear Madam Clerk and City Candidates:
It is with regret that I have decided not be a candidate for Anaheim City Council in 2014 and that I withdraw as a candidate.
I chose to run for what I believed were the right reasons and I believe I am withdrawing for the right reasons.
As you know I love Anaheim having been a resident here since 1964 and I want to see Anaheim become the best city it can be. I wanted to be part of that process.
As many of you know I am not a career politician and I was not fully aware that my life would become the subject of public scrutiny to the level it appears to becoming perhaps for others political gain.
Sixteen (16) years ago I was involved in a custody dispute with my now ex-wife. Although this was a time of brokenness in my life, since that time we have lived in harmony together and along with my current wife Claire we have jointly raised a fantastic son through all our combined efforts.
My ex-wife has enthusiastically endorsed my current campaign for Anaheim City Council. She even signed my nomination papers and currently has a yard sign for my campaign in her front yard. She has also assisted with the campaign in other ways.
Last night, for the first time, it was brought to my attention that certain matters that occurred during this custody proceeding sixteen (16) years ago will become public and will be used against myself and perhaps even the Mayor to attack our candidacies.
Please allow me to be frank. I have done some things and said something involved in that custody dispute which I am not proud of but which did occur and which I take full responsibility for. For some reason I believed these records were private and perhaps I was overly hopeful that these issues were so far back in time that they would not or even could not be used against me. I never dreamed they could have been used against the Mayor. In fact I did not even believe these records were made available to the public.
Had I known these issues, which occurred sixteen (16) years ago, could and would be used against me in this campaign I would have disclosed them to the Mayor upfront before he made the decision to endorse my candidacy. In fact, as I informed the Mayor today I was informed all the claims made against me involving those proceedings had not only been resolved and dismissed but were not available to the public. I recall even attempting to get the records myself on line and was unable to do so. This was another reason I did not tell The Mayor about these events.
It is not uncommon when someone goes through a custody/dissolution proceeding that they rededicate their lives to their faith. I did just that. It was a result of this renewed dedication of faith that my faith grew so strong I even later entered the ministry as a hospice chaplain and a compassion volunteer. I know of others who have experienced this renewal following times of trial and tribulations.
I believed it was this rededication that gave me compassion to be a leader of Anaheim along with my sense of justice as an attorney and my dedication to those in need. In the end, I believe the Mayor endorsed the man I am today and not the man I was sixteen (16) years ago.
Unfortunately, like some of us who did not align themselves to be a career politician I have a past I cannot shake although perhaps an argument could be made it has made me the person I am today.
I simply cannot allow all these old issues to be brought to the surface again and to be relitigated. To allow this to happen and for me to have to spend most, if not all of my energy on setting the record straight, while all the while knowing how these types of things can be used against me is something I must now come to terms with.
For those who brought the issue forward, I at least owe them the respect of allowing me to withdrawal gracefully when I am sure other more vicious means could have been used. For that I suppose I am grateful in many respects.
But in the end it is my family I am most concerned about and the potential effect this would have upon them when we all thought this was behind us. So I must try to mitigate that potential damage to them. Withdrawing seems to be the only option.
It was a difficult decision and one that I had to make rather fast so if it is at all possible I would request our family be allowed time to heal from this issue.
Thank you.
Doug and Claire Pettibone
Well, that’s that then.
Well, that also makes the Mayor’s slate more clear.
Well, since everyone is theorizing, and Greg is so curious (and not answering his phone today) here’s what Tim Whitacre, Mayor Tait’s campaign manager, told me yesterday morning:
Jason gets across a good picture of the difficulties of working with the pastor although she did indeed “work her bud of.” Eventually it was agreed that she’d be allowed to resign voluntarily and Tim wrote her a nice letter, which she continually parades around now. At some point this month she decided to embrace Lorri instead, it sounds like she met the energetic Joanne Sosa first and was impressed with her.
Then (apparently) Lorri wrote up her statement and sicced Dan on this story, and he jumped on it like he does, hoping that it would be a huge embarrassment to Tait. The gentlemanly Whitacre foresaw that it would be more of an embarrassment to Camp Lorri, so AS A COURTESY he texted Chmielewski, and phoned Joanne (who was an old friend he’s now very disappointed in) to advise them to look into this woman’s “degrees” and her “ministry” before they start making such a big deal about her.
That backfired. What Tim intended as “a word to the wise” was taken by Dan and Joanne to be behind-the-scenes slander of a great minister in revenge for her defection (or as the pastor says, “Black smearing.”) Joanne told Lorri what Tim was saying, and apparently Lorri told the pastor. The rest is public farce.
Did I get anything wrong? Anybody?
Ok, you guys provoked enough curiosity that I took a look a Chumley’s post and its comments.
Sheesh.
You actually have time for this? I’m retired. I have an excuse to occasionally point out a friend’s typos & such, but to REPLY to that kind of crap? Does anyone actually read Chumley’s blog except for the uh… “entertainment” value of the comments?
Does anyone actually read Chumley’s blog except for the uh… “entertainment” value of the comments?
No.
I know, right?
JAJAJA IKR
I used to read Chris’s stuff. That added value to the discussion.
We’re getting all sorts of useful statements out of the comments on that post. It is an early Christmas present. Chumley may never live some of it down.
Yeah that Stieler lady is going to be an albatross around his neck.
So the guy had a messy divorce 16 years ago? Am I missing something here? I have seen anything about domestic violence or what ever. I mean it was 16 years ago. Who is the one who dug up these divorce documents anyway?
Can we look forward to a three part 1,200 word slanderous essay by Diamond on Tim Whitacre? Somehow, I doubt it. Whitacre, is but another clown in the circus that is the OC politics circle. Wasn’t he behind some registration signing scandal a few years back?
Sure! No idea what you’re talking about, though.
Let me be clear — are you commissioning a 3×400 (1200 total) series or a 3×1200 (3600 total) one?
Oh wait — I just noticed that you wanted it “slanderous.” No can do. Sorry!
so, at the end of the day, can we confirm that god is a republican