Wasn’t sure if this was worth a story, but these are the kind of things that go through my head at night…
My brief fantasy that Mission Viejo Mayor / ambitious politician Greg Raths was a decent independent Republican (that increasingly rare creature) was indeed a brief fantasy. I guess me and Diamond used to like him back when he was the honest independent guy running against lying insider Republican Mimi Walters, and it helped that he was a Marine, and then last November when the OC GOP chose heartless financial crook Diane Harkey over him, I wrote “OC GOP Shows its Character Choosing Harkey over Raths for South-County Supervisor.”
But then three things happened:
- Twitter’s Harpy Brigade raked me over the coals for being sympathetic to a guy who was apparently the target of some #metoo complaint out there somewhere in the ether;
- I looked into the story and put out some feelers, and soon was called by Carolyn Livingston, who left me a message and talked to my wife Donna; we agreed that (unlike Amber Heard or Lorri Galloway) she seemed credible;
- And right around the same time Raths started posting fanboy pics of himself with not only Donald Trump but ROGER STONE. Ewwwww, Greg – Roger Stone???
(Apparently Raths took down the pictures when he noticed people didn’t like em)
So long story short (except it never is) I stopped saying good things about Greg Raths. He still intended to run against OCGOP-endorsed Harkey, but then a few weeks later the Districting Commission wrapped up its work and he was no longer in that Supervisorial District! Which he was characteristically sure was done just to stymie HIM.
(BTW how stupid is it that BOTH Parties have been endorsing candidates a FULL YEAR before elections, not only before they know who-all wants to run, but in this case before they even know what the freaking DISTRICT LINES are? Same thing happened to the DPOC’s choice for South-County Supervisor, fire-hero Joe Kerr, and that was a good thing.)
So the ambitious Greg Raths decided to instead run for Congress in the newly created, heavily Republican, multi-county 40th District, where his two main opponents would be
- YOUNG KIM, smooth, faux-moderate, hyper-funded incumbent Republican BUT living outside the district (which is legal, but doesn’t look great plus nobody there knows her)
- and DR. ASIF MAHMOUD, Democratic fundraiser and pulmonologist.
Young Kim Running Scared! (or WAS she??)
All the hullaballoo back in May was “Why is Young Kim spending a WHOPPING $1.3 MILLION attacking her Republican opponent Greg Raths?” Talking heads opined such as: “I don’t think campaigns make these sort of moves unless there is a concern she isn’t going to make the top two.” Encouraged by this, and preferring to run against the immoderate Raths, Mahmood’s people started spending money attacking Greg as being too tough on abortion, in a move to get him more rightwing votes at Kim’s expense. But Kim was never in much danger from Raths, she spent all that money just because she had it.
All May the infinitely funded Kim and the grassroots conservative Raths lobbed attacks at each other, he accusing her of being insufficiently Trumpy, and she accusing him of being a secret liberal stalking horse for Biden and Pelosi. But, looking back on it, Greg’s low-budget attacks on her were truthful:
…while Young Kim’s expensive attacks on Raths were LAUGHABLE FANTASY. This one even made Bill Maher’s New Rules:
Long story short (which it never is), you’d think the well-known, local, true conservative would have the advantage over the unfamiliar, out-of-town, faux-moderate in a hardcore Republican district like that… pero no – as usual in politics, the LIAR with all the money won. Won the chance to take on Dr. Mahmood in November.
Poor Greg Raths, always getting beat on by mean Republican women like Walters, Harkey and Kim. But then in the middle of all that, there was also…
Greg Raths’ Anti-Semitic Tirade! (or WAS it??)
All the headlines screamed the same thing, same time last May! “Greg Raths let loose with an ANTI-SEMITIC TIRADE!!!” The Democratic Party quickly condemned Greg Raths’ “Anti-Semitic Tirade.” A little later, the OC Republican Party also condemned Greg Raths’ “Anti-Semitic Tirade.” The Liberal OC’s Dan Chmielewski snarked that it “took a while” for the Republicans to “fully condemn the anti-Semitic rant,” linking approvingly to the rightwing Washington Free Beacon‘s article “California Republican Goes Full Ilhan Omar in Anti-Semitic Rant.” Greg was even forced to abjectly apologize for whatever it was he said, or face a future branded as an anti-Semite!
“What-what-WHAT???” I exclaimed, sounding like Kyle’s Jewish mom on South Park, “Greg Raths let loose with an Anti-Semitic Tirade? But, what did he say?” It was a little hard to find, most articles just called it an anti-Semitic tirade or rant without quoting him. Well, it turns out that, at a candidate forum hosted by the OC Islamic Foundation, he noted – correctly – that US foreign policy toward Israel is driven by lobbyists and funding that the Palestinians don’t enjoy, and said that he would “rein in” the staggering $3.8 billion in aid we give to that tiny nation each year, which he’d feel free to do since he doesn’t take “a dime” from Israeli interests.
All true, brave, and admirable, things that only the bravest politicians on both sides of the aisle feel free to say, including Jewish Bernie Sanders. Except Raths phrased it in a bone-headed way because he’s a bonehead who surrounds himself with boneheads: instead of laying this at the feet of AIPAC, or the “Zionist lobby” or “Israeli money” he used the word “Jewish,” as in “Jewish money, Jewish community,” which the thought police were able to paint as anti-Semitic. (That probably would have happened anyway no matter how he expressed himself.)
So I was all ready to at least give Raths props for expressing uncomfortable truths and taking bold positions. Except – or, as Tevye would say, “On the third hand…”
NOBODY’S EVER HEARD GREG RATHS EXPRESS CONCERN FOR THE PALESTINIAN RIGHTS ANYWHERE ELSE BEFORE. Not anywhere else, not on his website. He certainly never criticized his idol Trump for licking Likud, and bobbin’ on Bibi, his entire term.
This was apparently just something he said because there were a bunch of Muslims sitting in front of him.
SO.. factor in insincere pandering … and IT’S A WASH for old Greg Raths. Sorry, Mayor.
Man it’s has to be hard for Greg Shells to know both political parties just can’t stand him.
Maybe try the Green Party thing or something next time Greggy?
Or just give it a rest.
Cool Bill Maher clip.
Gee, Vern, could you be more even handed. That’s a nice piece of editorial journalism. The problem with the American Israel Lobby is they can’t handle the truth.
I believe that what Neshanian is saying is that if Israel opposed Turkey, he would like it, but it doesn’t oppose Turkey (as Turkey 8s one of the few countries in the area that is willing to be Israel’s ally), so Neshanian doesn’t like it.
And that’s (what he means by) “the truth.”
The Zionist lobby is always equating anything resembling a sideways glance at Israel as “anti-semitic.” The phrase has lost all meaning. He may have been pandering, but he was right. And the sad fact is that most American Jews do support the apartheid regime in Israel without question – a dual loyalty that is appalling when held by electeds.
He’s also pro nutsy Trumpy which is an immediate disqualification regardless of any particular issue.
I mostly agree with Zenger:
Yes, “The Zionist lobby is always equating anything resembling a sideways glance at Israel as “anti-semitic.”
No, the phrase has not “lost all meaning.” There are people — we may recall one since-banned commenter here — who are serious “blood libel” bigots. While I would call that “anti-Jewish” rather than “anti-Semitic,” using the term I don’t prefer is not even a major part of the problem.
Yes, “He may have been pandering, but he was right.” Mostly right, anyway.
No, the fact is that most American Jews do support Israel without question
Yes, it is a sort of “dual loyalty, that is appalling when held by electeds”; but I wouldn’t say that without explication. “Dual loyalty” is a dangerous term, as for example it was used against Japanese (less so Germans, and even less so Italians) during World War II. What it implies is a willingness to become a “fifth column” and work to undermine the security interests of the state. That’s rarely true of Jews (although Jonathan Pollard, etc.) So let’s be clear what it is.
The “dual loyalty” is achieved by seeing the welfare of Israel as entirely congruent with the welfare with the U.S., at least vis-a-vis the Middle East and other foreign policy — sort of like seeing the interests of Anaheim as being entirely congruent with that of Disney and the Angels. While there was once some basis for that congruity, now there’s not much of one — it’s not in the interests of the U.S., for example, to be goaded into invading Iran or into letting Israel nuke it.
I don’t call Israel an “apartheid regime” — despite that some elements of its policy, such as control of resources, travel, and immigration are redolent of it — because it’s not motivated by or as extensive as that of apartheid South Africa. In South Africa, whites were in the deep minority, and so they had to rely on actively violent suppression to get their way. Israel isn’t so deeply in the demographic hole — although it’s afraid that if could become so due to the difference in birthrates — and most Israelis really would be satisfied with a situation where they could live side-by-side with the Palestinians in peace, although some of the concessions they’d have to make are being held back for “final status negotiations.”
That said, one problem is that, as more liberal and reasonable Jews either emigrate from Israel or get dwarfed by the same sort of relative birth rate that they fear from Palestinians, the voting population of Israel keeps on getting more and more extreme and absurd.
But some good news is that, NO, “most American Jews do support … Israel without question.” Increasingly, we are embarrassed by its antic, and even those what won’t say so in public generally do not support it “without question.” (It’s the “End Days” Christian fundamentalists who support it without question.) And by and large Jews truly dislike Netanyahu.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/21/u-s-jews-have-widely-differing-views-on-israel/
Sorry to have to go on for so long, but I didn’t want to leave Zenger’s comment unanswered, and separating the parts I think are valid from those that I think are hyperbolic takes a lot of time.
Blah. Blah. You have a lots of time to swallow your camels – so quit bitching.
Lots of American Jews have their heads screwed on right. Most don’t, a problem shared by almost every American whatever their persuasion. If it weren’t so AIPAC wouldn’t matter.
I seriously doubt you even know what sort of oppression is happening in Palestine. I wonder how long you would last without food, water, power…oh well, the tendentious argument’s the thing.
The End.
Yeah, nice try on that “The End” thing.
I gave you statistics on how American views think about Israel — and specifically about Likud leadership. You either ignored it or didn’t even notice that I’d done it.
I seriously do know what sort of oppression is happening in Palestine, which I’ll define per the Green Line. Most of it falls in the categories of denial of public services, denial of self-governance, and disproportionate police actions.
Systematic starvation, death by third, and a total cutoff of power? According to the World Food Programme, www,wfp.org, a little over 1/3 of the Palestinian population, suffers from food insecurity, which rises to about 2.3 in Gaza. It’s a serious problem. Is it trying to use famine to force the Gazans into submission? Apparently not.
Israel has tried to control to Palestine’s access to water for much of the past 75 years. It does this for leverage. Do they turn off the water supply altogether so that Gazans and West Bank Palestinians die of thirst? If this is a common policy, I’m sure you can find a cite for it.
If you start from the premise that Israel should simple cease to exist and Jews who live there should submit to a Palestinian-dominated government, including facing the possibility of loss of civil rights up to expulsion, then you’ve reduced this to a really simple problem — as is often your wont. But that’s not likely to happen.
I hold Israeli politicians to a higher standard than I do Palestinians, because Israel does consider itself a democracy (including enough Palestinians in it to allow it to claim credibility, though I don’t buy it as more than a “democracy for some”), and Palestinian leaders (with some wonderful exceptions) have not had the means to endorse, let along form, a stable and representative government — largely due to Israeli policies. And yet, while I do not favor a demand that Palestinians recognize the Jewish state in the absence of Final Status negotiations regarding, among other things, Jerusalem, I think that Palestinian leadership has been unable to, among other things, stop rocket firing into Israeli territory.
If I were the Prime Minister of Israel with the majority of the Knesset behind me — and yes we are in Fantasyland now — I would tell the population that they will have to ensure a certain amount of rocket (and occasionally knife attacks) while we improved the status of Palestinians, made some painful concessions, and worked with legitimate Palestinian leaders to find a way towards peace and serious and lasting negotiations. And I’d be killed for it, just as Yitzhak Rabin did for doing less than that. And a Palestinian leader who might consider partnering with me might be killed as well, by the Palestinians who profit from the present situation. (And yes, they’re there.)
The Northern Irish Accords show the path for possible rapprochement between the two sides. Having made the argument easy and one-sided, you don’t have to worry about that. But as a Jew who despises what is being done in my name — I do.
By the way, AIPAC doesn’t worry much about what American Jews think. It is concerned only with what they’re willing to put up with before they threaten to kick out Democratic Jewish leaders over the issue. And even then, AIPAC knows that there are lots of reasons that it won’t happen. So as long as it has decisive power over both parties — although frankly they are much more successful with the Republican party than the Democrats these days, as Netanyahu demonstrated by trying hard to reelect Trump, it’s not going to go away. Your enjoyable support for a position that seems like could include extirpating Israel from the region doesn’t actually make the solution any more likely — but I presume that it’s still plenty satisfying, and it’s that what really matters?
Juice Brother Vern. You surely know that my living in the same city and watching Greg in action I want to correct some of your post. We have received most of the snail mail from the 40th CD race. Young Kim’s team did not lie about Greg’s voting for taxes and fee increases as well as his attempt to increase his compensation by 62.5%. And that my friend is the truth.
I spoke to both issues at the June 28th Mission Viejo City Council meeting to set the record straight.
Interesting.
I tried to keep the article short, and maybe the Bill Maher clip was not a good example of Kim lying about Raths. But she did lie about him a lot, while trying to absurdly tie him to Pelosi and Biden.
One interesting thing – both those candidates are reasonable on immigration, much more than Trump. I heard Greg go on about the heroic Mexicans he’d served with in the Marines, probably risking votes. And Young Kim has a (relatively) good voting record on that. But when she found herself running in Yorba Linda instead of Fullerton, she started bashing Greg as soft on immigration. “I’m rubber, you’re glue” is something you can say when you have enough money.
Nice walk back
Vern. The Bill Maher clip. In one of my campaigns the incumbent team put our a vote card that read “no photo available of Larry G.”. Color or B &W.
In another election I was accused of wanting an international airport at MCAS El Toro. I served on CRAS, Citizens for Responsible Airport Solutions, a group opposing and funding our campaign to stop that re-use proposal. We were led by Bill Kogerman. It’s politics.
And yes to repeat myself. Greg Raths did vote to increase fees and taxes as I’ve proven. He recently stated his request for a 62.5% wage increase “never went forward.” He placed it on an Agenda (that we see 72 hours before meetings). After seeing it I alerted his peers and the city manager of compensation of our surrounding cities. My email went out on that Monday. He tabled the Agenda item during the meeting the next night. As Incumbents your record is a double edged sword .It swings in both directions. Have a great week.
By the way, at our City Council meeting tomorrow we might find out if all five seats will be on the Nov election. This changing to District voting has been a costly nightmare.